Talk:Neanderthal

Template:Assessed

Almas material

What do editors think about the addition earlier today of the crytozoology material? I don't spend a lot of time in the paleoanthropology articles so I don't know whether there's a consensus whether it's appropriate to add cryptozoological speculation to them. I'd be inclined to leave out such speculation, since there's so much of it, and since the evidence isn't of the same caliber as the research that's generally cited. Maybe as an external link? TimidGuy (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I say leave it out. I can see this section getting out of hand in short order with every manner of big foot sighting and such. JPotter (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't they find a skull once and did a compare with a Frankish skull, to find out it was even more modern? I can't remember the program, it could have been BBC. Let's take it out.Rokus01 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have deleted. TimidGuy (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

bones some data to merge

numbers := kya = k years ago

• 200: Atapuerca, Pontnewydd Cave, Vértesszöllos, Ehringsdorf, Casal de'Pazzi, Biache, La Chaise, Montmaurin, Prince, Lazaret, Fontéchevade
• 135-45:Krapina, Saccopastore, Malarnaud, Altamura, Gánovce, Denisova, Okladnikov, Pech de l'Azé, Tabun, Kebara, Régourdou, Mt. Circeo, La Ferrassie, Combe Grenal, Erd, La Chapelle-aux Saints 1, Amud, Shanidar, Teshik-Tash, Feldhofer.
• 45-35 La Quina, l'Horus, Zafarraya, Hortus, Vindija, Kulna, Šipka, Saint Césaire, Arcy-Sur-Cure, Bacho Kiro, El Castillo, Bñnolas, Devil's Tower, Le Moustier,
• < 35 początek Chătelperron, Pestera cu Oase 35k, Vindija (Vi208, Vi207 29,28k-32400), Velika Pećina, Lagar Velho.

• - Arcy-sur-Cure, Engis, Figueria Brava, Forbe's Quarry, Guttarsi, Kiyik-Koba, Krapina, Külna, La Ferrassie, Mamontowaja Kuria, Moula, Roc de Marsa, Saccopastore, Saint-Césaire, Shanidor, Spipka, Spy, Starosillya, Steinheim, Sukhaja Meczetka, Tabun, Tata, Teshik-Tash, Zafarraya, Zaskalnaya (Ukraine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthal in Southern Iberia

I don't understand why the citation was deleted regarding Neanderthal survival after 30,000 years ago, nor do I understand the edit summary for that edit. I hope this can be discussed. The two versions seems to say the same thing, except that it doesn't make sense to me to say that Neanderthal "traits" survived. Later the article uses "traces." is that what is meant? I believe I'll make that change. TimidGuy (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that you mean the latest skeleton with Neanderthal traits. But why delete the citation that also discusses traces of Neanderthal culture? TimidGuy (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC) My mistake. I agree with the deletion of the citation. It doesn't directly deal with evidence of late Neanderthal survival. Will edit the lead to conform to the remaining citation. TimidGuy (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Tool cultures in lead

I don't understand why we need the list of the names of the tool cultures in the lead. To my mind, it's unnecessary detail. The main point of that sentence is indicating the time span of Neanderthals. I think it would be fine to put back the information on bones. And the names of the tool cultures could be put later in the article, if it isn't already there. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) No response, so I made it a footnote. I like the chronology of the bones. TimidGuy (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

New mDNA study suggests break with H. sapiens about 660,000 kya

Should this, or better yet the original paper in Cell that it is based on, be included somewhere in the article? The first complete mDNA sample from H. Neanderthalis? [1] Edhubbard (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it would be great if you added it. And it also seems like it resolves the mild edit war regarding whether Neanderthal is a species of subspecies. TimidGuy (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New info, complete mtDNA sequenced

How should this new information be added to the article? From Cell magazine, hot off the presses: A complete mitochondrial (mt) genome sequence was reconstructed from a 38,000 year-old Neandertal individual with 8341 mtDNA sequences identified among 4.8 Gb of DNA generated from ∼0.3 g of bone. Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 ± 140,000 years. Of the 13 proteins encoded in the mtDNA, subunit 2 of cytochrome c oxidase of the mitochondrial electron transport chain has experienced the largest number of amino acid substitutions in human ancestors since the separation from Neandertals. There is evidence that purifying selection in the Neandertal mtDNA was reduced compared with other primate lineages, suggesting that the effective population size of Neandertals was small.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 21:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be really good to get this into the article. I don't have time at the moment to think of how to integrate it. The most pressing need right now is to correct a number of errors that were introduced into the article in the last 24 hours. The person who added the content is quite knowledgeable, but English isn't his native language and I noticed spelling and grammatical errors. Hope someone can take a look at these edits. I may have a little time tomorrow. And I hope he holds off on making more, until these edits can be refined. Feel free to add this new study yourself. TimidGuy (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

