Talk:Neanderthal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
February 16, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Neanderthal:
  • Expand on the debate between Neanderthalensis as a separate species or sub-species of Homo sapiens
  • General Readability- In general, this article could focus initially on just how the Neanderthals were more robust physically and genealogically different from current Homo-sapiens.
  • Find peer-reviewed (etc.) source instead of current Reference #7 and remove current one.

africans have neanderthal genes[edit]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24988-humanitys-forgotten-return-to-africa-revealed-in-dna.html I'm not sure which article to put this in but it would appear that the khoisan of southern africa have west eurasian and neanderthal genes. Interesting find as neanderthal admixture theorists argue that naenderthal genes explain racial differences in intelligence. Turtire (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Are there racial differences in intelligence? I think one can keep these two issues quite separate. HiLo48 (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The linked article says everyone has traces of Neanderthal DNA. Which somewhat invalidates the concept of this thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it was previously assumed that no Africans had "Naenderthal" genes, and now this has been disproved. It's just remarkable that the Neanderthal markers were not seen previously.
And it has nothing to do with intelligence. Kortoso (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Sorry, I should have said it makes an interesting claim re the genetic makeup of some isolated African populations, but says nothing useful re the implied views of "Neanderthal admixture theorists." -- Euryalus (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Since the study didn't test every African they could find for Neanderthal genes, the article should read "Some Africans Might Have Some Neanderthal Genes For Some Reason". Kortoso (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? Genetics absolutely affected cranial capacity and intelligence. How could you deny that? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that this discussion is going nowhere. It is about at least two different issues. CorinneSD (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
BvO sounds like an editor who likes to pick a fight, CorinneSD. To use "cranial capacity" and "intelligence" in the same sentence like that is a dead giveaway. Modern human capacities average around 1000cc, while Neanderthals averaged around 1400cc. And one of the most intelligent men who ever lived, Anatole France, reportedly had a cranial capacity just a tad above a modern day chimp's. Genetics may affect cranial size, but its affect on intelligence is dubious at best. – Paine  23:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Pardon, but that's pretty lame. Absolutely genetics, somewhere, enabled humans to become intelligent enough for societal life. Whether the residual Neanderthal genes did so, or just made our hair grow faster or our eyes squint more, or added another enzyme for digesting pine needles is not yet fully known.
The original for the "sub-Saharan Africans don't have Neanderthal DNA" idea was Sante Paabo et al's paper on the reconstruction of Neanderthal DNA. After he had the sequence, he tested six people's DNA for matches; if I remember rightly, one from each continent. One of the six was sub-Saharan African, and did not show the similarities that the other five did. This could, of course, have been just a sampling error, but he reported his findings. Typically, no one waited to see what follow-ups would say. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Violence[edit]

This section seems to have a contradiction that really trips me as I read it. It currently says:

The St. Césaire 1 skeleton discovered in 1979 at La Roche à Pierrot, France, showed a healed fracture on top of the skull apparently caused by a deep blade wound. This wound was likely fatal, given the lack of medical care, causing the victim to bleed out, or through cranial concussion

As I read it, what trips me is that it is a "healed fracture" but the second sentence says it was likely fatal and that the victim likely bled out through the wound. in such a case, it wouldn't be a healed wound.

I can't locate the source to try to correct it myself. It would be nice if it was clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.231.7.225 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources I could find:
1. Césaire Neanderthal skeleton
2. Zollikofer, C. P. E.; Ponce de Leon, M. S.; Vandermeersch, B.; Leveque, F. (23 April 2002). "Evidence for interpersonal violence in the St. Cesaire Neanderthal". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (9): 6444–6448. doi:10.1073/pnas.082111899. 
3. Role of the Neanderthal in Modern Behavior and Cultural Development, cave and the modern human peopling of Europe]
4. [1] Jimw338 (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Classification[edit]

"For some time, scientists have debated whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of H. sapiens.[36][37] Some morphological studies support the view that H. neanderthalensis is a separate species and not a subspecies.[38][39] Others, for example University of Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction"[40] and evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies has been interpreted as evidence Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens.[41]"

Question and comment: Since when did "cultural interaction" enter into the determination of species vs variety for any being? I just got through with reading a paper about findings about Neanderthal nasal morphology which showed definite differences with H. sapiens, and while the paper said nothing about it, an author's interview in a magazine definitely proclaimed that this proved that Neanderthals and sapiens were different species, common genes notwithstanding. And secondly, Svante Paabo et al. has gone somewhat beyond his paper concerning mitochondrial DNA in Neanderthal to his paper about nuclear DNA. It seems to me this paragraph needs rework by someone familiar with anthropological idiom. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The cultural interaction bit does seem weird, maybe it has been taken out of context? FunkMonk (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Possibly from the POV of other species interrelations? One species of chickadee doesn't mix with another because of different courtship rituals, habitat preferences, etc. Just guessing here. Kortoso (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Last common ancestor?[edit]

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18196.abstract

A central problem in paleoanthropology is the identity of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans ([N-MH]LCA). Recently developed analytical techniques now allow this problem to be addressed using a probabilistic morphological framework. This study provides a quantitative reconstruction of the expected dental morphology of the [N-MH]LCA and an assessment of whether known fossil species are compatible with this ancestral position. We show that no known fossil species is a suitable candidate for being the [N-MH]LCA and that all late Early and Middle Pleistocene taxa from Europe have Neanderthal dental affinities, pointing to the existence of a European clade originated around 1 Ma. These results are incongruent with younger molecular divergence estimates and suggest at least one of the following must be true: (i) European fossils and the [N-MH]LCA selectively retained primitive dental traits; (ii) molecular estimates of the divergence between Neanderthals and modern humans are underestimated; or (iii) phenotypic divergence and speciation between both species were decoupled such that phenotypic differentiation, at least in dental morphology, predated speciation.
Thoughts?

Kortoso (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting but it is far too early to start changing the Wiki article. We will need to see whether their views are accepted by other experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep, it appears to be a peer-reviewed organ. Kortoso (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Neanderthal existed also in North Africa[edit]

Neaderthal lived also in north africa and is responsible of many cultures such as the Iberomaurusian North african people have a high amount of Neanderthal genetic input

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0047765

The maps and article need to be updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.154.95.71 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This is just one article and it is too early to judge how far it will be widely accepted. But in any case it only covers whether people with Neanderthal genes moved into North Africa as well as Europe and Asia, not whether the Neanderthals were themselves there. The only proof of that would be the discovery of Neanderthal fossils in North Africa. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)