Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive

This article is ridiculous for many reasons, but the most striking reason is the assertion that Neanderthal could have possibly been smarter than Homo sapien sapiens. There is no evidence of this anywhere in the fossil record. Neanderthal may have had a bigger brain, but their brains were smaller relative to their body proportions (Ruff et al, 1997). Moreover, brainsize has little to do with overall intelligence; brain structure is the key factor, here. Evidence shows that Neanderthals frontal brain was not as advanced as modern humans.

While selective pressure in favor of smaller brain volume might seem counterintuitive, it should be noted that the fossil records suggest that brain size in humans, particularly �Europeans,� has decreased over the past 35,000 years | note: Neanderthals are believed to have died out 35, 000 years ago (Mellars and Ramsey, 2005) | and on through the Neolithic period (Frayer, 1984; Ruff et al, 1997; Woods, et al, 2006). These archaeological changes in brain size are paralleled by changes in body size (Ruff et al, 1997; Ruff, 2002), and it is possible that decreases in brain size may have exerted selective pressure for corresponding decreases in body size, particularly in Europeans (Ruff et al, 1997; Frayer, 1984; see also, Woods et al., 2006).

Referenced:

Evan P., Mekel-Bobrov N., Vallender E., Hudson R., Lahn B., (2006). Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage. 18178�18183, PNAS November 28, 2006, vol. 103, no. 48

Frayer, D.W. (1984). In The Origins of Modern Humans: A world survey of the Fossil Evidence (eds Smith, F.H. & Spencer, f.) 211-250 (Liss, New York, 1984)

Ruff C.B., Trinkaus E., and Holliday T.W. (1997). Body mass and encephalization in Pleistocene Homo. Nature Vol. 387, 8 May 1997

Woods R., Freimer N., Young J., Fears S, Sicotte N., Service S., Valentino D., Toga A., Mazziotta J. (2006). Normal Variants of Microcephalin and ASPM Do Not Account for Brain Size Variability. Human Molecular Genetics, Volume 15, Number 12, 15 June 2006, pp. 2025-2029(5)

Woah there Bernie. So are you suggesting that modern Europeans are the decendents of neanderthals?

hmm lets see Neanderthals lived from 400,000 to roughly 35,000 that is roughly 365,000 years- modern humans have been around what 10,000 and look at what we have done to the earth in that short time (and we really didn’t do ANY advancing until the past 250 yr)do you really think we will make it another 355,000 years? We base our intelligence on our technology which really just makes us dependent on technology for survival, it doesn't make us smarter for having it (and although millions use today’s technology few understand how it works and could fix it if it broke or build it from scratch). Do you think the majority today could survive without grocery stores, phones, or cars? The question should be: who do you consider smarter a species that could live in harmony with nature for 100's of thousand of years only with the use of their brains and skills, or a species that developed and understood higher concepts but became dependent on those technologies which were unsustainable in the long run (what will we do when oil runs out- for oil is used for farming (food), plastic making (Luxuries and hospitals), transportation (travel), heat (warmth- we have already deforest much of the earth), ect?) I know many think we could not possibly lose our technology- but history has shown repeatedly that advanced civilizations always fall and most of their technology gets lost (Mayans, Rome, India, Egypt, ect). We claim to be smarter than them yet poison our environment and water everyday with our "smarter" way of living. I'd say the smart one is the one who is able to sustain their living, and at the rate we are going we will not be the ones who last 365,000 yrs.

Also to address your brain to body mass assumption- to an extent you are right- BUT Neanderthals were pretty much just like modern humans except they had bigger muscle mass and bone density- and what you suggest is that bc they had larger muscles and denser bones they couldn't be as smart but that would be the same as saying a skinny person who then becomes a body builder or becomes over weight would be less smarter do to the mind body ratio. We know for a fact that is not the case, just because you gain weight or gain muscle it doesn't affect your intelligence, so the fact that Neanderthals had bigger brains but more muscle and bone density should not suggest any less intelligence than modern man. Before man the world appears to have lived in harmony- it is only modern man that seeks to control and destroy all of nature for our own brief desires. How smart are we really when we destroy the very planet that gives us life and we do all for petty luxuries and entertainment? Is it smarter to survive or to enjoy?

That is true. The frontal lobes are rigged for creativity. Other than that, you have to truly DEFINE intelligence. What is it? Not knowledge. Knowledge is the state of KNOWING and having the data on a certain subject. Intelligence is the ability to both apply that data you have, and employ it to solve problems, and come up with new data and solutions to new problems you are confronted with.

As a human being who is afflicted with Asperger's syndrome, a neurological anomaly that is hypothesized to be attributable to an abnormal abundance of Neanderthal genes, I feel insulted upon observing your insight on account of the fact that it appears to be an attempt to suggest that Neanderthals were less intelligent than human beings. I recognize that the offense that I take is defensive, reactive, and perhaps unreasonable, and may thus be an indicator of emotional insecurity. I should assess this potential emotional insecurity later and perhaps consult my therapist in relation to it.

Anyhow, many of us with Asperger's syndrome are mentally gifted pertaining to various solitary pursuits, but I do admit that our social intelligence is often nearly nonexistent. If Asperger's syndrome is indeed a result of an abnormal abundance of Neanderthal genes, I suspect that the case is that Neanderthals were less neurologically advanced than human beings on the whole, but that their cognitive capabilities were much more concentrated in areas of their brain that could be used to accomplish tasks generally associated with intelligence as it is classically perceived than in areas of their brain that could be used to accomplish tasks that are important to forming and maintaining social relationships. I recognize that this hypothesis is thin and poorly-supported; I lack the necessary knowledge to back it up. However, I believe that it is still a possible explanation.

Neanderthals may have actually spoken mostly telepathically. they needed little to do with vocal communication, other than for comfirmation of transfer of thought. their brain size could possibly have been a key part in extra perception. do a lot more research than boring bone and fragment findings. look into true history of all nationalities and possibilities in the regions of europe and the middle east. they were harmonious creatures of earth. we as modern humans are really the sub species - all this intelligence capability and nothing more to do than destroy everything like a primitive bacteria or cancer. we have in fact interbred with neandertal, but not in the way that 2 dimensional scholars would like their little minds to think!!!

