A bit of nitpicking. You say: "... Some have suggested that Neanderthals were less able than humans to adapt to changing climatic conditions ..." which further propagates the view that the Neanderthals were non-human species. In my understanding, the modern/current view is that they were yet another human species (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis) in its own right, just as we are (Homo Sapiens Sapiensis) and numerous others. Being human iwas not (then) a membership in the specific species, but a mebership in the specific family of species. Thanks

This is incredible stuff...In light of the Bible and the global flood of Noah's day, all of the archeological findings here seem to make perfect sense...especially the highly diverse DNA findings, "rapid replacement," and the conclusion that the people groups probably didn't mix.  I would love to see this data reanalyzed taking "Noah's flood" into consideration.  I wonder which theory would fit best...

I'm sure they'll get right on that Noah flood analysis once you show evidence that the Bible has any scientific backing.  Its about as reliable as some book written a few thousand years ago with stories/myths that some people made up to explain things they didn't understand.  Seems to me like a good source for some scientific analysis... (sarcasm doesn't have its full effect when just typed, but I'm sure you get my point)  

so much time so few specimens ,it sounds like inbreading in iosalted populations, somthinmg we would never do  

Frankly in my opinion, I believe that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did in fact mix. If you go through day to day life, look at the brow structure of some of your co-workers. Some have a less defined brow line then those of others. They seem almost primative. But then again, I'm only 16, my eyes could be decieving me.

If my understanding is correct. The Neanderthal were "Homebodies" and were not located in widespread areas. Any local disaster could drive them below a survival population. food supply, disease, weather or climate shift {even something short lived}.
If they could not draw on another group to replace members, they could be gone in one to two generations.

thanks for the website

It's belivable they were simply altered by nature look at actor Richard Kiel (Bond films), I enjoyed reading a book by Donald Wesley Patten on the subject called "the biblical flood and the ice epoch" published in june of 1966, very eyeopening.

Jarred Abbott's comment has merit. The underlying question though is what makes us (Homo Sapiens Sapiensis) unique. Do any other species contemplate life and its past and future as we do? Currently some forms of life on this planet, can and do learn and use tools. This research is to try and find our place in the Universe; and where or what will the next step in evolution be, and will it involve us.

Searching for Neanderthal-Human interbreeding through mitochondrial DNA is pointless. Hominids, in fact all apes, form matriocentric societies. No female would have given up her mother's clan, her family support group and the social status she was born to, to go live as the lowest status female in a Neanderthal clan. Her children would have never survived without the natural female support group, especially since they would have consumed far more than human children. Until very recently, men always moved to the woman's clan and adopted the woman's culture. Even today it is said "A daughter is a daughter all of her life, a son is a son until he takes a wife." Beyond this human trait is the "sex appeal" factor. Cross-breeds born to Neanderthal mothers would have died out with the Neaderthal. Born to human mothers, they may have survived with us. Also human female is much more likely to find a Neanderthal male attractive (Popeye vs. Bluto) than a male human would find a female Neanderthal attractive. Human females have always admired size and strength in a mate which is why men are bigger/stronger in the first place. Cross-breeding would have only occurred in isolated areas and seldomly. The Y-chrom could easily have been replaced by the human Y over the next few thousand years, especially since a cross-bred males would have experienced real disadvantages in the human hunting techniques he would have been taught. Human female culture would have been more supportive to the cross-bred female as females traditionally are slowed down by children and pregnancy. Her lack of dexterity, sewing ability, etc. would have been deligated to her female relatives while she took on water-wood toting and foraging tasks which most women would gladly trade off. Our best evidence strongly suggests that our predesserors interbred with chimps for 2 mil. yrs. possibly creating a mutant species, US, in the process. In our recent history, whenever two races meet, half-caste children follow. Our taste for change didn't even stop at near relitives in history. Horse and goat worship led to ritual coppulation in ancient times. We have syphillus from coppulation with sheep/goats, and its rumored that coppulation with Reeses monkeys led to aids. In the Reeses monkey case, a cohabiting tribe admitted that adolessent boys developed sexual experience in this mannor. Given our past record, we can't exclude the probability of cross-breeding. Given our human nature it is highly improbable that mitochrondia would indicate such. Sadly, even our finest scientists seem to be deceived by male-centric ideologies that has systematically reversed natural society and the nature of people for the last 5000 years or so. By the way, our DNA is markedly closer to that of late Neanderthal DNA than it is to early Neanderthal's but scientists are quick to explain this as co-evolutional traits, much like my 300 pound, heavy-boned, short-legged, thick-ridged, German uncles, huh?

