[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Neanderthal/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Do non-Africans descend from the Neanderthals??

According to a BBC article, non-African humans today have Neanderthals among their forefathers. Does not this mean that we belong to the same species as them? If this is true, it means that a Neanderthal and "modern" humans could get offspring that could themselves produce children, grandchildren etc. As far as I understand this is the definition of belonging to the same species. --Oddeivind (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That is 'one' definition of a species but others can be argued. Body shape/type, genetic diversity etc. 86.162.37.228 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Understanding of Percentages

In the Interbreeding section is the following sentence:

An estimated 1 to 4 percent of the DNA in Europeans and Asians (French, Han Chinese and Papua probands) is shared with Neanderthals rather than with Sub-Saharan Africans (Yoruba and San probands).

The percentages from the study are not absolute but relative (ie: it is not A is composed of x% of B, but rather A contains x% more of B than C does), and I think the phrasing of this sentence will likely make the reader think that it is an absolute measure. In other words, the African sample could have inherited 50% (for example's sake) of its DNA from Neandertal, which means Europeans would have inherited as much as 54% — a 4% difference — likewise, the African sample could have inherited no part of its DNA from Neandertal, which means the Europeans would have inherited as much as 4%. It is a relative measure. The baseline percentage of genes that come from Neandertal is unknown (and can't really be known until we compare our DNA to our non-neandertal predecessors' — id est, Cromagnon), but whatever that baseline is, the African sample represents it. It is not just this line that errs this way, I had noticed a couple other spots that assumed the same thing in this Wiki article. The intent of the study was to finally answer yes or no whether Neandertal and Cromagnon interbred, thus they were not looking to find the precise variation of gene contribution, they only were looking to see if there was a variation (if there was a variation, then it proved interbreeding). As a result, only 5 modern samples were used, and, the percentage only reflects the small handful of genes that non-Africans had that Africans did not have that they decided to test the Neandertal DNA for (they assumed these would be the most probable to have been Neandertal contributions, thus better ones to test for) — a wider selection of variant-genes would give a more accurate relative percentage, for a number of reasons, including they just simply happened to, by bad luck, pick the wrong set of genes to test for. It is not just this Wiki article that makes this mistake, a lot of people reading the news have incorrectly understood this. Could someone please correct the article, as well as come up with a way, in the article, to make clear what I over-explained above? — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what the article used to say. I suggest you revert it back. --Michael C. Price talk 04:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and have changed the wording in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if the difference is between 50% & 54%, it's not a 4% difference, but only about 2.7% (54/50=2.7%). or 4 percentage points. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Neandertal Predation Theory

Not to stir an already overflowing pot, but has anyone had a look at the research/book by the Australian auteur Danny Vendramini?

He has re-examined existing evidence and has created new theories on Neandertal, including predation, sexual predation and cannibalism. His artist has produced some startling images that seem more natural than the lumbering caveman we have grown accustom to seeing, certainly nothing like the cute little boy that illustrates the "Anatomy" section.

While he has no scientific background; (he has formerly been a sculptor, screenwriter, director, etc.) his ideas seem sound, and fantastic at the same time. He seems to use terms like "apex predator" a lot. His claims are wild (From what I can tell, he calls us a race of "wall-builders [cf. Great Wall of China], presumably to keep these Neandertals away from us

http://themandus.org

If I'm not mistaken; this is an older view of Neandertal: Brutish and effective predator of humans.

The pictures are very startling (as they should be) and the writing is generally focused, but I'm afraid it's too big for me and I want to turn itover to the Wikipedians for examination.


CLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.111.169.49 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this theory is notable or scientifically sound enough to warrant mention. The guy is a scriptwriter and seems much more interested in its dramatic qualities of his theories than their schientific merit.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've read it and ask you if this doesn't make sense to you: If you'll stay with me for a moment, think of the pronghorn, probably the fastest thing on four hoofs, many times faster than it has to be to survive today. Why is it so fast? The explanation came when remains of an extinct predator, a giant american cheetah, was found to have been the fastest thing on four paws. So why are humans so much smarter than any other animal or hominid? Competition with what was very likely to be the second most intelligent animal ever seems obvious to me.
Mark my words, one day mainstream science will find this theory or come to it independantly. This is an idea, like many other scientific ideas have been, that is "in the ether" at this moment and will inevitably be recognized. This all is, of course, Venramini's (and my) perspective and has no place in the article until it shows up in a legitimate journal. I think it will be somewhat less global than Venramini's take, which he takes too far in some cases. His evidence about the occular orbits, for example, is very powerful. However, Manus is right, it has to stay out of the article until it becomes "notable". Sometimes it takes an outsider to notice the obvious.Chrisrus (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
To be sure

He is/has been a screenwriter, but that doesn't automatically mean his ideas are rubbish.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bookshow/stories/2009/2751670.htm

In this reference, it is noted that he has no "formal scientific background"; however, the road of science is pockmarked with contributors who have no formal background. I understand that may be a moot point, but some people are listening to him and he has already gotten much support from various luminaries (from what I can tell, Noam Chomsky is one).

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/origin-of-a-big-idea/2006/01/02/1136050390209.html

Thanks Chrisrus. I don't really understand the controversy. Is it so fantastic that another species of hominid would be hostile to another? I mean, we humans kill (and probably ate) each other regularly, as of yesterday we were still doing this, so I don't see the Predation Theory as such a huge leap in faith. Some of his ideas are a bit strange of course, but that's to be expected, and some of Tessla's ideas were a bit nutty too, from what I've read here on Wikipedia. I admit, some of his genetic and evolutionary ideas are kind of a reach (and you can tell he never did an undergrad in biology [or at least I think]), but that doesn't mean his ideas are to be rejected out of hand.

As far as the pronghorn, we are told, for example, that cheetahs are the way they are because of an extinction event that killed almost all of the population and what few were left became, essentially the matrix for all future cheetahs. That is, we believe there was much more diversity in the cheetah family some thousands of years ago, but the breeding stock was so reduced that what cheetahs we have are what's left from an earlier time. Now the stock is very rarified (and if wild cheetah population numbers keep dropping at the current rate, even that rarified stock will soon become extinct....probably the destiny for most of the Earth's creatures).

I am in any event skeptical about most discoveries that involve thousands of year-old specimens with so little evidence.

How many complete Neandertal skeletons do we have access to? (Or how many of any of the human precedents for that matter?) How much evidence can we really get from these fragmented puzzles? I suppose Pääbo and his Neandertal Genome Project will shed a great deal of light on Neandertal behavior and such, but even so... Speculation about a dead animal is still speculation about a dead animal. Unless you were there to see it alive, it is all just guesswork, even with a slew of scientific equipment/theories/etc. behind you. A genetic marker for meat preference will tell you that a creature is a meat-eater, but not how that creature got such meat.

Or I could be wrong (and I'm sure someone here will be happy to tell me such).

So that's my two cents worth, I don't know if it's worthy of me getting belittled with bad spelling (it happens a lot, I've noticed), but it is there and I look forward to the coming discourse.


CLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.111.169.49 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

However...

"However, Manus is right, it has to stay out of the article until it becomes "notable". Sometimes it takes an outsider to notice the obvious. Chrisrus"

Absolutley, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

CLD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.111.169.49 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Standards...

--207.111.169.49 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)This was my first interaction on Wikipedia. Future Comments will be given the proper signature 207.111.169.49 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC) CLD

Unfortunately from what I'm gathering about his theory there is one gaping flaw in the fossil evidence. Neanderthal only interacted with Homo Sapien after the latter reached the Levant and at that point it seems our brains were shrinking. If his contention is we got smarter while escaping or combatting a hostile Neanderthal then we got smarter while our brains shrunk.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You have a good point, but I wouldn't be too sure. It seems (Behavioral_modernity#Great_leap_forward) that there is at least one notable theory that states that the emergence of fully modern humans came right about the same time and place that we met up with the Neanderthals, who reason dictates were probably a great threat to our immediate ancestors. But even if he is wrong about it being the Neanderthals per se that applied the evolutionary pressure to put us over the threashold into fully modern humanity, there many other homo creatures that would have been our primary enemies. But I don't think so, I think it was these guys. With their superhuman strength and apparent inconcievable toughness, as well as what seems to me, at least, their probable superior sensory adaptations (see in the dark, smell us miles off) not to mention the fact that they were arguably proably the second-smartest animal ever to have lived, my money is on the Neanderthals as the force that caused us to develop the brains to enable us to survive contact with an enemy we could defeat no other way. The time for this idea will come, we await only the pendulum to swing back to the Hobbesian vision of nature from its present faith in Rousseau.Chrisrus (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Eye Size

If you wish, I'll explain why I'm asking, but for now, I'd like to get to the point: I need to know as precisely as possible how big thier eyes were compared to ours. Circumference of the eyeball, diameter, anything like that, those of Homo sapiens and those of Neanderthals. I figure we can know this based on the orbits of the skull, give or take a little. How does the orbit of the skull of a neanderthal compare to those of a sapiens?

This information doesn't seem to be in the article. May we assume that's because they were no different from those of sapiens? Does it mean that none of the sources mentions anything about the orbit size? Does this mean it's unremarkable? Surely, someone in one of the reliable sources has recorded the size of the orbits! This couldn't have been overlooked. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that they never measured them or noted them or published this information. But I can't find it and I'm feeling frustrated and I am asking for your help because it's important for me to find this information. Chrisrus (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know that I understand this technical language, but I think it is saying that they eyes are somewhat large, but not outside the normal range of the eye size of normal humans. Can anyone confirm this is what this source is saying? Chrisrus (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think so. Neanderthal's eyes were a bit bigger than AMH's eyes, but there aren't enough complete skulls to say much more (standard deviations and so forth). I would suggest just calling some of the professors who work on Neanderthals, and asking them. Or email them, if you are shy. Abductive (reasoning) 04:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Heck no, I'm not shy about that! In fact, I've been trying to figure out who would be considered the world's leading experts on the subject of neanderthal skulls. Any suggestions? I'll explain why if you want, but it's just really important that this article contain something about the difference between not only the brow ridge, occipital lobe, and everything else that is contrasted in this article, but the orbits as well. This is a glaring omission that should not stand. What we need is an expert or two, hopefully someone who can interpret this source. Chrisrus (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I would be interested to hear a more thorough explanation of why you want this in the article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's a glaring omission. Look at the description of the skull, all the meticulous detail about the dentition and the rest of the skeleton. The brows are, of course, are as predominant in that section as they are in real life and the occipital lobe is indicated with an arrow. But what does it say about the orbits?Chrisrus (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, this picture makes the eyes seem huge in comparison, but this may be some kind of optical illusion created when the two photos were lined up. It would help people who want to know if Neanderthal orbits were really as huge as they seem, and as some claim them to have been if this article had some objective, well-sourced information saying how big their eyes must have been by scientists who've measured them and are in a position to know how they compare to the large end of the spectrum of eye sockets of modern humans. Chrisrus (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, they wouldn't let me keep that picture, but what do you make of the eyes on this museum reconstruction?