I agree that we Modern Humans are not as intelligent as our technical achievements would seem. What has made we Modern Humans so effective is our discovery of methods to store data, information and numbers. Without stored knowledge 99% of Modern Humans would be unable to survive against Mother Nature. We may think we are highly intelligent but essentially we have the same level of intelligence Modern Humans had 50,000 years ago when they first appeared on Earth fully formed with technology, clothing, shelter, jewelry and art. If an individual thinks they are really, really intelligent try sitting them down in the New Guinea tropical jungles and instruct them to build a Polaroid camera and film and take us some pictures of the * , animals, birds and people. Don't be surprised if they come back with no pictures and no camera or film. Its is the access to the collective knowledge of Modern Humans that make our species so successful not the maturity of our brain. We just learn new ways to combine information to continue advancing our knowledge and skill base...

you talk about how modern humans lack the abilities to "survive mother nature" but this is very untrue for that any modern human if raised with the right nurture can be taught to live without these new modern tec. thus modern man does not need modern tec to surive.

There is evidence in the fossil record. They had better tools earlier than we did. Doesn´t this artlce state that? Although there is now evidence that shows modern humans have neanderthal dna in them, so they did interbreed.

hey your quote doesn't even help your argument. they were smarter. there is no way we can determine brain "wiring" bcs brains are soft matter.

You're right Bernie, we could be their decendents! After all, why else would they be extinct? They breeded with modern humans and generated us.

Modern humans have been around a couple hundred thousand years, not 10000 years. We were around before civilization.

And we are more successful because we cover the whole human globe and have numbers several orders of magnitude greater than Neanderthals.

Whether or not we're getting smarter is debatable, obviously. We are but that's likely nurture, not nature. But it's also beside the point of this article.

And, yes, Europeans have neanderthal DNA. Asians have some DNA from another proto-human species. I think Africans are thought to be the purest homosapiens today.

"It is also interesting to remark that the shape of our larynx, a feature that enables us to speak, also has disadvantages: we can choke with food."

Does that mean if girls had a chimps larynx they wouldn't gag? :3

i think the most likely explanation is that we are more aggressive causing a higher sex drive and a higher likelihood to war against our own species. Whereas Neanderthals were much more respectful of their surroundings and of other and had a higher cultural level of intelligence. So when our crazily aggressive species encroached upon their territory we killed and raped(if you have european ancestry there is a nearly definite chance of having a neanderthal ancestor). It is also a well known fact that with war comes technological advancements, so a peaceful species of human who didnt fight each other would only create what they needed and advance highly culturally. But a cruel warlike race who fought all the time would value their tecchnologies and continue creating more efficient ways of killing leading to a few other helpful discoveries and in doing so ruin their wonderful planet within a few thousand years.

I find it incredible that Neanderthals could have this delicate hyoid bone if they were so linguistically handicapped.

The delicate hyoid we have is a major disadvantage: it's all too easily broken - a result that is fatal to us. However, it allows the tongue to form delicate sounds, so this disadvantage is offset by the exceptional utility of human language.

Did Neanderthals (especially with their rough, big-game-hunting lifestyle) really have this major drawback for so long in the absence of a viable offsetting advantage?

This seems to go against the principles of natural selection to me.

Good call

The Neanderthal had a larger brain by comparison to body weight too. This larger brain and heavier muscle mass is a large part of why they estimate an average Neanderthal male as requiring 5000 calories per day. The Cro-Magnon people had smaller brains than modern Europeans. A Cro-Magnon male should be fine on less than 2000 calories per day. Cro-Magnon bone structure is more like modern Negroes than present day Europeans. Most of the more advanced tools people like to point out for the Cro-Magnon people probably did not exist when the Neanderthals were still around.

The way the evidence is heading it appears that the Neanderthals were more advanced and died out with very little contact with Cro-Magnons if any at all.

Mute people can express few if any phonemes, and yet are able to express themselves robustly through sign language. Other species, too, rely on elaborate body language to convey information. In light of the clear existence of this alternative communication mode, I fail to see how a restricted phoneme set would constitute such a cultural/technological inhibitor for a race with superior or even simply equal intellect.

More likely, as other posters have suggested, subtle brain architectural distinctions made the key survival difference between Cro Magnon and Neandertal.

Very well said. The distinctly different skull shapes point to prefrontal cortex functions. The mutation of the FOXP2 gene occurred just before neanderthal and modern human diverged but this FOXP2 gene, that appears to be at least responsible for brain changes and our rapid learning of complex facial expressions, must have had an entirely different effect on our distant cousins, or no effect at all. People who have lesions to this area of the brain (from stroke), the part neanderthals do not have, are shown to be easily misled. Language and expression on this level is not just about communicating thoughts, it is more about basing the use of ones resources on good bets. To be a good gambler, one would have to learn how to: create trust based relationships, ones that worked, with others, compare things that are not equal (abstraction, trade/commerce), overcome primal fear to engage in behaviors that reason alone might suggest (gamble) is safe, view oneself strategically as a separate player - the birth of the human ego or advancement of super frontal gyrus functions. What horrible dysfunctions these powerful gifts cause when we believe our abstractions are a kind of factual certainty out of fear of losing a self that doesn't really exist.

I gotta stand by thought (until clearly proven otherwise) that our species most likely had a large part to do with the extinction of the Neanderthals.
Its not "pretty" to think about, no, but look at our history....heck, the more we uncover the more we realize that we are a "dog eat dog" species. This still happens today.

Look at what we did to our own species as we started conquering the seas...to us, they were lesser humans, and so we did away with them.

There is very little reason to suggest that we wouldnt have done the same to an actual different species that would compete with us in ANY capacity.

Life is life, we can learn from it, even if it doesnt fit in to some peaceful fairy tale that we would like to believe is the case.

It is our nature to destroy our competition....period.

Even in accounts of the recent findings that Neanderthals contribute about 4% to the Homo Sapiens genome, Neanderthals are described as sub-human.
How long will it take before all thse bigotted assumptions disappear and reasoned thinking takes over.
Simply because a human species may have different structures within the nose and throat there is no basis to assume that the species could not have a highly developed language. Vowels are not everything, as is amply illustrated by several African languages that effectively use a range of clicks and oter sounds that modern Eauropean languages do not use. It is also possible that Neanderthals could make different vowels sounds that we have never heard and could not immitate without the same structures as they possesed.
It has now been shown that they had music ( from the discovery of bone flutes) and that they could accutately map the stars.
It is a great pity that the majority of commentators cannot envisage a people living not just in caves (which survive the rigours of the elements over time) but also in timber and hide "summer" structures by lakes and rivers long since flooded by the seas of Europe.
With larger brains that modern man and a stouter physique it is dubtful that Neanderthals succumbed to pressure from Homo Sapiens. Maybe they just had recessive genes, as do today's Australian Aboriginals.

