I hate to urinate on everyone's parade, but what he's talking about is not necessarily junk science.
The theory the Sapiens replaced Neanderthals is widely accepted, and it doesn't preclude some interbreeding. Some recent DNA samples show, or suggest, whatever, that Neanderthals' contributions are 'a number that isn't zero', with I think the high-end guesstimate being 3 or 4 percent.
Recent African origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens. According to genetic and fossil evidence, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago.
wiki???..seriously? THAT'S your "source"?
Look up "Parallel Origins" or "Multi Regional Evolution."
Look, the human genome has been mapped...no one cares any more about "research" from the '80's. It's outdated and inaccurate.
Neanderthals are thought to have been light skin and the Neanderthal race or species is much older than Homo sapien 600,000 vs. 200,000 years. Asians and Caucasians have Neanderthal DNA...africans don't.
Cro Magnon were not Black, Neither are Bushmen, Neither were Neanderthals or any of the other people who preceded the Black Africans.
You seem pretty ignorant of what you're arguing for.
Skin color is not the lynchpin of the continuity hypothesis. If it was, then the product of Neanderthal and Sapien interbreeding would be Obama-ish-looking Europeans today. Skin color changes within a short period relative to the time-scale that these models operate on.
btw, finds from the 80s and before then are still being examined and used in today's paleoanthropology.
The Chinese believe they evolved from Homo Erectus independently of other Humans and have evidence to prove it.
The jury is still out on what those skulls prove.
The Black race is certainly closer to an original Congoid predecessor. However, no scientific study has suggested that the human race originated in the Congo.
You can't ignore the fact that the Congo valley is full of isolated species of primates including Chimpanzee, Bongo, Gorilla, and dozens of species of Monkey. It's a place where primates developed separately and distinctly from anywhere else on earth.
Otherwise we would find Gorilla in India and South America, but we don't. What happen in the Congo stayed in the Congo until more recent times. Even the out of Africa crowd suggests the Horn of Africa close to Arabia. So I don't really see a close nexus between the Congoid populations and what may of been the original ancestor of White man.
#
Looks like a red herring just interbred with a non-sequitur, and they produced a strawman.
Would you care to explain the differences between the various humanoids found around the world?
The differences are relatively nothing when you look at the full DNA picture. Our mtDNA is almost completely uniform across the globe, and the differences between populations are so small that they can be answered by genetic drift. But again, this doesn't rule out the possibility of some interbreeding. How much of an effect this hypothetical interbreeding may have had on us today, we just don't know yet.
I can entertain different FACT BASED ideas ....but even if there were common ancestry, it hardly trumps the fact that divergent evolution has produced radically different cultures.
There IS common ancestry--both camps accept this. The difference just depends on how far back you want to go.
No Black culture has ever come near to what Whites have built. How can you look at the way Blacks and Whites live in their respective societies and not appreciate the fact that Whites are far better at building and maintaining desirable societies?
Just tipped your hand. This is why people say that racists (in this case, the racists that use ongoing scientific study for the white supremacist agenda) are the ones who carry water for the continuity model. So really, what's the difference between you and a climate-change alarmist? Bot have a hyper-agenda that ***** with how others see the integrity of the science.
Which sucks because continuity is a hypothesis that in part could contribute some pieces to the larger puzzle--but people reject it out of hand because they don't want to be associated with your ilk. WTG.
Before I shaved my head that discription would've fit me perfectly. I had a mad big Afro in school (although being Jewish you could've called it an Isro 
Maybe I'll post a picture if I can find one.
