> Even Neanderthal's have African roots,so i do not see why anyone is struggling to make distinctions

All life originated with a single common ancestor, but I still find distinctions to be useful. Neanderthals and humans were considered to be different species, so this is a fairly weighty finding. Anyway, making distinctions is perhaps the essence of being human.

I suspect that Neanderthals were smart enough and talented enough that we'd call them human and give them civil rights, today, if any were around. They mind be kinda odd, and incredible football players, but who knows.

> Yeah,just like being racist is human too

Oh, right, I forgot that genetic research was per se racist. Or am I misinterpreting you?

I was just trying to suggest that if subject C is related to subject B,and subject B is related to subject A,then it follows that C is also related to A,both A,B and C are related and there is no need for fine distinctions.

In that case, humans and bananas are the same, right? No need for fine distinctions. After all, 50% of our DNA is the same.

The fact that sub-Saharan Africans are not of partial Neanderthal descent while every other race is does create the possibility that there are fundamental genetic differences between them and all other races. However, proving any such differences would be near impossible. What's racist is to claim that such differences exist when not a shred of scientific evidence for such a claim exists.

The similarities between these three DNAs is in the high 90s,which is pretty different from the 50% that you are talking about

The "high 90s" that humans and neanderthals had in common is dwarfed by what all humans have in common with each other. These distinctions are not the product of anyones imagination.