Hippy Dippy Guru say: I think Neanderthals felt crowded by the influx of Sapiensis, and being the very spiritual beings they were, ascended to another plane of existance. Maybe they were the "djinn" of middle eastern mythology who were allegedly god's creations right between the angels and adam & Eve? Or maybe not.

I think we will find that Neanderthals and the environment became incompatible, thus driving the overly specialized Neanderthals toward extinction. However, I believe there had to have been intermixing of the species, especially if we were so closely matched genetically. Fascinating, isnt it!

Gentlemen , These brainy boys have a agenda also,Money to fund the project so they tend to bend the findings their way . Just like any other group or organization of peers they circle jerk ! We know that we face bigger problems than dealing with the pasts of what if's etc... GOD only knows!! and GOD won't tell. MSS

Diseases transmitted from humans to Neanderthals seem to me to be a likely candidate to explain the demise of the Neanderthals. The same way North American Indians were decimated in the past when coming in contact with settlers.

It's fascinating how often scientific study at base is just an attempt at sorting out US from THEM. Why do we have such a strong need to define what 'human' is and is not? Surely there is widespread agreement that all animals (including humans) experience biological change over time. That being so, why do we believe we can define a point at which an animal became human (or ceased to be human). So much interest in something really rather boring; a bit like debating the difference between a pond and a lake. I'm much more interested in all the different ways that animals, (human or not) have found to survive and prosper in their environments.

I believe the Neanderthal is not directly related to humans genetically and probably went extinct for three reasons. 1. Diseases 2. Lack of food 3. Humans were better tool builders, more resourceful and more agressively violent. Exchanges between Neanderthal and Humans could probably be labeled the First World War. I believe humans probably killed the last Neander standing.

A.K. Said:

"I would love to see this data reanalyzed taking "Noah's flood" into consideration.  I wonder which theory would fit best..."


Noah's what???  Was this an anthropology column or a Theology one?

Good to see that I am not the only one up at midnight reading about this stuff. I find this fascinating stuff be it anthropology or theology.

The closed mind amazes me.  Is it not valid for a person of faith to ask “Scientifically how does this fit what I believe?”  Is in not just as valid for a person of science to ask “Is there a biblical reference to this?”  Yet, the closed minds on both sides strive to mock and belittle those of faith or those of science.  What use is that to any of us?  What value do such comments add to this or any discussion?  


A. K. in Seattle asked to see the data presented with a theological spin.  What is wrong with that?  A truly scientific mind never closes to the slimiest of possibilities regardless of ones faith or lack of.  To mock is a sham, to research the unknown and compare it with the know is science, do it and nothing less.  Never have a closed mind.


Therefore, I ask those that mocked A.K. scientifically prove your position or at least show no correlation between the Neanderthal and A.K’s question.  Do the science or keep your mouth shut.

i have a friend who looks neanderthal, his family came from portugal, how many people in this world dna has been checked? how about china, mongolia?.

   The Neandertal species is root-stocked in the successful Homo Erectus, radiating into Europe 500,000 + years ago out of Africa.  It hung on in glaciated Europe and evolved characteristics optimized for survival in colder climates.  More modern humans overan previously isolated Neandertal home ground in their own interglacial radiations and out-competed them. It is my view Neandertals were probably systematically eliminated. Not of the same species, it is hard to draw direct comparisons between collisions of modern human cultures and the disappearance of Neandertals as a species.  Interbreeding is possible but more work needs to be done to see if such a mating would even be fruitful. Personally, my gut says no. Now For the creationists:  

There are no fossil human bones found congruent with fossil dinosaur bones.  But don't let the evidence get in your way if it lets you sleep at night.

