Image: Kazuhiko Sano
In Brief
- Neandertals, our closest relatives, ruled Europe and western Asia for more than 200,000 years. But sometime after 28,000 years ago, they vanished.
- Scientists have long debated what led to their disappearance. The latest extinction theories focus on climate change and subtle differences in behavior and biology that might have given modern humans an advantage over the Neandertals.
Some 28,000 years ago in what is now the British territory of Gibraltar, a group of Neandertals eked out a living along the rocky Mediterranean coast. They were quite possibly the last of their kind. Elsewhere in Europe and western Asia, Neandertals had disappeared thousands of years earlier, after having ruled for more than 200,000 years. The Iberian Peninsula, with its comparatively mild climate and rich array of animals and plants, seems to have been the final stronghold. Soon, however, the Gibraltar population, too, would die out, leaving behind only a smattering of their stone tools and the charred remnants of their campfires.
Ever since the discovery of the first Neandertal fossil in 1856, scientists have debated the place of these bygone humans on the family tree and what became of them. For decades two competing theories have dominated the discourse. One holds that Neandertals were an archaic variant of our own species, Homo sapiens, that evolved into or was assimilated by the anatomically modern European population. The other posits that the Neandertals were a separate species, H. neanderthalensis, that modern humans swiftly extirpated on entering the archaic hominid's territory.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
81 Comments
Add CommentWhat do you mean the Neandertal disappeared??? They all moved to Washington, DC and have been running our government for the last 200 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article actually gives clues as to exactly what happened when it notes that the Neandertals were the "SUV" of their time. That explains two things. First, it explains the climatic instability and the eventual global warming that ended the ice age. And second, as the more intelligent "modern" man realized that SUVs were the cause of global warming, the Neandertal reproduction facilities were taken over by modern man's Council of Elders and the Neandertal was quietly phased out in order to save the Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere do you get Neandertal DNA to profile?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom non-fossilized bone, Slev.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm from coal regions of Northeastern, Pennsylvania. I went to school and played football with guys who looked like the illustration on page 10. I think you need to explore another avenue of research on this matter. It's so easy even a cave man can do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMartin
The most likely explanation of the Neanderthals' extinction still seems to me to be hunting by Homo Sapiens, who certainly played a major, possibly decisive, role in the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions. What were Neanderthals to H. Sapiens but game? Human history has amply documented our longstanding lethal hostility to "others", whether other species or other humans (even if closely related by blood or geography). DNA evidence revealing the lack of interbreeding between H. Sapiens and Neanderthals shows that the latter, whatever their toolmaking or cultural achievements, were seen as animals available for killing and eating, not fellow hominids suitable for mating and assimilation. The tens of thousands of years of co-existence between the two species does not disprove this thesis, it merely shows that Neanderthals were harder to kill than mammoths. The subtlety of the human advantage in intelligence delayed, but did not avert, the extermination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerrold, where is the evidence of h. sapiens eating neandertals? And how does that explain the neanderthals in the study that likely never even saw an h. sapien? It's great to have a hypothesis but where's the proof? If h. sapien ate an entire spieces to extinction there should be a few neanderthal bones in the fire-pits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there any hard evidence what color their hair was? Any chance they were blonde? I ask because I'm blonde, and I've always thought I was at least part neanderthal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, Rickeysays, they were mostly blondes. We know this because they lit fires to cook woolly rhino meat even though they had microwaves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, did you know that the word "gullible" does not appear in the dictionary? It's actually just a slang term that hasn't ever become an official word. Strange how "yadda yadda yadda" could make it in but gullible didn't.
Some were possible blonds and some surely had to be blondes then. It was perhaps the lack of the latter than spelled the end of the former.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIN A RECENT NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE ARTICLE,THE ARE DISCUSSION THAT NEANDERTHALS ACTUALLY MATED WITH H.SAPIENS.THEIR GENES ARE STILL CIRCULATING AROUND US!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis piece smacks of "fashion science." Neanderthals wiped out by climate change? Please. Could it be that they were just too "green" for their own good? As evidence, I point to the lack of remains and impact. Had they learned to burn coal, they might still be here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust kidding.
However, the hunted to extinction theory still seems more plausible. After all, we all know how we deal with the strange or "different." Understanding is not the modern human's first instinct.
