Isn't it interesting that people come out with "there is NO evidence" that such and such happened; therefore, such and such did NOT happen.  When did it become logically accurate to prove anything with a negative statement.  Lack of evidence is not proof of anything.  Lack of evidence means no evidence has been found. It does not mean nor can it ever mean that something didn't happen.  Finding evidence of something may prove that an event occurred, but the reverse is not logically sound.  If you go outside and do not see any birds, you have not proved that birds do not exist regardless of how many times you go outside and happen to not see any.

One thing -  humans did not breed with chimps before diverging.  Before diverging they were both a different species.  It was that species that diverged and then later produced the chimps and humans we know today.

For those of you who say that interbreeding would cause sterile offspring or wouldn't work...I disagree.

Neanderthals are very close to modern humans and would most likely have been compatible.  Second, even though many offspring could have theoretically been sterile...even the supposed Mule is not always sterile as people generally believe.  Since records have been kept...60 mules have had babies.  3 of those in just the last 25 years.  Want proof? Go here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2290491.stm

Even such a notable as Shakespeare was aware of the Neanderthal debate.  In 'Julius Ceasar', he has Anthony bemoan ... "O judgement, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reason ...".  Clearly, in referring to 'brutish beasts', he took aim at the Neanderthals among us.  Oh yah!

No matter how one looks at it; the plain fact is Neanderthal extincition and human progress seem to be coincident. did they just not survive or did some of our ancestors have a hand in the outcome?

For all who wonder about Noah and the flood remember this. All that was written was written about a certain region on the globe.They did not even know that the rest of the planet existed. I would like to have seen them travel to North America and capture a wolverine or a grizzly in Canada and stick it on that boat. If they survived the capture of these animals they would also require meat, thus another pair of animals would have to be sacrificed for food. I do believe that this story is true but only their domestic animals were put on the boat, which they would eat eventually by way of eggs, milk and fried chicken. Noah and the clan floated for a while then found land and started another colony which they would keep it cleaner and more civilized than where they had been earlier, hence left the whores and scum behind. my version does not say it wasn't true just tamed down a bit.  thanks

They're gone, we're here. A course of natural events.

Being a fan of the myths of the various ancient human cultures makes me wonder if the neanderthal was the group of beings referred to as wendils in scandinavian history or wendigs in native american history, both of whom were characterized as cannibalizing the dead of their own and human dead. Both wendil and wendigs were actively hunted and exterminated by their human counterparts. It seems possible that the neanderthals were wiped out for land and cultural differences, which also happens to be mankind's primary historical response to other ethnic groups. Evidence has shown that neanderthal beads were traded as far as england and eastern china, beads that bear a common builder's mark.

Bible:  Whenever the Bible (especially the old testament) is checked against the archeological evidence, we find the evidence supports the biblical narrative.  (See the Naked Archeologist programs for fascinating examples).  That does not make the Bible 100% true, but it does show that the writers of the Bible were not prone to too much fiction.  The stories are based in real events, then embroidered, not made up from nothing.  My conclusion is that the biblical flood of Noah is a stylized story of the events following the massive glacial melt at the end of the last ice age.  The flood myth exists world wide and documents this real event, and the noah story is one regional version.  While I'd not suggest the Bible as a science book, to dismiss it as a source of history and insight is very short sighted.

Mating:  I'm quite certain Neanderthal / Moderns mating happened.  you can't put two similar critters together without them trying it...  Heck, most farm kids have stories of the bull trying to mount the tractor!  (Yes, I've seen it...  I've also seen sparrows mounting finches in the wild and various members of the pig line humping all sorts of things - domestic and wild - including a vaguely horizontal cylinder with padding used for artificial insemination 'collections'.   We won't go into all the goat / sheep / etc. interactions...  )  I've also seen a female mule with her offspring...  BTW, mule x mule has a different fertility profile than mule x horse or mule x donkey...  you have to look at all three to know if genes can cross species barriers.  And this is why mitochondrial dna can NOT prove lack of crossing, it can only show if crossing DID happen.  Nuclear DNA might cross in offspring of Male Neanderthal x Female Modern  producing offspring that can continue to mate into the Modern line but not x Female Neanderthal.  To say that mules are sterile is a very myopic statement.  Sterile crossed with WHAT?  In what percentage of cases?  There were tens of thousands of years of contact between moderns and Neanderthals.  Even a small percentage of crossings that were successful would result in some Neanderthal genes surviving in modern Europeans.  A much faster route to cold adaptation than a co-evolutionary path.  

