PDA

View Full Version : Neanderthal : facts and myths



Maciamo
06-02-08, 14:51
Neanderthal has long suffered from a bad image and continues to evoke a series of misconceptions.

Soon after the first skeletons were discovered in Belgium (1829), Gibraltar (1848) and Germany (1856), scientists of the time claimed that the Homo Neanderthalis, as it had been named, was not human. They imagined that it was some sort of beast-like primate, closer to the gorilla or the Yeti than to modern humans. We now know that these early inhabitants of Europe, not found on other continents apart from the Near East, actually looked much more like us than anything else. Here is a reconstruction of a Neanderthal child from Gibraltar by the Anthropological Institute, University of Zürich.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Neanderthal_child.jpg/180px-Neanderthal_child.jpg

Was Neanderthal less evolved than us ?

One first misconception is that all Neanderthals were the same. The proto-Neanderthals fisrt appeared some 350,000 years ago, at a time when our Homo Sapiens ancestors were still fairly primitive Homo Erectus, with a brain size of 900 to 1100 cc.

Neanderthal roamed Europe until 30,000 years ago, when it suddenly seem to have disappeared. Naturally, there was plenty of time for evolution in over 300,000 years, and many sub-species developed. It is likely that there was a greater genetic distance between the most different Neanderthals ethnicities than between ethnic groups of modern humans.

When the Homo Sapiens (modern humans) arrived in Europe about 40,000 years ago, Neanderthal was at its most advanced level of evolution. Its cranium of 1200 to 1700 cc was in fact larger than that of Cro-Magnons (prehistoric European Homo Sapiens), and also 10% greater than the modern human average.

The main difference was the cranial shape. Neanderthal had a bigger occipital zone, meaning that his visual abilities (including the distinction of details and colours) were certainly better than that of modern humans.

How different were Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons ?

Scientists have long looked down on Neanderthals, claiming that it wasn't evolved enough to speak or to use tools like the Homo Sapiens. This has since been proven wrong by genetics. The very reputable Nature journal has published that Neanderthals were genetically equipped for language (http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071018/full/news.2007.177.html). Another study (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0082261) confirmed that Neanderthals could talk, based on the horseshoe-shaped structure in their neck.

Numerous studies have shown that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons used similar tools, and overalll had the same technology and lifestyle. Both buried their deaths, with similar ornaments, demonstrating the same level of sentiments and care.

Do modern Europeans descend from Neanderthal ?

The most deeply rooted misconception, still widespread in the scientific world, is that Neanderthal became extinct, without leaving any contribution to modern humans. This has been proven to be false too by genetic and morphological analysis.

I have gathered here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24893) a series of link and quotes on the subject.

A careful comparison of the physical apperance of modern humans in Europe, Asia and Africa shows that only Europeans, in particular northern Europeans, display morphological aspects typical of the Neanderthals (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24164). The lower proportion in southern Europe is attributed to the more recent Neolithic arrivals from the Middle East.

DNA tests demonstrated that the Homo Neanderthalis did have reddish hair and blue eyes. It is possible that Europeans inherited fair hair, eyes and skin from Neanderthal, although our understanding of the genetic process is not good enough now to be conclusive.

Other Neanderthal features found only in Europeans or Middle Easterners include prominent eyebrows, big eyes, strong jaws and wide shoulders.

Mycernius
06-02-08, 19:24
I read somewhere that Homo sapiens were better at adapting than Neanderthals. For example, whilst Neanderthals used tools they didn't improve or on them. A spearhead from early neandethal development is the same as from a later period, yet in Homo sapiens there is an improvement in technology. Almost as if Neanderthals were less developed when it came to the abstract.
Think on it, in 300 000 years Neanderthals never advanced beyond hunter gatherer. No towns, cities, writing. Yet the later Homo Sapiens have been around for less than 100 000 years and look at us now.

Mmmmm... maybe they were better:p

Maciamo
06-02-08, 20:44
Think on it, in 300 000 years Neanderthals never advanced beyond hunter gatherer. No towns, cities, writing. Yet the later Homo Sapiens have been around for less than 100 000 years and look at us now.
Mmmmm... maybe they were better:p

I don't think you can compare it like this. When Neanderthal disappeared, Homo Sapiens still lived pretty much in the same way. Neanderthal wasn't given a chance, as the Ice Age still made it impossible for civilisations to develop.

