The Neanderthal reconstruction you've provided is rather humours--he's all bug-eyed and hairless and orc-looking.
Her'es a more normal reconstruction of a Neanderthal.
Indeed. Whoever pulled that bug-eyed Neanderthal-orc reconstruction from their posterior has obviously never experienced snow blindness.
The use of that image here is also inconsistent with the intention of its creator, who depicted neanderthals not as dark-adapted inhabitants of a planet without a proper sun but as cohabitants with us on this planet who hunted our ancestors, without any mention of solar system upheaval or any claim about their eyes being much bigger than ours. And when you have a set of images that all show the same angry sneering/growling expression, a gorilla nose over a much more human-like arrangement of facial bones, that hunched posture in a species whose foramen magnum was just as low and forward as ours is, and feline pupils in an ape, a minor difference in eye size is the least of your problems.
Dyaus Pitar (Jupiter) literally means "sky father"
I love the linguistic nonsense here because it's not necessarily as easy to spot as the more pitifully obvious physics/biology nonsense.
You just named a pretty insignificant Hindu god, mentioned in only five verses out of all of Hindu writing. Given what an enormous number of Hindu gods there were & are, nobody outside of India would ever have heard of him if it hadn't been for the similarity to some European gods' names all tracing back to Dyeu(s), also sometimes titled Dyeus P
hter. It's always been common to add titles after Indo-European gods' names like that based on what aspect of them you were invoking at the time; for example, once this character's name in Rome had become "Jupiter" instead of just the "Ju" part, people invoking him to oversee Roman government and the political system would refer to him not just as "Jupiter" but as "Jupiter Capitalis". The only significance of the Hindu god Dyaus is that that language is the only one in which we can see the same name both with and without the title and see the connection with other names in which the title did and did not later get stuck together as part of the name (it did in Jupiter; it didn't in Zeus or Tuis/Tiwaz/Tyr; Dionysus appears to be the same original name with a different title grafted to it; Sabazios is an example with the title coming first).
Also, the fact that Dyeu(s) apparently was originally the king/patriarch of gods to Indo-Europeans, but was later superceded by Odin/Weden among the Germanic people and by just about everybody in the Hindu pantheon, indicates that treating concepts of gods as fixed and permanent might not be entirely reliable.
Also, although it's probably correct that the name Dyeu(s) was related to the general word for day/daylight/sky, it's quite clear that by the time the god was getting titles attached to his name, it was being used as a name, not as that word, which had become a separate thing, sort of like when parents today name their daughter Brook and aren't really calling her a small stream/creek.
Worse yet, if there was a god that would have been identified with "sky" in Greek/Roman times (millennia after the Indo-European sundering) and have his name treated as if synonymous with that word, then by the time the names "Jupiter" and "Zeus" had taken those forms, that god would clearly have been Uranus/Ouranos, the Greeks' actual god of the sky (which Zeus never was). He was even sometimes called "Father Sky" (in Greek, of course, using the word for "sky" rather than any god's name, since that word wasn't any god's name to them). Again, unfortunately for attempts to treat gods' identities as constant, that god comes from the Indo-European god Weruno, who also ended up as the Hindu god Varuna, god of
not the sky but the sea (and eventually water in general).
Jahveh was the same word as jove (Jupiter)...
It looks plausible when you just look at the modern spellings in our alphabet, but it's obviously not at all when you look at either the original spellings or the timing.
Semitic languages didn't use vowels, so Yahweh would be "Yhwh". The alternate "Jehovah" would be "Jhvh". The reason for the difference is that this was in the Semitic alphabet and sometimes one letter in one alphabet can be used similarly to more than one in another alphabet, but in this case it's well known that "Yhwh" better reflects the way these letters were actually used and "Jhvh" is erroneous. Where the vowels have been inferred from is a long story.
The Latin alphabet had vowels but didn't have some of the consonants in question; "j", "v", and "w" came along much later as derivatives from "i" and a letter that was used mainly as a "u" although it looked like our "v" (with "j" originally having been pronounced like our modern "y"). The sounds that we now think of as being represented by the consonants "w" and "y" would be simply what comes out when an "u" or "i" was followed by a different vowel, as in "Iupeter", and the sound of the modern letter "v" later replaced the "w" sound in some words. With that in mind, it's pretty easy to see that the original form of "Jove", which didn't need the silent "e" because that's a much later Englishism, was "Iou"... the derivative of Indo-European "Dyeu" which just happens to be one of the older Latin grammatical forms of exactly the original separately-written root for the beginning of "Iupeter".
And, of course, "Yhwh" and ""Iou" or "Dyeu" are completely unrelated, being not only dissimilar in spelling and sound but also found in unrelated languages.
But the timing might be even worse here. Iou/Iupeter was already the king of Roman gods, with all of the above naming conventions and words & spellings well settled in Roman language, before Yahweh became the principal Hebrew god, so there's no way they could have taken the name of a Hebrew king of gods that didn't exist even in Hebrew mythology yet. Yahweh was just another of the Semitic pantheon, which didn't even have a clear king figure, until the Yahwist cult took over somewhere around 500 BCE, whereas the development of the names "Jupiter" and "Zeus" and such all happened multiple millennia BCE. And Yahweh not only wasn't a king of gods back then but wasn't even associated with the sun or any of the stars or planets either. One of the earliest references to him is about punitive use of destructive storms. (In a treaty between two Semitic kings, he's invoked as the enforcer of the treaty, asked to destroy either king's ships with storms if that king violates the treaty.)
Worse yet, you can't even say that makes him the god of storms or lightning either, because Semitic gods weren't even gods of things in the world so much as representations of human personality traits or types. Yahweh was also invoked for war but wasn't the "god of war" either. His personality was more about discipline, justice, and order. If you wanted rain to bring life/growth/happiness instead of punishment, then Ba'al was your guy, and if you wanted war/violence in a chaotic sense without that Yahwist sense of control and organization, then Anat was your girl. None of this had anything to do with the Indo-European concepts of gods as controlling specific parts of the world.
