What if Homo erectus was alive today?

Isn't there more genetic diversity within what most people consider a "race" than between "races". It seems to me I've heard that there is more diversity among Africans, which most people would consider one "race", than among all other races. Can anyone confirm this, or am I wrong?My point is that a race is not defined other than culturally. Is Obama black, white, or somewhere in between? Most would say black, but many of his genes can be traced to Europe.A child may be able to tell the difference between two skin colors, but can he tell the difference between sinhalese and tamils? Can he tell the difference between tutsis and hutus? Slavic and scandinavian? What I'm saying is that there is plenty of variation within culturally defined "races". Our definitions are not so much scientific, as superficial.

Actually, if they are sufficiently similar to us, I'd venture that Christians with a creationist viewpoint would be the first to offer them human rights. After all, they believe Neanderthals were simply humans with some superficial differences, and that "hobbits" (homo floresiensis) were individuals with microcephaly.Creationist arguments:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...2008/03/06/return-hobbits
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...on/v16/i2/neanderthal.aspEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

---

Ecclesiastes 3:18-20
18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [b] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

That's true. They could go to the opposite extreme and treat Homo Erectus just like some new species of chimp. However, this is unlikely. Homo Erectus is a lot closer related to us than any living animal, and calling them animals would only blur the line too much for their gullible followers.People would ask, what then constitutes a human? And Creationists would be hard pressed to find definitive differences of quality, not just scale, between us and the Homo Erectus. I think they'd just take the easy way out and call them microcephalic humans.One of the Answers in Genesis articles I cited in my last post states: Explains their use of "hunting"? Are lions descended from Adam too?

We'd find out if Darwin was right about the above statement. I'd also be fascinated to see whether spiritual development was a gradual process (would Homo Erectus be superstitious or religious) or something that happened recently in our history. I think this would have profound implications for theologians.Edited by Meldinoor, : Fixed typo