The difference of adaptation might have been one of better coordination/strategy while hunting, a vital element when food is scare at the height of the Ice Age. Homo Sapiens might just have been more "social" and "group-minded", a trait of character usually associated with warmer climates (even for animals).

Or it could simply have been diseases that Homo Sapiens brought from hot Africa to cold Europe and for which Neanderthal had no immunity, having always lived in cold climates. There are many possibilities, and it is likely a combination of these possibilities rather than a single one.

Neanderthal did not entirely disappear though. Apparently about 1% of European DNA was inherited from Neanderthal. We are now certain that there were interbreeding, because of intermediary skeletons, but also because of real traces of DNA in modern humans.

Apparently the first direct line of Neanderthal mtDNA (part of the X chromosome transmitted unchanged through the maternal line) was discovered recently thanks to the increased popularity of DNA tests for genealogical purposes.

Studies so far have been vastly contradictory, but the Human Genome Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome_project) and Neanderthal Genome Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_Genome_Project) are both under way, so we should know more about the actual percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans, as well as the difference by ethnic group, in a few years' time.

Maciamo
18-09-08, 11:53
Here is a new reconstructed face of a Neanderthal from the National Geographic website (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080917-neanderthal-photo.html).

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/images/080917-neanderthal-photo_big.jpg

This is based on the DNA of a 40,000 year-old specimen found in Croatia. There were many subspecies of Neanderthal, and their genetic diversity could have been greater than that of all humans on Earth today. So there is a good chance that they also looked quite different from one region to another. We know from the bones that the northern and southern Neanderthal were in fact quite different.

Maciamo
23-09-08, 13:10
National Geographic has a site section dedicated to Neanderthal (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/neanderthal-code-3228/Overview#tab-Videos/05683_00) with videos, photos and interactive programmes.

On a separate note, recent excavations suggest that Neanderthals enjoyed a broader range of foods (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7630042.stm) than thought. Big game is not what dominated their diet, at least in the Mediterranean coast of Europe.


Excavations in caves in Gibraltar once occupied by the ancient humans show they ate seal and dolphin when they could get hold of the animals.

There are even indications that mussels were warmed to open their shells.

It was previously assumed that only Homo Sapiens lived off the sea.

Derek Knatchbull
05-12-08, 17:43
Why do reconstructions of Neanderthals always show them with ginger grass skirts for hair?

Maciamo
13-12-08, 13:09
Why do reconstructions of Neanderthals always show them with ginger grass skirts for hair?

Because remains of Neanderthals and DNA tests have proven that they were fair-haired, mostly ginger and red haired. They were blue-eyed and fair-skinned too, and this well before Homo Sapiens arrived in Europe and developed these traits. One can only wonder if fair hair and eyes in anatomically modern humans were not inherited through the occasional interbreeding with Neanderthals. These are not the only characteristics (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24164) than modern Europeans share with Neanderthals.

graith345
07-04-09, 00:16
I was told by someone that there was evidence of Neanderthals had successful done Craniotomy but I am having trouble find it. Could you tell me if thats true and where I might find it?

Maciamo
07-04-09, 11:37
I was told by someone that there was evidence of Neanderthals had successful done Craniotomy but I am having trouble find it. Could you tell me if thats true and where I might find it?

I googled it, but I couldn't find any reliable reference to craniotomy by Neanderthals.

I found the book Origins of Neurscience, by Stanley Finger (http://books.google.be/books?id=_GMeW9E1IB4C&printsec=frontcover&hl=en&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA4,M1) mentioning that a 70,000 year-old Neanderthal skull from the Shanidar Cave in Iraq showed evidence of healed skull wounds (but not craniotomy).

The book mentions a 10,000 year-old (Homo Sapiens) specimen found in France clearly shows that the "patient" survived the craniotomy for several years before he died.

