My problem was with saying: > What explanation should there be? Basically for every discovery of a possible human ancestry, we will need evidence of interbree

My problem was with saying: > What explanation should there be? Basically for every discovery of a possible human ancestry, we will need evidence of interbreeding, we can't just assume off course they all interbred. That's not science. So this evidence is relatively new, in 2010 we found modern humans have about 2% DNA, and now we found a fossil teeth that appears to have hybrid characteristics. My second issue is with people making assertions like: well off course probably they were tribal and at war with each other and would have a tradition of keeping the females of their enemies. Or off course they would have been attracted physically to each other. Etc. We can all make up whatever explanation we want to believe in, that does not make it true. We'll similarly need to slowly unravel evidence that points towards those explanations to get an accurate understanding. And I was simply saying this new teeth discovery gives us no insight into this. So it seems we still don't know why they'd have interbred, how common it was, if all occurrence could successfully lead to offspring, when it would have started to happen, etc.