Chrisrus (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely the appearance of the size of eyes is mostly due to fleshy tissue rather than the bone structure? And why is this so important to you? Huw Powell (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your interest in this matter. Yes, I suppose you're right, but the the orbits of fossil animals are used to get a pretty good idea of how big thier eyes must have been, don't you think? The reason I personally am looking to this article for some comparison of this part of their skulls is because I'm interested in theories not (yet?) notable enough to be in the article about how whether the evidence supports their being nocturnal. And I'm probably not the only reader coming here to find out how big their orbits were, because there's a lot of speculation going around about this. For one thing, unlike prosimians who have Tapetum lucidums, Haplorrhini primates like the tarsier and neanderthals have to evolve bigger eyes to see well at night. So that's why I find the lack of information in this article about how big their orbits are frustrating, but it should just be in the article as it's a glaring omission, given the thoroughness of the details of how the rest of the skelton contrasts with ours. I'm not trying to push for implying they were nocturnal in the article because I can't find any reliable sourse that says they seem to have been, but that's just why I am intersted, and you asked, so I hope that answers your question. Chrisrus (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Some words from a Biology Major

I clarified the line on the taxonomic rank controversy to regard whether or not they were a subspecies of modern humans, which may seem confusing given that Neanderthals themselves are extinct. Both as a Biology Major and as one who has taken 3 and a half years of Latin, I should point out that "Homo" by itself is the Latin word for human being, and that it is actually the Genus Homo that defines biological humanity.

So, the controversy is not whether Neanderthals were humans, which they were, but whether or not they were a now-extinct subgroup of the surviving type of human. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. You may be interested this and other discussions of the nature and scope of not only the article, which sort of has to restrict itself too "Fully Modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens" because that's obviously more than enough for one Wikipedia article to deal with. But also, if you see how the term "human" is usually used in context, it very often excludes much of the genus Homo. Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The Article on the term "human" already had a Hatnote leading to the Article on the Genus Homo when last I checked, and by all means that Article should be otherwise about the surviving type. This, however, is the Talk Page for the Neanderthal Article, so that is not exactly relevant here.
Also, biological Articles should not bend to colloquial use of terms. Actual textbooks and other non-Wiki sources many times do use the term "modern human" as narrower than "human" alone for the reason I mentioned. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ok, but as you seemed to imply, what's the effect on the reader when we speak of that vision of them as a long-extinct subspecies of modern humans? S/he might be taken aback: how can you be long extict and modern, s/he might wonder. And also, I do think it's relevent here because this article discusses a hominid that was nearly "human" (if you will) but who also was not (e.g. pure carnivore). So, if someone uses the word "human" for them in the article, I'd change that to "homonid", wouldn't you? So the two terms are not the same. It may be the same to you given your background, but think about the reader and what s/he might think it implied about such things as their diet and other things that the word "human" appies that can't be confidently applied to neanderthals. So let's not use the terms "Homo/homonid" and "human" interchangably in this article. Chrisrus (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Having read the top of your Link, I have a few valid problems with the following passage.

"That was an interesting debate to read. It is true that experts do refer to non-sapiens species of our genus as "humans", but that's never set well with me. If you don't paint your walls, store food, eat vegetables, or innovate your technology hardly at all for thousands of years, there's definately something inhuman about you. What normal humans habitually poo where they eat? No people poo where they eat, sleep, live. The English words, "human", "person", these words are pushed beyond the limits of the normal referent to include those species, IMHO. They don't pass the duck test. Kudos to those who limited it to sapiens.Chrisrus (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)"

1. The technology of Homo sapiens also advanced very little for spans of thousands or even tens of thousands of years prior to the Agricultural Revolution, which is relatively recent compared with our date of speciation (c. 600,000 BC).
2. I've read nowhere else that other members of Homo ate out of their cat-holes, and perhaps you should double-check that with peer-reviewed articles. I'd bet money that their cat-holes were technically separate from where they ate and slept if perhaps still part of the campsite.
3. They too were omnivores, and contrary to one of your premises, they did in fact eat vegetables or fruits in addition to meat.
4. I've read that the controlled use of fire predates the 600,000 BC date of speciation that I mentioned earlier, which means that it was invented not by us but by members of Homo rhodesiensis, out of which we later speciated.
5. Natural science never cared what sits well with people on a personal or emotional level. Why start now? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, where's the Neanderthal art? I noticed you ignored that point I was making there. Art is a well-established characteristic of humans, why didn't they paint their cave walls like Cro Magnon? That one bead? That iffy flute? Not convincing to me, and more importantly not to many experts. I could stop there. If they were truely human, they'd've had art.
And why have you attributed to me the idea that they didn't have fire? That's an aspect of them that does make them human; they definately had fire, we know that for sure from the hearths. If you're going to play dirty pool like that, I'll end this now. Just I'll say please be careful about calling all homonids "humans". Chrisrus (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not "playing dirty pool" because I suck at that game, and more importantly the fire was in response to what you said about technology, and meant to be an example rather than a separate point.
Besides, there's an easy taxonomic way out of the hominid human issue. Namely, the Family Hominidae includes but isn't limited to the Genus Homo. Notice that I don't refer to Australopithecines (separate Genus) as humans, though they are also hominids. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope you're not saying that Wikipedia should make a habit of referring to any species within the genus "Homo" as "human". Sure, they are in some ways, but in some ways they are not; they occupy various levels of gray area. Taxonomy doesn't have to line up with English words. One expects to find intermediate things in genuses sometimes, and even more so in subfamilies, families, and so on. If English doesn't feel comfortable calling a Desman a mole or recognizes that Shrew-moles are neither here nor there with those two concepts, well fine, we can still have one article for moles and one for Talpids. It may be legitimate to call a hippo "an amphibious river whale" or "a four-toed water pig" from the point of view of some clade, and if some experts do so in a percievable way, and we think it would be helpful to do so, we I suppose we could speak that way in the articles if we're clear what we're doing, but we shouldn't imply that we aren't pushing the limits of those words beyond their normal limits. (Please forgive the limited appicability of some of these examples: that porcupine doesn't have a taxon just shows that these words don't need to line up.) Chrisrus (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Not in so many words, no, I'm saying that any organization that claims to be running an encyclopedia should give more credence to the experts of any field (biology in this case) than to colloquial uses of English words. Besides, I'm not sure off hand if any of your counterexamples from just now are even in the same genus, and for future reference the plural form is genera not "genuses."
That is true, but at the same time, of course, the article must be written with the reader in mind. Chrisrus (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you already mentioned Hippopotamus amphibius, it has 1 interesting thing in common with our own species, Homo sapiens. Both are currently the only surviving species in their respective genera.
At any rate, most English-speaking people refer to domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), gray wolves (Canis lupus), and coyotes (Canis latrans) as all types of dogs, and they too are independent species in the same genus. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that you should mention this example. MSW3 and therefore wikipedia articles like Subspecies of Canis lupus and Dog now call it Canis Lupus familiaris. This has caused a problem for the encyclopedia, because the article Canis lupus now isn't about all of it's subspecies; "Canis lupus" doesn't equal "Wolf" anymore; it covers the semantic area covered by the English word "Wolf" + "Dog", but the encyclopedia doesn't follow suit and merge the articles wolf and dog. Not to mention Canis lupus dingo. Actually if you read the notes about Canis Lupus at MSW3, the line-up between taxon and English semantic area is more like this: Canis lupus = "wolf" + ("domestic dog" = "dingo" + "dog (familiaris)"). So again, the point is, taxons and article referents don't line up fairly frequently, for all different kinds of reasons which the articles are forced to deal with by explaining the situation to the reader the best it can. Some other examples are bacteria and fish, which, as you probably know, don't line up with any one taxon anymore. I have a list on my user page, may of which are arguable, but not all are. So while you may be right that experts agree that all referents of the taxon Homo deserve the word "Human" equally well, it's not because of some principle that every such English word has to conform exactly to some taxon. Chrisrus (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Wiki relies on sources that aren't the ones biology departments rely on, and frankly the International Zoological Nomenclature Commission overrides MSW3. The fact is that domestic dog-gray wolf hybrids are normally sterile, a mark of independent species in a single genus.
You might want to check on what IZNC also calls dogs and whether dog-wolf "hybrids" show subsequent-generation infertility problems. Or coyote/wolf crosses, for that matter. Chrisrus (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Fish as such are discarded as a worthless taxon by alternative cladistic taxonomy, but modernized Linnaean taxonomy does regard a Superclass Pisces which contains the single Classes Actinopterygii, Chondrichthes, and so forth. FYI, the Domain Bacteria is definitely a single taxon at Domain rank, which means you call upon another bad premise when you refer to bacteria as no single taxon. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, but encyclopedias and experts and so on still call them "fish", the word "fish" is still useful even if it doesn't have a taxon. And if that's true about bacteria, please go fix the article bacteria, because it says there there is no one taxon that is synonymous with the English word "bacteria". Chrisrus (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
There is one Superclass Pisces, although it was formerly thought to be a single class as I recall. Anyway, I will check that out on the discussion for bacteria. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok! While you're doing that, you might want to Google or remember the phrase "Martian Bactaria" to find experts using that word wholely outside taxonomy altogether. Chrisrus (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Another biosphere could have parallel taxa. In this case, the now-long-extinct Martian Biosphere appears to have had a Domain Bacteria with the same key characteristics. As for the whole thing with taxa called Solaria, Terrestria, and Martialia, that is considered an alternative scheme rather than a mainstream one. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Science (exempting the fringe) has not accepted the so-called "Martian bacteria" are from Mars - let's keep it real, shall we? 98.67.180.135 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Neanderthal Language

Has anyone ever considered the idea that neanderthals used sign language like in The Clan of The Cave Bear, the book by Jean M. Auel? I mean, I know it's just a book, but she did extensive research, up to 5 years per book. I really don't see why not...it seems pretty believable to me. Plus, Auel has that whole thing about Clan (Neanderthal) memories, and how they are not very adaptable. I don't know though...leave it to the experts I guess.

I'm sure that on some level "sign language" was used - pointing, etc. But a complex sign-language is and always will be pure speculation - it can never be shown to have existed in Neander culture. 98.67.180.135 (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

What we would need for this to happen on Wikipedia is one or more reliable sources that present such research as non-fiction, and are verifiable by others. This would include books or published, scholarly papers on the subject; not necessarily directly accessible via the Web. But if you want to check research on the web, Google Books and Google News are good places to start; these will generally point you to reliable sources. Once you dig up the proper sources, be bold and edit the article to include 'em -- you'll need to write it in your own words, minding copyright -- using citations, preferably in a standard format such as {{cite}}. Elizium23 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but also, Google Scholar will eliminate many less reliable things. Google Scholar is excellent for journal article summaries and often you can get access to full articles. Anyone can write a book about Neanderthals. If you can't get beyond a particular journal's paywall, we can discuss ways of networking a friendly wikipedian with a subscription who we can sweet-talk into summarizing journal articles only s/he can see or understand. Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I think Auel got the idea from some scientific speculation, but that's all it was. As stated above, if you can find reliable sources for the idea, please add to the article. thx1138 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Very poor wording in my opinion.

