I have always found this interesting. Creationists actually think that the weakness of science is that it changes its conclusions when new evidence demands it. Before DNA evidence became available, we only had fossil data for neanderthals. Neanderthals spanned the era between H. erectus and H. sapiens. They were also transitional. Obviously, this makes them a strong contender for being our direct ancestors. However, no amount of fossil data can be used to determine direct relationships between fossil species. You need DNA for that. Luckily, there are neanderthal remains that have DNA in them, DNA that we can sequence. The first bit of neanderthal DNA to be sequenced was from the mitochondria since there are thousands of copies of the mitochondrial DNA in every cell compared to a single copy of the autosomal DNA. As it turned out, the mitochondrial DNA lineage found in neanderthals is not found in modern human populations. This is evidence against neanderthals being direct ancestors of modern humans. However, this data could not rule out some cross-breeding. Later, scientists were able to sequence the majority of the neanderthal genome and compare it to the human genome. The results were pretty definitive at this point. There actually was some interbreeding between humans and neanderthals, but it was very limited. In certain populations, about 5% of the human genome comes from neanderthals. Our knowledge of our relationship with neanderthals has increased over time, and as a consequence certain possibilities have been taken off the table. Creationists like toolmanjantzi think this is a bad thing because it lacks "consistency". I think this tells us a lot about the creationist mindset. New knowledge is bad. Changing your mind because of new evidence is bad. It is rather strange to think that toolmanjantzi would more likely accept evolution if we kept falsified theories and refused to change them.
