You make it sound like the distinction was completely arbitrary or something. There are anatomical differences that justified the separation into different species, from a classical point of view.

Now, the concept of species is blurry and genetic analysis shows that Neanderthal and Sapiens did interbreed. Nevertheless, the anatomical characteristics of Sapiens remained, and none of the Neanderthal ones. Therefore it seems to me that the distinction into different species remains pertinent.

Red hair and green eyes came probably from them

It's still the best you have in most cases, notably in the fossil record.

I'm no expert but I believe that the concept of species is becoming more and more problematic nowadays. There is a wikipedia article about it[1]. So, it's complicated.

That being said, even if Neanderthal seems to have interbred with Sapiens, as far as I know, nobody seriously thinks this should revise its status as a separate species.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bun

Just like the Homo species, different Pathera species can interbreed [1]. The most interesting observation is that it appears that Neanderthals and ancient Africans (we don’t seem to have a good short name for the Homo species that arose in sub-Saharan Africa) follow Haldane’s Rule [2], where only male Neanderthals and female ancient Africans were able to produce fertile offspring [3].

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_rule

3. http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/?p=932

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_m...

Various sources of Archaic admixture have been observed or postulated for different modern human groups; determinations about their similarity to modern humans are made in broader grounds. As a practical matter, taxonomic distinctions between different hominid species/subspecies are generally retained until sufficient evidence accumulates to justify dissolving the boundaries. The idea that archaic groups like Neanderthals were very cognitively sophisticated has been around for a long time; the question is whether it is more informative to maintain them as different taxa.

They had art, organisation, tools..

I have neanderthal genes in me as do many people living today. I never got the "official story" of them being dumb cave men who could barely have a coherent thought.

Where did you get that "official" story, though?

Neanderthals and sapiens are separate species. Just look at the pictures here:

https://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderthals-sub-species-moder...

Clearly related, but also different.

Racism only enters the picture if we assume one Homo species is “superior” to any of the others, something for which we have no evidence. Different !== worse.

The entire study is founded on the age of the specimen. That age was determined to a literally unbelievable level of precision (+/- 31.025 days for a 50,000 year old corpse of a species that went extinct 40,000 years ago) by assuming that neanderthal growth rates were effectively identical to homo sapien growth rates - so enabling them to determine its age by markers based on homo sapien growth rates. They then use this assumption to show that the growth rate of neanderthals were not, in fact, identical to homo sapiens. This seemingly contradicts the assumption they used to determine the specimen's age, which in turn would effectively nullify the entire paper since it thus negates any attempt at such a precise measurement of age.

Round numbers would lead people to believe you were just making things up.

Source:

How to Lie with Statistics, Darrell Huff and Irving Geis

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/

"bone robusticity strongly suggests that it was male "

This can be read as yet more evidence that Neanderthals were smarter than homo sapiens, with an even more protracted childhood to allow for longer brain development. In saying this, I'm influenced by the old arguments that Stephen Gould made suggesting a link between extended development and many of the traits that we think of as uniquely human.

That seems remarkably precise. What is it about the molar that allows that level of precision?

https://www.omicsonline.org/radiographic-evaluation-of-devel...

I also know some kids who would like to cheekily answer "how old are you" with that precision.

That's not saying anything more than they're ignorant of the details of paleontology, no different than people who believe that T-Rexes snacked on homonids, or anyone who doesn't know the specifics of a particular domain they know only superficially.

I'm just more curious: how can you maintain your belief in creationism in spite of all the evidence to the contrary?