Neanderthal genome to be unveiled

[Adsos Letter]

This may have been posted by another DU'er earlier in the week.

Source: Nature news
Rex Dalton

The entire genome of a 38,000-year-old Neanderthal has been sequenced by a team of scientists in Germany. The group is already extracting DNA from other ancient Neanderthal bones and hopes that the genomes will allow an unprecedented comparison between modern humans and their closest evolutionary relative.

The three-year project, which cost about €5 million (US$6.4 million), was carried out at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. Project leader Svante Pääbo will announce the results of the preliminary genomic analysis at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Chicago, Illinois, which starts on 12 February.

"We are working like crazy at the moment," says Pääbo, adding that his Max Planck colleague, computational biologist Richard Green, is coordinating the analysis of the genome's 3 billion base pairs.

Comparisons with the human genome may uncover evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans, the genomes of which overlap by more than 99%. They certainly had enough time for fraternization — Homo sapiens emerged as a separate species by about 400,000 years ago, and Neanderthals became extinct just 30,000 years ago. Their last common ancestor lived about 660,000 years ago, give or take 140,000 years.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090204/full/457645a.html?s=news_rss

[lapfog_1]

1. interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans...

Seriously, they didn't have to spend that much money... Republicans are all around us!

[Chulanowa]

3. Why the shit-talking of Neanderthals?

What'd they ever do to you? Oh and don't give me that "My best friend is a caveman" bullshit!

[lapfog_1]

5. But but but... these guys come to all my parties!

Besides, cavemen are NOT Neanderthals!

[Adsos Letter]

6. Getting eaten by Hyenas...so easy, even a caveman could do it...

:D

[lapfog_1]

7. But having your hair preserved in Hyena poop fossils for hundreds of

thousands of years... priceless.

[Adsos Letter]

9. !

:rofl:

[greyl]

8. Neanderthals were human.

The Homo genus has been around for a few million years.

[HamdenRice]

14. No they weren't human. They were a separate species or sub species.

Do we have to go through this again?

Or do you think the entire scientific community is wrong, and you are right?

Modern humans are Homo sapiens. Neanderthals are considered either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Just because a species is part of the same genus does not make it the same species.

You are merely pointing out that they are the same genus. Saying that Neanderthal was part of the same genus, and claiming that therefore they are human, is exactly as dumb as saying that a wolf, a coyote and a domestic dog are the same because they are all of the genus Canis.

That's basic junior high school biology.

And even if Neaderthal is reclassified to be human, the claim that humans have been around for a million years because the genus Homo has been, is bat shit, crackpot crazy.

[greyl]

15. Homo = Human.

It's kind of subtle, but modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) aren't the only humans to have ever existed.
There is a difference between "modern human" and "human" that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

[HamdenRice]

17. Homo = genus for hominan. Sapien = human. Junior High School biology. I'll make it even simpler.

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,



Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?



Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?



If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!




Did you guess correctly?

No?

Oh, poo!

I forgot. You're not into "real" science. Just the stuff that comes out of science fiction/fantasy books.

OK, so we're exactly the same as all the other hominids. :silly: :crazy: :silly: These guys prove it:







:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[greyl]

24. Homo is Latin for human.

The first humans appeared a few million years ago.
If you refuse to see the difference between modern humans and early or first humans, I can't help you.
I suppose you'd also argue that modern passenger jets are the only passenger jets to have ever existed.
That's the logic you're using.

Modern humans are not the same as early humans, but they are all humans.

[HamdenRice]

25. Actually, the entomology of the Latin word, "Homo" comes from the word "soil"

which proves that tracing words back to their origins is a meaningless exercise in many cases. It's the same root as the word "humus," for garden loam or soil.

There is some dispute about why early Europeans associated the concept of people with soil. One theory is that humans are the only animals that bury their dead in the soil.

The other is that humans are the only animals that cultivate plants in the soil -- you know, the only animals that engage in "totalitarian agriculture."

Strangely, most non sapien "homo" species neither buried their dead nor cultivated the soil.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That makes me think your entomological theory is pure unadulterated cow patty.

Let's face it. You read a book about an imaginary talking gorilla -- sorry, an imaginary telepathic gorilla. That gorilla told you some preposterous, false social science theories -- including that humans have been around for "millions" of years.

