1. Comment #174713 by healthphysicist on May 3, 2008 at 10:20 am

Just today I was watching a documentary series on T.V. called Miracle Planet. The show hypothesized that modern humans had language and Neanderthal did not. This was seen as the significant survival ace for modern humans.

Other Comments by healthphysicist

2. Comment #174715 by Truth Seeker on May 3, 2008 at 10:23 am

>> 16 Apr 08: Neanderthal expert Dr Chris Stringer discusses new ideas of how neanderthals and early man co-existed with Telegraph Science Editor Dr Roger Highfield. <<

I have to strongly disagree with his premise.

Dr Roger Highfield probably did no co-exist with early man and neanderthals :-)

Other Comments by Truth Seeker

3. Comment #174719 by Tetsujin on May 3, 2008 at 10:30 am

He's an editor?

Other Comments by Tetsujin

4. Comment #174725 by Mango on May 3, 2008 at 11:03 am

What's even more interesting to me is that Homo erectus was contemporary with modern humans in Asia (Java definitely) only around 50,000 years ago.

Other Comments by Mango

5. Comment #174739 by mejdrich on May 3, 2008 at 11:45 am

Excellent video. I love coming here not just for atheism, but to learn about science.

Other Comments by mejdrich

6. Comment #174780 by busterbrook on May 3, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Good video.

Other Comments by busterbrook

7. Comment #174791 by noodly_noodleson on May 3, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Truth Seeker:

>> 16 Apr 08: Neanderthal expert Dr Chris Stringer discusses new ideas of how neanderthals and early man co-existed with Telegraph Science Editor Dr Roger Highfield. <<

I have to strongly disagree with his premise.

Dr Roger Highfield probably did no co-exist with early man and neanderthals :-)

But we still ought to teach the controversy!

Other Comments by noodly_noodleson

8. Comment #174806 by sarah95 on May 3, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Great video. But the last question at the end was a bit silly. I hate when journalists ask those sort of questions. No, we won't be pulling any Jurassic Park stunts anytime soon, you dullard.

Other Comments by sarah95

9. Comment #174815 by Mitchell Gilks on May 3, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Who'd interbreed with them? Did you see that skull? I can only imagine what trolls their women must have been. I doubt even the furry community would want any Neanderthal lovin'.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

10. Comment #174840 by moderndaythomas on May 3, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Comment#174815 Mitchell Gilks

Who'd interbreed with them? Did you see that skull? I can only imagine what trolls their women must have been. I doubt even the furry community would want any Neanderthal lovin'.

At least not until they fermented potatos.

And after all the articles and what on fools and idiots, it's refreshing to take in some authenticity for a change.
Though as sarah95 said, the last question was right out of fantasy land. It takes one stupid journalist to spoil an otherwise excellent article.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

11. Comment #174846 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:33 pm

It takes one stupid journalist to spoil an otherwise excellent article.

The thing is if he had answered differently that would have been the lead. Don't you just hate our sound bite , superficial culture.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

12. Comment #174858 by noamzur on May 3, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Truth Seeker:

>> 16 Apr 08: Neanderthal expert Dr Chris Stringer discusses new ideas of how neanderthals and early man co-existed with Telegraph Science Editor Dr Roger Highfield. <<

I have to strongly disagree with his premise.

Dr Roger Highfield probably did no co-exist with early man and neanderthals :-)




But we still ought to teach the controversy!

I don't know what made me laugh louder - the original comment or the reply. Both utterly brilliant. I always thought Douglas Adams had clinched it when he revealed our history of Golgafringians...

But on a more serious note - very interesting little video, delightful and insightful as always. Thank Dawkins for this site, it really is a clear-thinking oasis!

Other Comments by noamzur

13. Comment #174864 by Lionspoint on May 3, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Truth Seeker wrote:

Dr Roger Highfield probably did no co-exist with early man and neanderthals :-)

Reread the title and that was mighty funny.

Other Comments by Lionspoint

14. Comment #174867 by ficklefiend on May 3, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Ah, I just got this guys book. Haven't started it yet though, interesting.