What is sad is all these "scientists" who misunderstand the Bible and what it really says. People seem to think that the Bible claims Adam was the first being on the earth. No, the Bible says that Adam was the first MAN created in Gods image. There were other beings-but they were "creatures" or as science calls them, Neanderthals. Most people cannot debate creation vs evolution because they do not understand or they have not really read the Bible. Anyone who says it is just a "book" is someone who has had little to no spirituality in their life. Could humans have mixed with "cave people"? Maybe. Genesis does not say much about how humans multiplied or who exactly they multiplied with until long after Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel. Science has its role in the creation of Man, but I believe God is at the head of it all.

most Neandertal species died out 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. By the evidence we have so far. Noah's flood was about 4,000 years ago, so that could not have had anything to do with the Neandertals.

 I have seen humans who do resemble a Neandertal, so a thinning out of the breed, was probably possible.

 In GlenRose, Texas there is an evolution creation museum, They do have proof of human  Foot prints alongside dinosaur foot prints. With the same carbon dating on both.

 Just F.Y.I. for those interested. 
 

Seems to me quite logical that "humans" interbred with the Neanderthals......why not? It is a known fact that what is euphemistically known as "sheep worrying" (copulation by human males with female sheep) by farmers out for long periods with nothing but female sheep for comfort actually happened. Why then would not the Sapiens out on long hunting missions.....who happened to come across groups of Neanderthals......mostly female......not indulge their sexual needs? Seems perfectly logical to me. Some of the offspring would have been kept around...perhaps as slaves.....

Charlotte, there is no form of carbon 14 dating that can tell us anything beyond 50,000 years ago. There is is no evidence of real dinos having been around since then. The footprint you speak of is a fake.

Hi Charlotte, 40,000 years ago to 4,000 is definitely a “good” point.  There is the belief that God created life about 6,000 years ago that does add some quandary, but I am not so sure about creation happening 6000 years ago myself.  Mike has a point about carbon-14 dating, but Mike there are other isotopes used for dating of very old objects.  Charlotte’s reference to carbon dating could be a generality as “carbon” dating is the commonly used term.  In addition, I was not aware the foot prints Charlotte mentioned are confirmed fakes.  Did they study the patina of the tracks or divert the river to find that the tracks ended at the water edge?  Not being wise about them I simply have not researched them of late.

Gwen, I completely agree.  I am a man I know lust I do not need an excuse to be horny.  It just comes naturally.  I will add though that I don’t know sheep.  ;)

In merging art with science, H W Jansen in "History of Art" mentions that the earliest known homo sapiens structure, (presumably antideluvian) as the remains of the Walls of Jericho" in Jordan which date to 7,000 BC.  This tells us that homo sapiens sapiens has been building military fortifications for at least 9,000 years.

Mike - In your term, "systematically eliminated" and with our modern delightfully homo sapiens sapiens proclivity (note: Haiti, Georgia, the Jews, Darfur) can I read "genocide?"

The debate over whether there was "interbreeding" of homo sapiens and neanderthals is just plain silly. Due to the difference in their genetic makeup offspring would have been impossible. Do the research. If they "co-mingled" their bones aren't telling.

You can speculate as much as you want about something like this, but nobody will ever know for sure where we came from and how, unless you go back in time

 It is interesting to read that several people have stated that they know someone who "looks like a Neanderthal."  Physical appearances can be deceiving.  Both native Australians and sub-Saharan Africans have dark skin and may look similar to persons of Northern European descent.  However, these groups are among the most genetically diverse on the planet.  DNA evidence is able to sort out the actual links between various hominids. 