The following line should be edited:

and Caucasians and Asians having between 1% and 4% Neanderthal DNA.[4][5]

Remember if we are talking about "races" (or whatever you call it, this is not my field") a more proper term should be used. As Asian actually doesn't direct you towards any race but, actually, towards a geographical location.

Maybe Mongoloid (?) would be a better alternative then Asian?

My cents.

Best regards.

Oskar, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.129.233 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You're opening a can of worms there. I agree with your observation about Asian. The Asian article is a mess. It tackles the reality of the many meanings of the word around the world, and reaches no conclusion. Race descriptions and labels ARE a difficult area to document. Sadly, some people are very certain about it. (Along with who is "best". HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This article, along with Asian, is a mess, because Stormfront has targeted it for constant revision. View the history, and the relevant thread on Stormfront, and connect the dots. 71.131.186.156 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

CC, Germany

It's all pretty loose language. Should it not read that everyone apart from PURE 100% Sub-Saharan Africans have 1 to 4% Neanderthal Genes inc. "Mixed Raced" Blacks. Should it not also be noted that the level of inheritance is NOT linear and also NOT visible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.207.119.172 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


KG, US

"Asian" is the appropriate term as anthropologists are moving away from more socially charged terms and are focusing on ancestry terms that designate approximate geographic location of ancestral populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.72.30 (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Except many Caucasian people live in Asia. Israel and Saudi Arabia are in Asia. thx1138 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not understanding this: Genome percentages?

In one part of the article, it's said that Neanderthal and anatomically modern human (AMH) genomes are greater than 99% identical, and in another part it says that from 1% to 4% of the genome of today's AMH's in Europe and Asia come from Neanderthal interbreeding. If the first statement is true, then how could the second be either true or even known? What am I missing? 24.6.228.145 (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: The meaning of this is that 1-4% of the Neandertal and human genome is exactly alike and not shared with any other hominid. This is quite a significant amount. The first statement means that we share 99% of our genome with Neandertals but that is just the usual 'stuff' that makes us hominids. (Kbouche4 (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Name and proper pronounciation

Modern Orthography? See this is a big problem with the Modern Liberal Arts system, you get some persons version of how the species is named yet they have no basis for realizing its true pronounciation under classical latin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I completely grasp your point, but I certainly agree with your placement of a "?" after "modern orthography" (although I might have added an additional "!?" or two). "Neanderthal" in "modern orthography" is still "Neanderthal"; this is the English spelling of the term, and it evolved within the English vernacular (and subsequently within scientific orthography) independently of the German spelling reform by which das Neanderthal became das Neandertal (valley) and der Neanderthaler became der Neandertaler (hominid). "Neanderthal" has not become "Neandertal" any more than the River Thames has become the "River Tames", except insofar as English speakers fail to realize otherwise. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I've seen it suggested that the "tal" spelling is sometimes used for the hominid, while others insist that the formal type name is "Neanderthal", pronounced "tal" in accordance with its German origins. The name isn't Latin, "Neander" is a Greek form of the family name "Neumann" meaning new man, and was adopted by the family of Joachim Neander whose name was commemorated in the (German) name "Neanderthal" for the ravine where the theologian had given sermons, adopted not very long before the Neanderthal 1 was found. It's an entertaining thought that if the Neandertal hadn't been renamed, we might be discussing "Hundsklipp man". . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Neanderthal Sewing Needle / Clothing?

I ran into an online claim that there has been discovered a Neanderthal sewing needle and by implication, clothing. The claimed source was "D. Johanson, B. Edgar, From Lucy to Language, page 99." Does anyone have access to that book, and if so, could you check that claim? Is there any evidence from a reliable source that Neanderthals wore sewed clothing or even wrapped themselves in animal hides? Guy Macon 15:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Followup: Neanderthal extinction hypotheses says "it is believed that Neanderthals had clothing" with a reference to the following:
Gilligan, I: "Neanderthal extinction and modern human behaviour: the role of climate change and clothing", World Archaeology, Vol. 39, No. 4. (2007), pp. 499–514.
Guy Macon 16:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Population Size?

I would like to know if there is any scientific consensus on the total size of all Neanderthal populations. I've read a few sources, each providng varying figures. According to one source, the number of living Neanderthals never exceeded 3500. This source, on the other hand, states that there could have been up to 70,000 Neanderthals across the species' entire habitat range. Does any figure enjoy widespread scientific acceptance? If not, would the varying numbers be worth adding to this article, or the article on extinction hypotheses?Kraftiga (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen much discussion of population size, perhaps because it's so difficult to know this. It seems like this information could be added, using wording that makes the uncertainty clear. And if the figure of 3,500 is used, make it clear that that's just in Europe. TimidGuy (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen anything mentioning the pop size, & I think it's a very valuable add. I'd use the upper number, & make clear that's the full range & likely about maximum, rather than the European number, which seems misleadingly low (& a bit Eurocentric :( ). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added the the higher estimate to the "habitat and range section". Feel free to expand; this is an important topic and could benefit from additional sources.Kraftiga (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Relations between the admixture and Autism

I've copied the following from a section I made on the "Heritability of Autism" page. My only request is that you read before you delete:

The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology just published a paper that supports the hypothesis that the confirmed neanderthal admixture event(s) provided cognitive variations that were subsequently selected for, sometimes causing a locus of deleterious recombinations in the genomes of children with parents who selected one another for those characteristics: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09207238.pdf

  • "People on the autism spectrum are conceptualized here as ecologically competent individuals that could have been adept at learning and implementing hunting and gathering skills in the ancestral environment."
  • "The autism continuum could represent a remnant of genetic introgression that took place before humans were the lone species in our genus. Perhaps some of the genes for autism evolved not in our direct ancestral line but in a solitary subspecies which later merged genetically with our line of descent through gene flow."
  • "Many of the behavioral and cognitive tendencies that autistic individuals exhibit are viewed here as adaptations that would have complemented a solitary lifestyle. For example, the obsessive, repetitive and systemizing tendencies in autism, which can be mistakenly applied toward activities such as block stacking today, may have been focused by hunger and thirst toward successful food procurement in the ancestral past. Both solitary mammals and autistic individuals are low on measures of gregariousness, socialization, direct gazing, eye contact, facial expression, facial recognition, emotional engagement, affiliative need and other social behaviors. The evolution of the neurological tendencies in solitary species that predispose them toward being introverted and reclusive may hold important clues for the evolution of the autism spectrum and the natural selection of autism genes."
  • "This article emphasizes that individuals on the autism spectrum may have only been partially solitary, that natural selection may have only favored subclinical autistic traits and that the most severe cases of autism may be due to assortative mating. "
  • "Unfortunately, the genetics, molecular biology and neuroscience of autism are still, relative to many other neurological disorders, shrouded with uncertainty due to their highly complex nature (O’Roak and State, 2008)."
  • "A portion of this complexity and uncertainty arises from the relatively large number of distinct susceptibility genes that have been identified, many of which can be completely absent even in pronounced autism (Freitag, 2007). This genetic heterogeneity may be responsible for the clinical heterogeneity..."
  • "1. isolated pockets of humans can remain reproductively insulated for long enough to evolve discrepant ecological strategies; 2. such populations can quickly (less than 40,000 years in the South American and Asian pygmies; Cavalli-Sforza, 1986) develop features that vary markedly from the norm; 3. these traits can involve multiple genes at different loci; and 4. interbreeding can result in either continuous or polymorphic variation in subsequent generations. It is interesting to note that, as these indigenous people become assimilated into other gene pools, the genes for short stature will persist and may affect phenotypic variability in sporadic and unpredictable ways for a long time to come."
  • "Like other polygenic, continuous traits, the mutations responsible for autism could have been maintained by “environmental heterogeneity,” a form of balancing selection. In other words, the genes responsible for autism may have remained in our gene pool because as social-environmental conditions fluctuated in the past, discrepant genetic polymorphisms, or “multiple alternate alleles,” were favored."

Here are some peer reviewed sources that imply a link between the genes garnered via neanderthal admixture and the genes that code for ASDs:

"The development of cognitive abilities during individual growth is linked to the maturation of the underlying neural circuitry: in humans, major internal brain reorganization has been documented until adolescence, and even subtle alterations of pre- and perinatal brain development have been linked to changes of the neural wiring pattern that affect behavior and cognition [9]. The uniquely modern human pattern of early brain development is particularly interesting in the light of the recent breakthroughs in the Neanderthal genome project [10], which identified genes relevant to cognition that are derived in living humans. We speculate that a shift away from the ancestral pattern of brain development occurring in early Homo sapiens underlies brain reorganization and that the associated cognitive differences made this growth pattern a target for positive selection in modern humans."
"Mutations in CADPS2 have been implicated in autism (67), as have mutations in AUTS2 (68)."

The fact that the male side of the admixture(s) was/were strictly neanderthal would mean that we share none of their mtDNA. This explains the lack of mtDNA abnormality and the existence of mitochondrial dysfunction in people with ASDs: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/12/50

  • "the frequent observation of concomitant mitochondrial dysfunction and ASD could be due to nuclear factors influencing mitochondrion functions or to a more complex interplay between the nucleus and the mitochondrion/mtDNA."