I read somewhere that we might have succeeded Neanderthals because we simply reproduced at a faster rate (i.e. we had higher sex drives).

Not sure how true that is, but an interesting theory all the same.

Does anyone else know about this? Or can anyone critique that idea?

WHY WOULD U SEARCH THAT

this is actually quite probable due to the cranial shape of the neanderthal. the hypothalumus was smaller. this is the part of the brai which controls sex drive in animals

The answer is much simpler: birthing rates. Understand the exponential function.

The time of bounty after the ice age gave advantage to birthing rates over survivability. This subtle difference is enough to wipe out a subspecies. how subtle? European DNA is 4% neanderthal from 55,000 years of coexistence, so the reproductive advantage per female is the natural logarithm of 96/4, divided by the duration of coexistence over the life expectancy, 55000/30: 0.17% more children per female.

This could be explained simply by hitting pubery 19 days earlier. However, we know that the reproductive advantages of Homo Sapiens were much much greater due to smaller heads (ease of childbirth), wider female hips and earlier menarche. Most likely the neanderthals were always the dominant subspecies but simply diluted into the mix.

References: Occam's razor

Extra credit: make up a stupid explanation that future anthropologists will give for our own demographic shifts.

quite possible, growing up in south africa and south london one can appreciate how rapidly black people can breed.

This article is informative, but its conclusion is far-fetched. We don't know what caused the extinction of the Neanderthal. They needed twice as many calories as we do. That could have played a huge factor. Despite the ruggedness of any species that has evolved on a planet with an often hostile climate and then predatory species to boot, many extinctions occur for many different reasons and they often happen overnight. The Jews of Europe were all but eradicated only 65-72 years ago within about a 5 year period. This happened right in front of the international community's eyes. Many Jews who attempted to flee the Nazis were abandoned to their deaths merely due to their failure to produce traveler's visas... and this meant you were dead, along with nearly every other Jew on the continent, after a diaspora history spanning 2000 years. The Spanish and Portuguese (or was it Spain or Portugal?) murdered every of over 5 million Arawak Indians on the modern day Cuban Island also within 5 years, ending a Peoples and culture that had endured over thousands of years.
It is true that the wiring of the brain is what makes us smart, not the size. Small penises stimulate the clitoris effectively and cause reproduction as effectively as big ones. Still, Einstein had an unusually large brain and many women will inform you that size makes a difference to their sexual experience regardless of what men might like to believe to themselves. The Neanderthal had something we don't have... A bigger brain. If it did not cause them to be smarter, then perhaps they had larger capacity for pleasure, love or appreciation of life and G-d.
They might have had ritualized mating rites that they wouldn't break from, causing their population to shrink to emergency levels. Some kind of plague might have suddenly wiped them out. They might have valued our lives and refused to kill us, while we did not the same. We may have had treaties that they honoured, while we broke ours. Considering the expanse of wilderness that still existed right up until the beginning of the 20th century, it is hard to imagine a species of Man could not simply have avoided us if they needed to in order to survive. Surely we encroached on their territory and competed for their game, even murdered them, but the cause of their extinction cannot be defined base on the evidence we have from them. One thing we can count on is the fact that their brains were bigger and that they had something special that we don't, whether it might have been their intelligence or perception. It's a shame to become away of a thinking and feeling breed of Man, now extinct. If we can bring them back in a petrie dish we should. As for the larynx business, sheer lunacy. You can create a sophisticated language with limited phonemes. You just have to be brought up to know the difference between cabocubo and cabocuboa. Their languages for need to build from fewer blocks would have carried their own quirky characteristics and dealt with challenges in some Neanderthal way. They are not gone for being dumb I'm sure. For all we know, we mourned them! Certainly, they might not have degraded the earth or warred as we have, but this is all speculation.

Wow, so PC that you have to drag the entire modern human race into it? So what if our ancestors had a hand in wiping out the Neanderthals? That was a VERY LONG time ago. Life today is hard enough, with all our gadgets and knowledge. How tough must it have been back then? Whatever advantage our ancestors had, it worked. And I, for one, am SO glad it did...while I'm sure it would be interesting to know more about the Neanderthal, I'm not going to whine, cry and shoe-gaze about how they ended vis-à-vis the rise of modern humans, US...I'm just darned glad to be here! Maybe you can start a "reparations" payment fund out of YOUR paycheck, if you can find some Neanderthals to give it to...just don't look to me to kick in money, I gave at the office.

sure they needed 2 as many calories but somehow they managed to survive for roughly 365,000 yrs needing it, so I doubt that was the cause. I agree with most of what you said. Although I have to wonder if Neanderthals did have technology? I know laugh, but the fact is there is evidence of a nuclear reactor in Africa, and there is evidence of an atomic bomb in India dating back about 50,000 yrs ago (roughly the time of there extinction), add to the list all the ancient text that speak of "people" living long before humans, and of them having a lot of technology- I know writings aren't proof- but it seems every culture has some tale about a "lost" civilization having advanced technology. Even the bible mentions strange fling vehicles, teleportation, ect. (how, why, and believable would these writings have been 1,000 of years before “we” discovered that technology. IE even if you were to fantasy about flying, teleportation, instant healing, future telling, ect who would believe or take you serious if that stuff wasn’t to ever have been invented till 1000s of yr later? To me those “tales” would only have impacted those people if they were aware that that type of technology did or had existed. It is hard to imagine humans believing or taking the time to write these stories down if there was no truth in them. I mean what would really be left of any type of civilization from 50,000yr or more ago? I mean Neanderthals and dinosaurs lived for 100’s of thousand of years yet we only have very few fossils of them although they must of existed billions of them over that period of time. What metal, plastic, wood, ect would last that long for us to find and know what it was. Perhaps they were so smart they wiped themselves out with their own technology (story of Atlantis). I don't know why they died- I just know there are a lot of anomalies found in history that science hasn't adequately answered and there are many ancient stories- but since we can't go back in time we will never know. It is just fun to think about.

