Some biological anthropologists feel that Homo heidelbergensis is the basically same as Homo erectus:
Looking at the aborigines, it's hard not to wonder if they don't have a higher proportion of erectus, or heidelbergensis, ancestry. Or maybe they simply changed less in the past 50,000 years than other races did. Recent DNA evidence indicates that the ancestors of Australian aborigines left Africa earlier (70,000 years ago) than did the ancestors of present day Europeans and Asians. And, they were isolated on the Australian continent until a few hundred years ago.
Asians have an average brain volume of 1364 cubic centimeters, Europeans 1347, and Africans 1267. These roughly correlate with the average IQ's of those races, respectively, of 106, 100, and 85 (this last number is actually for American blacks; Africans average lower). Aborigines have an average brain volume of 1199 cc, and an average IQ somewhere in the 60's.
There are approximately half a million Australian aborigines living in that country today. Australia now has a system of affirmative action in place to help them.
According to Wikipedia:
H. erectus fossils show a cranial capacity greater than that of Homo habilis (although the Dmanisi specimens have distinctively small crania): the earliest fossils show a cranial capacity of 850 cm³, while later Javan specimens measure up to 1100 cm³, overlapping that of H. sapiens.
Food for thought: if Homo erectus were around today, with their brain volume of approximately 1000 cubic centimeters, and presumably corresponding IQ, would liberals insist on affirmative action for them? Would they be able to bring disparate impact lawsuits if they didn't pass, say, the fire department exam at the same rate as other humans?
If those legal standards did apply, someone might have the temerity to point out, "Maybe Erectus-Australians don't do as well on tests of intellectual ability because they just don't have the same cognitive ability. And maybe their greater propensity for violence is from something innate, and not just a result of discrimination." What would the reaction be?
Would the usual suspects then scream, "You racist! You Nazi! You horrible person!" and make sure that that person lost his job and was booted out of public life?
Let's take this exercise a step further. What if Homo habilis were still around?
Would they be eligible for affirmative action? Would anybody who pointed out the obvious differences be shouted down and banished from polite society?
Or how about Paranthropus boisei?
At what point would the liberals concede that maybe IQ differences do have something to do with differences in achievement?
Habilis and boisei may have been perfectly fine hominids, and admirable in their own way, but they weren't exactly the same as everyone else. And lying about it would not make it so.