European "look" and cold adaptation:  I doubt the argument that the Europeans of Neanderthal look were just the result of evolutionary pressure to cold adapt.  The problem is that a large population of Europeans shows a large number with specific non-cold adapted modern "looks" AND a sub-population of strongly adapted folks AND some intermediate forms.  Strong selection for a cold adapted type (enough to create, via mutation, the mixture of cold traits in a couple of hundred generations) ought to have worked on the whole population.  

The mixture we have looks more like what you get when you mix two divergent populations and there is at best mild selective pressure.   I have a population of rabbits like this from crossing two divergent breeds - some A type, some B type, some blended traits - and the mix tends to be stable until you apply selective pressure, then it rapidly settles into an A type or a B type depending on how you select.

Are Europeans Neanderthal hybrids?  I think this question is ill formed. (MOO!) The real question ought to be "Did a few useful Neanderthal genes get swapped into the Out of Africa Moderns"?  That question realizes that a large encroaching population can pick up a few genes from a few crosses, then selective pressure can make those *genes* widespread in the offspring, even if 99%+ of the genes stay modern type.  We have the Neanderthal tools and phenotype slowing becoming more like the moderns, but dying out (or dissolving in).  We have the moderns rapidly adapting to a new cold land with rapid development of cold adaptations.

My speculation:  This is most easily explained as a few crosses of Neanderthal x Modern maybe going both ways resulting in a slow movement of the Neanderthal genome and tool kit toward modern form, but a fast movement of some cold adaptive traits into a much larger modern gene pool.  This European modern type then gets the transparent skin (for vitamin D production) and a bit heavier build with larger nose and thicker bones IN SOME INDIVIDUALS.  These genes can then get rapid selection for disbursal in the Euro pool while the Neanderthals get little benefit from a skeleton that is a little less poor at throwing and running but less effective at close hand to hoof attack on big critters.  It then doesn't take long for the Euro-cold type to dominate the landscape.

Rampant speculation:  I would also speculate that the Neanderthals were just fewer in number and didn't get wiped out by war or hunting failures, but just by genetic swamping.  When a very small population is blended into a much larger one, the smaller population dissolves into the larger one, and only their genes survive.  See the history of the asian phenotype overtaking the anglo phenotype in the Asian steps.  The graves there show a Euro type skeleton transitioning to a mix of Euro / Asian ending in an all Asian type now.  No war wiping out the Euro type, just a gradual swamping of the genotype.  

Brazil might be a modern example in progress.  A new Brazilian type is emerging from the blending of Euro, African, and Native American types.  Heavily European at base, but with some significant benefit from the admixtures (darker skin being very valuable on tropical beaches... and the longer legs ... but I digress...) The 10% or so of African type in Brazil are not being hunted to extinction nor are they being out competed, but in 1000 years (if nothing else changed!) you would find a largely european genetic stock with largely European skeletal and cranial forms, but with dark skin and somewhat longer legs with less body fat.   Would you say that the Africans became extinct in Brazil?  Or that they were absorbed into a larger population?  

Would you say that the Europeans became extinct?  There would be no white skin left...  My opinion is that you would see a largely heat / sun adapted European type and say that they evolved to match their environment(!).  I also think that would not be a correct evaluation.  The two types blended, roughly in proportion to their initial numbers, THEN the GENES were selected for survival of the heat / sun adapted phenotypes.  

It is my speculation that this is what happened to Neanderthals in Europe and the Middle East.  So we have a largely modern genotype with some Neanderthal genes that were of benefit.  Quick way to get extra body hair, larger noses, heavier build, shorter legs, thicker bones and stumpy fingers along with white skin all in one go.  The brow ridge sloping forehead look being an esthetic selection issue, it is more highly variable in the resulting population.  So Europeans end up with white skin and more hair for most all of us and a few of us with a more Neanderthal looking face.  But we're not Neanderthals, it's just a few genes floating in a sea of modern genotype.

Now if I could just find a Brazilian babe with a Neanderthal fetish ;-)

I'm currently fascinated by Neanderthals, the more we learn about them, the more extraordinary and remarkable they become. I think this so called 'sub-species' is in urgent need of an upgrade to - 'Homo sapien Neanderthalis' as someone suggested earlier, clearly they were 'people' same as the second wave out of Africa. I've read so many conflicting views in Science journals with the 2006 DNA data being disputed by the recent re-analysis by Stringer. Sadly I'm only a Grad in archaeology and prehistory, although I was intrigued by the then infant science of archaeogenetics, I can see the evidence is problematic.