38k is the mtDNA of Vindia HN ? (the same bone DNA cloned into bacteria library byEM Rubin &a)

1. Cytochrome c is a highly conserved protein across the spectrum of species,
2. both humans and chimpanzees have the identical molecule,
3. rhesus monkeys possess cytochromes differing by one amino acid.

could you drop the sequence string either above is not true or they sequenced something else. I hope (the divergent amino acid substitutions} is not in cytochrome b :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Move sentences here for rewriting

I didn't understand this, partly because I didn't understand the English. Let's see if we can rewrite it.

In spacial Neanderthal range was found specimen dated to 5.3 kya having also similar anatomical characteristic. Safely may be estimated that this characteristic is persistent in major H.N. area from 5300 to 0 ya.

Also, seems like we'd need a source and more detail. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

1. H.N. = the subject of this article.
2. In spacial Neanderthal range = the area where HN specimens are found
3. was found specimen = was found specimen
4. dated to 5.3 kya = that object was 'made' 5300 year ago. +/-
5. having also similar anatomical characteristic. =the anatomical characteristic in previous sentence.
6. Safely may be estimated that this characteristic is persistent in major H.N. area from 5300 to 0 ya. = we are sure, you are sure, anybody is.

I hope all is understandable. If not point to point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have a source for this? If such a specimen exists dated to 5,300 years ago, why would it be estimated that this characteristic would persist to today? Since the previous sentence references both Neanderthal and modern humans, it's not clear which this specimen was. And based on syntax, I presume the characteristic that's being referenced is MC1R. Is that correct? (I have to admit to some confusion, and I guess I'm assuming that other readers may be similarly confused. Which is why I moved it here.) TimidGuy (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes i do. Plese say what originaly you did not understand so the text may be rephrased to be easier.

did you overlooked a point? 5 having also similar anatomical characteristic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Partly it's that the second clause in the previous sentence is itself very cryptic. The logical relationship between the two clauses isn't clear to a nonspecialized reader like myself. If you could perhaps elaborate here, explaining this to me a bit, then I can rephrase. TimidGuy (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you could quote the strings which apper 'cryptic' i will try to 'undecode' it (like turning option --verbose on me). 71.201.241.2 (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This clause: " however, the mutation in the MC1R gene arose independently of the mutation which causes a similar pigmentation pattern in modern humans." I don't understand what it's saying. What's the MC1R gene? And why is it adduced here? Perhaps clarifying that will be a good first step in making clear the material you propose to add after that clause. TimidGuy (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

W: however, the mutation in the MC1R gene arose independently

T: I don't understand what it's saying.

71: Its not my (part of) sentence (not inserted by me). Perhaps (if it is true) it may be a deiferent genetic lineage or deduced from diferent patern of mutation or SNP (may be to aDNA error). But i will sugest to mark it {fact}. Or searching who inserted it and ask that coeditor for sources.

T: What's the MC1R gene?

71: from W: A gene encoding Melanocortin 1 receptor = MCR1. 71.201.241.2 (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Progress. I deleted that clause, so now the referent of your sentence is clear. So what kind of specimen was found 5,000 years ago and what suggested it had red hair? Was it a Neanderthal specimen? How could that be, if as the article says, the latest Neanderthal presence dates to 25,000 years ago? TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

tool cultures in lead

I don't understand why the tool cultures have been added to the lead. Please see WP:LEAD. Please explain why this information is important to the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More moved here for discussion -- mDNA

We really shouldn't be adding something like this, which is meaningless to a general reader, without more context.

"4 amino acid substitutions in mtDNA translated changed COX2 protein of Cytochrome c oxidase subunit II. Human amino acid on HS/HN differing positions: 22, 54, 95 and 146 in COX2 is most similar to Baboon/Macaque while Neanderthal mtDNA decode is more similar to primates proteins of Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan. RAO assumtion is based on matrilinear replacement of stonger Neanderthal by weeker but more social/modern wave of H.S. from Africa."