The neanderthal haplotype described in this 2011 paper is x-linked: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/01/25/molbev.msr024.full.pdf+html

The abstract finishes by saying: "It indicates a very early admixture between expanding African migrants and Neandertals prior to or very early on the route of the out-of-Africa expansion that led to the successful colonization of the planet." [On a side note: This could also explain the unique, cyclical pattern of brutal invasion, cultural assimilation, and intermarriage that is so common in the written history of human civilization. Evidence of mostly patrilineal migrations among early AMHs is just coming out: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/24/1100723108 "Ancient DNA reveals male diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean route" (May 2, 2011)]

More evidence is cited in this wrongplanet thread: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3696657.html#3696657 Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Are you proposing to add this information to the Neanderthal article? TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Possibly. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
None of the sources that you present actually argue that Neanderthal admixture is the reason for autism. You can only arrive at that intepretaton by synthesising the various sources into a new argument. This is original research which cannot be allowed in wikiupedia articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Which, I believe you have been told a number of times BTW. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The link to autism is briefly mentioned in this New Yorker article and this Discover Magazine blog. Calling the admixture "the reason for autism" would be jumping the gun, but a genetic link of some sort has been established. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course it hasn't. A genetic link would require someone to find a gene for autism and show that this link was inherited from neanderthals. Given that the possibility of neanderthal admixture is still not decided there is a long way to go on that one still. Please try to read and understand our policies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
No. The neanderthal admixture has been confirmed as of May 7th 2010. I could point you to the literature but I suspect a friendly YouTube video would be more to your liking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzT4rojbPJM&t=46m18s (the description starts at 46:18) Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why you would think that I would be easier to convince with a youtube video than with a reference to the actual paper by Pääbo et al. I am quite familiar with the 2010 paper and it does not constitute a "confirmation" - and it does not pretend to. When it starts appearing in secondary sources we cans tart describing it as an established issue. Not yet.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
FAQ about the methods used in the neanderthal draft sequence
Questions answered include:
  • Isn't it extremely difficult to get authentic undamaged DNA from individuals dead for over 30,000 years?
  • We must have a lot of DNA in common with archaic hominins because of our shared ancestry - How can we infer interbreeding?
  • This seems quite a subtle test - Might these results be explained by human contamination?
  • What about DNA damage?
  • How confident can we be of any interpretation if the sequencing error rate and the divergence are that close?
  • Assuming that we can be confident of the conclusions of these studies, how much of our genomes comes from other hominins?
Slartibartfastibast (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:UNDUE. Find a reliable secondary source that mentions this theory, and then we can talk. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll add updates as they arrive. Here's a Guardian article on a recent paper establishing a link to certain autoimmune disorders: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/aug/25/neanderthal-denisovan-genes-human-immunity Slartibartfastibast (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
From the article:
  • "Paul Norman, a co-author on the paper, put it like this: 'There's enormous genetic variation in people's immune systems and that can control how different people fight different diseases. This could go some way to explaining why some people are better at fighting some infections than others, but we think it also goes some way to explaining why some people are susceptible to autoimmune diseases...'"
"The vast majority of autoimmune diseases have been shown by genome-wide association studies to be associated with particular HLA alleles and we find a couple of those in Denisovans," Norman added. "So it looks to me like modern humans have acquired these alleles, but we weren't kind of prepared for them, we hadn't grown up with them, and in some circumstances, they can start to attack us as well as the viruses and other pathogens."
Slartibartfastibast (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there were probably only a few admixtures: "Strong reproductive isolation between humans and Neanderthals inferred from observed patterns of introgression" (Sept 12, 2011) Mirror. This, plus the fact that neanderthal DNA is in most humans today, would seem to strongly imply hybrid fitness (probably immune). This Discover Magazine blog post gives an overview. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Neanderthal Admixture and non-Africans

File:Neandertaler-im-Museum.jpg
better reconstruction
File:Kermanshah Pal Museum-Neanderthal.jpg
"outdated" reconstruction

The stock photo they are using is horribly outdated, but, this might be useful reference. All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm
— al-Shimoni (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that stock photograph is outdated. Here is a better reconstruction.--Ephert (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Neanderthal child.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Neanderthal child.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Knapped by Nenderthal vs. made in ROC

the sentence (first and shaped as introduction to paleo-archeology paragraph)  :

"Neanderthal stone tools provide[clarification needed] further evidence for their presence where skeletal remains have not been found[citation needed]"

Is :

  1. trivial
  2. false
  • Trivial since paleo scientist conclude the particular artifact, toll etc. was made by Neanderthal it mean the artifact was made by Neanderthal.
  • False, as introductory, since the conclusion who may knapp the particular tool (or tool culture) is decided first by associating Homo remains to given layer and abstracting it to paleo culture.

Conclusion is also false given the Mode 3 tools (aka L-M) were in use in Tasmania till British arrival ~200 y ago. The sentence is written in reverse logic, concluding proposition. Paleo digs my reveal indirect but never direct "kanpped by Nenaderthal" signatures; as dig out more recent toll signed "made in ROC". . 99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your objections, again, may be useful, but first off there is no consensus to remove the material, and secondly, your reasoning above is very hard to understand. Your grasp of written English is so poor that I am not sure what you mean. There are a number of grammatical errors above which makes deciphering what you write very difficult. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
OK Dbrodbeck, in simple English:
  • A. Any tolls with no association to human remains - can not be associated to human remains. If you Dbrodbeck oppose, as response you can explain how you will do such association, or better copy some quotes form respectable sources.
  • B, "about the "Mode 3 tools" and when has been in use in Tasmania < read the English source. Dbrodbeck if you can understand Bednarick, come back and express your objection again. Or disregard the line *B since *A is a sufficient reason to improve the article. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
For example, you have added "The Mousterian stone tool culture has been first developed around 300,000 years ago[7] by Neanderthals in Europe. Mousterian is also found in Asia, and in Africa after 150,000 years ago in close to Gibraltar site.[8][9] " The English here is quite bad. It is really hard to understand what you want because of this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

ok how you propose put the first sentence?

The Mousterian stone tool culture has been first developed around 300,000 years ago[7] by Neanderthals in Europe. it is important that early Mousterian development is firstly dated around 300ka and the development is asociated with Naeanderthals and take place in Europe. Yeh beter could be:

  • Earliest Mousterian stone tool culture has been developed around 300,000 years ago[7] by Neanderthals in Europe.

or

  • Earliest Mousterian stone tool culture is dated 300,000 years ago[7] and developed by Neanderthals in Europe.

around is not necessary since 300ka itself indicate huge roundness.99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What about the long notation 'N000,0000 years ago ? Will be better to write short as 'n00ka'? Is any specific reason to elaborate such bit-wordy style ?99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, "around" is still necessary, since the dating is sufficiently inaccurate it could be 310000 or 290000 (& even that might be crediting it more accuracy than it has), a margin of error worth noting. And not everybody is familiar with the usage 300kya. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No objection. Hey, there was a big slogan "free encyclopedia". Yes fell free to change it! Do this provoked, flooded, unreasoned & unreasonable, counterproductive, talks (not discussion) impacted on freedom of expression ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

stylistic or factual change?

To consider are two version vA, vB. The disputed changes are in bold.

vA "The earliest [Mousterian stone tool culture], associated with the Neaderthal in Europe, is dated 300,000 years ago.[6] Later Mousterian culture is also developed in Asia; in Africa dated after 150,000 years ago in Jebel ... "

vB "The earliest [Mousterian culture], dated to 300,000 years ago,[6] was developed by Neanderthals in Europe. Later Mousterian culture is also developed in Asia; in Africa dated after 150,000 years ago in Jebel ..."

The change (vB) called, by Agricolae, "various rephrasing" is seen as factual change. The change remove,or water down substantially, the important fact: the people who first invented the new things, the artifacts found in Mousterian culture, were the Neanderthals.

  • earliest things associated with someone
equal or not equal?
  • earliest things developed by someone
  1. Is any doubt in the fact that Neanderthals are the people who developed from beginning (300ka) the Mousterian culture ?
  2. If not, why the change, with misleading description suggesting only improvement of style ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think associated is best - since this describes the actual archaeologcal state of knowledge. We don't know who developed mousterian we just know we've found it in association with Neanderthal remains.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
No I don't mean to suggest that. Do you have a recent source that says that "mousterian culture was developed by neanderthals". "Associated with" is pretty much the standard terminology for describing correlations between prehistoric peoples and material complexes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

nenderthal phylogenetic clasification, case closed.

Agricolae argue "you can't date it being thought a separate species 'around 2000' when it was first proposed as such in 1864, and as H. neand. in 1953"

The disputed text is in bold.

"Neanderthals are classified either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or (around 2000) as a separate human species (Homo neanderthalensis).[1]"

The source cited[1] at the end of the sentence seem to fully support to add the date. Let quote the source, and then ask opponent what he read from the source.

First let bring some corpus of text of Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz, and later focus on it. (from doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.13.7117)

Feldhofer Cave skullcap and partial skeleton were accidentally uncovered, on a pre-Darwinian August day in 1856, by lime miners working in Germany’s Neander Valley (1–3). Yet even now, 14 long decades later, paleoanthropological attitudes toward the Neanderthals remain profoundly equivocal. Thus, although many students of human evolution have lately begun to look favorably on the view that these distinctive hominids merit species recognition in their own right as Homo neanderthalensis (e.g., refs. 4 and 5), at least as many still regard them as no more than a strange variant of our own species, Homo sapiens (6, 7). This difference represents far more than a simple matter of taxonomic hair-splitting. For, as members of a distinct species, of a completely individuated historical entity, the Neanderthals demand that we analyze and understand them on their own terms. In contrast, if we see them as mere subspecific variants of ourselves, we are almost obliged to dismiss the Neanderthals as little more than an evolutionary epiphenomenon, a minor and ephemeral appendage to the history of Homo sapiens.
Species (especially extinct ones) are often tricky to identify in practice, and speciation, the process (or more probably, assortment of processes) by which new species come about, is poorly understood. But by anyone’s reckoning, long-term hybridization of this kind would indicate that the two populations belonged to the same species. So, if Duarte et al. are right, the case is closed: Neanderthals were indeed no more than an odd form of Homo sapiens.
  1. many students of human evolution have lately begun to look favorably on the view that these distinctive hominids merit species recognition in their own
  2. at least as many still regard them as no more than a strange variant of our own species, Homo sapiens
  3. if Duarte et al. are right, the case is closed: Neanderthals were indeed no more than an odd form of Homo sapiens

So the question is. Is the case is closed ? Who posit after the paper (1999) after new discoveries and sequenced Neanderthal genome otherwise? Even mas media eg. BBC copy some thesis ~'Neanderthal DNA is in us'[1]. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not closed untill Duarte's conclusions start appearing as the dominant view in secondary and tertiary sources. We rely on secondary and tertiary sources for wikipedia purposes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
So do you want to start over the Dominant song from talk in human evolution where finally the RAO 'wikied-dominace' go bye-bye. Let say it less ironically : how you define "dominant view" and how do you measure such defined view? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is how wikipedia works. We find the majority consensus viewpoint by reviewing the most recent literature, especially secondary and tertiary reliable sources. Its much like when doing research that way actually. What we don't do is cherry pick a single primary source and adopt its view. This mode of operation is described in our core policies WP:RS and WP:NPOV which you should take the time to read.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The case isn't closed. It will probably never be closed. They can't even decide if the common horse and Przewalski horse should be different species and we have both of them right here to look at and breed. This is not going to be closed until there is an overwhelming majority of scientists considering them to be of the same species, such that the different-species community comes to represent nothing but a fringe. Please quit treating this like a competition. Agricolae (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and to answer your question, Harvati, "The Neanderthal taxonomic position: models of intra- and inter-specific craniofacial variation", J Hum Evol. 2003 Jan;44(1):107-32, concluded, "This study does not find evidence for Neanderthal contribution to the evolution of modern Europeans. Results are consistent with the recognition of Neanderthals as a distinct species." You can't just take one paper that supports your POV and declare it the final word on the question. Agricolae (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If Neanderthal at 12.7% genetic diversity are different species, what you will say about Yoruba differing ~14% ? Of course Yoruba are not a different Homo species and Neanders too. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that my conclusion or your conclusion based on those data are relevant? Don't you get it - it doesn't matter whether you can twist the data to show some point, or whether you convince me of your deduction. It's not about us. Still, as long as we are citing statistics, you are arguing based on a 14% difference in Yoruba. I can show you data for only a 1.5% difference between humans and chimpanzees. Does that tell me that we are all chimpanzees? no. It tells me that such statistics are not as straightforward as they might appear when presented without context in a rhetorical manner that begs the question. Agricolae (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

discussion help/corpus quotes

long section of quotes selected as relevant by 99.90.197.87
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(section intended as consisting only quoted text and sources -not mixed with wiki-editors text) Again do not put your own concepts here. put here quotes ONLY)