Marianne
07-04-09, 12:24
This is based on the DNA of a 40,000 year-old specimen found in Croatia. There were many subspecies of Neanderthal, and their genetic diversity could have been greater than that of all humans on Earth today. So there is a good chance that they also looked quite different from one region to another. We know from the bones that the northern and southern Neanderthal were in fact quite different.

Do we know the differences between the northern and southern Neanderthal? Did both have fair hair/skin/eyes and all those other characteristics u mention in the other thread?
Do we have any evidence of Neanderthals living in Greece?

I've recently read this article about how blue eyes appeared in Europe after a genetic mutation on a single person 6.000-10.000 years ago (sorry i cant post links but u can easily google it). Does this contradict the theory of blue eyes being inherited by Neanderthals or does it enhance it?

Maciamo
09-04-09, 20:14
Do we know the differences between the northern and southern Neanderthal? Did both have fair hair/skin/eyes and all those other characteristics u mention in the other thread?

There are clear skeletal differences between northern and southern Neanderthals. Northern ones are heavier built and have more prominent traits. Southern ones, especially those from the Middle East, are closer to Homo Sapiens (maybe due to some slight intermingling). Neanderthals also vary widely in time. The proto-Neanderthals of 600,000 years ago have little to do with the late Neanderthals of 30,000 years ago.

As for their pigmentation, I am not sure of the regional differences. Few specimens have been genetically tested, so there is still a big question mark regarding the depth of differences between Neanderthal subspecies.



Do we have any evidence of Neanderthals living in Greece?

Here is a List of Neanderthal sites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neanderthal_sites). None of them have been found in or around Greece, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any. Neanderthals were nomads, so there is a high chance that they frequently passed through Greece and Anatolia.



I've recently read this article about how blue eyes appeared in Europe after a genetic mutation on a single person 6.000-10.000 years ago (sorry i cant post links but u can easily google it). Does this contradict the theory of blue eyes being inherited by Neanderthals or does it enhance it?

That is a very misleading article because there is more than one mutation responsible for blue eyes, and indeed there are many kinds of blue eyes. The genetics of eye colour is not yet fully understood, so it is too early to know exactly when the first humans developed blue eyes.

I believe that the argument of the scientists who claimed that the mutation(s) for blue eyes appeared 10,000 years ago is because of the little diversity within the OCA2 gene, which affects eye colour. But it could as well be that a small group of individuals had blue eyes for thousands of years before that, and that they only mixed with other humans around 10,000 years ago, spreading the mutation at that time.

It could also be that blue eyes was inherited though mating with Neanderthal about 30,000 years ago, but that the OCA2 mutations were fragmented between descendants, stayed dormant (because it is a recessive trait, requiring both alleles of the mutation) and that the first Homo Sapiens with both alleles was only born many millennia later. The possibilities are so vast that it sounds ridiculous to claim that "we know when it happened".

We could know if Neanderthal was the source of the mutation by testing the DNA various specimens. The first complete Neanderthal genome should soon be ready. But that's only one specimen. We wouldn't learn more about the Neanderthal species with one genome than we would about the human species by testing a single individual. Only a small percentage of modern humans have blue eyes. It might have been the same with Neanderthal.

So, in my opinion, the article you read neither contradicts nor enhance the theory that blue eyes were inherited from Neanderthals. We just don't know enough yet.

Marianne
09-04-09, 23:41
this was very informative.

thank u

Maciamo
15-04-09, 20:54
Here is a new study (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/04/three-geographical-groups-among.html) confirming that there were at least three distinct subgroups of Neanderthals (western Europe, southern Europe and Middle East).

Neanderthal remains were found as far east as Uzbekistan, so it could very well be that a fourth Central Asian group existed. Considering that the pan-European haplogroup R1 originated in Central Asia, and that red hair also seem to have first appears there among modern humans, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one event of interbreeding between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal took place in Central Asia (or maybe around the Caucasus).

Maciamo
05-05-09, 13:00
Compare the two pictures of reconstructed Neanderthal above with the contemporary Cro-Magnon below (all Homo Sapiens are believed to have had dark skin, eyes and hair until at least 20,000 years ago, and maybe as recently as 10,000 years ago) :

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/Sf-TLLMzFpI/AAAAAAAABW4/sVglJPV5LjU/s320/oase2.jpg

More info about this photo on Dienekes's blogspot (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/face-of-oase-2.html).