Please let's discuss. TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks added. Is it clear now ? 71.201.241.2 (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. It's meaningless to a general reader, who has no idea what this is talking about or what it means. There's no point in having it there if we can't translate it into something meaningful. TimidGuy (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say, I'm no biologist or anything, but I've got to agree with TimidGuy here. The information you are quoting seems applicable to a journal publication, but it should DEFINITELY be worded to say what it means in layman's terms... Wikiwikikid (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I get a notion of similarity to earlier primates & that there's genetic evidence; beyond that, "Huh?" TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for the feedback. This IP seems quite knowledgeable and hopefully we can work out something that is meaningful to a general reader. Here's his latest version, which I just removed from the article and which I still think is too technical.

The same paper show 4 amino acids substitutions in mtDNA translated to changed COX2 protein of Cytochrome c oxidase subunit II. Human amino acid on HS/HN differing positions: 22, 54, 95 and 146 in COX2 is most similar to Baboon/Macaque while Neanderthal mtDNA decode is more similar to Hominidae proteins of Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan. RAO hyphothesis assumption is based on matrilinear replacement of stronger Neanderthal by weaker but more social/modern wave of H.S. from Africa; however Baboon and Macaque are even behind great apes family but more distant gene transitions are known to biology.

Once the general point is clear and details that are too technical eliminated in favor of more general language, we can put it back. TimidGuy (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A try

The same paper showed four amino acid translations in mitochondrial DNA. It suggests Homo sapens is a closer relative to baboons and [or?] macaques, while Neandertal is nearer chimpanzee, gorilla, or [and?] orangutan. The Recent African Origin hyphothesis is based on matrilinear replacement of Neanderthal by H.sap.

As for

"replacement of Neanderthal by weaker but more social/modern wave of H.S. from Africa; however Baboon and Macaque are even behind great apes family but more distant gene transitions are known to biology."

I can only repeat, "Huh?" Dr. Moreau ^555-SOLO 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On the origin of specious?

"Neanderthal skulls were first discovered in Engis, Belgium (1829) and in Forbes' Quarry" So why isn't H.nean. named for Engis? I presume it's because they weren't recognized as sufficiently different. Some explanation is in order. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The importance of finds may not always be realised, particularly when the bones are fragmentary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Another question about the origin of Neanderthal....It seems to be infered that Neanderthals did indeed evolve Europe; from the information provided on this page it is almost impossible not to come to that conclusion, but yet nowhere is it stated explicitly that Neanderthal is a species that originated in Europe. For instance, I see two well documented inferences -- (1) Neanderthal traits are said to have appeared first in Europe; (2) Map of neanderthal sites points exclusively to Europe. It is put forward in the tool section that H.erectus and H.heidelbergensis are the ancestors of H.Neanderthals; it is, however, undocumented. H.erectus seems like a likely candidate, but without a credible source, I simply assume that someone came to this conclusion by his or her own logic. What got me thinking about this was the previous understanding I held, that all hominids evolved in east Africa; though, I don't know why I thought this. Also, if it is the case (that they evolved in Europe), exactly where in Europe did they evolve? It seems like there would have had to been some smaller region that acted as an "evolutionary hub" (though perhaps not...)

Likely this is another one of those things were knowone knows for what the deal is for sure. Even so, as I was trying to piece together human evolution and the progression of hominins, this was one of the obstacles I ran into. In that case, even if nothing is known for sure, it might be helpful to add a section about Neanderthals own history (migration, evolutionary ancestors, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahoevel (talk • contribs) 08:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can class that a separate evolution, more like a specialization, akin the diff tween horses & zebras. That's in line with the diff environment & with the evo of skin color changes in northern-adapted H. sap. groups. I wouldn't be too surprised to find H. nean. in Africa; the Eur finds only prove no H. nean. fossils have been found more southerly yet.

A bit of clarity on the origins of H. nean. wouldn't be a bad idea, if we've got people not getting it; per Harshaw's Law, that's a failure to communicate. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

These both seem like good suggestions -- explain why it's named after Neander and not Engis, and origins -- if sources can be found. There had been a couple sentences in the article about Neanderthal evolving in East Africa, but someone deleted it. I can't find it right now. It didn't have a source and seemed doubtful. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're getting at it from a different direction in the genetics debate above, i.e., is H. nean. ancestral? If so, H. nean. would (I think) be subsumed under (for instance) H. hab. & the "origin of H. nean." question becomes moot. Unless I've misread you...