Bloody hell. So only you get to cherry-pick the quotes and provide the context? Don't tell me that "Well he just have problem to admit his model fail" (below) is a quote. That is pure 99.90.197.87 gibberish. What a waste of electrons. Agricolae (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

< ref >tile=The evolution wars: a guide to the debates|author=Michael Ruse|page=189|date=2001,2002|url=*01< ref >tile=The evolution wars: a guide to the debates|author=Michael Ruse|page=189|date=2001,2002|url=[2]|quote=Two hypotheses chief proponents and antagonists, Michigan's Milford Wolpoff and London's Chris stringer.</ref >

  • STRINGER
  • 02So where does this added complexity and evidence of interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans leave my favoured Recent African Origins model? Has it been disproved in favour of the multiregional model, as some have claimed?
  • 03Now, the advent of huge amounts of DNA data, including the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes, has halted and even reversed that pendulum swing, away from absolute replacement
  • 04Science is not about being right or wrong, Well he just have problem to admit his model fail.
  • 05"Modernity" was not a package that had an origin in one African time, place and population,

guardian

  • 06mitochondrial DNA is all that has been recovered from Neanderthal fossils athom.com athom.com
  • A new look at Neanderthal relations
  • Prof Stringer concludes, ‘As one of the architects of 'Out of Africa', I have regarded the Neanderthals as representing a separate lineage, and most likely a separate species from Homo sapiens.
  • 07‘Although I have never ruled out the possibility of interbreeding, I have considered this to have been small and insignificant in the bigger picture of our evolution – for example, the results of isolated interbreeding events could easily have been lost in the intervening millennia.
  • 08‘Now, the Neanderthal genome strongly suggests those genes were not lost, and that many of us outside of Africa have some Neanderthal inheritance.[3]
  • 09So now we know: Many, if not most, people alive today have some Neanderthal ancestry.
  • 10This finding, which comes from analysis of the Neanderthal genome, has taken many experts by surprise. [4]


  • 11"Certainly, I had moved away from the idea that there was one single place in Africa - a 'Garden of Eden' if you like - where modern humans originated..."
  • 12"I doubt that happened. I think it's a much more gradual process. I think modern humans were assembled from different populations contributing genes and behaviour. Now we may need to add a bit of Neanderthal to that mix as well - outside Africa." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8671643.stm
  • 13"We really don't know yet; these genes might have no effect - they could be neutral. They could have survived just because they were not disadvantageous," Professor Stringer speculated.
  • 14But future research is also likely to focus on the 70-plus amino acid changes that distinguish modern humans from Neanderthals.
  • 15"The idea is that you're going to identify the things that make us human," says John Hawks.
    • 16"The cool thing is that there are so few of them.]

ISBN: 9780141018133

  • 17Author: Chris Stringer Homo britannicus <written by the world authority. - Richard Dawkins [5]
  • 18Neanderthals or to modern humans (Stringer and McKie 1996, and Tattersall and Schwartz 2000). Again this sharing of technology argues... There is very little evidence the two groups crossed genetically and so we can presume that life was tough.[6]

Homo Britannicus Chris Stringer (the director of the project)[7]


  • 19(p191)This female - immediately Christianized "Eve" - the intimating link link for humans on earth, seems to lived less than 2000,000 years ago. ...

"Stringer seizes on this hypothesis and argues that it proves his point. Around 200,000 years ago we all had a shared ancestor, which means we all come from one shared population" Wolpoff... "Eve is irrelevant" ...The Multiregional hypothesis admits -insist on- gene exchange between population. ""Only if human groups were isolated after Eve's time here age be of importance"" " What about Archaeological evidence? ...(p192)

  • WOLPOFF doi=DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20930
  • 21...recent genetic evidence supports anatomi-

cal interpretations indicating that interbreeding with other humans was an important aspect of human evolution. The combination of anatomical difference and restricted gene flow between populations suggests the possibility that Neandertals may have been a true human race.


  • 22Historically, the interpretation that there

was a Neandertal race (the term race is not used in quo- tations when referring to human races, even though many authors follow this convention to indicate their belief that human races do not exist. The author is sym- pathetic to this view; yet in the biological world races do exist for some species, and the author does not want to imply that the race concept itself is invalid.


  • 23Dobzhansky (1944) directly addressed the question of

whether past hominid samples such as Neandertals might be subspecies. For him the compelling support for a Neandertal subspecies came from the newly published Mount Carmel remains (Skhul and Tabun), which he interpreted as the result of mixture between two subspe- cies that were obviously not reproductively isolated, and not a single population ‘‘in the throes of evolutionary change’’, as McCown and Keith (1939) interpreted the sample. Dobzhansky (1944, p. 259) noted that The Mount Carmel population also shows that . . . a morphological gap as great as that between the Neanderthal and the modern types may occur between races, rather than between species. For Dobzhansky, a past polytypic human species was not an exceptional situation, since at the time he also regarded living humans as polytypic (c.f. Mayr, 1942), with recognizable geographic races (albeit races that, unlike Neandertals, are ‘‘imperfectly differentiated’’), as we no longer do.


  • 24Most researchers now agree that Neandertals are in

the same species as living people and as populations penecontemporary with Neandertals that are regarded as modern humans or their immediate ancestors, such as Omo, Herto, or Qafzeh. Besides the evidence of mix- ture, reasons for this include direct evidence of gene exchanges as detailed above, the seemingly parallel evo- lution of putative Neandertal and modern lineages (Wolpoff and Caspari, 1996; Wolpoff and Lee, 2007), ana- tomical evidence for dual ancestry for early ‘‘moderns’’ also discussed above (Wolpoff et al., 2001; Trinkaus et al., 2003; Frayer et al., 2006), the statistical demonstra- tion [‘‘statistical’’ is emphasized here because most dis- cussions of this issue are based on assertions about dif- ferences based on the recognition of autapomorphies that lack any sense of population variation (Lieberman, 2008; Pearson, 2008)] that Neandertals do not differ from ‘‘moderns’’ more than living geographic groups dif- fer from each other (Ahern, 2006), and other issues in including archaeological interchangeability in both Europe and western Asia (D’Errico, 2003; D’Errico et al.,2003; Zilhao, 2006).

  • 25Neandertals fit the description of subspecies in ways that no living or recent

human groups do.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021 A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome url

  • 26Five present-day human genomes. To put the divergence of the Neandertal genomes into perspective with regard to present-day humans, we sequenced the genomes of one San from Southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese, and one French from Western Europe to 4- to 6-fold coverage on the Illumina GAII platform (SOM Text 9). These sequences were aligned to the chimpanzee and human reference genomes and analyzed using a similar approach to that used for the Neandertal data. Autosomal DNA sequences of these individuals diverged 8.2 to 10.3% back along the lineage leading to the human reference genome, considerably less than the 12.7% seen in Neandertals (SOM Text 10). We note that the divergence estimate for the Yoruba individual to the human genome sequence is ~14% greater than previous estimates for an African American individual (56) and similarly greater than the heterozygosity measured in another Yoruba individual (33).
  • 27Neandertals are closer to non-Africans than to Africans. To test whether Neandertals are more closely related to some present-day humans than to others, we identified SNPs by comparing one randomly chosen sequence from each of two present-day humans and asking if the Neandertals match the alleles of the two individuals equally often. If gene flow between Neandertals and modern humans ceased before differentiation between present-day human populations began, this is expected to be the case no matter which present-day humans are compared.
  • 28We find that the Neandertals are equally close to Europeans and East Asians: D(ASN, CEU, Neandertal, chimpanzee) = –0.53 ± 0.46% (<1.2 SD from 0% or P = 0.25). However, the Neandertals are significantly closer to non-Africans than to Africans: D(YRI, CEU, Neandertal, chimpanzee) = 4.57 ± 0.39% and D(YRI, ASN, Neandertal, chimpanzee) = 4.81 ± 0.39% (both >11 SD from 0% or P << 10−12) (table S51).
  • 29The greater genetic proximity of Neandertals to Europeans and Asians than to Africans is seen no matter how we subdivide the data: (i) by individual pairs of humans (Table 4), (ii) by chromosome, (iii) by substitutions that are transitions or transversions, (iv) by hypermutable CpG versus all other sites, (v) by Neandertal sequences shorter or longer than 50 bp, and (vi) by 454 or Illumina data. It is also seen when we restrict the analysis to A/T and C/G substitutions, showing that our observations are unlikely to be due to biased allele calling or biased gene conversion
  • 30Direction of gene flow. A parsimonious explanation for these observations is that Neandertals exchanged genes with the ancestors of non-Africans...Thus, all or almost all of the gene flow detected was from Neandertals into modern humans
  • 31Non-Africans haplotypes match Neandertals unexpectedly often...
  • 32The extent of Neandertal ancestry. To estimate the proportion of Neandertal ancestry, we compare the similarity of non-Africans to Neandertals with the similarity of two Neandertals, N1 and N2, to each other. Under the assumption that there was no gene flow from Neandertals to the ancestors of modern Africans, the proportion of Neandertal ancestry of non-Africans, f, can be estimated by the ratio S(OOA,AFR,N1,Chimpanzee)/S(N2,AFR,N1,Chimpanzee), where the S statistic is an unnormalized version of the D statistic (SOM Text 18, Eq. S18.4). Using Neandertals from Vindija, as well as Mezmaiskaya, we estimate f to be between 1.3% and 2.7% (SOM Text 18). To obtain an independent estimate of f, we fit a population genetic model to the D statistics in Table 4 and SOM Text 15 as well as to other summary statistics of the data. Assuming that gene flow from Neandertals occurred between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago, this method estimates f to be between 1 and 4%, consistent with the above estimate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

|}

Recent edits by 99.90.197.87

I have twice reverted, and that is enough for me. However, these edits include grammatical errors ('Neanderthal range is hotly debated issue, some propose include all specimens up to Pacific'), spelling errors (week, rather than weak, maet rather than meat) and a POV tag that has still not been discussed here. I invite others to comment. Oh yeah, here is a diff that may be useful [9] Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Considering the warnings still on the talk page (and comments indicating more warnings were made and removed), blocked. At least the problems will be restricted to his/her talk page for the next day. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the diff (now is clear what to revert). Fixing the auto-typo is exponentially easier task than thinking. Why it was so hard (lets do not ask). 99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:CIVIL. Indeed, it was not just spelling, it was grammar, as pointed out above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

By 130,000 years ago, 'complete Neanderthal characteristics' had appeared < Rather 'complete set of Neanderthal traits'. The earliest characterization of the characteristics had been appeared in 19 century, but were still incomplete. Completing the Neanderthal traits characterization has been a story of 20 century and is still ongoing. If one will focus on Neatderthal traits is easier to understand why scientist see 6% of present-day European population exhibit some phenothypic Nenderthal traits (or if too used then 'features').