Well, they haven't.

I have tremendous sympathy for you because you have to abandon lots of consensus reality scientific information that is inconsistent with your imaginary gorilla derived science fiction ideas. But don't expect rational people to go along with your fantasies.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts.

[greyl]

28. Entomology? Oh, brother. I think you mean "etymology".

Entomology is the study of insects, HamdenRice.

Nevertheless, the etymology of the the latin word homo is not at issue either.

I recommend you don't try to post beyond your knowledge level.

Homo is Latin for human, I promise.

Homo sacer (Latin for "the sacred man")
Homo Sovieticus (pseudo Latin for "Soviet Man (human))
Homo technologicus is Latin for "technological man"
Homo unius libri (Latin , meaning "man of one book")
The word homo is Latin, in the original sense of "human being"
The native English form of the "earthling" designation cognate to Latin homo was guma.

The word homo is Latin for "human", chosen originally by Carolus Linnaeus in his classification system. It is often translated "man". The word "human" is from the Latin humanus, the adjectival form of homo. (Latin for "man" in the gender-specific sense is vir, as in "virile".) The Latin "homo" derives from the Indo-European root, "dhghem," earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org

Furthermore,

"The new fossil shows how primitive early humans were in their small brain size and great physical variation, says Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum."

"Professor David Lordkipanidze of the Georgian Academy of Sciences in Tbilisi is one of the scientists who discovered the latest fossil.
He says the three probably belong to the same species, Homo erectus, thought to be the first to leave Africa.
Like modern humans, there may be natural variation in shapes and sizes of these primitive humans, he says."
link

"Homo habilis is regarded as the first human and the first species of the genus Homo. Homo habilis means "handy human."
link

"Most scientists distinguish among 12 to 19 different species of early humans."
link

1992: First, meet the family patriarch: no less than the earliest human fossil ever found. In February, Andrew Hill of Yale University and Steven Ward of North-eastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine announced the discovery of a 2.4-million-year-old Homo specimen in East Africa, fully half a million years older than any previously known member of our genus."
link

2001: "Humans are now known to be at least 5.2 million years old, a million years older than scientists previously thought. A team of U.S. and Ethiopian researchers has found remains of the earliest known human ancestor in Ethiopia that predate the previously oldest known fossils by almost a million years."
link

2005: "The seven million year old fossilized skull known as "Toumai" discovered in Chad three years ago IS the earliest human ever found, according to scientists."
link

[HamdenRice]

30. If you're going to cite Wiki, maybe you should, like, read the article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)

The word homo is Latin, in the original sense of "human being", or "person". The word "human" itself is from Latin humanus, an adjective cognate to homo, both thought to derive from a Proto-Indo-European word reconstructed as*dhǵhem- "earth"<1>...

<end quote>

The larger point is that word history is a particularly stupid way of proving a point. You might as well argue that all married men live in houses, because the word "husband" comes from the same roots as the words "house" and "bondi" or dweller.

While many people use various metaphors to describe proto-humans as human, that's a metaphor. If you confuse metaphors and reality, you may come to believe that imaginary talking gorillas are real, and that what they have to say is the last word on every issue, which is :silly: :crazy: :silly:

We've been through this incredibly silly argument of yours before. Just because scientists will sometimes refer to lions and tigers as cats does not mean that the house cat has been around as long as the tiger. That's just stupid and you know it.

Sorry you spent all that time looking for metaphorical usage of the word human to describe proto-humans, but the bottom line is that for those of us in the reality based community, humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

A human being, also human or man, is a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae (taxonomically Homo sapiens — Latin: "wise human" or "knowing human").<3><4> DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in east Africa about 200,000 years ago. Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection and problem solving...

The scientific study of human evolution encompasses the development of the genus Homo, but usually involves studying other hominids and hominines as well, such as Australopithecus. "Modern humans" are defined as the Homo sapiens species, of which the only extant subspecies is known as Homo sapiens sapiens. Homo sapiens idaltu (roughly translated as "elder wise human"), the other known subspecies, is now extinct.<9> Homo neanderthalensis, which became extinct 30,000 years ago, has sometimes been classified as a subspecies, "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis", but genetic studies now suggest a divergence of the Neanderthal species from Homo sapiens about 500,000 years ago<10>. Similarly, the few specimens of Homo rhodesiensis have also occasionally been classified as a subspecies, but this is not widely accepted. Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago, although studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago.<11[br />
<end quote>

And, btw, I'd rather make a few spelling errors from time to time than have a mind completely filled with loony, bat shit crazy, crackpot ideas -- and crackpot ideas impervious to empirical correction as a result of one's psychological disposition and cognitive deficiencies -- all derived from a nutty science fiction book about a telepathic talking gorilla.

