The article states a rate of gene change in humans at 1 adventagious substitution every 2 centuries. Considering the number of human genes, and the difficulting in completly mapping the entire human genome, an "Ice Man" would have so few differences that I'd be surprized if any were detected.
I see no inconsistency between this article and evidence previously found.
Permit me to attempt to make my point again-by the numbers. At the rate given in the article (one good change every 2 centuries, 25%-35% of all changes are 'good') we should have 25 or 26 POSITIVE genetic changes out of a total of 80-100 changes as compared to the ICE and CHEDDAR men. While it is true we did not look over the whole map, we did look in some likely spots and little change of any kind was found, zero positive change.
These are not just good gene changes that some small population has, but gene changes that have worked their way into the whole population. If it has really been 200,000 years since the first humans, we should see 1,000 good gene changes. Not just 'good' in a disease resistance sense, but 'good' as in making us more to the human ideal as compared to the monkey ideal, since that is what is meant by 'good' in the article.
What are the odds that none of the 25 since Ice Man, and none of the 1,000 since First Man, have been 'caught in the act' of spreading throughout our genome? That is to say, none of those genes that make us 'more human' and 'less monkey' are found in some groups, but not yet in others. Why haven't we found such genes? We have looked at the human genome quite a bit, especially sensitive areas have been picked over time and time again. Why haven't we caught some of these genes in the act of spreading? This is another side of the same coin I produce when I say "why are we all so alike if positive changes must occur rapidly and as a huge proportion of the total changes to make us go from monkey to human?"