Other Comments by ficklefiend

15. Comment #174876 by mordacious1 on May 3, 2008 at 5:34 pm

I read somewhere recently where it was discovered that Neanderthal had developed the ability for language. As we learn more about them, we are finding that they were much more advanced than previously thought. If I remember correctly, it was R. Rugley's "The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age". Great book.

Other Comments by mordacious1

16. Comment #174895 by lievemebe on May 3, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Dr Stringer describes the demise of Neanderthal as resulting from being passively marginalised by the quicker responsiveness and greater adaptability of humans to climatic and environmental changes.

However, modern humans are extremely competitive and have a propensity for sophisticated modes of attack. I find it difficult to believe that humans did not actively war against Neanderthals and other species that would have been competing for resources in the refugia.

Other Comments by lievemebe

17. Comment #174906 by moderndaythomas on May 3, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Comment#174895 lievemebe

I find it difficult to believe that humans did not actively war against Neanderthals and other species that would have been competing for resources in the refugia.

It's the clear propensity for warfare by humans today that perpetuates this idea that early human populations may have clashed with Neanderthal (in fact our nearest living relative, the chimp, also engages in organized warfare if I'm not mistaken). The trouble is that there is no physical evidence to support a clash.
Early humans had a good tool kit for hunting and slaughtering and this is evident in the fossilised mammal bones left behind near their camps; evidence of butchering and the like.
But there is no sign of a clash between Saps and Neanderthal in the same way.

It's also important not to project such things with so many creation minded people mis-interpreting the suppositions of scientists these days. Many claim that dinosaures and humans have coexisted but clearly there is no sign of slaughter and butcher with dino bones either.

No evidence is no evidence

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

18. Comment #174909 by lievemebe on May 3, 2008 at 7:46 pm

But there is no sign of a clash between Saps and Neanderthal in the same way.

The interview could have made this more clear. Absence of evidence, while it doesn't prove anything, is an important part of exposition.

It's also important not to project such things with so many creation minded people mis-interpreting the suppositions of scientists these days.

I will say whatever needs to be said. My posts are not governed by the stupid machinations of creationists.

Other Comments by lievemebe

19. Comment #174915 by ofir on May 3, 2008 at 8:17 pm

A new black squirrel is replacing the grey squirrel (itself an import) in England. No warfare is involved.

Other Comments by ofir

20. Comment #174922 by moderndaythomas on May 3, 2008 at 9:03 pm

I will say whatever needs to be said. My posts are not governed by the stupid machinations of creationists.

That's fair, but what's good for the goose.......

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

21. Comment #174937 by Oppomystic on May 3, 2008 at 10:29 pm

I have to admit that that is one movie I would like to see:

A Neanderthal is created using old DNA or whatnot and takes it upon himself to eradicate the very creatures that killed off his own people..."Payback's a bitch. Take that, you modern, upright arseholes. I'll teach you to wipe out my species!"

It's Encino Man meets Jurassic Park meets Rambo. I'll get working on that script...

Other Comments by Oppomystic

22. Comment #174940 by dragonfirematrix on May 3, 2008 at 10:35 pm

I love the way science evoles and learns.

Now, if the Neanderthals of religion were able to learn. Pipe dream. The religious will never understand their existance.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

23. Comment #174941 by lievemebe on May 3, 2008 at 10:37 pm

moderndaythomas
I take your point that we need to start with evidence.

Other Comments by lievemebe

24. Comment #174943 by lievemebe on May 3, 2008 at 10:39 pm

ofir
The black squirrel introduced to the UK is more aggressive, eats insects and worms in addition to nuts and can interbreed with the grey. In this situation the losers are grey males that have limited options either in attack or retreat.

Similar invasion of the UK by Romans, Vikings and Normans was successful in the development of Homo britannicus, but was not a completely peaceful process.

However, I do concede that no evidence was presented for warfare between Neanderthals and Homo sp.

Other Comments by lievemebe

25. Comment #174963 by debbyo on May 4, 2008 at 1:27 am

Did Neanderthals have a soul?

Other Comments by debbyo

26. Comment #174978 by lievemebe on May 4, 2008 at 3:07 am

Did Neanderthals have a soul?

No, they were sold out by sapiens.