Please try to read something other than crack post science fiction fantasy for your source of information.

[greyl]

47. I didn't cite a particular wiki article, but I did cite about 6 other sources.

HamdenRice: "Just because scientists will sometimes refer to lions and tigers as cats does not mean that the house cat has been around as long as the tiger."

No, of course it doesn't. Silly straw argument/faulty analogy which has zero bearing on the topic at hand.

If you believe modern humans are the only humans to have ever existed, that's a decision based on personal taste, not scientific consensus. I have little interest in getting you to change your mind, but I'll not easily accept criticism from someone who attempts to lecture me on etymology and doesn't even spell the word correctly, or who has continuously used every opportunity to contaminate discussions with information that falsely characterizes my posted opinions or is fabricated baloney about me as a person.

It's to be expected that people will lash out when they're in a corner, but I suggest you just try to stay out of corners if you can't manage to keep things civil.

[HamdenRice]

49. uhhh...

Response to Reply #25
28. Entomology? Oh, brother. I think you mean "etymology".

...

Homo sacer (Latin for "the sacred man")
Homo Sovieticus (pseudo Latin for "Soviet Man (human))
Homo technologicus is Latin for "technological man"
Homo unius libri (Latin , meaning "man of one book")
The word homo is Latin, in the original sense of "human being"
The native English form of the "earthling" designation cognate to Latin homo was guma.

The word homo is Latin for "human", chosen originally by Carolus Linnaeus in his classification system. It is often translated "man". The word "human" is from the Latin humanus, the adjectival form of homo. (Latin for "man" in the gender-specific sense is vir, as in "virile".) The Latin "homo" derives from the Indo-European root, "dhghem," earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org

<end quote>

O rly?

[greyl]

50. Right. "A particular" = "single".

The more complete truth is that I quoted excerpts from 1 page of search results of "homo" at Wikipedia, and cited http://en.wikipedia.org. As you can see, http://en.wikipedia.org is not a particular article. It is the entire site.

You are cherry picking and misrepresenting the facts. The particular article you quoted doesn't support your point that there are members of the homo genus who are not considered human. That particular article supports my point, as do the other dozen or so I either quoted from or linked to.

hu·man
n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

It's simple.
If you choose not to only use the word human to describe modern, non-extinct species of humans, that's your personal choice, not a scientific one.

[Maru Kitteh]

54. Our Neandertal brothers and sisters actually had a higher EQ than Modern humans.

The biggest difference between a Neanderthal and you?

Almost any Neanderthal could probably kick your ass. Even the little girls.



btw, here's a link explaining EQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_to_body_mass_ratio

[frogmarch]

27. Yes, they were human.

Neanderthals, whether classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of Homo sapiens - or as a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, were nevertheless human - as were other early forms in the genus Homo, including Homo rudolfensis and Homo habilis.

Whether we have to go through this again depends on you and your willingness to accept fact.

[H2O Man]

32. Correct.

Neanderthals were indeed "humans." There is no debate about this. No question. To argue otherwise is to expose one's lack of knowledge about Neanderthals and other human beings.

[HamdenRice]

35. Whether Neanderthals were human is arguable. Whether Homo erectus was isn't

I think you may be misunderstanding the debate here. The post at the head of this thread says that the genus homo has been around for millions of years as proof that the neanderthals were human, because the poster in question has a fixed, somewhat mystical belief that all members of the genus "homo" are humans.

They weren't.

I'm open minded about Neanderthal. As my post upthread says, he is sometimes classified as a separate species and sometimes as a subspecies of human.

He was certainly human-like, but scientists disagree about whether he had language like ours and was capable of certain kinds of planning -- fundamental characteristics of being human. From what I've read, I don't think they were homo sapiens.

That is something over which reasonable people can disagree.

