They aren't. They are Homo sapiens, vs homo neanderthalis, homo erectus or the like. There used to be many closely related humans. But we eradicated them (in all likelihood).
From that perspective, sapiens would be a better term than humans..
We haven't eradicated them, we have bred with them. Most of us are the decendents of both the sub-Saharan people and Neanderthal people and some of us are the descendants of sub-Saharan people, Neanderthal people, and the Denosovan people (three different species). If we are all human now then why is only one ancient population from Africa called human.
We bred with them, but evolution has been heavily eliminating the traces of the breeding and they are generally often linked with diseases. So they do not seem to be on equal grounds. And as for 'us' - speak for yourself, but much of the human race has no Denisovan or Neanderthal ancestry.
A fifth of the entirety of humanity is a heck of a lot. If you want to claim that Denisovan or Neanderthal ancestry is just as crucial as the basal homo sapiens, you are writing off a good chunk of humanity. Combine this with the purging of Neanderthal DNA (and the likely purging of the little bit of Denisovan introgression), it's clear that one of these things is not like the others. Let's not overstate the implications of these things.
> ...but evolution has been heavily eliminating the traces of the breeding and they are generally often linked with diseases.
Do you have a citation for this? I was under the impression that greater genetic diversity usually leads to greater disease resistance, because disease-prone genes tend to be eliminated more quickly by natural selection.
Greater genetic diversity might seem like a good thing, but there's a lot of details. Neanderthals might have been too alien for their variants to be 'compatible' with humans (not as surprising as it might sound, an interesting paper from yesterday reports that this sort of incompatibility may be responsible for as many as 95% of one project's mouse strains dying out despite all of them being interbreedable: http://genestogenomes.org/behind-the-cover-male-infertility-... ), or they may have suffered from a higher mutation load due to their small population - small populations can't select as effectively against bad mutations, so will be genetically less healthy. (This also might be part of why human mutation load was shrinking over time up until a few thousand years ago, "The Genomic Health Of Ancient Hominins" http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/06/02/145193 Berens et al 2017, all the new variants being slowly sorted through.)
Thus, while some Neanderthal/Denisovan variants may have been helpful to humans (like the Tibetan altitude adaptations), overall they appear to have been harmful and are disappearing.
How's wot?
As far as I have been informed, [1] surviving Europeans/Asians are Neanderthalized (hybrids), and [2] no pure Neanderthals are living today.
I think you should read the rest of this conversation thread. Some population groups are surviving hybrids but the percentage is very small (my own Neanderthal percentage is just 2.4%, so I'm actually almost more Jewish than Neanderthal), not evenly distributed (Asian is much less AFAIK, it's mostly a European thing), and even in the ones which are, the percentage of hybridization is decreasing steeply over time; and yes, all the Neanderthals are gone, which doesn't speak well for their fitness.
> Some population groups are surviving hybrids but the percentage is very small
The pure genotypes were obviously out-competed, surviving Europeans and (East?) Asians are descendants of hybrids.
Aside 1:
> Asian is much less AFAIK, it's mostly a European thing)
Latest I heard is that it's actually the other way around, East Asians are more N. than Europeans.
Aside 2:
> my own Neanderthal percentage is just 2.4%, so I'm actually almost more Jewish than Neanderthal
So you've been told that you're mumble percent Jewish? Have you verified that you don't just happen to have a bunch of perfectly European genes that—even though characteristic for Ashkenazic Jews—are not at all unique to them because of their >60% European admixture?
> The pure genotypes were obviously out-competed, surviving Europeans and (East?) Asians are descendants of hybrids.
Non-Neanderthal-descended-humans obviously weren't out-competed since they still exist, and because of all the evidence for harm from the Neanderthal variants which is why the variants are being selected against.
> Have you verified that you don't just happen to have a bunch of perfectly European genes that
Pretty sure. I trust 23andMe to get ancestry right for white people like me. And further, the genealogists in the family already knew about there being one Jew in the family tree who converted to Catholicism & married into the family about the right number of generations back; I had had no idea because I don't care about that sort of thing.
I often see Neanderthals referred to as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, so it's not quite as clear cut that they're a separate species. And indeed, by the definition of "a population that can interbreed and produce viable offspring", if many of us have Neanderthal genes then we would be the same species.
From that perspective, sapiens would be a better term than humans..