Comparing reconstructions like that make me feel even more strongly about modern Europeans having inherited some Neanderthal genes, such as for pigmentation, but also a lot of cranio-facial features (narrow, elungated head, big eyes with prominent eye-brows, high-bridged nose, etc.).

Maciamo
17-12-09, 14:59
Here are more reconstructed faces of Neanderthals.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/neanderthal-reconstructions.jpg?w=507&h=958

This article (http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/neanderthals-%E2%80%98had-sex%E2%80%99-with-modern-man/) on Mathilda's Anthropology Blog supports the presence of Neanderthalian admixture in modern Europeans, mentioning that 5% or less seems the norm in studies done so far.

Marianne
17-12-09, 21:40
Some of them could pass for modern Europeans! Well, after a good haircut and a bath of course :laughing:

Maciamo
09-01-10, 12:04
Archaeologists have discovered (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8448660.stm) sculpted shells painted by Neanderthals 40,000 years ago. This is evidence of the use of jewellery, but also that Neanderthals could manufacture paint. The discoverer think that Neanderthals would also have painted their bodies.

Neander
09-01-10, 15:07
http://ianjuby.org/neanderthal/neanderthalpages.htm

Cephalic index:
Krapina D 85.5
Pithecanthropus 73.4
Krapina C 83.7
Spy I 72.2
Cannstadt 82
Nowosiolka 72
Gibraltar 77.9
Brüx 69
Spy II 77.2
Brünn 68.2
Neanderthal 73.9
Galley-Hill 63.4

Neander
09-01-10, 15:15
http://www.andyblackard.com/data/CranialIndexStudy.htm

There are some datas for Neanderthals.

Neander
09-01-10, 16:39
This is based on the DNA of a 40,000 year-old specimen found in Croatia.Maciamo can you tell me the link which verify that it is based in the Vindija bones, because I need it?

Maciamo
09-01-10, 19:35
Maciamo can you tell me the link which verify that it is based in the Vindija bones, because I need it?

here (http://archaeology.about.com/od/neanderthals/a/neanderthal_dna.htm) and here (http://anthropology.net/2008/08/07/the-complete-vindiji-3316-neandertal-mitochondrial-genome-announced-in-cell/), among other websites.

Neander
10-01-10, 10:47
Maciamo, these webs don't tell that Wilma was reconstructed based on the DNA of Vindija neadnerthal, even here is not mentioned Wilma.

Maciamo
10-01-10, 14:36
Maciamo, these webs don't tell that Wilma was reconstructed based on the DNA of Vindija neadnerthal, even here is not mentioned Wilma.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about mtDNA. It wasn't clear from the quoted passage. I didn't say that this face was from Vindija. It is from El Sidrón in Asturias (northern Spain).

The Vindija cave has the best preserved DNA though, which is why it is the one being used to test "the" Neanderthal Genome (well, one kind of genome, from a brachycephalic specimen very different from other Neanderthals).

transmitter
07-03-10, 19:42
I've recently read this article about how blue eyes appeared in Europe after a genetic mutation on a single person 6.000-10.000 years ago (sorry i cant post links but u can easily google it). Does this contradict the theory of blue eyes being inherited by Neanderthals or does it enhance it?

transmitter
07-03-10, 19:53
Quote:
I've recently read this article about how blue eyes appeared in Europe after a genetic mutation on a single person 6.000-10.000 years ago (sorry i cant post links but u can easily google it). Does this contradict the theory of blue eyes being inherited by Neanderthals or does it enhance it?

You talk about the article I found?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327070,00.html
The Dane said that blue eyes were born 6000-10000 years ago in Europe.