  • "persistence of Neanderthal features in early modern humans across Europe"[10]
  • "European Neanderthals show a number of unique or especially common features with later Europeans, with lower frequency of expression in modern European"
    • "No other penecontemporary population shares unique features with the later Europeans."[11]
  • "Are Homo sapiens nonsupranuchal fossa and neanderthal suprainiac fossa convergent traits? ...it is suggested ..are convergent traits". DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21437
  • "Sima de los Huesos site, exhibit one or more derived cranial and mandibular traits shared exclusively with Neanderthals". Just how “unique” are Neanderthal unique traits? DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-0492-3_6
  • "modern human specimen and directly contemporary with the latest European Neanderthals, thus making its taxonomic attribution crucial. We also show that in 13 dental traits KC4 possesses modern human rather than Neanderthal characteristics; three other traits show Neanderthal affinities" (44.2–41.5 kyr cal bp) doi:10.1038/nature10484
  • and so on 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


Another try to say the same in simple English. Using word traits is good . Using word 'characteristics' is not good. If you do not get what it mean trait click on the blue link. Now if you do not like to change the word 'characteristics' to traits say why? If you do not say why do not change it back. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A change doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, placing the burden on those wishing to revert. If you want the change, you justify it, and with more than just 'traits = good; characteristics = bad' - why do you find traits better than characteristics? Agricolae (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
reasons
Please read WP:CONSENSUS, along with all of the other policies that have been pointed out to you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
And ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah. The 'because I say so' defense. It's just a guess, but I suspect many editors will be underwhelmed by its powers of persuasion. Agricolae (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

support?

  • 2 User 99.90.197.87 like it, and nobody coherently oppose.<(added as plausible subject and put into subsection by 99.90.197.87
"many editors will be underwhelmed by its powers of persuasion" <Thanks for support or at least "guess" of probable support. Is it an intended opposition? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What you write...

What you write here makes next to no sense. Could you please try to formulate succinctly and in coherent language what it is you want us to put in the article that isn't already there? And using actual citations to literature and not just DOI's actually state what literature supports the inclusion of the information you want to include.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Specially for Manus the quintessential question of life: WToF < If you can not get it who cares? Some knowledge may be required. The bang lines are secret language citation used by somehow strange community to find out how happened you are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
You may have a lot of knowledge, but if you can't communicate your ideas clearly to others then it is worthless. I currently teach human evolution to undergraduates, it is not my field of specialization, but I do have enough basic knowledge to understand the literature. If more knowledge is required for reading your posts than is required for teaching this stuff, then what are you even doing here in wikipedia? Who is it you want to communicate with? Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia - collaboration requires communication. If you are unwilling to explaing people who you feel do not have the "required knowledge" what you are talking about then you do not have a future as an editor here, I am sorry to say. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, that is very nice and encouraging you have ambitions to learn more, to convey more current knowledge to the kids (are you in US under lagging DOE curatelle?). Just say what is the most you want to understand or what is most difficult. If you want to begin from the easiest, OK, go ahead but say what. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "Lagging DOE curatelle", as far as I know "curatelle" is not an English word. What is your native language, I am guessing French. I think perhaps that you might try writing in your native language - I know French enough that it will be easier to understand than how you are writing now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Stupid or troll ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.76.217.86 (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that is actually a fair question at this point, although not when coming form you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
99, again please read WP:CIVIL WP:AGF WP:NPA and stop the personal attacks now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Google translate reports "curatelle" is French for "trusteeship" (although conservatorship is more likely the intended meaning; I have no idea what it means by DOE). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Arthur, I did get it that far - but as you note translating that word doesn't actually make the sentence meaningful. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
What DOE may mean in US?(was:"are you in US"...) Using this wiki and typing DOE may point here. Please try a test of contextual understanding and guess which one. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a translation service here that this IP can contact and receive help in translating? Moxy (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is called English-english dictionary. Use it Moxy.99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The most recent edits, again [12] have problems with English usage and, I am wondering, again, if there is a consensus for them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No. In a literal sense the text is accurate - there is nothing in the text that is at deviance with the scholarly consensus (as I understand it). However, rather than just presenting the consensus interpretation (that there is a low-level introgression of Neanderthal DNA into the lineage of Eurasians), it is presenting the raw data and in a manner that is easily misunderstood. By saying that Europeans and Asians are closer to Neanderthals than Africans are, it is (and I suspect intentionally so) easily misunderstood as suggesting that Eurasians are closer to Neanderthals than Eurasians are to Africans. Presenting it this way does a disservice. Agricolae (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"as suggesting that Eurasians are closer to Neanderthals than Eurasians are to Africans" < the source (#26 in fold ) quote Yoruba distance is 14 % and Neanderthal 12.7%. Nobody say to 'dono ten zero' which number is bigger or smaller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's called How to Lie with Statistics. The authors themselves do not interpret that particular Yoruba number in the twisted way you are using it, and if you look at Figure 3, just a little bit down the page, you see a pattern completely at odds with what you are trying to distort this into. And did I mention the authors themselves do not interpret that particular Yoruba number in the twisted way you are using it - you are not only using a primary source, you are then using one piece of data cherry-picked from within the source to reach a conclusion at odds with that of the authors of the source. On Wikipedia, that is a no-no. (And how hard is it to sign your comments? You are not likely to find many allies when you can't be bothered with the simplest courtesies.) Agricolae (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Matching group of immune system genes found in modern humans and Neanderthals

I'm not sure how well this dovetails into Slartibartfastibast's comments on autoimmune disorders in the "Admixtures and autism" section, so I added a new section. Feel free to move, edit, or delete.

Neanderthal genome inherited by humans, study says
by David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor
San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 26, 2011
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/26/MN971KQCVQ.DTL
Sex with Cavemen Boosted Human Immunity
The Daily Beast, Aug. 26, 2011
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/08/26/sex-with-cavemen-boosted-human-immunity.html
Neanderthal sex boosted immunity in modern humans
Matt McGrath, Science Reporter
BBC World Service, Aug. 26, 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14673047

This was also described in the journal "Science" today.

DonL (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I would stroongly encourage that we don't use news media as a source for this. We should use the Science article and be sure to not make it look as if it is an established fact, but a single research study.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/08/26/neanderthalautoimmune/neanderthalautoimmune.pdf Slartibartfastibast (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Manus. The news media are not really a RS for science Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/08/19/science.1209202.abstract Slartibartfastibast (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We still have to wait and see how these things are evaluated by the scientific community. Let's wait for some reviews. These are clearly quite new data. There is no rush. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Published in Nature: Virus hunter-gatherers And could this have been a dangerous liaison? Human HLA alleles that are associated with autoimmune diseases were present in Denisovans. Study co-author Paul Norman proposes that when we acquired those genes “we weren't kind of prepared for them, we hadn't grown up with them ... they can start to attack us as well as the viruses” Slartibartfastibast (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Three peer reviewed papers and this is still not in the main article? Here:

In most modern human populations, the majority of MHC I alleles have been acquired by introgression from archaic humans (Neanderthals and Denisovans) Origin and plasticity of MHC I-associated self peptides Mirror

If that's not explicit enough, I don't really know what is. With all that money Jimmy's staring out of people you'd think you could afford some paid editors who don't suck. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"complete Neanderthal characteristics"

Sholar search produce 3 refs. The first is circular. The other are probably too. The whole paragraph has broken logic. Why?

  1. introduce undefined "complete Neanderthal characteristics"
  2. then in next at least ambiguously point to "These characteristics" which may be refereed in word These to "complete set or particular characteristic. Using plural "These characteristics" however suggest not single trait but many or instead the complete set of characteristics introduced but not defined at all in the preceding sentence.
  3. The ref at the end of paragraph fail on {not in citation}. The Discovery web-page is silent about discoveries, (which are described around ), and thus outdated. The Discovery web-page do not mention any trace of traits or characteristics which further conclude {out of citation}.

The last #3 point is sufficient to discredit this paragraph, since scholarly search do not yield any hope(results) to reference the ambiguity fo the paragraph. The paragraph (with it's this garbage) has been deleted. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


Don't you mean "With its garbage" or possibly "With this garbage"? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

resource

Stone Age paint shop unearthed. Finds show how ancient people created and stored a red-colored liquid by Bruce Bower November 19th, 2011; Vol.180 #11 (p. 16), Science News (SN); excerpt ...

... elementary knowledge of chemistry and an ability to make long-term plans,” says archaeologist Christopher Henshilwood of the University of Bergen in Norway. ... holders found at the site represent the oldest known containers, he adds. ... in the Oct. 14 Science. ... Comparably sophisticated thinking characterized European Neandertals, who heated birch bark at high temperatures to make an adhesive for tool handles more than 100,000 years ago, holds Stanford University anthropologist Richard Klein.

"... an activity that required knowledge of the moon’s phases (SN: 8/13/2011, p. 22)."