Due to the shape of the scapula & clavicle many hypothisize that the neanderthal could not accurately throw a rock or spear in an overhand motion. Even considering the increased bulk of neanderthal the brain to body was roughly the same or above that of sapien. Due to the inability to throw their spears as could sapien they would be forced to close with their prey & stab them with long heavy spears. Another disadvantage would have been the amount of energy they required to simply subsist due to their heavy musculature and their diet which consisted almost entirely of red meat.
When it came to a physical confrontation the sapiens could simply throw their light weight spears & beat a hasty retreat when charged by a neanderthal.

So now they were smarter than humans? But just didn't communicate very well? Lol.

Funny, doesn't seem the rest of mainstream science has adopted that particular view as of yet.

Very interesting though if its true. And I do suspect that they were in fact of relatively the same level of intelligence as humans. But what I find most fascinating is that two major pillars of belief about neanderthals: Their lack of intelligence, and that Possibly this, (the belief of their inferior intelligence), and they were an evolutionary precurser to man, are evidently both false...

The simple answer is the most likely one. An STD from interbreeding with * Sapiens that they did not have an immunity to. Heck it wouldnt' even need to have been an STD. 2 breeds of * sapiens met in the modern era and one was almost wiped out due to not possesing an imminuty. Im speaking about Europeans meetin native americans and small pox ravaging the native american population. Now imagine not just 2 diff branches of same kind = 2 races of Homo sapiens but actualy different species (or subspecies whatever) Homo sapiens meets Homo neanderthals.

We didnt kill our cousins, our diseases did

Yep. This is the most plausible explanation based on historically modern human interaction. Have the DNA studies confirmed that sapiens viruses were capable of being transmitted to Neanderthal ie like bird flue or swine fever?

I would ask do we have evidence of any other species in history being completely wiped out by an illness. Sure illness have devestated populations, I'm just not aware of a natural illness that has 100 percent kill rate. Even as you mentioned the indians not all of them died. I imagine it was more of a comination of things rather than 1 single event.

I reckon the Neanderthals were at a competitive disadvantage for two key reasons. It is a fact that their diet was heavily meat based, they were a cold weather adapted species. Meat can be easily stored in cold/freezing conditions. Neanderthals would have needed a lot of meat to survive.
Mammoths were a cold weather adapted species that had survived many global warming episodes and were hunted by Neanderthals at close quarters (neanderthal skeletal remains show traumas akin to rodeo persons today). The extinction of Mammoths is widely thought to have been due to over hunting during a global warming episode. Clearly * sapiens had arrived on the scene at the time Mammoths became extinct. Perhaps with projectile weaponry, * sapiens had the ability to kill more prey than Neanderthals could at close quarters. Also more * sapiens would survive hunting expeditions unscathed for the same reason and be fit to hunt again. Rising temperatures would have meant that meat wouldn't keep so there would be increased need for constant hunting.
Anatomically, * sapiens were better equipped to utilise projectile weaponry. Almost all
extant humans today have or have had projectile weaponry in their armoury. (Maoris are
thought to have abandoned the use of such weaponry in their habitat).
Since the extinction of mammoths and Neanderthals took place when global temperature levels increased and * sapiens arrived, surely these are the two key reasons behind the disappearance of Neanderthals and Mammoths.

did anyone even notice the difference between nationalities. if i were trying to find out what happened to the Neanderthal i would start looking for a possible relations between the neanderthal and other nationalities of todays "Humans".
please note that i am not saying that skin colour is a factor im saying that facial structure is the matter of investigation such as chinese people look nothing like a russian or american

Chinese people look like the Bushmen in Africa

Yes. There is a theory emerging that modern europeans (and some asians) have neanderthal ancestry. (Neanderthal interbreeding occured with paleolithic europeans, this has been proven, and likely the reason for their disappearance.). We are so used to the idea that evolution occurs like a line, when it is complex and full of different forces. Especially human evolution. We just need to see it in a different light, paleolithic people didn't know what species were, they were cohabiting and often mating. And as a result, different human populations have arised. The idea that humans today had a single ancestor has been disproven- there are far too many variations in people (especially phenotypically) that could be accounted for in such a short period of time (~250,000 years is the high guess, which is a couple of seconds in evolutionary history). Of course, we don't know much about that time period other than what we find, but it changes out view that the modern human (could be anyone) is a single series of steps leading up to the final product. There are many convergences and divergences. And in the case of neanderthals, divergences.

What you say may have some relation to the fact that in a European skull the supraobital ridge tends to be larger and more protruding than that of an African skull.

SOMEWHAT TRUE. THANKS

Cranial capacity doesn't have anything to do with true intelligence. I don't get why it is insisted it does. It doesn't really hold true among humans, or even in many animals. My brain is smaller than many of my coworkers, in both total size and brain to body size ratio, yet I am far more intelligent. My Labrador is the smartest dog I've ever seen, yet her brain and brain to body size ratio is dwarfed in comparison to my Great Pyrenees. I think it has to do with YOU, not you body.

They were also taller than Cro-Magnons. The Cro-Magnons had to have had an advance in fighting in order to beat the Neanderthals, plus wouldn't the size of Neanderthals intimidate Cro-Magnons?

There Brain volume is also something to look at. They might have a larger brain size, but does that exactly mean they were smarter? No, but then again, we can't prove that. It could have been that * sapiens were able to spread there technological advances much faster than Neanderthals. Population is another factor. With more people they could have easily overwhelmed the Neanderthals and beaten them.

When you look at humans you think "most intellegant animals by far", yet look at how we act. We might have knowledge, but we abuse it(quite often too). The ONLY reason we are as advanced as we are today, is the fact that we have discovered agriculture and have had time to think, instead of always being on the hunt for food.

It is in human nature that we focus more on what we want than what we need; this is because we normally have our needs handed to us now. Look at The Greatest civilizations: The Romans, Greeks, Indians, Asians, Mayans, Aztecs, and Incans. They became strong and had what they wanted, but the one that lived the longest was the Romans. This is because they all wanted more power and became corrupted. Maybe, our weak points are that HUMANS CAN AND WILL BE CORRUPTED, but only if they have the chance. The other * Species lived in tranquility and lived for lengthy periods of time. We will most likely not even live for more than another 30k years at the rate we are going.