Jerrald, I think you misrepresent human aggression. H. sapiens is aggressive/hostile to our own species, but indifferent to others. H. sapiens has a sort of greed complex: we want all the resources for ourselves and we are fixated on efficient resource collection. I theorize this leads to substantial aggression towards our toughest competitors, other H. sapiens. Our ability to radically alter our environment, the balance of other species populations, and even to perpetrate extinctions is not out of aggression toward those species, but out of hyper efficient resource colleciton and greed to have ever more. It's tough to be an objective observer of H. sapiens when you are one, but H. sapiens is just another animal and ultimatly is subject to the same laws of physics as every other atomic particle in the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery funny Welker!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the number, not competition, not climate, that killed Neanderthals. The number allways win in population competitions, it has been the case for neanderthals opposed to anatomically modern humans. Studies of dental microwear of Zafarraya neanderthal from southern Spain (30-27, OOO BP) compared to the success group that occupied, 50,000 BP, the site of Hortus (south of France) has provided evidence that no changes occured in the way of life inferred from the menu (Puech P. -F. Usure dentaire, In La Grotte du Boquete de Zafarraya Barroso R. and Lumley (de) H. eds, Junta de Andalucia, Consejeria de Cultura, Sevilla.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPierre Francois Puech, pfpuech @y ahoo.fr
I can see it now as we interpret the grunts. The Cro Magnon game warden accosts a poacher: "okay wise guy how many did you bag today and don't deny anything, I can see the heavy brow ridges in your pouch? You know darn well they are out of season right now so are you trying to hunt them into a protected species or worse, extinction?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can see it now as we interpret the grunts. The CroMagnon game warden accost a poacher; "Okay wise guy how many did you bag today and don't try to deny anything, I can see the brow ridges in pour pouch. You know they are out of season right now. It's guys like you who are going to make them an endangered species or worse drive them into extinction."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can see it now as we interpret the grunts. A CroMagnon game warden accosts a poacher. "Okay wise guy how many did you bag today and don't try denying anything, I can see the brow ridges in your pouch. You know they are out of season right now and it's guys like you who will make them an endangered species or even drive them to extinction!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert, take a look at this May 17,2009 report of research from The Observer (Guardian, UK):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“One of science's most puzzling mysteries - the disappearance of the Neanderthals - may have been solved. Modern humans ate them, says a leading fossil expert.
The controversial suggestion follows publication of a study in the Journal of Anthropological Sciences about a Neanderthal jawbone apparently butchered by modern humans. Now the leader of the research team says he believes the flesh had been eaten by humans, while its teeth may have been used to make a necklace.
Fernando Rozzi, of Paris's Centre National de la RĂ©cherche Scientifique, said the jawbone had probably been cut into to remove flesh, including the tongue. Crucially, the butchery was similar to that used by humans to cut up deer carcass in the early Stone Age. "Neanderthals met a violent end at our hands and in some cases we ate them," Rozzi said.
The idea will provoke considerable opposition from scientists who believe Neanderthals disappeared for reasons that did not involve violence. Neanderthals were a sturdy species who evolved in Europe 300,000 years ago, made complex stone tools and survived several ice ages before they disappeared 30,000 years ago - just as modern human beings arrived in Europe from Africa.
Some researchers believe Neanderthals may have failed to compete effectively with Homo sapiens for resources, or were more susceptible to the impact of climate change. But others believe our interactions were violent and terminal for the Neanderthals. According to Rozzi, the discovery at Les Rois in south-west France provides compelling support for that argument.
Previous excavations revealed bones that were thought to be exclusively human. But Rozzi's team re-examined them and found one they concluded was Neanderthal. Importantly, it was covered in cut marks similar to those left behind when flesh is stripped from deer and other animals using stone tools.
Rozzi believes the jawbone provides crucial evidence that humans attacked Neanderthals, and sometimes killed them, bringing back their bodies to caves to eat or to use their skulls or teeth as trophies. "For years, people have tried to hide away from the evidence of cannibalism, but I think we have to accept it took place," he added.
But not every team member agrees. "One set of cut marks does not make a complete case for cannibalism," said Francesco d'Errico, of the Institute of Prehistory in Bordeaux. It was also possible that the jawbone had been found by humans and its teeth used to make a necklace, he said.
"This is a very important investigation," said Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, London. "We do need more evidence, but this could indicate modern humans and Neanderthals were living in the same area of Europe at the same time, that they were interacting, and that some of these interactions may have been hostile. “
This does not prove we systematically eradicated the Neanderthals or that we regularly ate their flesh. But it does add to the evidence that competition from modern humans probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction."
So true. Just witness the reactions by many on these boards to Christianity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr, did you mean intolerance is only bad when it operates according to your world paradigm?
I think that the rapid climate changes may be a more convincible reason. But after reading, i found there is a paradox in the context. Some archeologists confirmed that the extinction was the cause of modern's invasion, while in the final paragraph Mr. Finlayson said that the Neandertals and the moderns were from different time and never met each other. If so, why still do some scientists surmise about the invasion of modern? If so, is it necessary to debate the extinction's cause?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf so, the answer is that the climate change lead to the extinction.
Now that is a good one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe disappearance of so many modern empires and states in the last 2000 years (and for many reasons) suggests that the 15,000 year coexistence of Neanderthals with moderns would render crucial even very small differences in adaptability or "intelligence". Surely the time span here is in itself of decisive importance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to admit that your statement is an accurate description of our elected offiicals in Washington.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about disease?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the Neandertals had been isolated in Europe/Asia and then met moderns that had come from Africa the Neandertals probably did not have immunity to some new diseases.
Of course that might work both ways.