Neander
07-03-10, 20:38
Look at the two singers, they look like Neanderthals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoaGMb8p_PY&feature=related

Cambrius (The Red)
07-03-10, 20:51
Look at the two singers, they look like Neanderthals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoaGMb8p_PY&feature=related

They do?:confused2:

Neander
08-03-10, 11:59
One of them is similar to the second pic of this post:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=353137&postcount=15

Another is similar to Neanderthals in profile.

transmitter
09-03-10, 15:46
Look at the two singers, they look like Neanderthals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoaGMb8p_PY&feature=related


Why they look like Neanderthals??:thinking:
I dont think..

transmitter
09-03-10, 15:51
One of them is similar to the second pic of this post:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=353137&postcount=15

Another is similar to Neanderthals in profile.


Yes. A little.
But there are millions of people like him ........( singer)
So I do not know what to say.:sad-2:

Marianne
13-03-10, 20:03
[COLOR="Navy"]Quote:

You talk about the article I found?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327070,00.html
The Dane said that blue eyes were born 6000-10000 years ago in Europe.

Yes I was talking about that article. Back then I couldn't post links :grin:

Cambrius (The Red)
14-03-10, 02:56
This thread is ridiculous.

Aristander
27-08-10, 04:35
This thread is ridiculous.

It's pretty funny, but not ridiculous... with that in mind...

This is the American Professional Baseball Player, Johnny Damon... Tell me there aren't Neanderthal genes in him! :laughing:
http://i35.tinypic.com/6h5e9e.jpg

LeBrok
28-08-10, 03:42
Quite a few I might say. Isn't it the Geico guy? lol

LeBrok
28-08-10, 03:57
Yes I was talking about that article. Back then I couldn't post links :grin:

Thanks Marianne, here is a tidbit from the article


... the mutation also produces greater instance of blond hair (sexually selected for even today) and fair skin, which confers a survival advantage by stimulating greater production of vitamin D
in sun-starved northern European countries — exactly where blue eyes are still most prevalent


And this is the logical explanation why blue/green eyes still exist even though it is a recessive trait, or why it took hold at first place. It says that same gene also makes skin lighter, that produces more vitamin D and increases survivability, especially for mothers and newborns, where sun is weak.
Bingo! One less mystery on this planet, :good_job:

PS. I knew there had to be something more important that sexual attraction to blue eyes. hehe

Cambrius (The Red)
28-08-10, 05:55
It's pretty funny, but not ridiculous... with that in mind...
This is the American Professional Baseball Player, Johnny Damon... Tell me there aren't Neanderthal genes in him! :laughing:
http://i35.tinypic.com/6h5e9e.jpg

I've seen Damon many times on TV and at Yankee Stadium. Without the beard and hair he looks like a typical Euro-Asiatic, exactly what he is. Europeans, and to a far lesser extent, Asians, have Neanderthal genetic traits but such do not generally surface phenotypically.

Haganus
30-08-10, 22:44
Did they discover Neanderthalers with black hair and eyes? For example the Neanderthalers did not have a chin and were small. Nordic people are tall and
have a sharp chin. So are the nordics descendants of the Neanderthalers?

chris eblana
16-10-10, 19:56
I have always believed that modern human races are the result of inbreeding of old humanoids...If a polar bear and a grizzly bear can cross and produce offspring that can reproduce with either species, why not the human kind? i strongly support that homo sapiens did mix with other human species locally and produced the variety of human races today...there is nothing wrong with that...it is actually amazing, from my point of view and simply human history...

LeBrok
17-10-10, 00:09
Nicely put, exactly my thoughts too.

Yorkie
18-10-10, 16:25
Some of them could pass for modern Europeans! Well, after a good haircut and a bath of course :laughing:

You are not wrong. In fact, I'm sure I've seen one of the women running a stall on Bury Market [Greater Manchester]. :laughing:

Aristander
02-02-11, 23:08
You are not wrong. In fact, I'm sure I've seen one of the women running a stall on Bury Market [Greater Manchester]. :laughing:

Wilma's sister is working in a convience store in Texas a dead ringer down to the hair color and usual expression on her face. :good_job:

Carlitos
03-02-11, 01:35
That man in the photo (Johnny Damon) does not look anything like the reconstructions of the faces naerdhentales.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gFGqsgwxAjg/TCTlPtt2bjI/AAAAAAAABoQ/lDDbywRv6vk/s400/n_neardental.jpg

We share 98% of genes with chimpanzees, how the naerdhentales 1% or 4%? So, without being shown the hybridization, it means nothing, it's just ridiculous.