Neanderthals might have been more intelligent than * spapiens sapiens and they may have had no difficulty at all with speech. Their extinction might be a result of thousands of years of competition for the same resources during which modern humans may have simply had an advantage in terms of numbers due to a more stable population size that could rely on a recurring influx of new immigrants arriving from Africa and elsewhere. The less intelligent species might eventually replace the more intelligent species just like constant dripping wears the stone.

There is no need to evoke an advantage in terms of intelligence to explain why * sapiens sapiens is still here. We may even be the less intelligent species in every single respect, including speech. Fact is, that for one reason or another, we were quicker to spread over larger areas of the world and thus could also eventually drive even the supersmartest Neanderthals out of existence who, unlike us, had no influx of new immigrants to rely on. Constant dripping wears the hardest stone.

but neanderthals may have not migrated becasue there was no need to, they may have had a "perfect life." *sapiens may have needed to migrate due to lack of certain things such as space or resources

Would Europeans be wiped out the same way?
We have very low birth rates compared to immigrants.

Almost certainly; but you can't say that or you're a dirty evil racist.

Honestly this subject of neanderthal DNA interests me very much. I have always felt that life and evolution are about seizing the opportunities of the future. I look at the science being conducted on Neanderthals and wonder if now isn't the dawn of a new human persona on the globe? Maybe the reinvention of an old race! Perhaps the archaic human is reintroducing itself into the world with the advantages of early modern humans? Definitely racial mixing will create many NEW ethnic types just as it always has, diversity will increase not decrease. Maybe there will be a place for an emergent Neanderthal like person.
Europe and the west is emotionally, mentally, culturally and intellectually corrupt. No doubt about it. As a European should I be distressed about that? Most definitely I should be -but it'll do me no good because I am alone in not desiring my self-genocide. The rest of my people are so mentally degenerate they embrace it.

So why not start off fresh? We should accept that their is room for all kinds of people on this Earth. We need to cement borders and observe human rights for all of the worlds peoples no matter their population size or material power. Maybe we can engineer new races, 'designer races'. I would like to be the first to promote the rights of a new neanderthal reemergence (in brain structure) utilizing the best traits of the Europeans (and possibly Asians too) that are also their descendants. Wouldn't that be something! Forget Europeans, the brainless backwards suicidal jerks!

If blacks can have books, magazines, TV shows and organziations dedicated to nothing more than the promotion and empowerment of themselves and their racial identity - why can't I have equal rights for my new genetically engineered race(s).

How about computer intelligences? Or genetically evoloved animals? Who knows we could have a smorgasbord of new peoples on the planet. Who could possibly argue against a races right to survive?

Didn't somebody try to do that already in the 1940's?

I think the ultimate reason for the Neanderthal's demise was the brutish acquisitiveness of * Sapiens and our willingness to kill to get it. Not much has changed.
One does not need words to demonstrate a way of working. They were probably going in a more civilised direction than us, so we took them out.
Our governments are still running with this policy 50,000 years later.

As for what lala has said, it's kind of the truth, but not tge whole truth. The truth is , anybody outside of subsaharan Africa has anywhere from 1-4 percent Neanderthal genes. The genes being so spread out are believed to have originated in the middle east or caucuses, before humans branched out. People who are using this against Europeans are not only ignorant, but silly also. There was a new type of hominid found in denisova, who is believed to be either erectus or Neanderthal. It is found that people from Melanesia and Papua new guine share up to 6 percent of their DNA with this creature. 6 percent shared genes with a percieved subhuman apeman is more than 4 percent obviously; Add to that the fact that none of these genes ate found in any eurasians. From this you can gather that are human evolution was a greater story than that of what we think we know. When I was younger I thought that we had all evolved from different monkeys, looks like now I'm right. We're alot different from each other than we think; Just because we can breed does not make us all the same.

Based on this logic, blue whales would be the Supreme Overlords of the universe. Just sayin'.

Cranial capacity does not an intelligent being make! The fact that Neanderthals had a slightly larger head and brain than Modern Humans equated to a larger physical body size. It doesn't mean Neanderthals were more intelligent. Neanderthals used the "hand axe" for over a million years without substantially changing it. If cranial capacity makes a being intelligent the Sperm Whale would be the most intelligent animal on Earth. A sperm whale's brain weighs about 9 kg and is the largest brain in the world. In comparison, an average human brain is 1.35 kg.

Intelligence can be measured in the number of neurons that interconnect the brain lobes, which allow a more rapid exchange of analysis, i.e. thinking to solve problems, the end result of intelligence. This system is much like a super computer which is made up of many small computes wired in parallel so that each small computer can do their thing and then transfer their bits of information to a final computer that stitches all the incoming information together to provide a solution. Neanderthal appeared to have more of a series wired brain than a parallel wired brain as Modern Humans have. Parallel circuits are much faster than series circuits and can accomplish more. It's all in the interconnectivity of the brain lobes, not the size of the brain.

How do you (we?) know how the Neanderthal brain was wired?

but the neanderthals had only a greater muscle mass and denser bones and were on average slightly shorter, the sperm whale is massive so it requires that size of a brain to perform basic functions

this surely is indeterminate.

Neanderthals had no evidence of culture, as exhibited by us today or for much our history.

Cro-Magnon * raped the Neanderthals.

Okay I read many of the comments. I was discussing the ancient origins of the dog and human relationship with friends. Through a combination of luck and I think compassion for orphaned puppies our ancestors learned that dogs are are a good friend to have. This happened about 50 - 30 thousand years ago. It was one of the greatest cultural and technical advances of the human species. I agree that are drive to share information was a huge advantage over other hominids. But once we started working with wolves it was the end for our cousins.
Also look at humans. Things advance quickly now in part because of all the information we share. Still most people are not innovators. Most people are detractors. ( I am going to relate my own life experience here) I am an industrial designer. In cave man terms I would have been one of the guys figuring out new ways to knap stone, make traps, and find easier ways to do things. It takes guts and confidence to tell someone that has been doing something one way or using a certain tool a certain way all their life that you have come up with something better. It takes a hell of a lot of guts to convince your fellow tribesman that bringing up a wolf into your cave as part of the family is a good Idea. Imagine it. Millions of years and no one dared do such a thing. It wasn't that no one thought of it just that it was crazy. As crazy as humans desire to fly. Every one in the tribe telling the innovator is is stupid and insane for taking such risks. I have experienced such resistance with some of my ideas. As a youth and young adult I would tell others about ideas I had or plans. Most in the community told me all kinds of reasons my idea would never work. Even as a professional designer today I hear detractors. I hear them up until the point that I create something and prove them my ideas are valid.

