The major arguments in this piece are: there have been at least five species of humans not just three, humans evolved in Africa and spread to the rest of the world from there, and Neanderthals are a separate dead-end species not our direct ancestors. The author in this piece uses a lot of scientific evidence to support his claims. While there is no direct scientific evidence to link directly to his conclusions, he uses the evidence to support his ideas. His interpretations of the data, lead to the belief of the three main arguments above.
I think this author could use pathos to create a certain appeal to his beliefs. Right now, after I just read the piece, I really did not care one way or another. I did not have any emotion towards one answer. The author should make the reader want to believe that we evolved from ancestors in Africa. He should give us a reason to want to be connected to African relatives, while at the same time not connected to Neanderthals. Accomplishing these two goals would support two of his arguments very well.
An example of doing this would be to give the positive beliefs of being closely related to Africans. He could tell a story of how much stronger Africans were and still are and that is why they were able to overcome the earlier human species in Europe and Asia. Maybe there could be one powerful leader who led his strong people to Europe and Asia and created the mighty, powerful race that we are today. This would really make me want to believe that I am a close ancestor to people from Africa. Who wouldn’t want to be part of a big, strong powerful race, as opposed to the weak race that was probably wiped out in early Europe and Asia. In contrast, the Neanderthals would potentially be described also as weak and unworthy of being out ancestors. Describing people like this would make me proud to be a descendant of the Africans. I would be almost emotionally attached to them.