On "fragmentary", that was my presumption; I do think it needs addressing. Not because I'd advocate a change in ID, but because why the earlier finds weren't recognized is significant. Or at least intersting, 'cause I recall the Neandertal skeleton was originally thought to belong to an old man, which accounts for the common depiction of H. nean. in a stooped posture. (Or have I conflated things?) In any case, I think the why bears clarification. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't keep up

Editor 71.201.241.2 continues to add lots of content that is problematic, because of the English and because it's too technical and is meaningless to a general reader. I don't have time to go through the many many edits. Not sure what to do. TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I reluctantly reverted good faith edits because they were uncommented, but what seems obvious to him is out of my depth, beyond my scope, and pushing the envelope for a general encyclopedia. But he is much too knowledgable to lose. Autodidactyl (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a general encyclopaedia, it's both a general encyclopaedia and a specialist encyclopedia. Try moving stuff to Neanderthal/Draft or Neanderthal/todo or just here to the talk to process. SPinoffs like Anatomy of Neanderthals, Discoveries of Neanderthals or whatever else can always be made when there's too much quantity. WilyD

The page has been semi-protected for two weeks to try to get a handle on this issue. This will also promote the sort of solution that WilyD offered. Tan ǀ 39 15:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wily, as you can see above, we've tried moving confusing things here to discuss, but the IP doesn't participate. He started to but then sort of gave up and went back to editing. Thanks, Tan, for semiprotecting. TimidGuy (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Section that I reverted from the introduction. i hope this can be used in a separate section Autodidactyl (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The characteristic style of stone tools in the Middle Paleolithic is called the Mousterian culture, after a prominent archaeological site where the tools were first found. The Mousterian culture is typified by the wide use of the Levallois technique. Mousterian tools were often produced using soft hammer percussion, with hammers made of materials like bones, antlers, and wood, rather than hard hammer percussion, using stone hammers. Near the end of the time of the Neanderthals, they created the Châtelperronian tool style, considered more advanced than that of the Mousterian. They either invented the Châtelperronian themselves or borrowed elements from the incoming modern humans who are thought to have created the Aurignacian (though some research suggests Neanderthals may actually have contributed to the latter.)

Agree, keep it all, just somewhere else, til us less-knowledgable peons can get a handle on what it means. ;) (I don't speak for anybody but me on that one. :D) I'd hate to put off somebody who knows his stuff simply for style reasons; too bad it's an IP, or I'd be suggesting a comment on his talk to translate, first. And it might be somebody who's got access to the journals is just paraphrasing it in without really getting it; hard to say. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you trying 'in good faith' find out the truth perhaps i can ask for help to wording off the coincidental/non_coincidental host switching from Macaque and sourced here. Do you think it is relevant to this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume this comment is related to thread above in which Trekphiler apparently successfully reworded the first part of your addition. What's not clear regarding the clause on baboons and macaques is whether that's specifically related to Neanderthal. Before we can help with rewording, we need to know that it's not an original observation by you that this is somehow relevant here, per WP:OR. Maybe we should continue this discussion in that thread. TimidGuy (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

saved interesting section for rewrite in wikipedic english before attempting to undo edit (edit conflict).

'==Anatomy==

ComparedBBC website post that compared to modern humans, Neanderthals were generally shorter and had more robust, but is surprising that many textbooks portray a wrong picture of Neanderthal height as being "very short" or "just over 5 feet". Based on 45 long bones from maximally 14 males and 7 females, Neanderthals' height averages between 164 and 168 (males) resp. 152 to 156 cm (females). This height is indeed 12-14 cm lower than the height of post-WWII Europeans, but compared to Europeans some 20,000 or 100 years ago, it is practically identical or even slightly higher. Considering the body build of Neanderthals, new body weight estimates show that they are only slightly above the cm/weight or the Body Mass Index of modern Americans or Canadians.' Autodidactyl (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope to clarify this phrase

Here's another phrase that I don't understand:

present day DNA (mtDNA, nDNA) sequencing to find differences in ancient signals in subpopulation gene pools.

Mainly the word "signals." Could we rephrase this? TimidGuy (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of helpful literature to explain what the signal mean in above context. If you have more specific (let it say clearly: challenging) question do not hesitate to ask. If not me (it depends), somebody will dedicate more time.