   The most likely explanation for the disappearance of Neanderthals is systematic warfare.  Whenever two groups of hominids compete for similar resources, the usual result is warfare.  Cro-Magnons likely hunted the Neanderthals to extinction to eliminate their competitors.  The same thing happened to the lions that used to inhabit Europe.    

I just have one thing to say to a very few select people, DO NOT BELIVE IN CARBON DATING, i could make a million year old baked potato in my microwave and carbon dating would prove it true.

Becky,

> how many people in this world dna has been checked? > how about china, mongolia?.

As noted above, Neanderthals populated Europe (not Asia), so if anything, the chances are much higher that they contributed to the DNA of *Caucasians,* not East Asians.  While more evidence is clearly needed, it could explain some features of White people, such as excessive body hair.  White men and women both have much more body hair that Black or Asian peoples... Just think of some poor guy with a hairy back--this could be the vestige of a much hairier Neanderthal--a trait that would have well served the Neanderthal who lived in ice-age Europe much longer than modern humans.  Of course no shed of proof for this yet, but it's fun to think about, isn't it?

There are a few instances where human remains seem to be associated with dinosaur remains, but they can be counted on the fingers of two human hands; the thousands and thousands of instances in which it can be shown the two could not possibly have shared time are more persuasive. 

  The debate between evolution and creationism is a political invention. The two disciplines have no real connection: one is spiritual and the other physical: the argument is about power, which (for some) subsumes all other discussions. 

  Modern American Christians seem to easily overlook some of the Bible's central statements and magnify peripheral ones. For instance, Jesus himself made a point of saying, "unless you become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." And, "Judge not lest you be judged." These political arguments about the age of the Earth are sophisticated and discriminatory, and therefore against the Lord's teachings. Whether or not men walked with saurians is irrelevant to a Christian life. 

  Neanderthals and moderns were both human, and it seems unlikely that appearance could have been a barrier to mating. But it doesn't take much to prevent the production of fertile offspring: mule deer and whitetails can breed but the offspring are unsuccessful at breeding themselves. Horses and donkeys, tigers and lions etc. can and will breed under artificial circumstances, but the offspring that live are sterile, or otherwise unable to continue the germ line even in protected environments. The cousin species of Homo lived in the wild, where any small impairment of ability to survive or to procreate would be rapidly selected out. 

   There is no reason that moderns should have attacked archaic humans. The populations of both species were thin at best, and the evidence indicates that they differed in subsistence niches. The main competitors of either group would have been other large carnivores of which there were plenty. Evidence shows that their respective tool kits were virtually identical. The fact is, extreme longevity of a particular species (or cluster of closely related species) is the exception rather than the rule in the fossil record. Woolly rhinoceros did not survive the latest interglacial in Europe, nor did any of the other specifically adapted megafauna. I doubt that modern human's survival can be traced to anything more evolutionarily fit than the tendency to generalism. And our much-vaunted "intelligence" will end our species' tenure sooner than most due to chemical poisioning. 

  Baszler's comments on exogamy are arguable even among modern populations and can't logically be extrapolated to an extinct species. 

   We all know people - mostly men - who show "classic Neaderthal" phenotype: robust skeleton and musculature, heavy brow ridges, lots of body hair. Sadly for those who would like to think their knuckle-dragging uncle is a throwback, these features are a case of convergence in evolution. Some Northern European lines go back 14,000 years, maybe more; enough time for descent with modification to have the effect of endowing the family genome with cold-adapted features common to all large mammals. Invoking relatedness to Hollywood's concept of Neanderthal is not necessary. 

   Thanks everybody for this discussion. Made my day.

Species that have separated themselves from other species as distinct entities by a million years plus can still reproduce to make fruitful offspring. Lions and tigers do it. Zebras and donkeys can do it. Coyotes and dog or wolves can do it. Even domestic cats and bobcats or northern lynx can do it. There may or may not be a valid physiological reason that modern men and Neandertals reproduced. In my mind I see Cro Magnon regarding Neandertals as troglodites and pests out competing them for precious resources thru technology or dint of organized force. Genocide if you will. Maybe they were good eating!

