That Neanderthal question.

Yea oul Kenny is an interesting guy indeed Tac.

Yes Kennewick Man is a bit of an outlier as he doesn't look like the present day locals and there have been other archaic American remains found that would be similar. This doesn't make him a european though. Peoples morphology can change over time within the same population.

Another theory is that the Americas weren't just populated by an Asian migration, though this was the largest and the one that left more people down to today. Other migrations may have come from Europe. The American Clovis culture which was once(and still is for some) the ground zero of humans in the Americas looks incredibly similar to lithic cultures(stone tools and stuff) in France/Western Europe and quite different to Asian lithics of the same time. If you were just going on the lithics you'd be forgiven for suggesting Americans are "Europeans". Genetic studies show that the majority of genes come from the Asian migration. However there are some deeper European type genes present particularly in the east of America. This was usually explained as a later admixture from much later European colonial times. It may not be.

So going way back to Kennewick Man's time you may well have had a few bands of more European type peoples among the Asian folks and he's an example that shows some of those traits.

Of course there's the political hot potato with this. Kennewick Man's discovery, study and subsequent removal by local Natiave American groups because he was "one of their own" muddies the water in a big way these days. Put it another way if clear proof was found of a 9000 year old European in the Americas, poo would hit the fan with a few groups. If clear evidence of pre clovis americans way before that date came out, you'd have queues of university types making for top floor windows to jump off.

I do recall a documentary I saw on Kennewick Man and what was interesting for me was an interview with a local Native American dude who was an expert in tribal legends and stories. Unlike others interviewed he was interested in Kennewick Man as a possible outlier for another reason. Apparently some of the legends spoke of a band of paler people who looked different to the locals who moved through the area, were fought with and driven off. Maybe a race memory of these other populations? Then again other recent research is suggesting that Europeans weren't pale back then(though IMH the jury is right out on this score) and any migration to the Americas would have consisted of darker people.

Actually on that front and bringing in me old mates the Neandertals... They were pale apparently and some had red/blond hair(though different genes to moderns involved in the latter). We got jiggy with each other in the middle east as some moderns were leaving Africa. OK so what are the Neandertal pale gene markers? Are they more like modern European pale genes, or Asian pale genes(these two modern groups differ) or are they very different? If they're more like one or the other modern populations then maybe that's where the pale vibe kicked off with one population anyway? Going by what seems to be evidence of later admixture with Neandertals in Europe what about their pale genes? Or in Asia what about Denisovan pale genes? Same as Neandertals or different again, more like modern Asian folks or different? This skin colour thing may be a great way to track admixtures goin on all over the place. That study published in nature, does mention that many of the genes involved are to do with skin and hair. I'd love to see more on that score. Their ginger gene is different to our ginger gene so what other hair genes are involved?

EDIT on the difficulty in giving up the ciggies genes, maybe that's related to an ADHD set of genes? Or and from left field and from passes for my brain... I did read of studies that showed people who smoked most and had most difficulty giving up also funny enough had more genes/mechanisms for lung protection. If they never smoked their lungs were stronger, more resistant to damage than those without such adaptations. So... maybe that came about because of smoke. Not from ciggies, but from campfires. Think about it, humans are the only animal on the planet who regularly exposes themselves to fire and smoke. All other animals avoid it like the plague. Smoke is a major irritant and would have had health implications for our species from early on when we used it for protection and cooking. If you've ever sat round a campfire and got a full blast of wood smoke you'll know what I mean. Another area of study might back this up. Animal studies into tobacco and lung disease often show rapid deterioration with even small doses, yet a lot of humans puff away(unhealthily) for a lifetime. It's bad for them yes. Very. However even when disease occurs it usually takes decades of exposure. So maybe woodsmoke adaptations are part of that?

On a personal totally unscientific note, I found giving up cigs incredibly difficult and only managed it through those vaping yokes and I've 3 odd % Neandertal goin on. So it's not my willpower it's my pesky beetle browed ancestors. The stocky bastids. That's my excuse anyway.

dubhthach wrote: »

I think wolves would do just fine if humans died out, particulary given the massive negative impact humans have on Wolves. One only has to look at the reintroudction in Yellowstone and how Wolves has successfully recolonised the Rockies.

Oh sure, but if dogs survived our extinction wolves would face a lot of competition. For a start they reproduce faster. Female dogs come into season twice a year compared to once in the wolf. In general dogs have a wider food choice and require less overall. Feral dogs can form huge "packs" of unrelated animals. Wolves though a lot stronger one on one would be in trouble faced with the sheer numbers involved. Some have suggested that both these pressures may have occurred in our Neandertal cousins.