My own scenario for the Neanderthal exinction is that they were probably pragmatic isolationists, the likelyhood being, were one to travel back 35,000 years to Ice age Europe and were in Bruce Parry 'Tribe' style taken by a Cro-Magnon guide around the territory, you'd find your companion perhaps reluctant to cross into the territory of the Neanderthals. He might wave an arm towards the valley and say that the '.... people live there' and perhaps you'd hear tales of caniblism (we know Neanderthals practised it) and of how physically powerful the European Aboriginals were. Throughout their history the two cultures may have gone through stages of peaceful exchange and at other times it's possible the Neanderthals were treated with brutality maybe even localised genocide. I read that towards the end of their days the Aboriginals of Europe adopted some crafts and skills of the Cro-Magnons, suggesting that they had to some degree social contact with their neighbours. It's certainly possible women were exchanged - perhaps abducted in raids. Both cultures were clearly quite different though, with Neanderthal women hunting big game along with their male kinsfolk, unlike Cro-Magnons who are believed to have devised a more complex social system of labour division and hieroarchy. I guess the Cro-magnons were more akin to modern Plains Indians of America, while the Neanderthals were more similar to the Bushman living in small Egalitarian bands. It's easy to see why the Cro-Magnons became the 'masters' in the sense that they lived in larger communities and may even have adopted primative forms of herding and cultivation (like some modern hunter-gatherers) some believe there is evidence of nacient 'farming' 20,000 years ago for instance. The Neanderthals certianly didn't die in some singular mass exinction, they just seemed to fade away, perhaps their territory taken either by force or slow erosion of resources by Cro-Magnons.

As to whether they interbred, I think it's likely they did by default if nothing else! However, I suspect the two cultures had mostly disdain for one another and wouldn't want too close ties, but it seems that perhaps over time they may have been forced to co-operate and perhaps then it happened, maybe rarely...

Whether these genes are tracable in the modern population seems to be hotly disputed it seems. One thing I learned about this science is that it relies on making something from virtually nothing, our material evidence is scant and every time a new assembledge is unearthed it can overthrow exisiting establised 'theories'. My own question is about the presence of Rhesus Negative in Europe (I'm one) it is such a genetic isolate and something of a mystery (and no please don't tell me it's down to Aliens!)could this be a Neanderthal inheritence? I think it's possible, even if only a handful of cross-breedings were sucessful to have survived into the modern population, there would be a small percentage. Maybe the experts need to look the other way around, look for Neanderthal DNA in individuals who are rhesus negative for instance. I'd like to think I have a Neanderthal ancestor, I rather like these people, I think they were peaceful nomads who had a sophisticated culture all their own.

Anyway just my 'two penneth' as they say...

Bible and Neanderthal,what's the problem???!!!!
There are so many people that want to prove so hard that what was written in the Bible is a myth.A famous writer once said, "The best trick of the devil is make believe he doesn`t exist" and of course the devil would make you believe that the Bible is a myth.
What do Neanderthals have to do with the Bible??

evolution creation "museum" hahahahahahaha priceless enough said

  I think it unlikely that interbreeding took place amongst our Cromagnon ancestors and Neanderthal. Although these early men did cohabitate geographically and the possibility does exist that sexual relations were in fact possible.
  Let me make a point as to the unlikelyhood of genetic compatibility between the two hominids. Look at amphibians! All are one class of animal just as these early hominids fall into a certain class of upright man. A Horn Toad cannot interbreed with a Leopard Frog. They pretty much look the same and if you were only able to view their skeletons one could hardly tell them apart yet they cannot produce offspring. Both amphibians, both the same genus none the less.
 Another possibility exists between horse and donkey. Although these two equines can produce offspring (the mule) all male mules are sterile! Could it be? Just tossing that out there. Whats the big to do anyway. Just appreciate the fact that we were not alone. Many Adams-many Eves!

In order to create viable Neanderthal-Human hybrids both would have to be of the same species OR closely enough related to their common ancestor. Is it possible to conclude from Neanderthal and Human DNA that we are different species? Could we also determine if the two could interbreed?

The real question is: do Neanderthals have 48 or 46 chromosomes? The genetic marker for humans is 46. With two being double in size.
Apes have 48, normal in size. Now if we have 46 with this genetic marker and they have 48, the question becomes whether or not any children would have children. Matings between donkeys and horses with different numbers of chromosomes are almost always sterile.
So if the Neanderthals took humans as mates, they would not survive more than a generation or two if there is a difference in chromosome numbers.

Any attempt to reconcile the difficulty in explaining how humans got on the earth will be and will remain pure random speculation. Unitil, in fact we get to talk with someone who has experienced those periods of time we are alluding to, we will continue in the realm of speculative understanding and not the truth.