Belgae DNA Modal & Nordic-Celtic Project

I have come up we this - Belgae DNA Modal through my Nordic-Celtic DNA project (982 members).

http://www.ysearch.org/lastname_view.asp?
uid=&letter=&lastname=Belgae&viewuid=AX6GA&p=0

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Nordic-Celtic

Investigating the contribution that archaeology has made to accounts of human evolution

Accounts of human evolution usually revolve around well-publicised discoveries of the bony remains of our ancestors. These do allow us to piece together our family tree and to paint - at least in broad outline - a picture of the ancestors who appear on that tree. But it is the archaeological record that preserves actual traces of our ancestors' activities and intuition suggests that these ought to be fundamental to our accounts of human evolution. However, this is far from being the case and this project is designed to explore why this is so.

Masters Thesis

I would like to enroll into the Masters Thesis Research Degree

This is a link to my Research:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Nordic-Celtic

I could also research to what degree of social assimilation occurred between native European groups of people throughout the history of Australia - through dna?

The focus of the project is to gather a representation of evidence and interest in Native Scandinavians and Native Celtic-Iberians found in ‘all’ parts of Australia.

According to my research, zorses and zonkeys are "mule", that is sterile, offspring due to chromosomal differences. Tiger x lion crosses produce a few fertile females but infertile males. Polar x grizzly bear hybrids are fertile. Domestic and Asian pigs appear to be able to interbreed freely, unsurprisingly.

 I have always imagined it like this: a modern group presses north into bleak, frozen conditions for which their bodies were unsuited. It takes all their toughness and ingenuity to even live, let alone increase their numbers. Already living there they find the Old Ones, giant, immensely powerful beings who seem unaware of the cold, whose men charge unhesitating into a herd of mastodon armed only with spears. The women and children distract the mother while the men wrestle the huge, tusked, enraged adolescent to the ground by sheer might. The women each carry a haunch of the young elephant alone; the Old Ones look back at the slender, dark-skinned people who watch them, thinking how much like babies they seem with their thin arms and rounded heads. The newcomers, accustomed to seeing gods in the mountains, in the rivers, in storms, in predators and prey and in each other's visions, are in no doubt about who these mighty beings are.

After having Jean M. Auel's Clan of The Cave Bear I have been intrigued by the characteristics of Neanderthals and believed nature has allowed them to exist today in us. I believe the ancient mesoloithic huntergatherer tribe called the vascons and later the basques interbred with the neanderthals in iberia and gaul. This pre-indo european tribe still exists and later migrated to the british aisles which is proved due to dna testing of the welsh cornish and scottish. The neanderthals were definitely strong enough and smart enough to survive along with the cro-magnons and their advancement with toolwise mirrored the modern humans.They also definitely possessed some form of language. There would have been plenty food to share between the other humans considering populations weren't that large so that couldn't have been an issue.I agree with Baszler that the neanderthal males bred with the human females the same way that humans bred with chimps 2 mil. years ago before diverging. My only worry is they wouldn't have had enough contact to mate. However 10000 years of cohabitation and possible trade means they knew the other existed and human groups tend to be curious about the other. There was no harmful climatic change that was strong enough to kill them and disease couldn't have wiped them all out because that's never happened to any people in recorded history. We won't truly know until they find one of the closest specimens to us but 99.5% similarity is close enough for interbreeding. Therefore the best and most positive conclusion is that they were attracted to the physical and mental traits each group possessed and decided to combine them with their own.

