I closed with Neanderthal being a dead end, because there is no mtDNA associations between living humans and the Neanderthals.
I also got way off-track of where I attempted to go when talking about old Pyro.
Climate had little to no bearing on the development of the races.
As I said previously, he is neither creationist nor evolutionist, mainly because of the data he has studied, there really is no missing link between species because there is none to find.
His study was more concerned with how the different races came about.
Did they develop these traits through mutations, or evolving naturally within the human race over time.
The key points he loved to talk about had little to do with origins and how people changed over time, and more about how he could prove such was not the case.
There are two reasons he does not want to follow the unproven evolutionary trails is it would place different races on different levels along the evolutionary time line.
The other reason is all races appear to have their origins within the same time time period.
He won't argue about what creatures came first, middle, or last, because he claims nobody knows for certain.
Was man here from the beginning along with all the other creatures, or did they come later. If they did come later, this becomes a whole other field of study, outside of what he is attempting to prove.
One thing he says to disprove evolution is simply, why did our most ancient known peoples quit evolving, and stay stuck with the bone structures they still present to this day?
He always tried not to discriminate against any race, by placing them on an equal plane with all other races, by saying they all appeared within the same time period. But if you were to look at it from an evolutionary point of view, why have the indigenous African population not evolved in bone structure when everyone else did?
For the simple reason evolution is not how man developed.
Evolutionists used the shape of skulls to claim the chain of evolution over thousands of years.
Yet there is no change in skull shape over the many millennium in any species. Each species has a unique and unchanging build. It is demoralizing to say humans came from apes, because in so doing, they must place an African on an early evolutionary scale. The shape of the skull falls between ape and human, but much closer to human of course.
But then you have to ask, where are the skulls between those of apes and those of other human races? There are none because there never were any. Each race is unique, and all of roughly the same age from an unknown point of origin.
He was most fascinated with the Oriental and Australian peoples than with Europeans.
Many believe the Europeans were first, while he believes everyone started at the same time.
He also thinks that within that same time period when humans developed on the earth, however that may have been, that Orientals were slightly ahead of the Europeans, but still within the same time period.
Today's science has pretty much proven the Aborigines moved from Africa to Australia, because they find no Polynesian DNA. However, he believes they do have their roots in Oriental or Asian origins. Too many features of the Aborigines align with Orientals, and too few features with an African heritage. And perhaps they were there from the time period when everyone else appeared too.
Remember he is usually talking about early eras, the dawn of man, not in what may have happened after humans began to migrate from one area of land to another. Once that happened, everything changed, and only confuses the issue of who was where first or when did they get there. All he is interested in is how the races were formed, and to disprove they came about through evolution.
As an aside, he also tries to disprove creationism, even though he finds everything must have had a beginning, something from nothing. But whatever is causing creation is not a one time event, it is ongoing, and has not yet ceased. It could be by something we call God, or it could be by natural forces we have not yet discovered, and if by natural forces, those forces are still in affect and still creating, within time frames or cycles longer than a thousand of our generations.
How does a molten mass hurled into space suddenly have plantlife, then suddenly have fishes, birds, and mammals. The time frame is not long enough for evolution to be the answer, nor is there a single shred of evidence to support such a theory. If creation is the answer, where did the creator come from? Something from nothing is more likely a natural event that took place due to who knows what. Nothing rubbing against nothing created a spark? Some day we will know more, or maybe we will never know. But some day, the cycle with appear again, and we will have something new on our planet that was not here before. Evolutionists will claim an evolutionary warp, religious fanatics will claim their creator has come, and everyone else will just take things day to day as they have since the beginning of time.