Superb humor! I read once that all redheads have Neandertal DNA in them, that that is where red hair comes from... Also, I wonder where the author (Ayres?) of those fun (and sexy) novels about Children of the Earth etc... ever got the notion of inbreedig occurring. Was she guessing or inventing? I thought her specualtion about their different perceptive powers was very interesting, plausible... If you know or think you know please let me know...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKazuhiko Sano's beautiful illustration could be captioned "Where'd they go?", since it depicts a modern human (barbed spear, long shins).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also suspect that lack of efficient mobility was a key to the Neandertal's extinction. The ability to follow migrating food sources, to domesticate horses, to invent machines to navigate oceans, atmosphere and space these all lead to the current population bloom of modern humans.
On the other hand, perhaps the Neandertals were a species ahead of their time. Their large cranial capacity, stocky build and short femurs would seem to well suit them for sitting in front of a screen playing with a mouse all day.
Thanks for the article Jerrold but it proves my point more than yours. This is the best evidence they have that humans and Neanderthals had a violent relationship but the evidence is hardly conclusive that even this jawbone was the result of a violent encounter. So, to state that it, "does add to the evidence that competition from modern humans probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction," is a huge leap. I’m not saying it didn't happen, I’m saying there is not enough evidence to suggest that Neanderthals died out as a result of violent encounters with h. sapiens. I tend to agree with the article. Neanderthal populations had become highly fragmented. Each sub-population may have had distinctly different reasons for becoming extinct and unlike h. sapien they did not have a population base in Africa to replenish stocks when cataclysms thinned the herd.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrgough, people here are intolerant to ignorant and fallacious arguments based on ideology trying to pass itself off as science, for the sole purpose of doing an end-run around the constitution’s separation of church and state. And it doesn’t come close to the crap the lunatic fringe has accused the theory of Evolution of; from the moral decay of society to the holocaust. But you’re right about one thing; there is good and bad intolerance. Bad intolerance is like the kind we hear about every day, people of different faiths hating and killing one another over some ancient works of fiction. So I would say, intolerance to that world paradigm is definitely a good thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMalcolm McDougall's book 'Born to Run' points out that 'persistent hunting' is the unique ability of humans to run any prey animal into the ground over a period of only a few hours. This is because humans have sweat glands, while animals can only pant to lose aerobic and metabolic heating and, additionally, humans can have 2 breaths per stride while four footed animals can have only one, (each extension inhales, each inward jack-knife of its body exhales) an unbeatable combination. But this also means any climate change that would affect the larger prey animals on which Neanderthal hunting relies would also affect only Neanderthals, which because of its body structure, cannot rely on persistent hunting. By the way. running shoes cause injuries, the more expensive the shoe; the more injuries. Buy Vibram five finger shoes and eliminate heart attack, diabetes, obesity and other 21st century ills or opt out for rehabilitative surgery; your choice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think they moved to Pakistan and all Mullahs belong to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that Moderns just ate as many N's as they could.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAren't scientists thinking as modern "civilized" people when they mention "compete". Why is it so difficult to say that our species just ate the other? Aren't we still predating the world?
I'm sure that Moderns ate as many N's as they could.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are scientists so afraid of saying this?
Aren't we still predators of as much as we can in our "modern civilization"?
I think that they are overlooking a possibility. Perhaps moderns and Neanderthals did interbreed but their offspring were infertile as are most hybrids. Finding a single generation of hybrid offspring bones in the fossil record would be very unlikely even if interbreeding did take place over a long period. Not having mixed DNA in the fossil record or in modern humans does not show that they could not have offspring. It only shows that they likely did not have fertile offspring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think having modern humans and Neanderthals competing for the same resources and interbreeding only to produce infertile offspring could have the effect of wiping out the Neanderthals slowly.
A possible key factor in the success of our ancestors in competing with the Neanderthals relates to the interaction between clothing and body hair. For most animals increasing body hair or migrating southwards is the optimum strategy for coping with northern winters. For Neanderthals this would also have applied because the alternative of staying put and using clothing would have led to high mortality, particularly with women & children, through infection from the inherent hygiene problems of using clothing when having a significant coat of body hair.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, a population of our ancestors in Africa, with a similar coat of body hair to their Neanderthal cousins in the north, might have been blocked from this southward migration by a combination of a mountain range and a sudden extreme cooling of the climate such as occurred after the Toba volcanic eruption. They could then have had no alternative but to use clothing and accept the consequent high mortality until evolution eliminated most of their body hair, with sexual selection favouring particularly females with little body hair. So our ancestors could then have emerged and migrated northwards from this bottleneck as naked apes with clothing capability. They would have then have been able to occupy more northerly territory than Neanderthals during the winters. This would have increasingly pinned the Neanderthals down to the south until they finally lost out due to other, perhaps cultural, disadvantages.
A clear cut difference in body hair would have inhibited interbreeding between human and Neanderthals with conflict or retreat as the best alternative option between these cousin races, who would probably have looked on each other more as competing species.