Other Comments by lievemebe

27. Comment #175003 by babrock on May 4, 2008 at 5:13 am

Just want to say thanx for putting this one up. I quite liked it. I was particularly pleased w/ his clearing up t did 'saps breed w neandertals' question.

Other Comments by babrock

28. Comment #175009 by ofir on May 4, 2008 at 5:34 am

lievemebe - From what I understand the black squirrel is a local mutation.

Other Comments by ofir

29. Comment #175040 by Rawhard Dickins on May 4, 2008 at 8:35 am

Would neanderthal DNA have any useful features that are now lost?

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

30. Comment #175087 by moderndaythomas on May 4, 2008 at 11:18 am

debbyo

Did Neanderthals have a soul?

Good one! If science succeeds in cloning a human, will the christian population deny him/her a soul?
Who's a Nazi now?

lievemebe

I take your point that we need to start with evidence

Ooops, I goofed. Discovery in science begins with no evidence, just an idea. But if in the end there's no evidence.....So sorry.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

31. Comment #175145 by Gaffer on May 4, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I remember a TV programme a few years ago where a scientist had the theory that homosapiens, who had smaller brains, were physically smaller, and had a weaker sense of smell and hearing than neanderthals, came to dominate because they domesticated dogs (stay with me here....)

The dogs became the 'ears and noses' of the homosapiens, allowing the 'saps to focus their brain resources on developing language and creative thinking. Which then allowed them to overcome the neanderthals (either through direct or indirect competition).

I can't remember what evidence he had for any of this, but as a canine lover it seemed like a nice story.

Other Comments by Gaffer

32. Comment #175173 by chuckgoecke on May 4, 2008 at 6:07 pm

I've said something like this before and I'll repeat it again, the more modern data about Neanderthals and modern humans comes in, the better I think Jean M. Auel, got it amazingly right, way back in 1980, with her book and series, Clan of the Cave Bear. A pretty good bio of her is on wiki: CLICK HERE This book, or actually the series, is one of my fav's, although I've not read the two most recent. The series is obviously fictionalized, and she jams too much excitement, innovation, and action into the few characters, but that's just to make it a good story. Parts are pretty spicy also I seem to remember. It was a bit unfortunate that the movie turned out rather crappy. I think "Valley or the Horses" and the later, more Cro-magnon(modern) human concentration books would make better movies, because of her premise that the moderns had a fully developed language, as compared to a primitive one in the Neanderthals, with mostly hand signs. The article about her also mention that besides the anthropological accuracy, the ethno-botany was praised also. I still highly recommend the books and was happy to hear she is working on a final book even now.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

33. Comment #175176 by Son.of.God on May 4, 2008 at 6:14 pm

I want to be a neanderthal.

Other Comments by Son.of.God

34. Comment #175185 by Zaphod on May 4, 2008 at 6:56 pm

@ debbyo

Did Neanderthals have a soul?

If you can provide any evidence that the human imagined concept of the soul actually even exists, then you can ask the above question.

If not you may as well be asking if Neanderthal's had pet dragons.

Other Comments by Zaphod

35. Comment #175187 by G M Becker on May 4, 2008 at 7:09 pm

The black squirrel is a genetic mutation -

Frankensquirrel!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/26/endangeredspecies

Really interesting video I wonder how the existence of a rival species such as this would have entered our collective consciousness, perhaps this is the origin of ideas like trolls and ogres?

Other Comments by G M Becker

36. Comment #175193 by moderndaythomas on May 4, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Gaffer

The dogs became the 'ears and noses' of the homosapiens, allowing the 'saps to focus their brain resources on developing language and creative thinking. Which then allowed them to overcome the neanderthals (either through direct or indirect competition).

What ever the instigator to this transition, I do know that it was predominantly our colour vision that did away with our olfaction. With absent colour vision, an organism is dependent on it's strong sent of smell and hearing to distinguish friend from foe, and to determine what is tasty and otherwise bad for the health.
With colour vision, the dependency was relaxed and this allowed for subsequent mutations to accumulate without effecting the overall health of the organism. Our ancestors.
It's known now which olfactory genes have gone into disrepair. Carroll calls them fossil genes.

