All one Homo sapiens as a species with varieties such as Neanderthal, Hiedelburg man, Densovoians, and of course modern humans.

Saves a lot of contentious, scientifically silly argumentation. These people in the Israel cave were just another variety of H. sapiens, slightly different morphology since not much gene flow between the widely spread and few tribes.

As probably the best evidence is now lost under the interglacial sea highstands, we have only the remains of some of the hill people available for study. Nonetheless, I still find Alan Templeton’s gene flow study to well represent the unity of genus Homo.

Thanks.

[CZ: My attention is focused on the journalists in this case. While interviewing scientists is important for an article, reading the original papers is too.]

Basically the journalist is looking for a selling point. So the article is written by a journalist from that view point. These things, and especially in the popular media format much like the huge impact of finding that male and female monkeys play with sticks in a differing manner based on there sexual biology, would happen to be nothing more than a selling point.

So the break down in this commentary piece tells us much in one way, but still tells us nothing we did not already know in another. Yes; I can meet a cheer leader at a party, and I can meet a science major at a party. They can both have been involved in the intake of alcoholic beverage as well. However; I can tell the cheer leader my studies are to be a doctor thereby luring her to coital activities, especially if she is already inebriated. If I tell the science major this she will most likely as questions along the line of my studies, and know if I am telling the truth.

The point is the cheer leader is looking for that which is attractive on the surface, whereas the scientist would be looking to view said issues from the base up if you will. The journalist does the same, and then tries to make you see this attraction. The fact you cannot see it from both sides, and supposedly consider your self of a higher thinking nature is disconcerting.

(Of course, usage conventions change and are somewhat variable. AFAIK, the above represents consensus, but since I’m not a physical anthropologist, I could just be confused or misinformed).

Weren’t neandertals humans?
Why this new trend of equating “human” = sapiens?

[CZ: "Human" is a common name, so it lacks the precision of a species name. Here I'm using it as equal to Homo sapiens. There's a lot of debate about whether Neanderthals belong in a separate species or not.]

His use of the word vaporware is contextualized once he added the modifier of “journalistic” before the word vaporware, thus applying the term. He essentially turned it into a metaphor.

[CZ: It's a metaphor for big announcements with nothing behind them.]