Neanderthal DNA: 320T

AF011222
AF282971
AY149291
DQ464008 (Belgium)

Cheddar Man: 192T, 270T
U5a

well, all of this is very,very interesting, i belive that humans had took neanderthal down, if not, we may have intertwined, or even mated with each other, but like what i read before, there may be 5 reasons why they have been taken down 1.desease 2. drought (result=lack of food) 3.we fought a major war with them and didnt write anything in caves that we found 4. still alive... maybe this is a thing that most of us believe is not existing... BIGFOOT... hey, im just tossing idias around 5. they intertwined with us and no more pure neanderthals are left

also, there must be a connection between the bible and the physical earth, maybe when god was talking about the people adam and eve gave birth to and there children that lived for hundreds of years, couldn't that be some of the links that we think are two connections that really are not connected, but the beauty of it is, that it tells when they die, now i'm saying that they live for only a couple of centuries... i think that the time is extended and there is a mathematical equation of how long these links lived for, i mean, you can live for over 500 years and not know how to hunt, plant, contain animals, eat only raw meat, i mean come on! that just doesn't make sense, i thought this when i was only 12 and i still stand behind my theory at age 13... i know i might be wrong, but hey, im just throwing things around ... my intellectual quotient is 136, i might be right and i might be wrong, if anyone has any info about my theory, e-mail is dberglund1190@msn.com

Neanderthals probably kept to themselves even more after observing the new kids on the continent - Humans. They then put their big brows together and decided it would be prudent to find other places to live far far away and allow themselves to be called: Bigfoot. Sasquatch. Anything but - Strange..

Fascinating, one of most interesting discussion lines I've read. First the latest gene sequencing (5-5-7) says 3 million of 3 billion DNA base pairs are the same- a 99.9% identical rate between Neands and Cro Mags. So I think they easily bred between each other- it's human nature. Seeing the devastating effect of Europeans on Indians and Hawaiians (first hand), probably disease is the most likely reason for the absence of Neands- or they simply were absorbed and integrated into modern humans. I think it's possible Neanderthal features are still evidenced by some people. According to the latest DNA research on the spreading of modern humans (PBS docs), they actually found that the oldest modern people- the San (Bushmen) people of the Kalihara 50,000 years ago, were closest to Australian aboriginies, who reached there around 40,000 years ago, and they look very much alike, so it seems there must have been some serious mixing with different genetic material going on to make modern humans. Silly discussions of who is "human" remind me of the idea that animals can't use tools because that's the definition of human (of course they do).

The Great Flood that most religions describe, was pretty definitively proved by Robert Ballard to happen in 5500BC, when the closed Straits of Bospherus(sp) broke open with a 320ft elevation difference between the Med and then fresh water Black Sea after the oceans rise from the Ice Age glaciers melting (all the shells changed to salt water species, and he found the ancient shoreline). The Black Sea swelled from the catastrophic inflow to 50% bigger over a year or 2?, driving all the ancient humans away on as continuous refuges.

One more thing. When you see the arbitrary tiny differences between species of bird with this or that little color difference, I wonder what scientists would think in a million years, if they would find a 5 ft 110 lb Chinese villager and 7 ft 230 lb Bantu tribesman. Think they would wonder if they could interbreed, and who wiped out who?  

Humans have an arrogance about them,a pride that they are unique and one of a kind;more intelligent than any species on the planet. I see this in myself. I often think that it is normal  because doesn't every creature in existence appear the feel the exact same way.

I have come to the conclusion that modern man distroyed the Neanderthals by hunting them down as a big black crow would hunt down, drive away any other species that entered his territory. I have seen the black crows attack a hawk by surrounding him and screaming in mid air until he flew away. The confident hawk becomes a scared little dove with 15 crows coming for him, screaming all together. 

 I don't see that there is much difference in modern man, the neanderthal or any other creature on this planet. 

 I only see us all as being a part of this earth, as if we  were grown from the very soil that smells so good to us in the spring time. We are all connected to one another and there is no one species that dominates over the other. We are even connected to the very air, the very rocks and water and all our sorce of energy comes from the sun and the boiling hot rocks in the center of our universe. 

