> And there are circular arguments: DNA is identified as, say, Neanderthal because the fossil was identified as such, and then it is used to identify other foss

> And there are circular arguments: DNA is identified as, say, Neanderthal because the fossil was identified as such, and then it is used to identify other fossils as Neanderthal, even if they don’t look Neanderthal-like. > While certain similarities between our DNA and Neanderthal DNA have been interpreted as evidence of the two species interbreeding, these similarities could just be run-of-the-mill features of the genome, common to many species. These and other arguments by the author to try and dismiss DNA evidence seems really suspect. The "circular reasoning" argument doesn't even make any sense. Neither does the scientists being too stupid to understand that DNA overlap between Neanderthals and humans is meaningless. As a non expert, this makes me have doubts about the veracity of any of these arguments made in this essay