Regulus
03-02-11, 03:36
That man in the photo (Johnny Damon) does not look anything like the reconstructions of the faces naerdhentales.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gFGqsgwxAjg/TCTlPtt2bjI/AAAAAAAABoQ/lDDbywRv6vk/s400/n_neardental.jpg

We share 98% of genes with chimpanzees, how the naerdhentales 1% or 4%? So, without being shown the hybridization, it means nothing, it's just ridiculous.


Where did that depiction come from? It looks like a 19th century idea.

Carlitos
03-02-11, 23:19
Where did that depiction come from? It looks like a 19th century idea.

http://centroschilenos.blogia.com/temas/ciencia.php

Is a representation of Chile.

-------------0----------------


But the Neardhental representations being made today are idelizadas, from my point of view, it appears to be well nourished, healthy looking and the peace of mind to have a field of wheat or have a productive livestock if it almost seems good-natured farmer out of any American TV series, when they probably should be hard Neardhental life, low life expectancy, should have an inner turmoil away from the peace of mind that shows the current recreation, may be due to two hypotheses:



1. Getting through a kind of vision in previous centuries Neardhental increase the expectation of the general public towards the issue and getting Neardhental bench top researchers in state or private grants, an issue worthy and welcome to them if that way will get more and better research on Neardhental and times.


2. An idealized vision of Neardhental that would relate to my first hypothesis with the addition of engaging and growing public interest in the Neardhental making people believe it is possible that their ancestors could be Neardhental where to get the hook investment would be on the sentimental.


http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/neanderthal-reconstructions.jpg?w=507&h=958

http://www.recuerdas.es/television/img/la-casa-de-la-pradera.jpg

Mzungu mchagga
04-02-11, 08:00
Mmh, an idea on which I don't want to contradict Carlitos fully... At least in regards to some of these preparations.

Grizzly
04-02-11, 21:21
If I don't mistake, some genetic studies have proved that Neanderthal is genetically not linked with homo sapiens sapiens.

LeBrok
05-02-11, 05:38
Older studies separated Humans and Neanderthals, but couple of last year, and this year studies said that Europeans and Asians share the genetic link with Neanderthals.

Carlitos, if you think that Neanderthals were too ugly for humans to procreate, have a look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4omyZkEb1tc

Even the chicken is not too ugly for a horny dog. lol

Carlitos
05-02-11, 17:01
Older studies separated Humans and Neanderthals, but couple of last year, and this year studies said that Europeans and Asians share the genetic link with Neanderthals.

Carlitos, if you think that Neanderthals were too ugly for humans to procreate, have a look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4omyZkEb1tc

Even the chicken is not too ugly for a horny dog. lol


Mine is not an argument, I find it stupid. The video dog is a puppy that will stand on the chicken is not a sexual motive, but rather of domination.

LeBrok
05-02-11, 18:35
You can dominate others in many different ways, it doesn't need to be sexual. If you choose sex to dominate someone, it means you like it this way. Nobody is forcing you to choose this, right? Domination can be a part of sexual arousal, but not it's core ingredient.
Cartlitos, nature doesn't care how you make children or why you make children, as long as you make them. New generation exist and life goes on. If you make love because you find woman attractive and beautiful, or you make love because you want to dominate her, give the same result - babies, the next generation, who cares how you call it.
Off course dog and chicken can't have babies. But the point is that it wasn't a difficult thing for a young, horny, human hunters (maybe on long hunting trip) to have a sex with Neanderthal woman.
Or maybe humans captured Neanderthal women to use them as first slaves? Sex with slaves has been known to happen.

Carlitos
05-02-11, 23:58
Maybe a neardhental woman was picking mushrooms and Cro-Magnons came from behind and poof, we do not know what might happen, how interrelated the two hominids, and there had been sexual relations does not imply that bear fruit and give them, there is no certainty that the hybrid result fertile, besides the birth of a hybrid both in a group Neardhental as Cro-Magnon would have been detected immediately and hybrid that child probably would have been removed, the matter is that it is risky and premature to state that there was hybridization between Neardhental and Cro-Magnon.

caw.mentor
19-07-11, 20:28
"The main difference was the cranial shape. Neanderthal had a bigger occipital zone, meaning that his visual abilities (including the distinction of details and colours) were certainly better than that of modern humans."