Look into Sean Carroll's "The Making of the Fittest"

I've just pliagorized the thing.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

37. Comment #175194 by CShepGuy on May 4, 2008 at 7:42 pm

This was refreshing to watch, and its lack of religious reference made me realize that I sometimes visit this site just to get myself angry at religion. I was cringing waiting for the journalist to ask about evolution and creation, and I'm happy he didn't.

Other Comments by CShepGuy

38. Comment #175212 by Saerain on May 4, 2008 at 10:12 pm

1. Comment #174713 by healthphysicist on May 3, 2008 at 10:20 am

Just today I was watching a documentary series on T.V. called Miracle Planet. The show hypothesized that modern humans had language and Neanderthal did not. This was seen as the significant survival ace for modern humans.

As I understand it, Homo neanderthalensis was more than intelligent enough for language, but their mouths and throats would have been unable to produce quantal vowels, so any language they might have produced would have been quite lacking in versatility.

Other Comments by Saerain

39. Comment #176999 by Goodwithwood on May 8, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Mango.
Homo erectus being in Asia up to 40 to 50 thousands of years ago and Neanderthal in Europe at the same time has always made me wonder at the facial differences between east and west. Kinda makes me wonder if humans were interbreeding. Has any scientist thought of this?

Mordacious1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421154426.htm

GWW

Other Comments by Goodwithwood

40. Comment #178298 by King of NH on May 11, 2008 at 5:43 am

healthphysicist - "The show hypothesized that modern humans had language and Neanderthal did not."

I study the history of language and have come across this as well. First, it must be noted that the word "language" refers to human communication, so by definition only humans have language. But my professors have pointed out that the shape of the human skull and throat (one of the reasons we choke on food easily) is an evolutionary record of language development. I wish I could provide references and details, but alas, I am still placed well in the middle of my studies and have not personally researched that area.

Other Comments by King of NH

41. Comment #184941 by mma on May 26, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Absolutely fascinating. Research in this field has certainly come a long way since I first learned about neanderthals 15yrs ago.

Other Comments by mma

42. Comment #184962 by mordacious1 on May 26, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Goodwithwood
Sorry, missed your post before, this is why it's good to browse back on in awhile. Nice link. Neanderthal fascinate me, still a lot to learn.

Other Comments by mordacious1

43. Comment #204504 by subzeroiq on July 5, 2008 at 4:48 am

I am surprised by the lack of emphasis on the physical differences between humans and neandethals on the interbreeding question. We all know how picky we humans are in respect to selecting partners based on their physique, though somewhat tempered by the notion of beauty being only skin deep. We can look throughout the animal kingdom and see acute discrimination in the selection of mating partners. This seems to me to be most acute where natural selection pressures are greatest.

Surely both neanderthals and humans must have seen each other as very 'ugly' at the least. 'Ugly' being a colloquialism for not meeting one's requirements for a suitable mate or even meeting the criteria as being of the same species (in the extreme discriminatory sense). I suspect this notion of ugly is an evolutionary imperative. Afterall we evolved because we needed to, and the evolved characteristics of humans or neanderthals are essential to survival in their environments. To interbreed is to attempt to take on features that our genes have determined to be at best irrelavent and probably counter productive. I can see why evolution would tend to favour avoidance of interbreeding between quite distinct animals.

If we then consider our fiercly competative, elitist nature, manifesting itself in religions, football support groups, political affiliations, general in group out group behaviour, it is hard to see how our ancesters would have any sense of kinship or empathy with neanderthals unless faced with a common and persistent enemy which they could unite against. Just from watching this redimentary behaviour in humans and other primates I think it highly likely that we would have been very hostile towards neanderthals and probably likewise them towards us.

If I am right in these points then interbreeding would surely have been exstraordinarly rare if ever.

Other Comments by subzeroiq

44. Comment #204518 by shonny on July 5, 2008 at 5:21 am

| 43. Comment #204504 by subzeroiq on July 5, 2008 at 4:48 am |

Considering humans are involved in 'crimen bestialis' (sex with animals), and also sex with partners that are seriously unattractive, and the fact that many (most??) males who've had to live in celibacy for prolonged periods are not very choosy about who or what they shag, I think neanderthals' appearance would not have presented any major hurdle for our ancestors' sexual appetite, - neither male nor female.

Other Comments by shonny