My point here is that maybe Neanderthals were too intelligent. Maybe they did not produce enough brave innovators that were willing to stand up against the status quo and do insane things like adopt a dangerous animal as a companion, or stand up to the status quo and invent the a new tool. Maybe the neanderthals avoided lions where instead we found ways to hunt them.

Humans are not all geniuses. The Human or humans that first realized the benefits of having a dog were as brave and brilliant as the rare geniuses we know of today. It was a Ben Franklin or Edison kind of person. Most humans are not like that most just go along for the ride and leave well enough alone. But we do produce brave and maybe a little mad brilliant individuals that change everything. That in my opinion is what happened with the domestication of the wolf. which correlates with the extinction of the Neanderthal. Perhaps Neanderthals though individually more intelligent and probably more at peace with nature (as many here have suggested) did not produce the oddball neanderthal man that would stand out and take the risk and put in the time and energy needed to achieve great leaps in innovation and cultural advancement.

That is my take. Neanderthals were smart but more set in their ways than our ancestors and if a person is to set in their ways then they are left behind.

I never realized and was never taught the defining characteristic of human speech is the hypoid bone that all other mammals do not have. I guess I have a bone to pick with my ancestral teachers.

Neanderthals created us, most likely through selective breeding, possibly through science to improve upon their imperfect forms to adapt to their changing environment. With Neoevolution,we take it to the next step; check out the TED talk and remember: there is nothing new under the sun.

If this was true then it would imply countries would have developed faster if they had simpler languages. It certainly does not appeal to our imagination.

THIS IS EPIC!!!ALL THE INFORMATION I NEED IS HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!! THIS IS VERY FAIRLY EXPLAINED!!!!!!

Cranium size does not equate intelligence. This assumption is totally unfounded, if you consider that we've never really had an opportunity to compare our intelligence with a similar species with slightly differing anatomy. It's an ASSUMPTION to think that just because their brains were larger they were smarter. The only real measure of intelligence is observable behavior, which for the Neanderthals of course we have none. That said, we can observe that there doesn't really appear to be any signs of major behavioral changes between Neanderthal and heidelbergensis, while the appearance of sapiens sapiens was marked by several new behaviors, including the development of more advanced tools and hunting strategies.

except those the population to have Neanderthal neural Characteristics and Genes. Like Albert Eisenstein Tend to be considered Smart.

Neanderthal was not adapted to a dry climate. And need more food per individual.

Your Arguments a old one and was debunked.

I have recently discovered a civilization that was never mentioned in any history book I ever came across. This civilization worked in stone and created works of art that baffle my imagination. The rocks that I have found are in the Las Vegas Valley in Nevada. Now the lights here are so bright and the women so fine who would pay attention to a rock. I guess only someone with rocks for brains. Well any way I have discovered stone art that rivals any civilization. The only problem is mans eye site today is so weak that without a little help from some chrome paint one would never see the quality of these ancient Artisan's work. So the creators of these works must have been Neanderthal type characters who used the power of divergent viewing techniques. I have found it takes time for me to see the images past the out side appearance of a regular rock. Go to google search and type in las vegas rockman There one of the results will be Michael a pickard's Myspace There you can see some of the unusual artifacts. Can any one tell me what is it I have found

Neanderthal's probably developed religion earlier, thereby self-destructing. Hopefully modern human will realize how destructive religion is before we destroy ourselves.

insightful

The last migration out of Africa met the Neanderthals about 70,000 years ago. They intermixed and the resultant hybrid African/Neanderthal had an increase of 20 IQ points. Mixing of African and Neandertal was complete about 20,000 years ago. Soon after Animals were domesticated, agriculture began. Civilizations began to appear about 10,000 years ago.

Hmm. If I'm being honest, I don't think it had anything to do with who was smarter. I think it had to due with death during childbirth. A large number of fossil Neanderthals have been found with prenatal bones in the pelvis, which suggests just that. I think that the size of their brains / skulls was simply /too/ large for the birth canal, which caused more of the Neanderthals to die during childbirth than with H. Sapiens. You can only make the hips so wide and still be bipedal. I personally believe that Neanderthals were nature's experiment with brain size, and H. Sapiens just came out on top because they could fit better through the birth canal.

that.....s a wonderful thought.

I still think that slash and burn did them in. We had been exposed to more in Africa. Not only, but humans tend to create huge populations. I believe they even realized that this was inevitable but that we would probably bring the "gods" back. "Do not come near us, lest you die." -Bible They were probably like, "humans are disease bags."

I read this whole thread and there are obviously some very intelligent people with some very compelling theories, but the answer is blatantly obvious when looking at * Sapiens Sapiens' behavior since inception - kill everything. We kill everything important; predatory animals, the great herds, bluefin tuna, whales, each other, the planet, etc. Who killed the Neanderthals? Are you kidding me?

lol.. humans are not the only "savage" species on the planet. I believe most mammalian species demonstrate some inhumanity/malevolence to other conspecifics. It's a fallacy to presume that animals are noble whilst we are brutal and "bad".

This article is a bit behind and should be updated. The sequencing of Neanderthal DNA has shown all non-Africans have some Neanderthal ancestry. I think it's a mistake to assume that Neanderthal died out at all, it appears that we are very much still alive.

I think this changes our understanding and shatters the "Out of Africa" theory. If scientist can first get passed their own preconceived notions and allow themselves to break free from the PC environment, we can then truly better understanding our origins. By assuming that all humans are the same, and that we all come from one female ancestor, we limit how much can be achieved in medicine and biology. It's not popular, but scientist are slowly coming around to realize that all men are NOT created equally. The same chemicals that effect my brain and body, may not have the same effect on another. Our DNA and ancestry directly contribute to this fact.

I personally consider this reason not convinced enough. They don't need to pronounce words like us (especially English), they could have their special language characteristic. It is just like the difference between Chinese and English.

