Gee Vade, I thought that when you posted something as proof for your side it was because you had read it, analyzed it and determined that what was posted there was true and correct to the best of your knowledge! Silly me!
1) Fossils with mixed features exist.
One example and that is a child which makes it dubious because children change when they grow up. Anyways, this is paleontological evidence which is subject to much 'fidling' and many 'assumptions'. It is not solid evidence.
2) The only genetic studies so far done use mtDNA, not nuclear DNA. That in turn means:
a. You can have nuclear genes from ancestors who did not contribute to your mtDNA. (Everyone on your father's side unless you're from one of those places where your father's side and your mother's side tend to be the same side.) b. "Also, mtDNA differences between certain present-day individuals are actually greater than some of those between the Feldhofer Neanderthal and living people (Wolpoff, 1999: 759)."
The contribution of the father to mtDNA is really small and in the short space of time involved here it is irrelevant. Now I must repeat that three different studies, by three different groups on three different sets of DNA showed that Neanderthal DNA was too different for them to be ancestors of man.
Mungo Man's mtDNA was almost as different from modern humans as Neanderthal mtDNA,
"The Willandra Lakes, where Mungo Man was unearthed, are hot, with a fluctuating climate, making it unlikely, Brown thinks, that genetic material could be preserved there for any length of time. From Mongo Man
There is hot debate about everything regarding Mungo Man, so this guys assumptions are not evidence. DNA decays with time and environment the differences are very likely due to such decay. So you really have nothing as I said.
BTW - kindly excuse me for having forced you to do something you never do - read the links you post as evidence for your statements.
Two examples (can't read or can't count?), Skhul V and Lagar Velho. One adult, one child. Neanderthal children looked different from Cro-Magnon children.
The contribution of the father to mtDNA is really small and in the short space of time involved here it is irrelevant.
So it's very close to totally matrilineal. Thus, your mtDNA heritage is pretty different from your nuclear DNA heritage, isn't it? Can't read or can't understand?