That does not apply to other hominid species. Neither homo sapiens nor Neanderthals were around a million years ago. Hence you cannot "prove" Neanderthal was human just by citing the fact that the genus Homo has been around for millions of years. If you follow the thread, the poster in question believes that Homo erectus and all other primitive hominids were human.

Humans -- homo sapiens, whether you include Neanderthal or not -- simply have not been around for "millions of years". Pretty much the only people who believe that humans have been around for millions of years are the creationists (who think humans cavorted with dinosaurs) and the poster in question and other believers in certain science fiction/fantasy scenarios.

[H2O Man]

37. There are no

serious scientists who take the position that Neanderthals were not "human," so far as I know of. An interesting quote, for example, found in a late 2008 National Geographic comes from Antonio Rosas of the National Museum of Natural Sciences in Madrid, who headed a paleoanthropological investigation into a cave in El Sidron; Rosas pointed to some fractured bones, and told the article's author: "These fractures were made by humans." Rosas was calling Neanderthals "human," which is consistent with other scientists.

If a person, including a DUer, says something about humans being on earth for a million years, it is for all intent and purposes no different than if a person says people were here for no longer than 6,000 years. The error is their's, and has no bearing on the reality of human history, and the history of our ancestors and of other branches of the family. Their errors in thinking are of no more significance to understanding the Neanderthal than the rather silly belief, which is also expressed on this thread, that Neanderthals were a dull-witted beast. To quote another scientist, "In light of 20-century human behavior we should be careful of whom we call brutish," (National Geographic; Nov 1985; page 615).

Interesting topic.

[greyl]

42. The homo genus has existed for, at the VERY least, 1.5 million years.

As homo equals human, that means humans have been around that long.
Therefore, it isn't an error in thinking to say humans have been on earth for over a million years. (not biologically modern humans, but humans nonetheless)

The word "hominid" in this website refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids. Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.

The time of the split between humans and living apes used to be thought to have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago. Some apes occurring within that time period, such as Ramapithecus, used to be considered as hominids, and possible ancestors of humans. Later fossil finds indicated that Ramapithecus was more closely related to the orang-utan, and new biochemical evidence indicated that the last common ancestor of hominids and apes occurred between 5 and 10 million years ago, and probably in the lower end of that range (Lewin 1987). Ramapithecus therefore is no longer considered a hominid.
_________________________

H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller.

Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils such as ER 1470.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

edit: changed 2.5 to 1.5 in subject line and added excerpt from talkorigins

[H2O Man]

45. "handy man"

The above photo is my collection of artifacts from Bed 1 at Olduvai Gorge. The age of these is estimated at 1.85 to 1.7r million years. It's a topic I am familiar with.

I am likewise familiar with Neanderthal and other members of the human family. In fact, I am preparing to be interviewed by a couple college students who are preparing a book for publication, regarding that topic (they previously interviewed me on Olduvai Gorge; our next discussion will be on Neanderthal.)

However, because I would not think of asking anyone to accept my word, I would suggest that those interested look at texts such as The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology. It provides rather specific information on the "relatives" which are considered by the scientific community to be "human" (distinct from "homo"). Chapter 12, for example, notes that "the earliest stratified human occupations are all Mousterian." I could easily provide a dozen other sources that indicate that what I have noted in my posts on this thread are correct, but I suspect that only the most stubborn and confused would continue to argue the point.

[greyl]

46. Handy man", homo habilus, has been around between app. 1.5 - 2.5 million years.

I can't tell if you disagree with that, or with the idea that members of the homo genus are all human.

The OH 7 mandible is shown at the top right. In the 1960s, many researchers argued that Homo habilis was not a valid species, and that the fossils attributed to H. habilis were really members of other species. But with the discovery of KNM ER 1470, acceptance of Homo habilis became universal. In hindsight, this seems strange since ER 1470 is now considered to belong to a species distinct from H. habilis. There is much debate as to the number of species that existed in Homo 2 million years ago, and KNM ER 1470 is now assigned to the species Homo rudolfensis. The name Homo habilis is reserved primarily for the Olduvai material and several other specimens. The OH 62 partial skeleton of a female H. habilis provides another interesting twist in the debate about early members of the genus Homo.

