The most modern genetic clustering research seems to break out australoids (Australian aborigines and Papua New Guineans) into their own group as well as whatever you call the group of native Americans/first nations/etc.
But interestingly, sub Saharan Africans are more distinct from all other human populations than all of the other populations are from each other.
yeah, sub saharan africans expose the coyote problem the most. if coyotes are a different species, sub saharan africans are certainly a different species. the genotyping is nuts... we're talking 70x greater distance in genes of sub saharan africans to other homo sapiens vs coyotes to wolves.
The most modern genetic clustering research seems to break out australoids (Australian aborigines and Papua New Guineans) into their own group as well as whatever you call the group of native Americans/first nations/etc.
But interestingly, sub Saharan Africans are more distinct from all other human populations than all of the other populations are from each other.
yeah, sub saharan africans expose the coyote problem the most. if coyotes are a different species, sub saharan africans are certainly a different species. the genotyping is nuts... we're talking 70x greater distance in genes of sub saharan africans to other homo sapiens vs coyotes to wolves.
Out of curiosity, would you happen to know the genetic distance of Neanderthals and Denisovans? Why did they get the separate species treatment?