> We don't see any of that for chimps either, but guess what? Chimps fight neighboring groups of chimps.

Chimps don't inhabit caves, or bury their dead, or keep artifacts, or build structures, or wear clothing, or paint events. Neanderthals and sapiens did.

We do have evidence of wars, it just comes from after the development of agriculture.

Again the claim is there is no evidence of group violence, not that it never happened ever over all those millenia.

> This is true for pretty much all human and all social animals. Humans, like most animals, try avoid deadly fights. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

That is what I am saying.

> But given the lack of diversity in the male Y chromosome compared to female mitochondrial, it isn't rocket science to assume it happened.

This is circular reasoning. My entire argument is that the lack of y chromosome diversity is not from warfare, and thus can not be used as evidence of warfare.

> No shit. That's my point. In the US, which haplogroup dominates today? The native haplogroup or the european?

Among the native american population? Haplogroup Q, which comes from Siberia. If you're asking what haplogroup dominates the current residents of the US, that is European, as the overwhelming majority of people who currently live there are not descended from the natives. You claimed that europeans wiping out the Native American Y chromosome is proof that the neanderthal Y chromosome was wiped out the same way; given that the native American Y chromosome was not wiped out, how could it be evidence?

> If the neanderthals 'won', homo sapiens wouldn't have survived in europe for several thousand years.

By won, I mean Neanderthals were the sole survivors in Europe after that period of time.

> Hmmmm... I wonder why?

You should wonder why. In case it wasn't clear, I'm not just saying there is no evidence of the neanderthal male line continuing to today, I am saying that if you dig up fossils of neanderthals in places where interbreeding has happended, and you check the genomes of the individuals there, you will find neanderthals living amongst neanderthals, descended from sapien males, but to date none have been found descended from sapien females.

> No shit. Why are you playing these manipulative games? Did I say every single native was raped and killed in half the globe?

These aren't manipulative games. You are claiming that sapiens murdered the males and raped the female neanderthals, and citing the european colonization of the americas as an example of the same bahavior to show a pattern.

> Are you being intentionally dense? What does 'hybridizing as a last resort' even mean? The neanderthals were realizing they were going extinct so they decided to speed up the process by intentionally mixing with humans?

Hybridizing is the verb for mating with a member of a different species. Hybridizing as a last resort means when you can't find a mate of your own species, you then try to mate with a different species, as a last resort. As they died out, neanderthals would have become fewer and fewer in number, and it would be harder and harder to find another neanderthal to mate with. They would probably have rather bumped uglies with some sapiens than die virgins.

> You wrote: "Again, there is no evidence to suggest that things were substantially different then." Humans today aren't different from humans 100000 years ago. Or 50000 year ago. Think about it.

And if you look at humans living today under circumstances very similar to those of the past, they do not engage in war rape. There is no reason to believe people in the past behaved differently.