 We have not changed in this respect for all  the many millions of years since life first formed on earth. Thats how I know that neanderthal may have mated with human, may have left his off spring behind that would join the two species,but as a whole was   hunted down and destroyed by modern humans.

doubtful homo sapiens wiped out neandertal sapiens. as was pointed out by another blogger cromagnon and neandertals were probably very small populations and did not have a lot of contact. also there is still way too little fossil or dna evidence to really know. what we do know though is that both technologies were pretty similiar. remember that generally speaking a species is lucky to live much beyond 100,000 years. and yes i know about crocodiles and other exceptions. i read in the science section here on the future of humankind. it was written only a couple of years ago, but assumed humans would be here 500 million years from now. i laughed out loud. we have an imbecile as a leader and congressional cowards. but even if we had good leaders, so much is way out of our hands. neutron twin stars colliding even as far away as 4000 light years would release gamma radiation that would destroy pretty much all life on the planet with the possible exception of underground bacteria. or the volcano that erupted 70,000 years ago and according to some scientists lowered human life to a few thousand. we will have to wait a while to see the data on the effects on homo sapiens and homo neandertals from this. many other things could happen as probably all of you know. i hope home sapiens are around in 2100 along with many of our fellow creatures.    

I would not ponder all of this very much. It seems that the religious people have had everything figured out to at least the begining of time, about 5000 years ago! I would like to call a supreme religious meeting with all of the gods and prophets of the last... 5000 years, and get their opinions!

Neanderthals were raptured to Neanderthal Heaven by their Neanderthal God. It says so in the Neanderthal Bible.

What I've seen so far of the evidence points to Neanderthal populations staying in the same location all year round, rather than following the seasonal migrations of prey animals and seasonal changes in the availability of food plants. That in itself would put a constant stress on a Neanderthal population in that during half of every year (late fall, winter and early spring),the local Neanderthal populations would have a harder time finding enough food.  This would also tend to restrict the number of individuals a given area could support and population numbers would tend to be static.  This would make them vulnerable to population "crashes" due to sudden changes in their environment such as the appearance of new diseases either in their own or their prey animals' populations, fluctuations in global weather patterns that produced short-term alterations in regional climate such as several severe winters in a row or a decade of drought, or natural disasters such as wildfires, landslides, floods, etc.  Secondly, both artifactual and anatomical data seem to indicate that Neanderthals used a specialized method of hunting that relied heavily on stealth and ambush, and that used a thrusting spear to bring down game. This style of hunting was best suited to forests where cover was plentiful. It requires great upper body strength, which skeletal evidence supports. It also puts the hunter directly in harm's way. (There has been some fascinating work done by Trinkhaus and his associates, and the U of NM showing a many similarities between the type of injury patterns typically seen in Neanderthal skeletons and the type of injuries common among rodeo cowboys -- shoulder separations, blunt force fractures of the bones of the upper body and skull, etc. Not surprising when you think about it, though.  They are both types of injury that would be produced by large animals violently resisting real or, in the case of rodeo cowboys, imagined predator attacks by bucking, kicking, goring, etc.)  Neanderthal artifacts changed little over time, which would indicate that their hunting methods did not change either.  Thirdly, game was a major food source for the high-fat, high-protein diet that was essential to the Neanderthal's ability to survive in a cold climate.   Anything that impacted the Neanderthal's ability to obtain sufficient food, especially during the winter, would have a direct and immediate impact on the local Neanderthal population. It is no coincidence that the migration of anatomically modern humans into Europe coincided with the global climate changes that marked the ending of the last ice age. As the Earth warmed, weather patterns changed, producing changes in vegetation and changes in the migration patterns of prey animals. It was these changes in global climate that made it possible (and probably necessary) for anatomically modern humans to move northward out of Africa into Europe, which for millions of years had been the exclusive territory of Neanderthals.  The Neanderthal populations, never very large, were already at a delicate equilibrium because of their style of land use, their hunting style, and the limitations of their technology.  They were ultimately pushed over the brink of extinction by a combination of factors: The static nature of Neanderthal society and techology, cultural and anatomical overspecialization, changes in habitat brought about by the changing climate, and increasing competition from anatomically modern humans.  As the dense forests started giving way to open grassland, the time-honored Neanderthal tactic of getting within "killing distance" of prey by stealth and ambush -- a style that took full advantage of their short stature, brute strength and massive upper body development -- became more and more difficult. Hunting on open plains requires the hunter to be able to travel for long distances in order to locate and approach prey, and it is obvious from biomechanical analyses of Neanderthal anatomy that Neanderthals were neither good sprinters nor good marathoners. Hunting in open country requires a different type of hunting strategy to get the hunter within "killing distance" of prey that can see them coming. It requires a different type of hunting technology -- slings, throwing spears and atalatals to throw them with, and that masterpiece of hunting technology, the bow and arrow.  When anatomically modern humans began to migrate north into Europe, they already possessed the basic skill set they would need to exploit this rapidly changing environment. Neanderthals did not.  They already had hunting strategies and technologies that were adapted to hunting in open country. Neanderthals did not.  They already had the hunter-gatherer social organizations that would enable them to successfully exploit plant as well as animal food sources. Neanderthals did not.  They were already anatomically adapted to following the seasonal migrations of their prey species for long distances. Neanderthals were not. It was never about the Neanderthals being too dumb to survive. There is ample archaeological evidence that toward the end, the Neanderthals were making a valiant effort to adapt their technology and land use strategies to cope with the rapid changes that were taking place in their environment, but too much changed too quickly and they could not keep up. This combination of factors caused Neanderthal populations to crash and they could not recover sufficient numbers to remain viable. That we're here and they're not is not due to our innate superiority as a species or to divine favoritism, or to anything else other than plain dumb luck.  As has happened time and time again in the long history of the human species, we just happened by chance to be in the right place at the right time with the right stuff.