What's really interesting is there is no mention of even the 'moderns' having left farming implements behind. This would agree with what the Bible says about the time before the Noachian Flood when there was a canopy of water orbiting the earth, creating in effect, a REAL greenhouse for the entire Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Genesis 2:5-6) 5�Now there was as yet no bush of the field found in the earth and no vegetation of the field was as yet sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain upon the earth and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6�But a mist would go up from the earth and it watered the entire surface of the ground.
What's referred to here by 'field' evidently is in the context of a 'farmer's field' and there was no need of farming in the modern sense because the earth recieved a regular heavy dew that kept everything well watered.
Of course, my acceptance of the Bible's account of Adam & Eve being a unique new creation about 6,000 years ago makes me wonder if the 'moderns' referred to might actually be another prior prototype of God's handiwork that wern't capable of farming, or created for such.
As i've stated before, i believe in creation but am not a 'creationist' in the illogical sense of denying the archaelogical record and insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis use of 'day' when referring to the massive periods of time involved in creation of the heavens and earth.
Excellent article by Kate Wong. I was surprised by, "Other distinctive features, such as the form of the prominent brow may have been adaptively neutral traits that became established through genetic drift, rather than selection." I had always assumed the prominent brow served the function of shedding rain water away from the eyes. In a wet subglacial climate, this would be a very useful trait for boreal ambush hunters, who did not have the cultural ability to fabricate head-gear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be good to read Neandertal DNA - then we could figure out how to stop our own (possible) extinction. We absolutely need to decode that DNA fast . . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-MKS
It's good news that we might read Neandertal DNA. Perhaps from the decoding we can learn how to avert our own (possible) extinction. Let's get there fast . . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've long wondered if the Neanderathals were hairy similar to the great apes or naked as modern man. Naked mammals are rare. If they were hairy that might explain part of their ability to survive cold weather. In fact summer heat might be a disadvantage for a large hairy mammal as that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“but am not a 'creationist' in the illogical sense”, sorry there is no other sense that creationism can be viewed in. The concept of god is not logical. The concept of an Adam and Eve as the sole ancestors of modern humans is not logical. The idea that the bible is a factual account of the creation of the earth is not logical. Picking and choosing which parts of the bible you are going to take literally and which you will dismiss is not logical. Did god speak with you personally, perhaps using a yellow highlighter, to mark which sections of the bible you can ignore? It’s all or nothing. If you’re saying that there are things that are purely figurative in the bible then who is to say that the entire notion of a god is not some literary illustration rather than a literal fact? Furthermore;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed
Galatians 1:9
It means you don’t get to makeup scripture when it suits you. Take it or leave it.
For sure some want to sounds smarter than the Neanderthals ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, why do we want to think the extinction of the Neanderthals in relation with Homo Sapiens. First Neanderthals were more successful than us: they lasted 200.000 years against 50K years for us, right ? Also, complaining about the extinction of the Neanderthals is as if we were considering they could or should be eternal. And nothing is eternal. Earth is not, the Sun is not, the Universe is not, the dinosaurs were not (ok we still have the birds), and in the H.S. history, not many things have been eternal so far: the Trojans/Sea people disappeared, the Pharaohs, the Roman Empire, the Indian ancient civilisation etc... Even us, HS should not consider we are eternal. Evolution is going to change us and may wipe us anyway. And if, after all, genetically, biologically, Neanderthals had just a life span of 200.000 years ? Many things raise and fall. Why not Neanderthals and us later ? We'll where we're at in 150.000 years. maybe our race of hominids will have reached its end and another one will raise .... smarter maybe ... just kidding?
I was wondering if there was research that looked at the fecundity and the size of social groupings among Neandertal clans. I could readily imagine all the stresses mentioned in the article bringing to a close a race that had low fecundity (a couple of children per female throughout their reproductive life) and a tendency to shun larger groups.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModern humans may have lived in clans of up to 200 individuals, whereas, 20 may have been an average number for Neandertal clans (for example).
If indeed, modern humans had longer reproductive spans, had 10-12 children per female, that, plus clan size could possibly explain the demise of the population.
I'd like to read the author's take on these ideas,...
"Stringer, for his part, theorizes that the moderns’ somewhat wider range of cultural adaptations provided a slightly superior buffer against hard times. For example, needles left behind by modern humans hint that they had tailored clothing and tents, all the better for keeping the cold at bay. Neandertals, meanwhile, left behind no such signs of sewing and are believed by some to have had more crudely assembled apparel and shelters as a result."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid Omar the tent maker out compete Nimrod the mighty Hunter? It was cold out there in 36000 BC, was portable warmth the deciding factor? Hard to tell, but an interesting theory.