Anyways back to Neanderthal's what always surprises me is that people don't think of the analgoy of Polar Bear's and Brown Bears. At the moment obviously people think of Polar Bear as been at risk due to climatic change/shock. One could argue that this is exactly what happened with Neanderthal's. They were cold adapted species just like how Polar Bear's are (compared to Grizzlies whom they share a common ancestry with). It's quite possible that climatic change thus had quite negative impact on them, just as some would argue it's having on Polar bears today.

Aye but the problem with the cold adapted Neandertal hypothesis is that they survived in Eurasia for 200,000 + years in many different climates. From warmer than today to significantly colder. They ranged from the middle east to near tundra regions, from forest to more open country. Indeed if anything cold would have pressured them more. Without fitted clothing like we had their temperature range would have been lower. In theory.

Personally?(wild conjecture here) Yes they would be more suited to a cold climate because of body shape compared to say a skinny Maasai, but I think sometimes the cold adaptation model is applied too much/taken as a handy given. Their bodyshape may have had other influences too. EG their style of hunting, close in and requiring brute strength would influence the size of body. Sexual selection may have influenced it too. Skinny guy was out, stocky guy was in. The climate thing may have been a happy accident and successive cold snaps reinforced a trend towards that bodyshape.

Bonedigger wrote: »

Hey Wibbs,
Just looking at the image that SB posted showing the difference/similarities between the human skull and a neanderthal's,is there what looks like a small sagittal crest on the skull of the neanderthal or is it just the way the skull may have been reconstructed?

More the reconstruction/angle BD. The top of their heads was pretty much as smooth as ours.

Books wise? The stuff is changing so rapidly with these guys it's hard to keep up but The Neanderthals Rediscovered: How Modern Science is Rewriting Their Story by Dimitra Papagianni, and Michael A. Morse would be a very good start.

Another aspect I've wondered about and it doesn't seem to come up at all, is do any late Neandertal samples show modern human sequences? Was the gene flow all one way? I'd be very surprised if it was. Though generally speaking in such societies it's usually the women who move from group to group. So AMA woman moves in with Neandertals and Neandertal women move in with the AMA's. I recall reading that the flow seems to have been from their men to our women, maybe our guys to their gals didn't produce(or rarely) viable young? It seems that while we clearly could have kids together we were sufficiently distant that such pairings caused viability issues in successive generations.

Regardless more and more my previous contention that these weren't rare and isolated events is looking likely. I'd bet it was happening pretty often, but the dilution of their legacy has sped up(maybe since agriculture kicked off). If you go back to relatively recent ancient DNA in the three odd thousand year old Otzi the iceman he has much higher Neandertal admixture than people related to him living today, or anyone else. 6-7% IIRC. Ye he was "only" 3000 years closer to the event(s), an event that going on current knowledge would have been over at the latest by 20,000 years ago. This latest 40,000 year old dude had nearer 9% and more importantly whole chunks of intact Neandertal sequences. Again it'll be interesting to see if any late Neandertals show up with our gene's in them. After all the hook up that shows up in 40,000 year guy's genes would have resulted in the first generation of kids being more 50/50 percentage wise. OK genes don't work that precisely at all, you could have one kid with one kid with 80% and another with 10% of either parent, but still, if one of those kids were sequenced they could look like a Neandertal with lots of AMA genes.

The social aspect would be fascinating with these "mixed marriages". How were they regarded, how were the kids regarded? Where they integrated, or where these couplings the result of outcasts from both groups hooking up? Sadly that's something we'll likely never get even a sniff of.

East Asians also show Denisovan genes and again at high enough percentages(IIRC some populations show up to 10%). Which along with other research seems to show that the older idea that we only got it on on occasion and rarely is not the full story and it looks more likely that there were quite the few hanky panky events going on throughout Eurasia. Which makes much more sense. Humans of any sort were rare in the landscape back then, mating choices would be limited enough. Paleo folks of all types show quite narrow genetics and even physical evidence in the bones of genetic defects higher than normal for today and later populations.

*aside* those Andaman islanders who killed the American that were in the news last week. One bit I noted in one report was that Andaman islander genetics showed no Denisovan ancestry, though their genetics weren't "African", but more related to the Asians more locally to them. I can't find any data on Neandertal admixture. Now if they don't show Denisovan and they colonised the islands between 15-20,000 years ago(not 60,000 as most outlets report) what's going on there? Where they part of a group that stayed along the coasts, never went inland and met Denisovans, while those they left behind went inland and did and that's why they have their genes? Or is it possible Denisovans might have been around after 20,000 years ago and the Andaman folks were out of the mix by then? Might explain the higher levels of Denisovan genes in modern Asian populations. They are closer to the admixture event.

It also brings up musings like though Andaman folks look far more African than Asian today, that maybe back then Asians looked more like Africans and the phenotype we think of when we think of Asians is a more "recent" thing? After all going on current genetic clocks and research, blond hair in modern Europeans is only around about 15,000 years and blue eyes isn't that much older(Some Neandertals appear to have had pale eyes and light, even red hair, but they're different genes to ours)