I'm not a scientist, but an interested observer of the scientific discoveries in Neanderthals.
My own theory is that we will soon prove that the white skin, red hair, green eyes, hairy bodies and large stocky build so common in Europe are all Neanderthal traits that were picked up from interbreeding. I think the other interesting trait is Color blindness. Which is why I quoted the above. Colorblindness occurs mostly in European white people, very infrequently in African, Asian, and Native North American Indians. The trait is passed from the mother on the X chromosome. Giving the male with the problem a blue and two green receptors or 2 blue and a green receptors, rather than a red green and blue.

The opposite sometimes occurs in females because they have an two different X chromosomes that passes each with an extra receptor trait, and they end up with tetrachromatic colour vision having 4 receptors and being able to see 100 million colors rather than the 10 million, in the few that have been found they are able to see more shades of colour.
In one case, the extra red allows her, as a doctor to see from the patients skin colour if someone is sick, if living out in the wild it might speed identifying a bad fruit from a good one by colour, or able to pick out a predator's camouflage from the background with ease.
There are actually two abnormal receptors conceivably neanderthal vision could actually have been pentachromatic vision able to see 1 Trillion colours including some infrared and ultraviolet. Night hunting, and predator evasion would be much easier.

Carlitos
20-07-11, 02:17
Do the nordicists have hopes in the neardhental extract head again?, perhaps acpete Canada as animal of company.

LeBrok
20-07-11, 06:05
I agree caw.mentor. I have similar point of view about this subject. Welcome to Eupedia dude.
I'm baffled how scientists can measure someone's colours variations in 100 millions or trillions, lol. My colour spectrum is probably in thousands. Looks like I'm last roaming Neanderthal, hehe.
Interesting news, thanks.

oriental
24-05-13, 23:26
Neanderthals Went Extinct Because Of Their Large Eyes

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112802425/extinction-neanderthals-due-to-large-eyes-031313/

Grubbe
25-05-13, 01:02
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112802425/extinction-neanderthals-due-to-large-eyes-031313/ (http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112802425/extinction-neanderthals-due-to-large-eyes-031313/)

Of all speculations that have been put forth to explain the Neanderthals' demise, this is the most bizarre, in my opinion. I am sure this is not the last word of it.

"Living in higher latitudes meant less light in a 24-hour period, possibly explaining why Neanderthals in the northern areas had evolved larger eyes. For comparison, Pearce noted that modern humans living in the higher latitudes also have larger eyeballs and visual cortices than their more equatorial peers." - OK, so then modern humans with large eyes are more "stupid" than their fellow beings too?? :laughing:

Maciamo
16-11-13, 21:26
Neanderthals apparently invented the string (www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029432.800-worlds-oldest-string-found-at-french-neanderthal-site.html). A 90,000 year-old string was found in a Neanderthal site in France, pre-dating the Homo Sapiens oldest string by 60,000 years ! This comes just two days after the New Scientist described (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029431.600-why-string-is-one-of-the-greatest-inventions.html) the string as one of the greatest inventions of all time.

LeBrok
16-11-13, 23:12
Of all speculations that have been put forth to explain the Neanderthals' demise, this is the most bizarre, in my opinion. I am sure this is not the last word of it.

"Living in higher latitudes meant less light in a 24-hour period, possibly explaining why Neanderthals in the northern areas had evolved larger eyes. For comparison, Pearce noted that modern humans living in the higher latitudes also have larger eyeballs and visual cortices than their more equatorial peers." - OK, so then modern humans with large eyes are more "stupid" than their fellow beings too?? :laughing:
Might be the case, although days are longer in Northern Latitudes for half a year than closer to equator.
I think that Ice Age Europe was very overcast for the most of a year. Gulfstream entered Europe much lower than today bringing precipitation in central and south Europe. Constant overcast and long winter nights triggered need for bigger eyes and whiter skin for Neanderthals.