LOL - I'm white, 5'9, 190, broad-shouldered, thick/muscular (naturally), and hairy.  I'm much more comfortable in cold-weather than hot.  I have a thick brow and my wisdom-teeth are in.  I'm told that my family is from France ...... who am I?  No, but really, my wife often jokingly calls me a neanderthal because of all of the above --- maybe I'm the long-lost decendant, or maybe there really is some truth to the "inter-breeding" of the homo sapiens species.  Why else would there be soooo much difference when I stand next to my buddy, who is black, 6'4, 175, narrow-shouldered, skinny, and practically hairless.  We seem to have more differences than just the color of our skin.  Maybe I'm more neanderthal, and he's more sapiensis.

This discussion is wonderful.

My take on the discussion and my own views run parallel to many here.  Our modern man shows a remarkable ability toward genocide.  I know of no other species that exhibits such.  Warfare, competition, direct conflicts, competition for mating rights, all exhibit in all mammals.  Only modern humans show the propensity toward genocide.

This may be the defining extra something.  If it is, Neanderthal would not have stood a chance.


Hybridization  is another possible to probable feature of our distance past.

I would like to find someone testing for hybridization.

Laughing,,,, extra bones in my feet, tall, abnormally strong, abnormally peaceful, above average or a different intelligence,,,,  laughing, yes, I'd like to donate a blood sample.

I think we will find someday that we are all not what we think we are.  Hybridization may be what we are.

Now how to test for that?

I would like to publicly commend one of the many fine minds and writers here "Leslie, Montpelier, VT"

This note may never reach her, but it would be nice if it did.  Great comments.

Dean

I find it amazing how may people believe the bible says that mankind was created 6000 years ago.  Nowhere in any version of the bible is a date or time that says when creation happened.  This so called fact that people believe is based on a loose interpretation of the bible, with a lot of speculation thrown in, by a few scholars in the 17th century.

I personally believe in a mix of evolution and creation. Although I am perplexed on how they interact.   If anyone has a unified theory figured out I would love to hear your take on this un-answerable question.

The desire to know where we came from, and where we should go, is what fuels these discussions.  It is the desire to find the truth and our individual beliefs of that truth, which make us Human. But it is these faults of being human why we will never agree on the answers we seek.  

Over time Neandratals migrated to places of advantage away from places of disadvantage. It was done in small groups who kept to themselves in order to only share resources amongst their own small group. They interbred with themselves.  This interbreeding passed on good traits as well as bad traits. There was, of course, occasional encounters with other groups but  not enough to diversify the gene pool to the extent that it changed enough to strengthen them even over time. We will never know why the Neandratal did not adapt and succeed, we can only speculate that some other more adapted species killed them off, that climate changes diminished their food resources (but why didn't they move on?) but my guess is their genes did not diversify enough to keep them going.  It was going to be a dead end.

I'm looking at both bone structures, yea, seems very human to me!

'Scientists' can spin it whatever but in light of obvious evidence Neanderthals are human. In truth, take Darwin's blindfolds off.

If there is only a 1/2% difference in DNA between
these Neandertals and modern humans and yet we
represent an entirely different species, than why is
it such a social taboo to think that a mear fraction could mean a signifigant difference between races of
modern man? A small bit of difference could account for the disparities in IQ and the subsequent differences between blacks and whites in education,welfare, and crimes rates and yet it is socially unexceptable to even entertain such an idea.

I have seen such skeleton in mangla area of mirpur AJK,Pakistan.They are in big pitchers arranged in row.

Look at another part of the Bible overlooked. Cain left the humans and had a wife. Where did she come from? Neaderthals? Ancient parts of the Bible were thought to be compiled from even older stories.This seems like a clue that our species mated at least once.

Biblically, it is said the reason for the flood was copulation between human women and the "Sons of God." The nephilim, were supposedly killed off during the flood of Noah, yet they reappear after the flood and Joshua is ordered to kill them off completely. These are called giants, reknown, and the Israelites feared them due to their size and strength. I have wondered if the Biblical Nephilim might actually, in reality be the Neanderthal. On the ark, Noah, his wife, 3 sons and their wives were saved from the flood, what if, one of these wives carried the neanderthal gene? This would explain their existence after the flood?

What kind of a creature was the serpent before God put him on the ground to move on his belly?
This creature had beguiled Eve and caused the fall of man kind.
This creature was closer to man than the chimpanze, his seed could cause the human woman to conceive.
The devil then went into this creature and beguiled Eve and caused her to conceive Cain who was said to be very hairy.
this was a way the devil intended to use to destroy the normal, natural God made man DNA.
This creature is the neanderthal that then disappeared
on man's arrival on the scene because God turned them to snakes to stop them from further interference with man.

DT..
Please give me the date of Noah's flood and I'll do the comparisons right away.

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