I've been deeply interested in biology since I was a child. Now I'm in undergrad for it, but this story began in high school.

I get fixated on topics from time to time, and this time I was fixated on Neanderthals. This inspired me to look into the overall fossil record of human prehistory. And I quickly noticed something quite disturbing.

The Africans who stayed behind in Africa were called Homo sapiens idaltu, and considered a different subspecies from the cro magnon specimens found in Europe. So 40,000 or so years ago, they were considered distinct populations with different traits. After 40,000 years of different selective pressures (which would cause them to drift apart genetically and phenotypically), and after one interbred with Neanderthals and the other didn't, they're considered more similar than beforehand, such that they should be classified as the same subspecies homo sapiens sapiens. Yeah, no.

So the scientific community clearly had something to hide, or else they wouldn't have concocted this "homo sapiens sapiens" "one human race" bullshit in the first place. Any retard can observe that we're all the same species due to our ability to create fertile offspring, but our phenotypes are divergent enough that some people felt the need to deny them in the first place: Eurasians are a separate subspecies from Africans.

Genetically it's a tossup. Two different breeds of negroid can have more genetic differences from one another than either do from whites, or than whites do from Neanderthals.

But observing phenotypes? Physically we're more similar to Africans than, say, Neanderthals, but the differences are there. They are faster but weaker on average. They are less neotenized in form. Their keratin works a bit differently, they produce more melanin.

But the difference between our and their minds is as great as between us and h sapiens neanderthalensis. We are as social as Africans and as cerebral as Neanderthals, which I bet is precisely why we were able to create civilizations.