Because the Neanderthals lived in very small groups with infrequent communication between isolated pockets of their fellow Neanderthals, their immune systems were probably not up to speed to deal with a new host of dangerous germs that would come in with new bands of wandering modern human types. Just like the more recent history of the Americas, newcomers bringing plagues is the most likely culprit. The same thing goes for all animals. Always suspect germs first when a sudden extinction pops up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article mentions the lack of the gift of gab. I remember, in this respect, viewing a documentary recently about the research conducted on craniums of ancient neaderthals and h.sapiens, leading to the conclusion that the larynx anatomy of each species showed that, whereas h.sapiens could talk to their. heart's content, neanderthals could not and therefore died out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it possible that the evidence is being mis-read, particularly in view of the possibility that Neanderthal survival could have varied from valley to alley? Is it possible that Neanderthals did not completely die out but interbred with Moderns in Northern Europe perhaps in just a limited way. The descendants remain in Northern Europe the Neanderthals that did not in fact intermingle died off. The catch would be that we have not DNA tested the European clan or clans that perhaps carry the DNA of the Neanderthals
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerrold, Rob- what about the possibility of a disease vector introduced to the Neanderthals by modern Homos (think smallpox and Native Americans. Ethnic cleansing is also a possibility ; if every myth has a basis, couldn't ogres and trolls be Neanderthals?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere did the modern man emigrate from into Neandertal teritory? Surley this can not have been a one-time action. Thus, it is possible that the variable climate killed not only H.N, but also H.S.; however, H.S. did a home ground which was more conducive to their survival. Both H.N. and H.S. died but more H.S. moved. This contiued until they were the only surviving species. H.S. did not necessarily out compete H.N. just had protected breeding grounds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny evidence or discussion of the possibility in the literature? If so, where
Craig J. Cummings
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI need your help
I have made a discovery, which contain the proof that the Pangea is a mistake, as is the Black hole, and the Big Bang. All of these theories are unbelievably, because in a Universe, which is infinitum, all the elements cannot come together, due to, as soon the Mass become as big a Star the Star start a zone of equilibrium just as the Solar system, which stop the gathering of the elements, so the big Bang never existed, and for the same reason the Black Hole.
Magnetism is the force, which makes the element to form a mass, also it is responsible for the formation of the continents above Planet which do not rotate.
I need help from a qualified scientist because I am not.
Also I know why the Planet Earth is getting warmer, it is connected with the acquisition of the Moon,
Before the acquisition of the Moon the Earth did have a greenhouse effect and that we know that make everything to grow bigger, and that is the reason for the Dinosaurs growing so enormous.
But with the acquisition of the Moon, this changed the conditions on earth environment, effecting all the Earth life and the Dinosaurs which where Ovipary where forced to mutate or perish, the Crocodile who did not mutate still use to lay eggs.
So before the acquisition of the Moon the Earth was under the influence of the magnetic force of our Galaxy the Milky Way, and that is why there is a similarity between the Milky Way and the shape of the Earth Continents, even more there is the similarity of Italy and New Zealand.
Also the Americans have found a continent similar to the American Continent, on Venus, which do not rotate like the Earth. As the maps below indicate.
Piero Papini Settepani ksnare6@bigpond.com Murphys Road Kingscliff NSW Australia
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI need your help
I have made a discovery, which contain the proof that the Pangea is a mistake, as is the Black hole, and the Big Bang. All of these theories are unbelievably, because in a Universe, which is infinitum, all the elements cannot come together, due to, as soon the Mass become as big a Star the Star start a zone of equilibrium just as the Solar system, which stop the gathering of the elements, so the big Bang never existed, and for the same reason the Black Hole.
Magnetism is the force, which makes the element to form a mass, also it is responsible for the formation of the continents above Planet which do not rotate.
I need help from a qualified scientist because I am not.
Also I know why the Planet Earth is getting warmer, it is connected with the acquisition of the Moon,
Before the acquisition of the Moon the Earth did have a greenhouse effect and that we know that make everything to grow bigger, and that is the reason for the Dinosaurs growing so enormous.
But with the acquisition of the Moon, this changed the conditions on earth environment, effecting all the Earth life and the Dinosaurs which where Ovipary where forced to mutate or perish, the Crocodile who did not mutate still use to lay eggs.
So before the acquisition of the Moon the Earth was under the influence of the magnetic force of our Galaxy the Milky Way, and that is why there is a similarity between the Milky Way and the shape of the Earth Continents, even more there is the similarity of Italy and New Zealand.
Also the Americans have found a continent similar to the American Continent, on Venus, which do not rotate like the Earth. As the maps below indicate.
Piero Papini Settepani ksnare6@bigpond.com Murphy’s Road Kingscliff NSW Australia
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI need your help
I have made a discovery, which contain the proof that the Pangea is a mistake, as is the Black hole, and the Big Bang. All of these theories are unbelievably, because in a Universe, which is infinitum, all the elements cannot come together, due to, as soon the Mass become as big a Star the Star start a zone of equilibrium just as the Solar system, which stop the gathering of the elements, so the big Bang never existed, and for the same reason the Black Hole.
Magnetism is the force, which makes the element to form a mass, also it is responsible for the formation of the continents above Planet which do not rotate.
I need help from a qualified scientist because I am not.
Also I know why the Planet Earth is getting warmer, it is connected with the acquisition of the Moon,
Before the acquisition of the Moon the Earth did have a greenhouse effect and that we know that make everything to grow bigger, and that is the reason for the Dinosaurs growing so enormous.