Give me the answer to Qa: what is the average hight of global human population ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, it would really help if you could explain or rewrite this so a general reader would understand it. Regarding average height, we simply report what the sources say. If they use this, then so do we. TimidGuy (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving here a debate removed from the lead so it can be placed elsewhere

I've deleted these two sentences from the lead:

The prospect of coexistence as two reproductively separated species may be mistaken, due to misdating of modern (5ky old) human bones. This continues to be reported as correct in popular mass media.

It doesn't seem like the lead is the place to get into the debate regarding interbreeding. The context of these sentences didn't make any suggestion either way regarding that issue, so I don't understand why it was inserted. TimidGuy (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Eaters of the Dead and Pop Culture

I find it hard to believe there is no reference to Michael Crichton's 'Eaters of the Dead' under his section. He produces extensive detail in his novel alleging that the 'Wendol' described in his book are a tribe of Homo Neanderthalensis having survived to recent times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.161.140 (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Neanderthal" as term of abuse

When did the term start developing its negative connotations - usually used of a male's attitudes towards women (in general or particular)?

Given that the structure of Neanderthal society is unknown surely the term is unappropriate - why not (historically known culture of choice)? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

please resolve contradiction in quotation

For Richard G. Klein is becoming increasingly clear that the Neanderthals and their modern human successors did not mix and coexisted with modern humans up to 15,000 years after Homo sapiens had migrated into Europe. In the same source abstract is writen oposite : it remains unclear why they disappeared shortly after modern humans arrived in Europe Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner believed that the population of Neanderthals was never much more than 10,000 individuals.

I don't see a contradiction. 15,000 years is "shortly" in natural history. thx1138 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Neanderthal disappeared from most of their range after the arrival of modern humans, but a small segment of the population lasted considerably longer in southwestern Europe and coexisted with modern humans. I'm glad this sentence is receiving attention and that some work has been done on the article in the past couple days. A lot of things needed fixing after a round of heavy editing a few weeks ago. TimidGuy (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

From a natural history POV, it's not, but we're aiming for a general audience, so "shortly" isn't really the best word. Also, I don't see the connection to the 10K #; IIRC, the estimates for H. sap. run in this range, too, & I'd bet for many of the same reasons: incapacity to support larger pop on foraging before the intro of systemic agriculture. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Neanderthal intelligence

An interesting article in Science Daily debunking the stupid Neanderthal myth.[2] What about adding something about this in the lead? Maybe: "Although Neanderthals have sometimes been portrayed as dumb brutes, research on their stone tools suggests they were as intelligent as modern humans." TimidGuy (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wery interresting. 2 caveats. Is it provable? Is it true? I'd bet, given a general improvement in diet, education, & tool use over the last 20 millenia, we're a lot smarter now than Neandertal, on average. We'd have to be. Smarter then, maybe not. (Which is what you meant, isn't it?) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your comment raises a good point: as I understand it, archaeologists use "modern humans" in very general sense to refer to any population morphologically the same as contemporary humans. So in this context, "modern humans" means those living 40,000 years ago. The reader wouldn't know that. So it would need to be rephrased, possibly: "Although Neanderthals have sometimes been portrayed as dumb brutes, recent research on their stone tools suggests they were as intelligent as the modern humans who eventually replaced them." TimidGuy (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New investigations debunk longheld textbook beliefs of inferior intelectual capabilities by showing that early stone tool technologies developed by Homo sapiens, were no more efficient than those used by Neanderthals. ? Rokus01 (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the term of art is "anatomically modern humans". Which suggests if somebody who knows that (moi) is making the mistake, somebody who doesn't is even more likely to. I think something like "as intelligent as contemporary H.sap." is better, avoiding both confusion over "modern humans" & debate over "replaced" (which we've got enough of now), & add to that "debunk long-held beliefs" (leave off textbooks, it's also Hollywood), & reverse the emphasis on tool tech to "no less efficient than H.sap." With that in mind, I think you've got it, Rokus01. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Both are good suggestions. Maybe I'll try adding this to the lead. Feel free to revert or modify, or move it elsewhere. TimidGuy (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Brain size [3]. The paleolithic Homos Sapiens had also bigger brain size than global average but, the population in some European areas till today have large brain size. The effect of averaging (800 - 1800 ccm) is today 1300 ccm. Again this is only average worldwide Homo brain size. Unfortunately the data of 19,20 century Homo's brain sizes are almost entirely quoted in older sources. 71.239.229.11 (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We had consensus to put the recent research on intelligence in the lead. I'm curious why you moved it to the Trivia section. TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FoxP2 material for discussion

I'm moving here some material recently added regarding the FoxP2 gene.

