I've been investigating the ideas circulating in some of the more classy white supremacist circles. Some of them have referenced studies like this one:
We provide complementary lines of evidence for archaic introgression into four West African populations. Our analyses of site frequency spectra indicate that these populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged before the split of Neanderthals and modern humans.
Of course they interpret this to mean that there are literally west Africans alive today who are 19% African neanderthal or some other nonhuman species. Here is a typical example from Stormfront,
But he unknowingly was raising a good question, one that has been raised before, and by smart people, too: are Black people 100% human? One guy just recently said that Blacks are roughly 8% (eight percent) non-human, historically speaking. Is this true? I don't know. He pointed to this 2017 study as proof of that: (First, I'll quote the commenter on the study, and then, I'll give the URL to the study): Quoting the commenter: "Blacks are proto-humans; modern man evolved from Blacks by hybridizing with the large-brain Neanderthals: Blacks = 2% Archaic hominid admixture and 7.9% non-human ghost DNA. Whites = 3% Neanderthal. Asians = 3% Neanderthal + Denisovan. Modern man evolved from Blacks when they cross-bred with the large-brain Neanderthals (literally a different species). Blacks are the only race with no Neanderthal DNA. Civilizations didn’t begin until the Neanderthal hybridization created the larger brains in modern man." 1. Archaic Hominin Introgression in Africa Contributes to Functional Salivary MUC7 Genetic Variation | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic (Note: the Neanderthals could be called "early or archaic humans"). If that is true (if Blacks are not 100% human), it would certainly explain a lot
What is the missing context here? Right off the bat, the idea that one person could be 19% and another 2% when they've been "mixing it in" for 50,000 years is completely impossible, so there must be something deficient with the way most people would interpret this. In other words, why is it not accurate to compare this 19% or 8% figure to the 3% Neanderthal figure for Eurasians?