But with the acquisition of the Moon, this changed the conditions on earth environment, effecting all the Earth life and the Dinosaurs which where Ovipary where forced to mutate or perish, the Crocodile who did not mutate still use to lay eggs.
So before the acquisition of the Moon the Earth was under the influence of the magnetic force of our Galaxy the Milky Way, and that is why there is a similarity between the Milky Way and the shape of the Earth Continents, even more there is the similarity of Italy and New Zealand.
Also the Americans have found a continent similar to the American Continent, on Venus, which do not rotate like the Earth. As the maps below indicate.
Piero Papini Settepani ksnare6@bigpond.com Murphy’s Road Kingscliff NSW Australia
Is there any evidence as to interbredding between modern humans and Neanderthals, pro or con? Is there any scientific evidence as to whether intercourse between the two would produce offspring?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article was quite dissatisfying as it did not add any new knowledge , only continuing speculation. You cannot state "Here's what happened" when you do not know. Here's what we know: Neanderthals successfully occupied Eurasia for over 200,000 years, they used a variety of pretty good stone tools, controlled fire, wore clothes made of animal hides, participated in a spiritual life, and made use of their environment for so long that they cannot be considered as an unsuccessful race. In fact, considering the many failures of our race, i think i should like to apply for membership in their tribe. We will never make it to 200,000 years!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my cultures legends, in ancient times, Thor killed the feisty giants with his mighty silver hammer. And in many, many other early northern european civilizations, the slaying of the giants is a common theme.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was brought up to believe giants were a myth, but the ten thousand or so years of overlap in these species occupation of common geography makes me wonder. Much like the greek gods were first real people, honored in life for their seemingly divine abilities, and idolized in death as gods, I now wonder if there is a long-lost element of truth to the ancient legends.
Let me offer up what I think might be an interesting possibility based on the rapidly changing climate history. The Neanderthal were significantly adapted to the cold in a genetic / biological sense, yet they seem to have succumbed to the cold weather. The modern human successors faced some of the coldest, most inhospitable times at the end of the glacial period, without such a significant cold adaptation, and survived. Might it be that the genetic "cold adaptation" of the Neanderthals just could not shift gears fast enough to keep up, whereas the cultural "cold adaptation", specifically the sewing needle, allowed the modern humans to respond quickly enough to survive? Most of the tool kit items were essentially identical and certainly functionally identical, except for the needle and the tightly fashioned, wind-proof clothing that it made possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"H. sapiens is aggressive/hostile to our own species, but indifferent to others."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're right. When humans kill, they do so indescriminately.
What if those same climate changes forced the neandertals inside, living more in caves rather than living in harsh weather. The learning curve and physical features change perhaps more rapid in order to help them adapt. They loose their bulky features. People going into hospitals or lets say the old get frail rather quick. Appearance, social and communicative skills could change rapidly (A quick adaptation), given special circumstances. The problem may be that not enough is know about the earlier years of modern man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen you think of the variety of species that has existed since dot, you must realise that thousands of different species have come and gone. eg. how many differnt types of deer are currently surviving. in 50000 years do you think that some one will be amazed by the diversity in that species in our time. my point is that there has been a wide variety of hominims. and like all species, eventually they die out. and im sorry to say that we are destined for the same fate. not to worry though, we should be right for the next 200000 years. unless we do something stupid like dump all our rubbish in the oceans, cut down all our forests, and let our gene pools diminish due to our sectarian policies then it should only take 50 - 100 years to wipe our selves out. next time someone calls you a neandertal you should take it as a compliment. thier species survived the greatest hardship and turmoil in recent times, lets hope we can manage the same. it only requires one thing. not money, not religion, not politics...just love n. dertal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion the most probable culprit for the extinction of the neanderthals is infection. There are numerous clues in the history that infection have caused major death, e.g. the 14-th century "great death". In the text-books this disease was stated to be the pestis, known to be spread by rats, but this has recently been doubted, and the origin of the great death has been put into the "don't know" bin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore recent examples is the swine infuenza, the Spanish disease and "killer bacteria". Typically some individuals will become very ill and die, and some are not vulerable at all.
The neanderthals obviously were well adapted to the environment before they extincted. They could survive in a very harsh environment. Obviously they had at least one gene being important for survival in that environment. Those individuals not having this gene may have perished and hence all neanderthals had it.
This was an ecologically hazardous situation! It was only a matter of time until any infectious agent (virus, bacteria etc) appeard, attacking this function.
When it happened it killed all individuals having this gene, i.e. the whole population of neandertals. Probably Homo sapiens also was infected and then it killed everybody having this gene, i.e. hybrids between the species. Once all vulnerable persons had died the infectious agent could not proliferate and hence it dissappeared, and now we cannot find it.
This is basic ecology. So why did the author not mention this cause?