I can't and won't pretend to know anything about what I haven't professionally studied. But it seems logical, to me, that if a species cannot speak out loud, it is less likely to be able to communicate large volumes of information from one group in one cave to another group somewhere else. And if the creative area of the brain (frontal lobe) is not developed, then knowledge and storage of knowledge can be used and shared, but not so likely to be invented, exploited or evolved into new ideas. Just sayin'

This is mostly incorrect. Neanderthal brain size was related to endurance and not intelligence. Neanderthalensis was too literal minded for abstract thought and planning. The Neanderthal brain required over 5,000 calories a day- that of a triathlete, and was a great demand on the hominid's energy budget

There is no relationship in intelligent primates, including mankind, to living individual's numbers. Today there are only about 3500 wild tigers. I live in a town in California, with 35k human inhabitants. 6 years ago, a tiger escaped and ate cotton tail rabbits for 30 days while loose. He never tried to eat a dog or a person. Finally he was spotted, and our brave police force, in the interest of child safety executed the beautiful, complex, and super rare siberian tiger. Much like KING KONG on the Empire state building, he was slaughtered. Neanderthals tended to live in caves during the Pleisteocene era (mostly ice ages) They may have existed in only a few thousand like present day tigers. The much more numerous immegrants from Africa saw the chunky 5'2 " human Hulks" as looking quite apelike with massive brow ridges like the great apes. To a smooth skined, graceful,
athletic modern man with both African and North African genetic influences. Qualified to
compete in things like the modern Olympics, in terms of the chase, running ability, dancing,
warfare skills, ability to chant, play drums, and even paint wonderful cave picture of animals. To them, the very appearance of neanderthals would make them seem like upright
apes, so they were usually killed off by the "beautiful people" who were likely more numerous...as they were clearly not CAVEMEN...just an early version of the tribal folks of
Sub-saharan and North Africa who a typical modern looking people. Simple as that! And 4% of europeans , west asians and east asians carry their genetic influence.

With the warring hell already in world history could you imagine two different versions of men exisiting for very long? It would be more interesting if one was so differnt they couldnt interbreed. Neanderthal 2.0, hidden on a island somewhere, cold but kept warm like Iceland via Volcanic activity. Their they are today, hidden from us. We find them or they us, what happens? What are they like? Better at being human than us? How soon before they are bombed?

Disease could have wiped out the Neanderthals. Although Europeans did go to war with various native people that they came across, it was disease that paved the way.

Great discussion here. All the prefrontal cortex functions would be advantages that we had more of, that our cousins had less of. Basic Skull shape shows this. The FOXP2 gene mutation happened just before we diverged as separate species but this brain changing gene changed our brain visibly and is at least [specifically responsible for our delicate facial expressions that is more than just saying "poison snake, watch out!!" Abstraction and Gambling was our advantage. We were able to create trust based relationships that worked; able to compare things that are not equal (commerce/trade); able to use strategies that involves looking at our selves as a player (the birth of the human ego or superfrontal gyrus function.) Powerful gifts but a horrible dysfunction in modern times when we believe our abstractions and close our ears to instead cling to our certainties out of fear of losing a self that doesn't really exist. I doubt any humans were * enough to engage these powerful beings in some kind of combat, but, our many encounters with these creatures over the millenniums makes me wonder if our prefrontal cortex advantage, our gambling skills, simple left them in the cold and feeling like they got a good deal with trinkets in one hand as they waved good-bye to their food supplies and women with the other. Humans who have lesions to our more unique parts of our brain, as a result of stroke, are shown to be very easily deceived.

As an aspie I have been studying this topic at great length for quite some time now. From what I gather, research would suggest that individually, yes, neanderthals were more intelligent than sapiens, but in a social dynamic between the two, sapiens had the advantage. One excels at abstract though and discovery, the other at reproducing and knowledge transference.

What concerns me is the emergence of autism and aspergers and the link to neanderthal genes. I know that I've always looked at things differently than most people. I'm high functioning enough to get by, but no amount of emulation could completely cover up my true nature. Once NT's became aware of my intrinsic differences it always led to harassment and discrimination. So even though I hardly paid attention in school because the social dynamic was too much, I could pass tests relatively easy and grasp concepts that most people seemed to struggle with. I also used cannabis to cope with stress and suicidal ideations and this also helped me fit in and mask the symptoms.

Now though, I can't ignore how much people like to judge, and hate, and commit violence for the most selfish and insignificant reasons. Why is it ok for millions of people worldwide to needlessly suffer so long as you have a loaded bank account and nice stuff to advertise you're better than others? You're going to die someday and no you don't have an eternal soul going to some magical kingdom where a man sits on a throne observing everything that humans ever do.

I ask myself, why would neanderthal genes proliferate to the point of autism and aspergers? Evolution is really the only answer. Of course evolution isn't by design, most people seem to lack this understanding after countless years of exposure to the creationist theory. It doesn't mean auties and aspies are some new wave of hyper-intelligent superhuman intended to lead us into a golden age of humanity. It simply means that sapiens descended from those that interbred with neanderthal reproduced with each other enough that the genes proliferated into what is now called autism spectrum disorders. Many people on the spectrum are gifted by NT standards, but their inability to cultivate this intelligence in a conducive manner has led to their discrimination and ostricization. Let's be honest, society isn't designed to nurture human potential, it's designed to produce laborers and consumers for the wealthy to continue exploiting.

Now, when it comes to proving this, I'm divided. On one hand it would seem that confirming this would help those on the spectrum by promoting awareness. However, I have coexisted with NT's long enough to no longer be able to ignore their true nature. They are a particularly myopic and fearful lot. To assume they would welcome this news and accept those on the spectrum would be exceptionally naive, I surmise that most likely they would discriminate and harass even more.

This is just my hypothesis based on casual research and extensive personal experience and introspection.

The Neanderthal could actually be smarter initially, maybe not smarter than a * -sapiens but than a Cro-Magnon. The fact that were smarter, maybe developed their affectiveness to their children and only gave birth to 2-3 of them in order to raise them well, and Cro-Magnon gave birth to 10-15, from which maybe 3-4 died due to their stupidity, and another 3 out of badluck, still remained with 4-8, instead of 2-3. Now, let's suppose an intelligent Neanderthal family lived 55 years, while a stupid Cro-Magnon only 40. Only these two elements, the number of children and the rate of renewing the generation lead in 50 thousand years (due to the exponential curve of the Cro-Magnon multiplication) to 3 possible facts:
1) an invasive population of Cro-Magnons thousands of times larger than the native Neandherthals
2) due to the higher "refresh" rate, a likelihood of good genetic mutations much higher, in favor of the Cro-Magnon (also bad mutations that did not survived), thus a much more intensive natural selection. These "good" mutations meant also a rise of a "genius" in 1 milion that maybe invented something... then, later the word spread, for every stupid Cro-Magnon benefit.
3) the "killing your neighbour factor to steal his goods" probably inexistent for Neandherthal -as they didn't needed to: they were far more intelligent than animals and had enough resources for themselves. This killing factor most probably developed with Cro-Magnon into complex attack and defense strategies- especially against another Cro-Magnon. As a side effect a much higher conflict rate lead to an even higher natural selection.

