If it is true that "we are just result of cross breed of Neanderthals, Naledi and other species", this would simply mean that those Neanderthals, Naledi and others were not truly separate species in the biological sense but only varieties or at most subspecies of single species: Homo sapiens!

Initially they are separate species only, but frequent intercourse made it possible. Because we the human have very high affection about intercourse than any other animal. Resulted in cross breeding development.

We the humans (except some pathological abnormalities) have very little affection about intercourse with chimpanzees or orangutans - just because we are separate species! If intercourses between our ancestors and e.g. Neanderthals were so frequent as to make "coalescence" between the two possible, it might only be so because - by definition! - they were not yet specifically different.

1.       We the humans (except some pathological abnormalities) have very little affection about intercourse with chimpanzees or orangutans - just because chimpanzees or orangutans and we have separate genera

2.       Neanderthals, Naledi  etc have same genera Homo. so cross breeding  made possible letter on.. resulted in ,only one species  sapiens (so called) all over world  with very little difference. 

Deepak: - yesterday I answered your last comment, but as I see my answer has somehow disappeared... Now I try to reconstruct it:

Genera (and higher taxa) are subjectively delimited groupings: there are no generally agreed criteria allowing to decide whether the genus X should be considered as including species A,B,C,D, and E, or only A,B and C, or perhaps only A - so the argument based on "the same genus" vs. "separate genera" is meaningless. On the other hand, species is a rather exactly (even if there are some minor differences in details between various taxonomic "schools") defined category, and central element of this definition is reproductive isolation: species is "a basic unit of evolution, a lineage (an ancestral-descendant sequence of populations) evolving separately from others and with its own unitary evolutionary role and tendencies” [Simpson]; “species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups” [Mayr]. If we disregard this criterion, any discussion concerning species becomes futile, empty clap-trap! 

Fine,  I accept this factual other side of thinking / views. Then Neanderthal, Naledi, Erectus Sapiens etc are of same species.

Then it will affect the statement.

excluding 0.1% DNA all we have same genus. we are much more alike than we are different. We are, in fact, remarkably similar. The DNA of all human beings living today is 99.9% alike.

Because there are no generally agreed criteria allowing to decide whether the genus X should be considered as including species A,B,C,D, and E, or only A,B and C, or perhaps only A - so the argument based on "the same genus" vs. "separate genera" is meaningless

We cant group all human living on the earth in one group.

"The DNA of all human beings living today is 99.9% alike" - yes, of course! But please note that DNA of all organisms are "remarkably similar": we have the great majority of DNA common even with Drosophila (fruit fly)!

"We cant group all human living on the earth in one group" - ??? I do not understand what do you mean???

"remarkably similar" but there must be some degree of similarity.

We cant group all human living on the earth in one group.---- please this ignore statement.

Of course the degree of similarity can serve can serve as a "first approximation" of phylogenetic (or any other) relationship, but it makes a very inexact evidence: humans share about as much (ca. 60%) of DNA with chicken as with fruit-fly, although birds are evidently much more closely related to man than insects; cats have 90% of their DNA in common with humans (Primates) and barely above 80% with dogs ("fellow" Carnivora), &c.  

If it is so, this creating new possibility, suppose there are two primates group one in Africa and another in Europe and mutation occurred in both few hundred thousand year ago.  Outcome was Ape and human.

1.       How much DNA of above African human and European human could be different?

2.       If today we found fossils of both above human, will we are capable enough to differentiate these as African human and European human and reconstruct the above birth story.

3.       If at some point of time African human and European human meet each other and had some contact. How much will be the possibility that they have child or they cant

Sorry, but such questions cannot be answered in any "decisive" way: biology (science of living organisms) does not allow so strict predictions of future outcomes as can physics with its incomparably simpler lifeless objects: not only each species, but also each individual, or even the same individual in different situations or at different time is different, behaves differently, differently reacts on external influences (which themselves are also in each case different). So, the future development of two groups of organisms (primates in your example) can differentiate quickly or slowly, the differentiation of DNA may not be correlated with that of e.g. morphology, and none of them may run in parallel with the development of reproductive isolation, &c., &c., &c. So, generally we can only "predict" the triviality: that if before the re-establishing of sympatry the two populations managed to reach the species-level of reproductive isolation, they will further behave as separate species, if they did not, then they can hybridize and ultimately may, perhaps, completely coalesce.

Neanderthal, Naledi, Erectus etc all are sapiens only not separate species, as a result Sapiens are not coalesce Neanderthal, Naledi, Erectus etc.

Is it the conclusion of the discussion?

coalesce of

I am not palaeo-(or even neo-)anthropologist, so cannot discuss exact taxonomic status of various fossil forms: I do not know many important details, e.g. to what degree they occurred synchronically and sympatrically, what was the frequency of hybridization, &c. Based on what I (as a non-specialist) believe to know, I suppose that H. erectus (considered by some anthropologists as a separate genus and largely if not entirely allochronic in relation to H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens) should be (according to the general concepts of zootaxonomy) be considered a separate "mother"- (ancestral) species to H. sapiens; on the other hand, H. neanderhalensis, if it lived synchronically and sympatrically (at the same time in the same extensive area) without (or with but occasional) hybridization, was a separate "sister" species, whereas if any of the above conditions was not met, then it should be considered a variety or (if allo- or parapatric) subspecies; as to "Naledi", it is still too little known (just few individuals from, as far as I know, one locality) to say anything certain, and indeed even some palaeoanthropologists consider them to belong to H. erectus!

As per RAO model Neanderthal, Erectus and Sapiens all are African origin, fine, they run off Africa for some reason and reached Europe, Asia etc., now question arises why there is no theory / evidence shows that one group  of European (white) came to Africa for same (or any )reason (some 100 thousand years ago) settled there. RAO theory says Africa to outside world, but not from outside world to Africa.  Why?

Is it because before 400 thousand years ago they knowing that Europe‘s prosperity is more and will increase day by day and there is no point going back to Africa again as Africa will remain underdeveloped region for long.  Is it the reason?

Hi Deepak,

The different H.sapiens populations probably interbreeded to different degrees with other Homo spp (neandertals, denisova & possibly also erectus or other close relatives of ours), but Naledi has IMO nothing to do with us!

AFAWCS, Naledi is a much closer relative of chimps &/or bonobos than of humans, but, as so often, the discoverers call it a "human ancestor", which is anthropocentric (unscientific) thinking (fossil-hunters tend to see "human ancestors" everywhere: who wants to find an ape ancestor?).

Please google "two incredible logical mistakes 2019 verhaegen", or see the attachment.

Human Evolution is unclear because by assessing fossils we can't see the big picture. But Homo sapiens are not just the cross between other Homo species. We contain a fraction of DNA from them because of some interbreeding incident in the distant past but that doesn't prove that we are the sole product of those species. In the future, we will know more about the complex story of Human Evolution.