human evolution help?

This is a false premiss. There is No such consensus within anthropology. The nature and degree of relationship between the two species is still hotly debated.

This is straight forward kid... Do your own homework.

Knowing that we mixed with just about anything we could when we were evolving helps me understand better how I ended up being a Heinz 57. You know, a pureblood So. Californian.

Most evidence points to admixture. While some say that archaic human genetic markers can be attributed to shared ancestral traits between the lineages originating from a 500,000-year-old common ancestor. My belief is that 500,000 years is too old to account for the Neanderthal DNA sequences we see in modern humans.

That's not a matter of "beliefs" or of "for and against".

It's a quantified amount of specifically neanderthal sequences (i.e. appeared after Neanderthal split from African humans, most of them being non-coding) that can be found in non-African modern human.

Earliest figures came from Neanderthal Genome Project ( https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12886 and some others).

Later development after first NGP issue was about when and where interbreeding occurred, not if they happened.

And also which sequences are actual coding genes (Crohn disease, fair skin (?)...)