Sten Ă–hman
The question I have is, why did some Neanderthals not migrate further into what is now the Sahara? I believe that this was a relatively well watered Savannah until about 10,000 years ago. For that matter, were these violent climate fluctuation as severe in coastal North Africa and the Middle East?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwilight of the Neandertals provides some interesting insights into why the nature of these hominids may have helped cause their own extinction. But I believe Ms. Wong may be ignoring important aspects of human nature: Xenophobia and intolerance of those that are not us. These characteristics do not appear to be modern. The Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, and Bosnia were not new behaviors. They were modern events of old behaviors. I submit that, contrary to what we would like to think about ourselves, intolerance is the universal and natural behavior. Tolerance and understanding are behaviors that are learned. Given the extreme stress of survival during the time Neandertal and moderns coexisted, it seems unlikely that tolerance would have been considered by either species. The fact that both species existed for a longer period of time than originally thought is not necessarily an argument against genocide. It takes time to wipe out a competing species, especially one as intelligent and versatile as Neandertal. I recognize that putting forward the hypothesis that modern humans started out as genocidal murderers is uncomfortable in the extreme. But what we are doing here is science, and science cares little for comfort levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article mentioned the possibility that hunting by Neandertals became less effective as the land transitioned from forest to grassland within a generation. Living in California, forest fire is always a present concern and I wonder if it was repeated forest fires encouraged by drought that made such a rapid change. If so, the forest fires would have put considerable pressure on Neandertal populations directly, through possible loss of food animals due to the fires, and finally, loss of cover as mentioned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy language teacher looked like the Neandertals, he was great. Still, today I sometime see others with the same type of look.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Neandertals isn't extinct. They are like us, and live with us.
Jerrold, I think you are exactly right. Even though our knowledge of Neanderthals is sketchy, we know a lot about modern humans. And modern humans are first and foremost killers, needing little reason to see some other species as a threat or as game. Modern humans are distinguished by two things: (1) very good tool makers and (2) the use of those tools in nearly continuous warfare and battle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerrold, I think you are exactly right. Even though our knowledge of Neanderthals is sketchy, we know a lot about modern humans. And modern humans are first and foremost killers, needing little reason to see some other species as a threat or as game. Modern humans are distinguished by two things: (1) very good tool makers and (2) the use of those tools in nearly continuous warfare and battle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerrold, lack of interbreeding does not automatically show that neandertals "were seen as animals available for killing and eating, not fellow hominids suitable for mating and assimilation." Homo sapiens does not mate with dogs, but doesn't always eat them either. That's not clear reasoning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJerrold, lack of interbreeding does not automatically show that neandertals "were seen as animals available for killing and eating, not fellow hominids suitable for mating and assimilation." Homo sapiens does not mate with dogs, but doesn't always eat them either. That's not clear reasoning. (apologies if I am submitting this twice).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisslevitt said "Jerrald, I think you misrepresent human aggression. H. sapiens is aggressive/hostile to our own species, but indifferent to others. H. sapiens has a sort of greed complex: we want all the resources for ourselves and we are fixated on efficient resource collection. I theorize this leads to substantial aggression towards our toughest competitors, other H. sapiens. Our ability to radically alter our environment, the balance of other species populations, and even to perpetrate extinctions is not out of aggression toward those species, but out of hyper efficient resource colleciton and greed to have ever more. It's tough to be an objective observer of H. sapiens when you are one, but H. sapiens is just another animal and ultimat(e)ly is subject to the same laws of physics as every other atomic particle in the universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisslevitt, very clear reasoning there and a good way to thin about us, but it is irrelevant. whereas homo sapiens may have been superior, there is no clear indication that human aggression killed off the neandertals. however, it is also not at all clear whether h. sapiens and neandertals were in competition. if they were, then humans might have been able to decimate them. in that case, wouldn't there be evidence of protracted battles between the two species? wouldn't humans have jewelry made out of neandertal bones? we've certainly done that (and continue to do that) with other species. shark-tooth necklaces, carved ivory etc.
jerrold, that's interesting, that there is evidence that humans may have eaten neanderthals. if they were in competition for resources, it is possible that humans might have aggressively hunted them, even if they were more difficult game than, say, antelopes. the advantage of having food AND removing your competition would be worth the extra effort. however, this would mean that we should see a lot more neanderthals' remenants in humans' cuisine and garbage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn another note, i don't buy the theory that humans' superior communication skills helped them whereas the neanderthals died out because they couldn't do so with enough complexity. Wolves have sophisticated societies that lasted the ice ages and they probably had pretty poor communication abilities as compared to the neanderthals.
Perhaps we're all going to be hunted by the next species. Seen Predator lately?