Past research suggests the gene's modern human variant evolved fewer than 200,000 years ago. Now scientists find the Neanderthal FOXP2 gene is identical to ours. The ancestors of Neanderthals diverged from ours roughly 300,000 years ago, according to the latest thinking. Some studies have suggested that the two species might have intermingled after that, however. "It is possible that Neanderthals spoke just like we do," paleogeneticist Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, told LiveScience. Krause noted that some might suggest that interbreeding or "gene flow" (aka sex) between modern humans and Neanderthals led to us having FOXP2 in common. "However, we see no evidence for gene flow in the Y chromosome sequences," he said. Instead, the modern human and Neanderthal Y chromosomes are substantially different genetically.

The information on FoxP2 could maybe be developed somewhat, but we'd need sources using proper citations, and we'd need to use appropriate style, such as avoiding use of first person. We'd need to begin by identifying the point here that we're trying to add. The article may beg the question whether FoxP2 is introgression or convergent evolution or inheritance from a common ancestor or interbreeding. But ideally, we'd reference scholarly sources. Krause's comments aren't really that edifying, just seemingly tossing out possibilities. There are so many unresolved issues with this, such as the possibility of contamination and the likelihood that other genes are also involved in language, I guess I'd be inclined not to make too much of this beyond what the article says. TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(Corrected typo for clarity Jackiespeel (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Neanderthals pubis ::: what was inherited ?

The anatomical difference may be due to changes in mating position. The preferred by large brainer birth pelvis moved pubis bone up. So the possible sexual behavior modification was changed due to this anatomical fact.

Even if Neanderthals extinct the nonanimalistic behaviour may be picked up by hidesaping incoming African Homos and with some substantial spatial differentiatial preferences used till today.

But since we can observe in nature (internet) enormous quantity of those (and surounding) anatomical body parts, it is easy to distinguish that beside flat and low some pictures present bunny hills in the area where the pubic bone moved up in Neanderthal, making possible to wider opening at birth for larger brained children.

The other aspect easy to observe (see internet) is the anatomical future stil preexisting in Africa population where pelvis bone morphology stretching the-back a-back to make easier the more evolutionary rooted way to mixing genes into zygote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.11 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain this in Wiki-English? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing characteristics

Since this has gotten changed twice now, let me point out my objection (since it's evidently not clear...). The 50K/30KYA dates are end dates, by which time the characteristics had disappeared. It may've been in progress until c30KYA, but by that time, it was pretty well done. Unless you're can demonstrate, & source, continuing changes after the 30KYA mark, leave it alone. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.11 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

:Not , read next 3 sentences. What was writen about Lagar Vehlo specimen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.11 (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the next three sentences and can't figure out what you're trying to achieve with your change. I've put it back the way it was because the English isn't correct. "had been disappearing" would usually refer to a broad period of time, for example, "had been disappearing for x number of years." But what follows is a specific time. If you can explain, then maybe we can edit the sentence to mean what you say. TimidGuy (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I get it. It looks like a misunderstanding of the text. The Lagar Vehlo find is dated 24.5KYA, but H. nean. characteristics "disappeared" 30KYA. What seems to be the problem is mistaking "characteristics" for "populations". H. nean. didn't vanish, but new characteristics did (or appeared in H. sap. pops).

OT, that does make me wonder about interbreeding, or there'd be some characteristics shared, no? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

1) You may be on good trail. Here characteristic is equal to traits the last enigma is more explained here. 2) To Timid: what is x if x = (50-30)*1000 ? Could x be (is it?) for x number of years ? There is much more but for now think only about that litle 'homework'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.11 (talk)

In this vein, "The magnitude on particular trait changes with 300,000 years timeline"? Can somebody clarify? Is it over the course of 300KY, or after the end of? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the former. Great cleanup of the article! Really appreciate your work on this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

TYVM. Did I goof with the "breast men" bit? I noticed afterward there was some doubt it belonged, but it made sense to me, so I left it in. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sloping cranium

I was wondering if someone could point out the differences between a modern human who has a sloping cranium and a Neanderthal's sloping cranium. The way this article is laid out (modern humans have this head type while...) it suggests that no modern humans have sloping craniums. If there is to be a diagram (or picture at least) indicating that modern humans have straight foreheads then shouldn't there be some explanation as to why some humans don't have straight foreheads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.155.78 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you hungry?