Oh, and BTW, the Old Testament is a fascinating blend of oral history, racial memory, and spin doctoring that is based on real events that happened to real people in real places. The biblical "Flood" really happened.  Geological and archaeological evidence suggests that the Flood Story in the Bible is part of the racial memory/oral history of the people who fled southeastward across Turkey to the Tigris-Euphrates valley in what is now Iran/Iraq after sea levels rose high enough to spill over the Bosphorus and fill the Black Sea basin in what was likely a catastrophic event that took place over decades, or even months. These refugees took the memory of the catastrophy with them, put their own spin on it and called it The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Jews picked the story up during their captivity in Babylon, and put their own spin on it.  One also wonders if the racial memory of our encounter with Neanderthals also survives.  And when, exactly, did Neanderthals finally die out?  Are they the kernel of truth at the heart of the "race of dwarves" described in Norse and Teutonic mythology? And what of the monster Grendel in Beowulf? or the events detailed in the supposedly real manuscript on which Michael Crichton's book "The 13th Warrior" is based?  I refer you to "The Tragedy of Hamlet," By William Shakespeare, Act I, Scene V, Line 165.

Crossbreeding would not be the only reason for two species to appear to move genetically closer. As these two species overlapped territories cross transmission of disease was also likely.
 We know that human diseases can and do carry over to great apes. Knowing this, one can assume that those individuals more capable of fighting off this illness would have a better chance of survival. This trait would also be passed on to their offspring.
 It would stand to reason that if one species had a biological advantage over a certain illness, and another similar species had limited protection from this same illness, it would only be a matter of time before the species with limited protection would diminish in numbers.
 As their numbers decreased, the survivors, and their children would represent a greater part of the population with immunity to the disease, and a greater overlap with other species with the same immunity.
 In this way, two species can appear to move closer to each other on a genetic basis, without any actual cross breeding having occurred.

As fascinating as the speculation is, whether we had interspecies relations with Neanderthals (highly possible), or if we drove them to extinction (also possible), in the end it's nothing more than speculative theory. For unless the scientist are actually there at that time period, no one living knows what exactly happened, and therefore, any hypothetical theory is at best, just hypothetical.

Well said Douglas!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):