Why would a hair color matter? And from my understanding, alot of them had a dark brunette color and looked wooly and their facial structures were similar to that of an organism from the ape family.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found this article highly interesting and relevant to the theories on which I'm working. My thanks to Kate Wong for her excellent presentation. Nicolas Wade, in "Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors", 2006, reports geneticists having discovered that all men living today carry the Y-chromosome of the same ancestral male, and all women the mitochondrial DNA of the same woman, metaphorically 'Adam' and 'Eve', though not to be taken literally. With Kate having mentioned the ongoing research into Neandertal DNA, it would be most interesting, whether their DNA also points to a descent from the metaphorical Adam and Eve, or whether such possibility can be excluded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this�Comment re Kate Wong, Twilight of the Neandertals SciAm Aug 2009 pp.34-39
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy interest in the problem of Neandertal extinction comes not from anthropology, but
from philosophy and more specifically the study of the nature of mind and reason where the
question can be presented as: In what way, if any, were the minds and associated behaviors
of H.Neanderthalis and H.Sapiens different and given there was a difference how does it
account for the extinction of the former and the ultimate thriving of the latter?
Working from the top down, it appears that the most obvious difference was that
socioeconomic organization of H.Nean communities typically involved extended family
groups of 12 to 20 members (altho convocations of communities frequently occurred much as
with nomad societies up to the recent present). In contrast H.Sap communities typically
involved tribes of 150-200 individuals. During periods of significant climate change capable
of radically changing the flora and fauna of a region within a typical lifespan and the period
at the commencement of the last great ice age is a prime example larger communities would
have much greater chances of survival due to (a) greater flexibility in specialization of labor
to meet emergencies (e.g. minding and nurturing of infants or investigative searches for new
sources of food), and (b) much less chance of having the number young adults decimated to
the point where any survival strategy was impossible to implement and where birth rates
fell below a level capable of sustaining the population.
It is also obvious that if there ever were occasions where a group of H.Nean and
H.Sap were driven to compete for scarce resources, the much larger group would almost
certainly prevail.
Comment re Kate Wong, “Twilight of the Neandertals” SciAm Aug 2009 pp.34-39
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy interest in the problem of Neandertal extinction comes not from anthropology, but
from philosophy – and more specifically the study of the nature of mind and reason where the
question can be presented as: “In what way, if any, were the minds and associated behaviors
of H.Neanderthalis and H.Sapiens different – and given there was a difference how does it
account for the extinction of the former and the ultimate thriving of the latter?”
Working from the top down, it appears that the most obvious difference was that
socioeconomic organization of H.Nean communities typically involved extended family
groups of 12 to 20 members (altho convocations of communities frequently occurred much as
with nomad societies up to the recent present). In contrast H.Sap communities typically
involved tribes of 150-200 individuals. During periods of significant climate change capable
of radically changing the flora and fauna of a region within a typical lifespan – and the period
at the commencement of the last great ice age is a prime example – larger communities would
have much greater chances of survival due to (a) greater flexibility in specialization of labor
to meet emergencies (e.g. minding and nurturing of infants or investigative searches for new
sources of food), and (b) much less chance of having the number young adults decimated to
the point where any survival strategy was impossible to implement – and where birth rates
fell below a level capable of sustaining the population.
It is also obvious that if there ever were occasions where a group of H.Nean and
H.Sap were driven to compete for scarce resources, the much larger group would almost
certainly prevail.
am I the only one questioning the infatuation behind Neanderthals and their supposed habit of hunting big game. I understand the animators are excited to put together such video, but what about a bit of scietinfic evidence. Yes, maybe the Neanderthals had the social skills to organize a hunting party, and maybe they lived in groups large enough to put together such an enterprise, so what !?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow long before the carcass would attract the other predators, or rot. Did anybody ever examined the refrigeration technology of that era.
Do modern humans of India or Africa hunt elephant regularly ???
I'll say something like a disease or major clash between Homo sapiens and them, and since we are here that means we won, other theory(but unlikely) is that us(Homo sapiens) and them reproduced and the difference/appearance weren't in the favor of Neandertals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is diet never mentioned when it comes to possible causes for extinction I wonder. A climate change to icy winter temperatures would men that they were more prone to succumb to flu, due to the lack of vitamin C-formerly amply provided by thriving plantfoods. Eating meat only automatically means : malnutrition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother possibility: Lack of folic acid provided by leaves could have meant problematic baby health , due to spina bifida etc..
The fact that Heandertals' heads were bulkier, with their higher brain weight, ( caused by the growth boost from exclusive meat consumption!) and therefore more difficult to pass through the narrow birth canal, could have caused more mother& baby deaths each year, and led to their ultimate extinction, too.
For an evo.utionar-based diet approach, visit:Youthevity.com
Wasn't there a volcano 70,000 years ago?That nearly wiped out our species.What effect did this have on the Neandertals who were in far fewer numbers than us?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy does it need to be one or the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's an alternative theory:
Some neanderthals were wiped out by diseases. Yet others were assimilated. Yet others were outcompeted for resources. Some were killed in wars. Others were hunted and eaten. Finally the last tribe died out on the shores of the med 28,000 years ago.
And in these small N. groups of 12 to 20 there had to be incest going on. The gene pool would shrink and any defects of the brain or physique would become more pronounced as time went on. They did not evolve so much as they became somewhat a static species. Any species that does not evolve becomes extinct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWat appened to de "h"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this