"almost exclusively carnivorous" This has been bugging me for awhile, so let me pose it. Is there evidence this contributed to their extinction? First, H. sap is omnivorous. Second, & the thing that got me thinking, is the relationship between sabretooth & their prey; it's believed, FWI read, when Mammoth (HBC or otherwise) died out, the cats (which relied on them) did, too. Could/did the same happen to H. nean.? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

canibali feast ?

look at the logic : we have bones of butchered neandertals. We know 'Africans' comming from Israel (scientific term Levant).

consider basic crime investigation.

• Victim Neanderthals
• tools of 'modern human'

• question. Did the six Neanderthals butchered themselves ? If so who eated them.
• if not who butchered them: The Africans coming from Israel. See cebara cave etc.

• why you reverted this valid concern: hmm.. to cover up 'obvious conclusion' .---obvious given how it is written, But I do not belive it. There is simpler explanation. Only sick mind can go to extremes "rape, cannibalism" in science - but i do not believe that scientists can get a chance in this website for any logic argumentation.

read more:

Cannibal feasts? In 1939 Guattari Cave on Monte Circeo, Italy, yielded stone tools and a skull of a rather heavily built Neandertal from the last glacial (about 50 thousand years old). What made this particular specimen a cause célèbre, though, was less the fossil itself than the supposed context. The original discovery had been made accidentally, by a workman, in almost complete darkness, and the skull – one of many bones lying on the cave floor – had been picked up and replaced on the ground by the time the paleontologist Alberto Blanc was called in. A reconstruction by Blanc showed the cranium lying inverted, a gaping hole in its base pointing straight up, within a ‘crown of stones’.

“Ignoring the fact that the cave floor was covered with stones and bones, and that here was no certainty about exactly where the skull had come from, Blanc built on the tradition of Krapina [Gorjanovic-Kramberger, 1906] and the Drachenloch to spring to the conclusion that the Guattari skull represented the remains of a cannibal feast. The individual had been killed by a blow to the right side of the head; the head had been severed from the body and placed upside down in a ring of stones; the skull base had been broken open to extract the brain (exactly as the anatomist Franz Weidenreich had suggested had happened to the Peking Man skulls from Zhoukoudian): the empty braincase had been used as a drinking cup before being replaced on the floor; and the broken animal bones scattered around the cave had accumulated as a result of further sacrifices associated with this bizarre cannibalistic ritual. We know now that Guattari Cave was in fact an ancient hyena den, and that the Neanderthal skull was simply one more of the numerous mammal bones with which it was littered” (p. 101). Actually, the claim that Neandertals were cannibals is far much older and based on a tragic misunderstanding. Trinkaus & Shipman (1993, pp. 104- 5) tell this story as follows:

“In his writings about La Naulette [a Belgian cave discovered in 1866], Dupont explicitly denied an extraordinary claim about the Neandertal fossils that had never yet been made (in print): that they were the remains of a cannibalistic feast. He argued that the fossils were naturally broken and located within a cave but were not associated with worked stones or hearths – items for which he deliberately searched. For all his care, he uncovered only broken animal bones and the three human bones. Perhaps he was indirectly responding to the charge of cannibalism that has been raised before, by a Monsieur Spring, who was writing of the more modern finds at Chauvaux, Belgium. Spring had found shattered human and animal bones mixed together in hearths and took this as logical evidence that both animals and humans had been treated as food. But Dupont’s finds did not include such evidence.

Bizarrely, the claim that Neandertals were cannibals started here – with a case that particularly did not suggest cannibalism – and has persisted, lingering about Neandertal remains like a poisonous miasma, until the present day. A purported summary of Dupont’s findings, written in English by C. Carter Blake [1867], stated that Dupont believed the La Naulette remains showed evidence of cannibalism. Was it mistranslation, misunderstanding, or carelessness? Then, in 1930, Ales Hrdlicka, a physical anthropologist at the Smithsonian, again attributed to Dupont the claim that the La Naulette remains showed signs of cannibalism”.

source: by by Johan M.G. van der Dennen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.60 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I was just glancing over the article and got pretty discouraged. It needs so much cleanup, and I don't have time to work on it. The article has become quite skewed toward the view of the aggressive IPs who've been editing, and it's filled with their nonstandard English and nonencyclopedic commentary. I'm sorry to see this happen to what had been a pretty good article. TimidGuy (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree... I have reverted to where I think is a reasonable place to start attempting a cleanup. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe semi-protection would help. Shambalala (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

you deleting ref from PNAS and replacing by tabloids pop. I know, some knowledge is required to understand scientific jargon. But your UtherSRG edits deleting tons of best referenced thesis is clear denial of science, = vandalism. Vdr826 (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: If you do not understand something would you be so polite and ask? perhaps somebody will like to educate.

