Each hominid that was found was tested and genetic modifications were found. The idea that Evolution is a shambles is unrealistic. Each bone found, each species and genus studied shows that there is a ladder of development but again, one species does not produce another. They must all have a common root ancestor.

The idea that a god has any part in this is completely irrelevant to what Evolution is.

The idea that Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals is not generally accepted in scientific circles. Neanderthals died out. There is no trace of Neanderthal genetic material in Homo Sapiens because they were a different grouping of a species. They have a common root ancestor, though, and this is amply shown by anthropological studies through biologists and paleontology. There are a lot of suppositions about what actually takes place in the study of Evolution in laboratories by non-scientists.

What really is a "shambles" is the lack of information about Evolution today and what has been accomplished through genetic testing, carbon dating and tree rings as well as methods in embryology. The fact that not all scientists don't agree doesn't invalidate
any of the legitimate findings in Evolution today. There will always be a scientific minority who challenge prevailing "theorums" and this is healthy. But the burden of proof to disqualify any of these "theorums" is on the dissenting scientists.

As to the mind vrs. brain controversy, only those with a propensity for seeking religious or philosophical answers to scientific methods would separate the mind from the brain. Any attempt to mystify the workings of the brain by attributing to it an outside "mind" has no basis in any scientific finding.

Of course there are many things we don't know and are learning every day. Suppositions
based on lack of scientific information do no good in interpreting Evolution or the mind vrs. brain controversy.

Theological or philosophical constructs serve no purpose in identifying scientific evidence.
Since evidence is fluid and not rigid, the idea that any evidence of this nature is dogmatic is specious. It is not "faith-based". The only reason that those who say it is do so because of their theological bias which is generally dogmatic and not based on scientific
evidence but solely reliant on their "faith".