See Blombos Cave, University of Connecticut, symbolic thinking, University of the Witwatersrand, Middle Stone Age#Complex cognition, Homo sapiens, Abalone-shell paint, ochre (iron oxide), binder of crushed animal bone, charcoal, quartz,

99.181.140.213 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  • The southern caves with accumulated shells are presented as aspect of modernity. The accumulation of refuse in cave just prove the never clean the garbage. Pattern of modernity one may spot today if have to drive trough some neighborhoods.
  • Knowledge of the moon’s phases- what if wolves cry to foul moon ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

retarded story for 'do no ten zero'

the genome section is setup like story tale for kids. Full of historical already contradicted data presented . Thy agrument here thy put the article for those who dono ten zero and suma sumarum all worth less than zero. Nonsensopedia is more valuable project since there nobody promise factual reality. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What you have written here is a prime example of your inability to write in English. Please, PLEASE present ideas here on talk first, where people that actually know how to put an English sentence together might be able to help you. Your spelling is horrible, and your grammar is not much better. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Extraneous text in the article does not show up in the edit page

In the Classification section's last line, just before the Discovery section, is a chunk of text that says "Hi Lydianne. Do your work over there". However, when I went to the edit page to remove it, it was not there. I searched the edit page for this string and it does not appear. Not sure how to remove this. Mjzwick (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That was weird. I think I managed to remove it now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Caucasoid vs European

For better or worse, the cited paper calls this group Caucasoid, so to call them anything else is misleading, and possibly erroneous. Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As an added note - if you don't like the links (is that the problem) then change the links, not the authors' terminology, which was racial and not geographic. Agricolae (talk)
I agree we can't change the study's usage - and since "caucasoid" and "mongoloid" are in quotes showing that the study's quuaint usage is retained.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Maunus asked on my Talk page whether the data should even be presented as such. This is a worthwhile question - when I first looked up the paper, I asked myself 'why are we even quoting these numbers any more?" It is just mtDNA data, the conclusion intended to refute the multi-regional origin of humans (i.e. to show that Europeans were not female-line descendants of Neanderthals). As it just addresses the female line, it doesn't even answer the question of whether there is inbreeding or not, and the genomic data shows that non-Africans do have introgressed Neanderthal DNA. While we can cite this paper for the conclusion that Neanderthal mtDNA does not appear to have passed into humans (I suspect there is something more recent on this, though, and it would come from mtDNA trees, not whole-population studies), I think the presentation of the numbers is no longer relevant, and the whole table should be deleted. Agricolae (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Interbreeding hypotheses"

The name of this section should be updated. Interbreeding is not a "hypothesis" anymore.83.7.146.152 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That there was interbreeding is no longer in doubt (well, not very much, at least). However, that does not change the fact that several distinct interbreeding hypotheses have been proposed in the past. As this section covers several of them, the section heading is still accurate, even if we now know that interbreeding took place. A more important question is whether the section should be rewritten - is it important any longer to present hypotheses that can no longer be supported, just for the sake of historical context, or should this material be purged. Agricolae (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please rewrite. I do think that the unsupported hypotheses could be purged. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, let's present the main view, I don't think we need to list all the hypotheses the are about a subject. man with one red shoe 14:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a good to have all of the historical variants of the hypotheses as well. Especially because some people take the recent admixture evidence to be evidence in favor of multiregional continuity disproving Early out of Africa - which of course it doesn't. It is good to be clear which of the historical hypotheses are supported by the evidence and which aren't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
As I think about it more, I agree with Maunus here, since the introgression data do not necessarily negate the possibility that inbreeding occurred in other contexts (like with the blue pike, later interbreeding may have produced sterile hybrid offspring that have left no trace in the genetics of modern humans, while still driving the Neanderthal to extinction through reproductive competition). The cited skeletons may still be hybrids. The only hypothesis that seems to be defunct is that they were diluted out of existence through interbreeding, something that would have left a different mark on European Y, mt and nuclear genomes than what is observed. Agricolae (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Extinction and climate change

A weakness of the climate change explanation for the demise of the Neanderthals, not covered in this article, is that they survived similar or worse conditions during the Saalian glaciations between 180,000 and 130,000 ago. This is shown for example in the Vostok Petit data at [13]. An article by Bent Sorensen at [14] appears to cover this. I only have access to an abstract, but Google quotes the article saying "From a climatic perspective, it is therefore remarkable that the European Neanderthals survived the extreme cold near the end of the Saalian glaciation period". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Mamotnaia

Hi

I was curious about the location of this place mentioned in the range section of the infobox, but I couldn't find anything about it (I also tried to find it in Russian — Мамотная). Can anyone please give a source of this statement of the range possibly having been extended to this place? (I have some — possibly false — doubts about the existence of it.) — Winston (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sailing

io9 has an article about some studies showing that Neanderthals were swimming 8+ miles to Greek islands and potentially sailing to Crete 100-85 kya. Worth inclusion with better sources & more data. — LlywelynII 12:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dating errors

Anthropologist ousted in dating disaster still overlooked.[1][2][[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=29004 3]] ... |207.119.214.238 (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that there remains a large collection of accurately dated fossils establishing the presence of Neanderthals. Apparently the fabrications involve a narrow claim regarding the existence of Neanderthal in northern Europe. TimidGuy (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusing statement

Paragraph 5 has: "Other tool cultures associated with Neanderthal include Châtelperronian, Aurignacian, and Gravettian, developed with gradual continuity not distributed by population change." What does the last part mean? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

One can only guess. It seems to be saying that one can see the tool assemblage evolving and that the appearance of new tool kits aren't associated with a simple population shift. TimidGuy (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the intent - that the successive cultures developed from the previous ones, rather than each representing the culture of distinct populations that replaced the former. Certainly could use rewriting. Agricolae (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I attempted a rewrite. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Interbreeding took place in the Middle East?

This first paragraph of the lead says this: " interbreeding took place with anatomically modern humans between roughly 80,000 and 50,000 years ago in the Middle East." I don't think that the sequencing of Neanderthal DNA is able to indicate where the interbreeding took place. This article in National Geographic is fairly tentative in suggesting that the interbreeding may have taken place in the Middle East.[15]. No doubt this speculative assertion comes from the fact that both modern humans and Neanderthals were known to have lived in the Middle East during the same era, though it's not clear whether they were there simultaneously. I think we should remove this from the lead, since it's speculative, or at the very least change the wording so that it's not stated as fact. TimidGuy (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree - this whole page needs some real work as it talks more about humans then should be. Looks like all was written by someone that is pushing the Multiregional origin of modern humans theory over neutrality. Lots of guess work here.Moxy (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Disagree, it does not read that way. In fact, when the group-thinkers speculate that interbreeding took place in the ME, it supports their OOA theory more than anything. Also supports the historical consensus regarding the origin of civilization. This is because the status quo and perceptions have money/credibility on the line. Plus the whole group think thing. Western democracy and globalization follow the money. The folks closest to the money supply traditionally have had the most money. This gets inherited by their kin and dynasties are born. These dynasties make up the upper echelon of the ruling class and have been there for ages. Those with the most money can buy the rules. A common sense fact. They have a vested interest in the OOA theory due to the diversity in the Mediterranean, North Africa, Sub-Sahara, Red Sea coast, it's location and fossil record, and most importantly Abrahamism.
The OOA theory is challenged by hard physical evidence and ignored by group-thinking hive-minded and 'educated' consensus. 1%-4% is very important from a genetic stand point. It is what we have always speculated. Especially in Western Europe. The Caucasus theory may be outdated, but the evidence discovered supports it. Unlike the OOA theory. Humans are held to different standards than animals. This makes no rational sense. The only thing that does make sense is financial/political. Irrational sense, but not surprising — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.98.123 (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the 'in the Middle East' location has been broadly reported in secondary sources, so we may be stuck with it, although it can certainly be toned down. Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The assertion is much more tentative in the body of the article, saying "perhaps in the Middle East." If no one objects, I'll remove the factual assertion "in the Middle East" from the lead, but we can retain the tentative statement in the body of the article. Thanks for your comments. TimidGuy (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps replace it with what is much less tentative - that it is the group that migrated out of Africa at that time (as opposed to one leading to all humans). Agricolae (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, good suggestion. I specified "Europe or Western Asia," and used the book I'm currently reading as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I am obviously in a minority, but I think that it should be made clear that the Middle East is the most likely, as stated in the National Geographic article. Modern humans did not reach Europe, so far as is known, until after 50,000 years ago, but the admixture is thought to have taken place before this. The quotation cited in note 2 only says that the mixing must logically have taken place in the Neanderthal range, which includes Europe. No Neanderthal fossils have been found in Africa. The article mentions Jebel Irhoud as a Neanderthal site, but the article on Jebel Irhoud says that it is no longer thought to be Neanderthal. Some tidying up is in any case needed as further down the mixing is said to be probably in the Middle East, and later in the Middle East or North Africa. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree that Europe is not a viable option - the cite given for that is just saying that it had to happen where Neanderthal were, and they have been found in Europe and West Asia. However, given that some of the models for expansion show splitting before getting to Asia (with one 'branch' going north via Palestine to Europe and West Asia, and the other east via the Horn to the Arabian peninsula and on to South and East Asia) the mixing would have to take place before the split. Others have a single population moving to Arabia first, then splitting, and I just saw one suggesting Horn->East Arabia->Mesopotamia->split, making a Middle East event site much less likely (in spite of being the most broadly reported) - surely the original researchers did not exclude North Africa (but then again, they were geneticists, not paleoanthropologists). We also have a sampling issue with much of North Africa, there being no Homo fossils found of any flavor for most of the region, making so it is hard to exclude this region based on the absence of Neanderthal discoveries any more than we can exclude an East Asian Denisova introgression based on the lack of Denisova fossils from the Far East. (Then of course there is the niggling possibility that the genetic data is not due to introgression at all, but population substructure within the archaic African human sub-populations.) My personal preference would be to not specify geography in the lede interbreeding statement at all, and just indicate that it happened in the population of moderns that first expanded out. Agricolae (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to support the alternative migratory route with an actual reference rather than just my own memory, here is a paper that tests an Egypt->Sinai->(split) model vs a Horn->South/East Arabia->Southern Iran->(split) route for the first migration out of Africa. They evaluate the pattern of genomic recombination vs. geographic distance from Africa by the two routes, and conclude the latter is the more likely. [16] Agricolae (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Alice Roberts put forward the same suggestion in one of the best sections of her generally disappointing 2009 BBC TV series, The Incredible Human Journey. If I remember correctly, she argued that sea levels were lower at that time, and humans could have hopped along the coast via fertile south Arabian coastal sites now lost under the sea. I am still not clear why you do not seem to regard this as a Middle East route. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a Middle Eastern route, but as Maunus suggests, when people talk about the interbreeding taking place in the Middle East, they generally aren't speaking of the Middle East as a whole, but in the area around the Israeli sites where Early-Modern Humans and Neanderthal are found in reasonable geographic and temporal proximity. If that specific region was not on the trunk of migration (if modern humans had already split before they got there), then the only identified paleoanthopological site is out of the question. There then is no reason to favor the Middle East over the Horn of Africa, as just as they haven't found Neanderthal in Ethiopia or Djibouti or Somalia, they haven't found Neanderthal in Yemen or Qatar or southern Iran either. All bets are off. Agricolae (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with not specifying geography in the lede - just state the basic logic that as the Neanderthal markers occur in all non-African populations, the mixing must have occurred very early, before the original population which emigrated out of Africa divided. In later exposition, I would as you agree exclude all mention of Europe. I am not clear why you think a Mesopotamia split makes the Middle East less likely. I understand the Middle East to include Mesopotamia, and the Middle East article agrees (it also includes Egypt but not the Horn). This shows that it is probably better to refer to West Asia rather than the Middle East. The separate Horn and Egypt emigration models and the shortage of fossils to exclude African Neanderthals would be worth mentioning if there is a suitable source to cite. I have not seen the suggestion that the mutations occurred in the archaic African sub-species. It seems unlikely, particularly as it can hardly apply to the Denisova mixing, but the most unlikely keeps turning up. Do you have a source? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This brings us to the real problem - the original report of Neanderthal genomic interbreeding data has not even been out for two years. There are so many thoughts and theories floating around and no consensus among scholars (although that hasn't stopped the press from reaching their own). I haven't seen anyone suggest that the substructure argument underlies the Denisova interbreeding data, except as a formal but exceedingly unlikely possibility, but it appears to be the best explanation for the Denisova mtDNA data being in conflict with the genomic data (the alternative explanation is that there was an erectus->Denisova mtDNA introgression). As to the North-African genetic sub-structure as an alternative to Neanderthal interbreeding, I know that at least when the original data came out, this was the preferred alternative expressed by Dienekes, and John Hawks has at least mentioned it as a formal possibility that can't be dismissed without a lot more data (in fact, it is also formally possible that it went the other way - that rather that genes passed from Neanderthal to moderns, the genetic similarity represents material passed from moderns to Neanderthals, and that changes the geography entirely - to distinguish directionality we need more Neanderthal individuals than we have total, let alone the one that has been sequenced). None of this is based on a Wikipedia RS, but given the short timeline and the rapidity with which new data is being released (like the Arabian archaeological material), I think it will take years before anything approaching a scholarly consensus will emerge and make its way into published sources. Agricolae (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
You know far more about this than me, so I am sticking my neck out commenting, but there are instances in modern populations of conflicting mtDNA and genomic data attributed to an incoming tribe in the distant past having killed the men and taken the women as wives. Could not something similar account for the discrepancies in this case? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, that is one mechanism for introgression (if that's what it was). All we know is that the Denisova mtDNA diverged from that leading to humans and Neanderthals in the 1.5 mya range (the time of erectus), while their genomic DNA diverged from Neanderthal about 640 kya. Either a) after the Neanderthal/Denisova split, like you are talking about the Denisova brought into their population one or more erectus females, and the sole population of Denisova for which we have mtDNA just happens to descend from that erectus mtDNA carrier; or b) that the mtDNA variation of the population 800 kya was broad enough that it still included mtDNA lineages that had diverged a million years before that, that this persisted in the ancestral Neanderthal/Denisova population and was inherited by the Denisova lineage, but was subsequently purged through drift or bottleneck effects from the lineage of Neanderthals and modern humans, but persisted in Denisovans. The idea is the same for the non-African human/Neanderthal commonality. Either there was an introgression through an interbreeding, or the genetic signature that the lines have in common persisted in both from their common ancestor while having been lost from sub-Saharan populations. Finally, in a bottleneck/founder effect, the group of moderns that spread out of North Africa then just happened to have among their diversity some of these persisting old alleles. Agricolae (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this discussion. Is the consensus to omit the location of introgression from the lead? By the way, I once asked at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about using John Hawks blog as a source, and the response was that his blog meets the criteria, since he's an acknowledged expert. TimidGuy (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I have edited with my version. Does it look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That resolves the issue. The sentence may be a little challenging for a general reader to parse. Also, I wonder if the referent for "they" is unclear. Some readers may think it refers to Neanderthal. TimidGuy (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
How about this? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Better, thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is a summary and analysis on a very recent paper addressing the issue of interbreeding vs. population substructure [17]. I can't see the original work because it is behind a paywall. Agricolae (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting although I find some of it difficult to follow in view of the technical terminology. The paper on the D-statistic says that it depends on the assumption that mating between the two populations is random. If this means that males of population A are just as likely to mate with females of population B as vice versa it seems to me an unsafe assumption. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If either of you would like to see the paper, I can get it and email it to you. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I can get it soon enough on my own, but thanks. Agricolae (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, and a South-Persian split site would definitively make the Skhul sites irrelevant. Agricolae (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Was this where the Arab/ Semitic peoples got their huge noses from? After all these large noses do not seem to be adapted for desert living, and negro-Africans who are pure Homo sapiens do not have these large noses. 86.177.125.249 (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Were they White?

