Lack of Human varieties. Genetic "cleansing" through history?

We look into the animal kingdom and see a vast variety of each species, yet for humans, this variety is extremely limited.Taken from another page:

quote:

---

Genetic evidence

​

Investigation of the patterns of genetic variation in modern human populations supports the view that the origin of Homo sapiens is the result of a recent event that is consistent with the Out of Africa Model.

​

* Studies of contemporary DNA, especially mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which occurs only in the cellular organelles called mitochondria, reveal that humans are astonishingly homogeneous, with relatively little genetic variation.1,5
* The high degree of similarity between human populations stands in strong contrast to the condition seen in our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees.2 In fact, there is significantly more genetic variation between two individual chimpanzees drawn from the same population than there is between two humans drawn randomly from a single population. Furthermore, genetic variation between populations of chimpanzees is enormously greater than differences between European, Asian and African human populations.

---

Take a look at cats: Small house cats of infinite colors and sizes. Then you have some house cats with 6 toes. Some with no tail. Some with no hair whatsoever. and then onto a larger scale: tigers, lions, pumas, cheetas, jaguars...on and on and on. Its like this with most creatures. Vast varieties of a given species. Each with features which help them survive in their local ecosystem. But no matter the ecosystem, modern humans have no distinct features which would help them survive in say, a frozen climate versus an equatorial climate. With only small exceptions, we are all the same. Not to confuse this with comparing humans to chimps, to orangutans, gorrillas, etc. When I talk about different varieties, I'm implying different human varieties, not primate varieties.
There were 6 different known hominid species.
1. Australopithecus anamensis
2. Australopithecus afarensis
3. Australopithecus africanus
4. Australopithecus aethiopicus (or Paranthropus aethiopicus)
5. Australopithecus boisei (or Paranthropus boisei)
6. Australopithecus robustus (or Paranthropus robustus)A couple of these lines branched off into multiple human species.
Out of Africa and the middle east, came homo sapiens, the modern human. In Asia, Homo Erectus. In Europe, Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal). Some scientists think there could have been even more.
What happened to the last 2, and the possible unknowns, and why?
There is fossil "evidence" of different, unique human varieties having existed, but for some reason they are gone. To suggest that the other varieties were unfit for survival would be questionable, so why did they die out? They had all the same tools for survival we do. Perhaps less intelligent, but even the less intelligent human varieties would have been more intelligent than your average animal or primate which still survives and thrives today.
Given man's tendency to hate and kill anyone different throughout history (men will try and wipe out an entire race of people simply for an ideal), is it possible that entire varieties of humans were wiped out by a "dominant" human variety, and not by the hands of evolution? We have seen "ethnic cleansing" in our own time, and throughout history. Is it possible that they were killed off? Not that we need to find a reason or motivation for it. We have witnessed it happen for no good reason, so who is to say that it couldnt have happened?The page I quoted from above, was something I found while editing this, and I was surprised to see there really was something to what was on my mind.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.htmlThis message has been edited by SantaClaus, 03-23-2006 09:28 PM

Post deletedThis message has been edited by SantaClaus, 03-24-2006 08:25 PM

I think I polished it up pretty well. Let me know what you think.

By killed off, I meant, murdered. The evidence shows that there was no interbreeding between neanderthal and homosapiens. Neanderthal's DNA was so unique that it has been considered an entirely different species. What evidence is there to suggest that neanderthal's offspring were sterile?

Evolution isnt a killing off of a species. Its a gradual mutation. And yes, I meant killed off by homo sapiens.

I'm not talking about extinction from an inability to adapt to a changing environment. I'm talking about ethnic cleansing, i.e. murder of a whole "kind".
Heres the thing with that talk of 99% of all creatures being extinct. These different human varieties lived at THE SAME TIME. They saw one another. But according to DNA, there was no interbreeding. Neanderthal died on its own, and how and why, no one knows why.

So you're saying that Hitlers "final solution" was evolution in play? The jews were unfit for survival? They were just as fit for survival as the germans, biologically speaking. What are we talking about here? Are we all saying that evolution is NOT biological in nature all the time? The jews werent being killed off because of a biological inferiority. It was political madness. I think im talking more along the lines of social darwinism vs. biological evolution. I would like to see an example through history where an animal was driven to extinction simply through "killing for fun". Not talking about men, using weapons, who are driving animals to extinction for monetary reasons. I'm talking about say, T-Rex wiping out an entire species...not through hunting for survival, but systematically roaming the earth, wiping out an entire species because the predator feels emotionally threatened by it's prey's differences. Homo sapiens will commit genocide for reasons that defy logic. It will commit genocide when its own survival is not in jeapordy by another kind. What other animal does this? What other animal sets out to wipe out an entire species because they dont like the way it looks, or speaks, or walks or whatever. Given the fact that we have seen this happen, who is to say that homo sapiens didnt wipe out homo erectus and neanderthal because they were different, and not for control of resources? Evolution weeds out the weak. Homo Sapiens takes mother nature in its own hands and weeds out the "weak"....even though these "weak", are not weak in biological terms. If mother nature was still in control of things, these "weak" would survive. Homo Sapiens does not flow with the laws of nature like everything else. It commits acts that serve no purpose for the benefit of adaptation or evolution.
I know that neanderthal was a different species. What is all the talk about possible infertility? Saying "they may or may not have been infertile" is like saying "I'm either dead or not dead". If there is no evidence to support it, it should be left alone.