Correlating only these three facts are enough to realize that the Neanderthals could not possibly have the slightest chance against the Cro-Magnons. Would they've been initially 100 times more intelligent than Cro-Magnons maybe, but if they were only 10% smarter was just not enough for those brutal times...

Isn't it obvious that if neanderthals were to be smarter then * sapiens they would have developed some sort of language. I find it logically to conclude with that the structure were not benefiting over it's big size...

i am a neanderthal and i have trouble talking to people i keep forgetting what i am saying and my tongue keeps getting in the way my name is stephen gale i have a tiny penis thanks to my * neanderthal grandad please help me PS i have really strong sexual urges for sheep is that normal ?

Modern Europeans are quite clearly direct descendents of Neanderthal. Blonde or red hair, light colored eyes, superior intelligence and strength. We even have the same suicidal tendency to allow foreigners to pollute our land.

Curious: Homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthal in the middle east, to some extent in North Africa, throughout Europe and also Asia. All these populations carry neanderthal genes (and later, North America too). In all of these areas, civilizations arose which conquered other lands and became empires.

Populations of Sub-Saharan Africa do not carry the Neanderthal genes, being descended from Homo Sapiens which did not leave, and did not encounter Neanderthal. Sub-Saharan Africa has never given rise to empires conquering distant lands. They fight among themselves to be sure, but they haven't created trans-continental empires.

There are a couple of key misinterpretations in this article. First the notion that purely based on brain size neanderthals were more intelligent than modern or Cro-magon humans does not bear up under scrutiny. First, the difference in brain size is rather trivial, and second it's really brain structure that is the greater determinative factor.

Also the notion that only a handful of sounds could be articulated is not well described and most likely inaccurate. At worst, there may have been some limitations in vowel sounds expressable, but it is consonants that really make a language rich. Neither the hyoid bone nor the larynx shape have any bearing whatsoever on what consonants could be formed. That is determined by the shape of the mouth and teeth. So it's likely that neanderthal speech was quite rich, perhaps slightly less than ours, but certainly not the brutish speech alluded to in this article.

And now we know non-african humans have neanderthal DNA...

My idea is this: If you have simple needs, and everyone else has those needs, then isn't communication simpler? Like birds for example. They eat, breed, nest, raise their young, some mourn there dead, and I would say that a lot if not all are problem solvers judging by the fact that they find homes and build nests. They emit hi frequencies and a couple of consonants mostly. They have not advanced technologically because they don't have too. They live in harmony. When a species is weaker, there is a need to try harder to adapt. This pushes creativity. Think, apprentice surpassing master. Now when a harmonious animal is met by an adaptive and territorial animal what do you think happens? War, or eradication rather. When you have not developed weapons in your culture, because you are so good to each other, then an army comes in who does not share your harmony, how are you to know to, or how to defend yourself? Humans are the stalking tigers, Neanderthals were the sitting ducks. I believe that someday we will lay down our guns too. and for long enough to be eradicated by a less harmonious animal. Maybe even a mutation from our own species.

Now that you mention it I have seen several examples of throwbacks increasing examples of behavour. Re: modern music, limited range except screaming, that it is intellagible but (gutterable), actually underdstood by few, examples of individuals "moon walking" and spinning on their backs, I think it is call "Rap" It appears we are rapidly advancing into the "past"...

I think linking a bone in the tongue and concluding from a standpoint in
English a vocabulary of 8 to 9 letters doesnt take anything into account from languages that are
far more tonal and indistinguishable to non native speakers, as well to native american Indian languages
based on symbols. Europeans said to have strains of neanderthal is interesting but the one good book I had on

the Celtic language was lost to me, but somehow seemed to be based on sort of set a theory with common themes

found in the Zodiac of many different systems.Having lived in parts of Asia these argument are probably older

than the basis of everything being base on Egyptology. As for now I can't any books. My ring and I aren't

talking.Its a very interesting article to me that it sheds light on alternate theories of development across

the globe and I agree with the person who talked about the different ethnocentric characteristics of the races

being interesting. I think we need to be careful what the conglomerate has to say about where our next hybrid

humans come from. Share your thoughts on this story...

Why'd the Neanderthals go extinct?

They had no immunity to the diseases of modern humans.

Once their paths crossed the writing was on the wall.

Update . We now know conclusively from the Neanderthal Genome Project that All non-african human's (the ones who left during the out of africa theory) mated with neanderthal and as a result 6% of our non junk-dna is from neanderthal and along with it light skin, larger brains, light hair,advanced technology and all of human history shows that the cultures that were human-neanderthal hybrids were the most successful and continue to be the most successful. Call that racist, i call it science and i don't argue with the moral implications i just face the facts no matter who it upsets and the facts are that blacks who have no european or asian mixture are technically still * sapiens and everyone else is the next step evolutionarily. While blacks are more athletic they are less intelligent across the board and iq tests show this(they also show that asian's are smarter than whites, asians also have Denisovan DNA so technically they got the best of 3 species, well except for being short, having small penises, a uniform hair and eye color and a crazy appetite for sea food.) There has to be a redefinition of what species each race is because they're not all the same species other than the fact that each race/breed/combinatation has at least the * sapiens genes in common so pure blacks should be called * Sapiens, pure whites * sapien-neanderthalus, and east asians are * sapien-neanderthalus-denisovus. I'm not says were should treat each other differently based on the discovery that we all have different amounts of other humanoid species within us, the fact that we can mate with them proves they are human. They had language, they created the first oldest musical instruments 60,000 years ago, the oldest cave art is neanderthal, not the oldest spears though those were used by * erectus around 2 million years ago. Neanderthals brought down mammoths and you can't do that alone. The very fact that they had larger brains and mated with humans proves they were intelligent enough for speech and social interaction and the creation of music art and weaponry proves their intellect that wasn't matched anywhere else in the world.