THIS IS NOT A RACISM! It's an important question: Were they "White" ? Böri (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Define white? IF you just mean skin color there is no way to know - skin doesn't fossilize, and we don't know the genetics of skin color. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is entirely true - we know the critical mutations that led to Europeans and East Asians being fair-skinned (and we know they were different). We also can date the mutations, approximately, and they come long after the period of genetic interaction between the h.s. and h.[s.]n. populations. That means we could look at the Neanderthal genome for these changes, but a negative result would be meaningless as we already know there is more than one way to skin a cat. As to the shades of white, black and everything in between, known genetics can account for (iirc) about 50% of the variation, while the rest has yet to be worked out. Agricolae (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Just as in modern Homo sapiens, different Neanderthal populations could have different skin or hair colours. 86.177.125.249 (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they might well have given the range they occupied.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Genetics is hard to use for determining skin colour. Even if we knew every single gene in play for modern human skin colour, they could have had a gene(s) not present in modern humans that could give colour to their skin. An example is the neanderthal red hair, the gene mutation here (a variant of the MC1R gene located on Chromosome 16) is different from the MC1R gene mutations in modern humans that allows red hair (all mutations involved here render the gene nonfunctional or impaired). That being said, if there was no other gene adding a dark colour to their skin, those neanderthals with the mentioned MC1R mutation would likely have been red haired and pale (which would likely be a health advantage in the geographic range of neanderthal). — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Given the Neandertal range as shown, roughly contiguous with modern Northern-Central Europe & into Iran, I see no reason the conditions wouldn't produce a variation similar to H.sap. As I understand, the genetic differences are structural, not cosmetic: which is to say, they're built different (skull, brain size, musculature), but would look like us, since skin & hair are a product of environment. No? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Stone Age Europe

Peter Campbell added category Stone Age Europe and Trekphiler undid with the comment that Stone Age is much later and Hom Sap. This is surely wrong. The Stone Age goes back over 3 million years and includes the Neanderthal. I do not want to get into an edit war but Peter Campbell's addition seems to me correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it. I've always had the impression it doesn't go back nearly so far. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It goes back as far as humans have used stone tools.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I should have remembered that... :( :( Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We're number two

I'm reading the comment on vegetables in the diet, & it's making me wonder: is this saying, or trying to say, Neandertal weren't apex predators? That they were, in fact, only scavengers? Or is it only saying the diet wasn't as skewed to meat as previously thought? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The latter. Basically it was long thought that they were entirely carnivorous. I think there is good evidence for hunting rather than scavenging.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It could do with being a bit clearer, then, IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Either that or we didn't interbreed with them after all

I was interested to read this story today. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/14/study-doubt-human-neanderthal-interbreeding?newsfeed=true Chrisrus (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting story indeed, but apparently an original source on PNAS is not available. Perhaps we should wait until the article by Manica and Eriksson is published before mentioning their stance on the interbreeding hypothesis within this talk's main article? -Ano-User (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. "Not yet available" - very frustrating. How long are we going to have to wait to see this, and how do we get the word when it becomes available? Chrisrus (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It is available [18], although I am inside the paywall so I don't know if it is free to view or if that will have to await formal publication. Given that there is nothing really new here other than that the British press chose to notice it this time (the deep genetic substructure model as an alternative to interbreeding has been around since the original Svante paper, and was discussed here months ago), perhaps we should wait not only until it is published (definitely), but until we learn whether it has any effect on the scholarly synthesis, instead of ping-ponging back and forth with every new paper. There is also a Reich paper that concludes just the opposite coming down the pike [19]. The fact is, some papers end up being dead on arrival (such as the one on arsenic-based life), and it is not until it shows up in secondary sources that we know how it has been received. Right now the weight of published opinion seems to be on interbreeding, with the substructure alternative being given, at most, passing mention as a caveat. Even with this new paper, we need to be careful to give it its due, but not undue weight. Agricolae (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to reinforce this last point, I find an analysis (non-WP:RS, and admittedly in part drawn from people with a dog in the fight) that suggests the new paper only does half of the analysis that was already done more completely in an earlier paper reaching the opposite conclusion. The PNAS paper found that a model involving population substructure would match the distribution of Neanderthal alleles in Eurasians. The prior published paper specifically tested the same population substructure model as well as several others and found that a scenario involving interbreeding after a bottleneck better fits the data. To quote: "One could say that the appropriate follow up paper to the PNAS contribution was actually published before it."[emphasis in original][20] I have seen it said that alternative substructure scenarios involving significantly different assumptions about population sizes give very different results but perhaps, all the media coverage aside, this PNAS paper may fall among the many thousands of published papers every year that don't represent findings of sufficient significance to their field to merit mention on Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with leaving things out because they are not significant enough is (as you pointed out in a different context) that there will always be an editor who adds it in, as has already happened. Perhaps it would be best to change it to be more tentative and add a reference to any refutation when a suitable paper becomes available. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did exactly that: made it more tentative and changed the wording to remove "recent." But my edit was promptly reverted, without the courtesy of an edit summary or comment here. Do we have a consensus to at least make it more tentative? By the way, I personally find John Hawks's refutation of this new paper pretty convincing.[21] (Also, I once got support at RSN for using Hawks as a source. Should we consider that?) TimidGuy (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: the revert was a mistake and the edit making it more tentative was restored. TimidGuy (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have taken it back out. There are several problems with including this. First, this is not the first paper to propose this alternative. All the way back to the Paabo paper, it has been included as an alternative. To present it like a novel alternative that someone just thought up in 2012 is deceptive. Second, the paper has already been superseded, even before it was published. The fact that it ended up being published more recently says more about the quirks of scientific publishing than it does about verifiability. Even were this not the case, it is not uncommon for a scholarly paper to fly in the face of consensus, and most of them end up being interpreted as either wrong or fringe in the long run. Part of the reason for reliance on secondary sources is that it keeps these trial balloons out of the article until the scientific community has a chance to respond to them. Here we even already have a better study that did the same analysis, then took it to the next step and showed it to be extremely unlikely. While nothing has been published yet, I have seen nothing from the scientific community that suggests the conclusions of this study are going to find a place in the consensus view. While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, neither is it 'Science Today', presenting whatever conclusion is in the latest item off the presses when it takes a year at the minimum to see the first published community responses. Agricolae (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Good points. I support your removal of it. TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Unidentified tools.

Have you ever considered the dimansi finds in georgia (country). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apidium23 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar 1 skull video

Hi

I'm posting this here because I don't know much about Neanderthals and don't want to add incorrect information. I created a 3d model of the replica Gibraltar 1 skull at Gibraltar Museum using photogrammetry. Since Wikipedia doesn't yet suport 3d models I've created a video from it. If someone who is knowledgable about Neanderthals thinks this is worth including please do. FYI the free software I used to create it is called 123d catch.

Gibraltar 1 3d model, created using photogrammetry

Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


Also if someone has use for the original 3d model I'm happy to release it under an open license, just don't know where to do it. Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neanderthal/Archive_4&oldid=1142554268"