LeBrok
16-11-13, 23:22
Neanderthals apparently invented the string (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029432.800-worlds-oldest-string-found-at-french-neanderthal-site.html). A 90,000 year-old string was found in a Neanderthal site in France, pre-dating the Homo Sapiens oldest string by 60,000 years ! This comes just two days after the New Scientist described (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029431.600-why-string-is-one-of-the-greatest-inventions.html) the string as one of the greatest inventions of all time.
That's unexpected. I thought they had used animal intestines as strings way back.

LeBrok
30-11-13, 10:25
20 thinks you might not know about Neanderthals.
1. You’re pretty much a Neanderthal. While it’s been more than 5 million years since we parted ways with chimps, it has been only 400,000 since human and Neanderthal lineages split.
2. If you’re Asian or Caucasian, your ancestors interbred with Neanderthals as recently as 37,000 years ago, when they crossed paths in Europe.
3. And that sex had benefits. Inherited Neanderthal genes come in alleles that help fight off nasty viruses such as Epstein-Barr — associated with several kinds of cancer, says Stanford University immunologist Laurent Abi-Rached.
4. If you want to know how much Neanderthal DNA you carry, just swab your cheek and send it to the National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project. Or you could have your entire genome sequenced as Ozzy Osbourne did in 2010. Researchers found a telltale Neanderthal segment on his chromosome 10.
5. Now that the whole Neanderthal genome has been sequenced, Harvard geneticist George Church thinks a clone could be gestated in a human surrogate mother. It could even be beneficial, he believes, because the Neanderthal mind might be able to solve problems we can’t.
6. Practically nobody believed you could read a Neanderthal’s genes until 2010, when the paleogeneticist Svante Pääbo successfully sequenced DNA from three Neanderthal skeletons found in Croatia.
7. The first evidence of Neanderthals was discovered in 1856. Miners in Germany’s Neander Valley found fossils thought to belong to a cave bear. A local natural historian begged to differ. He reckoned the strange bones were the remains of a lost Cossack suffering from rickets.
8. Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species three years later. In the context of Darwin’s theories of evolution, the bones were re-examined by anatomist William King, who promptly named them Homo neanderthalensis, a name that provocatively (and incorrectly) suggested they were the missing link between apes and humans.
9. As late as the mid-1970s, creationists were still claiming Neanderthal fossils were the remains of modern humans with acromegaly or arthritis.
10. Paleontologist Marcellin Boule would have been well advised to study pathology. Between 1909 and 1911, he reconstructed the first skeleton of a Neanderthal — who happened to be arthritic. Thus was born the degenerate, slouching image of Neanderthals.
11. They were the ultimate craftsmen, able to pick up impressive skills through practice, but none too creative, say anthropologist Thomas Wynn and psychologist Frederick L. Coolidge of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.
12. Credit Neanderthals with a couple of great ideas: They made spears by hafting stone points to wooden shafts, and bonding them with glue.
13. They threw those spears at bison and woolly rhinoceros, resulting in hunting injuries that would end the career of a linebacker.
14. Not that a maimed Neanderthal could afford to retire. Instead they nursed each other back to health, enlisting their greatest concept of all: empathy.
15. They also had medicine. Traces of chamomile and yarrow, two anti-inflammatories, have been detected in the plaque on Neanderthal teeth.
16. Or are these pungent traces of haute cuisine? Neanderthals balanced their carnivorous diets with vegetables roasted over smoky fires.
17. And they had a sense of style. Archaeologists have recovered a yellow pigment in southern Spain that may have been used as foundation for their skin.
18. Evidently Spain was the place to be if you were a Neanderthal with cultural pretensions. Last summer, paintings in El Castillo Cave on the Pas River were found to be at least 40,800 years old.
19. They were better painters than talkers. The anatomy of their vocal tracts would have prevented them from sounding some vowels.
20. In any case, we lost our chance at conversation, since they died out some 25,000 years ago. Their last refuge was Gibraltar, now a haven for tax evaders.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/22-20-things-you-didnt-know-aboutneanderthals#.UpOxpNLkt8E