@gungasnake,
Very impressive list of links, gunga. However, I said there was no
concensus. I could probably add to your list some others who also believe that the two sub-species were genetically incompatible. Savante Paabo at the University of Munich, for example, used an arm bone from the original Neanderthal man whose remains were discovered in the Neander Valley back in the 19th century to extract a tiny 378-letter snippet of mitochondrial DNA back in 1997. He found that the DNA from the 40,000 year old specimen differed so sharply from that of living humans today that interbreeding would not be possible. Paabo has quite a few followers.
But a 378 letter snippet is such an infinitessimal sample, it hardly represents overwhelming evidence, let alone incontrovertible evidence. Other researchers aren't anywhere near as certain as Paabo. Paleoanthropoligist Erik Trinkaus, doing research for Washington University, St. Louis, for example, has come to the conclusion that "the basic behavior [of the two groups] is pretty much the same and any differences are likely to have been subtle." Trinhaus believes they could, indeed, have mated occasionally.
"Why not?" he has been quoted as saying. "Humans are not known to be choosy. Sex happens." He sees evidence for such an admixture in fossils recovered in Portugal and in Romania. One is a skeleton of a child from 24,500 years ago, the other a skull from about 52,000 years ago.
The question is still open to serious argument.