So they again blocked the artucle. I see you added 4 credible ref. I Added 20 or more. Some may hangs till today. This is cabal not a knowledge bulding. Thank you again for participation. You see now yourself how disproporttional are the declaration and practice. to look for motive I can imagine some.

• religius , deep devotion to jevish values - (those who do reverts are involved in dvid star wikiproject)
• the kebara cave is they hebara. (located in israel)
• if nenderthal survived the claim to the to other Arab theritory will be weaker. If the European continiu from paeolite only they bouncing whithiot land foe 2.5 milenia. So it will be cool to rhave some eocide to get back to Eu, even if paleolithic. (the complex of Deuthe strafe)
• also now enigmatic African are those (assumably in this art) feasted on nenderthal flesh. So is better to put other in position of bluth drinking and bluth bth.
• i just think there is a difference in genetics and they rely do not care about truth and logic. brain size may be a reson or some kind of transcendental affinity. They have tu use force-(block/ban) the only remedy left for stupid.

Call me, regrds R.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.60 (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you UtherSRG. Though I don't have much available time, I'm willing to help those who feel that relevant material was deleted. And I think other editors are too. Threads above show sincere, good-faith attempts to translate incomprehensible additions into meaningful content. Because so much of the material that was added was incomprehensible, often due to the limited English skills of the contributors, a better was to proceed will be to add proposed material here and then work together to refine it before adding it directly to the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: to help those who feel that relevant material was deleted

How do you can help? Do you see lock? [4]

You wrote: incomprehensible, often due to the limited English skills

Do the titles from PNAS Science etc, deleted by praised by you admin (Thank you UtherSRG) are incomprehensible? Are the deleted quotes from those papers incomprehensible ? Remember, when you say "something is incomprehensible" you estimating comprehensibility in context of your own comprehension. Is the last sentence true, yes/no ? or again incomprehensible :|

to be constructive; I willing to show helping hand. Wrote what was beyond (your or imaginary) comprehension. Signal possible ambiguity (the other ways of interpretation) you finding in given phrase(s). Form clear question which could be answered with (the best binary) precision. Then we may help you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.77 (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of what was added just didn't make sense because of the problems with spelling, grammar, diction, and syntax. It's not simply a matter of ambiguity. My suggestion is that you post here material you would like to add, and other editors will help rewrite it so that it's comprehensible. Also, the material may have skewed the article somewhat, so we'd need to discuss that too. TimidGuy (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote, please. Let see if text is workable. You post one qoute I will explain. One by one. Give first one. But only one. OK?

Cleanup what it was.

In one deletion admin of this website balnked text referenced by following sources.

1. doi=10.1038/363252a0 PNAS
2. doi=10.1038/nature02690
3. doi=10.1073/pnas.0510005103
4. doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.08.010
5. doi=10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.021
6. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080807/full/news.2008.1026.html#B1
7. doi=10.1038/sj.hdy.6800852
8. doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020105
9. doi=10.1016/j.gde.2006.09.006 journal=Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev
10. DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5425.195a
11. DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5432.1355f
12. DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5424.31
13. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2004.11.016
14. http://anthropologylabs.umn.edu/Zilhao_2006_Evol_Anth.pdf
15. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060908093606
16. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702214104
17. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030175
18. doi:10.1086/302052 [5]
19. doi=10.1073/pnas.0608443103 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.77 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it me, or have we just been accused of being members of the International Jewish Conspiracy? (Say, where's my copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?) Fox Mulder ^{call me, Scully} 04:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, actually. I guess one can't reference WP:NPA if one can't understand what's being said. :-) I feel like we've been generous in our efforts to help rewrite the material these IPs want to add, and in our offers of help. It's beyond me why they'd be so snide. TimidGuy (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote, please. Let see if text is workable. You post one qoute I will explain. One by one. Give first one. But only one. OK? (nothing not understand = all understand)

Human_brain#Brain_size will have to be shrink. Somebody contraband facts there. (stop proceeding bigheads conspiracy & theory) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.198.190 (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)