Homo habilis was originally thought to be the ancestor to all later Homo. In a neat, linear progression, later species emerged resulting in what we call modern humans. This is now known not to be the case.
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

Can you provide context for the quote from the Cambridge Encyclopedia and tell me when it was printed? (was it 1980?)
It looks like that quote is talking about the earliest settlements somewhere, not the earliest human species.

[HamdenRice]

48. "only the most stubborn and confused would continue to argue the point."

I completely agree with H2OMan on this. This is a scientific reconstruction of homo habilis:



H20 Man has shown you a sample of his tools.

Only a stubborn and confused person would belabor the point that this creature is human -- however remarkable it actually was. It's a close relative of humans and a hominid.

But it is not human -- unless you want to pervert the definition of human or dilute it until it has no meaning whatsoever.

The fact that this creature is sometimes, metaphorically referred to as human -- in the same way that lions are sometimes referred to as cats, and modern humans are sometimes referred to as naked apes -- should not confuse any rational person to believe that Homo habilis was human.

[greyl]

51. Your idea of "human" is sadly narrow. Your loss. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

55. These are ususally the same kind of persons who feel free to justify animal abuse.

The line of thinking is pretty much identical and is transparently indicative of a really deep need to feel superior and more powerful - manifested in really narrow and/or ugly ways.

Injured and indignant cries of protest (perhaps even outrage) will probably rise up from the offended party, but I guess that's to be expected.

[HamdenRice]

57. What makes you think that "different" means "superior"?

It seems to me that you are the one reading into the question, the idea that our being different from, say, Homo habilis is the same as our being "superior."

Do you think that every claim that one group is "different" from another group is exactly the same as the claim that such group is superior?

Does that mean that you are one of those people who hate multiculturalism and the appreciation of the value of other animals, and believe that any acknowledgment of the diversity of human and animal experience necessarily is a claim of superiority?

Are you saying, for example, that we should not recognize the value and magnificence of, say, an elephant because it's not a human or hominid?

Are you saying that the only value of other hominids and the ape-like animals is that they are "exactly" like us, and that any recognition of their unique characteristics is a claim of superiority?

I suppose you would want to shut down the study of, say, the great apes, as apes, because it would necessarily document their unique and admirable non-human characteristics?

Are you saying that you would prefer that we mow down the rain forest and pave it over for parking lots because not all the animals there are "human"?

That's pretty horrifying.

[HamdenRice]

56. Your idea of factual is sadly narrow. Your loss.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[greyl]

58. I don't think you're being sincere.

Btw,

A computer-generated reconstruction by Dr. Timothy Bromage, a paleoanthropologist and Adjunct Professor of Biomaterials and of Basic Science and Craniofacial Biology, shows a 1.9 million-year-old skull belonging to Homo rudolfensis, the earliest member of the human genus, with a surprisingly small brain and distinctly protruding jaw, features commonly associated with more apelike members of the hominid family living as much as three million years ago.

Dr. Bromage's findings call into question the extent to which H. rudolfensis differed from earlier, more apelike hominid species. Specifically, he is the first scientist to produce a reconstruction of the skull that questions renowned paleontologist and archeologist Richard Leakey's depiction of modern man's earliest direct ancestor as having a vertical facial profile and a relatively large brain -- an interpretation widely accepted until now.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070324133018.htm

[HamdenRice]

36. "as were other early forms in the genus Homo, including ... Homo habilis. "

Could you explain your views? Scientists don't consider early hominids of the genus Homo to be human.

[Odin2005]

38. "Human" can refer to BOTH our particular speces and to the whole genus.

Just wanted to point that out before this flame-war goes out of control...

[greyl]

43. Iow, it does apply to all members of the genus.

If somebody only wants to use human to describe modern humans(homo sapiens), that is a personal choice, not a scientific one.

Linnaean Classification

The taxonomic classification system devised by Linnaeus in 1758 is still used in modified form today. Animals are identified, in descending order, as belonging to a Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and finally a Species. This classification system is based largely on the animal's physical characteristics; things that looked alike were placed together.

In the Linnaean system, humans would be categorized first as Animalia; then Chordata because we have a backbone; Mammalia because we have hair and suckle our young; Primates because we share with apes, monkeys, and lemurs certain morphological characteristics; Hominidae because, among a few other criteria, we are separated from the other apes by being bipedal; Homo being our generic classification as human; and finally sapiens, a species name meaning, rightly or wrongly, "wise."

The Linnaean system also recognizes such groupings as superfamilies and sub-families. In the case of the human lineage, the most often recognized superfamily is the Hominoidea (hominoids), which includes all of the living apes. It is from this point onward that most of the present human origins classification debate begins.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1204_hominin_id.html

[Stevenmarc]

2. Wow there's a 38,000-year-old Freeper

[Liberal_in_LA]

20. hee hee n/t

[Amonester]

23. I thought there couldn't be freepers older than 10,000 years11 hugh1

Muss be teh devil 'gain111 hugh11 :silly:

[aquart]

4. So cool.

[rpannier]

10. I figured they started their research using joe 'the tax evading' plumber and then worked back

to find his ancestor

[izquierdista]

11. That would be easy

Now seeing if Joe has anything in common with modern human DNA, that would be a challenge! :rofl:

[EFerrari]

12. This was one of the hottest, most interesting debates the last time

I got to take a physical anthropology course. Thanks for posting -- it will be very interesting to see what turns up. :)

[RiverStone]

44. So have we always looked like this?

Not counting the 70's of course.

Anybody have a link to the first humans?

[EFerrari]

52. Here's an comparative illustration but I don't know how up to date:

It doesn't show features of the head -- larger molars for chewing vegetation, different slope to forehead, position of eye sockets, brain pan capacity, grosser bones in general.

[sfpcjock]

13. Fascinating!

Bei Deutschermenner die Höhlenmenschen gut gönnen :D (Germans know the caveman well). They all think that they are one LOL

[Zodiak]

16. While I find the work terribly fascinating

I think that the interbreeding angle of the article is sensationalism on the part of the journalist. We already know from mitochondrial genome analysis that it is very unlikely that modern humans and neanderthals interbred. I see no reason why the chromosomes would offer any new insights for that debate. There is plenty of opportunity for finding synapomorphic, plesiomorphic, and autoapomorphic characters in the mitochondrial genome. Looking at the rest of the genes for signs of interbreeding runs against the law of diminishing returns.

There are plenty of other insights to be gained from this, but I suppose those aren't sexy enough for this article.

[Odin2005]

41. Just a handful of cases of interbreeding could have introduces useful trats into modern population.

if a certain trait increased one's fitness it would of spread through the population even if it started with only a single class of interbreeding.

[TWiley]

18. quick .... get a comparison sample from the bush family

cross breeding between humans and neanderthal's for sure

[IDemo]

19. There is a school of thought placing Basques as the descendants of Neanderthals

http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/neanderbasque.htm

[shadowknows69]

22. My money is on the Basques are aliens theory

But then I have a shrine to Art Bell on my mantle so that shouldn't surprise anyone.

[H2O Man]

33. There are related theories

that include the Sami and pre-Celtic Irish. This is due, in large part, to the differences in language. Each of these three groups spoke/speaks a language that is different from the large, related languages of all the others in that part of the world.

[jazzjunkysue]

21. And what a convenient location: Crawford, Texas!

[cliffordu]

26. What, somebody get a blood sample from Lindsay Graham????

[tom_paine]

29. I wonder if some Bushie with a club will leap out and smash the petrie dishes to smithereens

in an act of Race Memory commemorating the VERY FIRST unneccessary Iraq Invasion, when the Homo Sapiens, lead by the VERY FIRST BUSHIES, and EXHORTED by the VERY FIRST HANNIDIOT who then wiped out the Neadnerthals entirely, raped their women, killed them and took their stuff.

Thus setting the pattern for twenty thousand years of prehistory followed by 8000 years of recorded history.

Same shit, different year.

[jazzjunkysue]

39. Exerpted from Xenon's Intergallactic Guide to Everything

We are a 3 line reference needing no further commentary.

24. And bring a towel.

[H2O Man]

31. Later this week,

I will be adding a Neanderthal artifact (knife) to my collection.

[malaise]

34. This is all rubbish

The earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what the Christo-fascists told me. :sarcasm:

[jazzjunkysue]

40. I saw it in a museum. So it has to be true.

[bridgit]

53. Ja! Into the valley Neander we go ~