Neanderthal home made of mammoth bones discovered in Ukraine

Dec 19, 2011 by Bob Yirka report
Neanderthal
The Reconstruction of the Funeral of Homo neanderthalensis. Captured in the Hannover Zoo. (Via Wikipedia)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Up till recently, most researchers studying Neanderthals had assumed they were simple wanderers, hiding out in caves when the weather got bad. Now however, the discovery of the underpinnings of a house built by a group of Neanderthals, some 44,000 years ago, turns that thinking on its head. Discovered by a team of French archeologists from the Muséum National d'Histories Naturelle, in an area that had been under study since 1984, the home, as it were, was apparently based on mammoth bones. The team’s findings are to be published in the science journal Quaternary International.

Over the past decade, new information regarding Neanderthals, a human ancestor that died out approximately 30,000 years ago, has come to light that tends to reverse decades of thinking. Instead of a clumsy, dim-witted people, it appears Neanderthals were more advanced than most had thought. Evidence of cooking, burying their dead, making jewelry and perhaps even speaking to one another has come to light indicating that first assumptions were a little harsh. Now, with the of a home built by Neanderthals, it’s clear they were far more sophisticated than anyone had imagined.

The home was apparently built in two parts. The lower part, or base, was made by assembling large mammoth bones to support the whole structure, which was 26 feet across at its widest. The bones themselves were likely obtained both through collecting those found on the ground and by killing the large beasts directly themselves. The Neanderthals who built the structure also obviously lived in it for quite some time as 25 different hearths were found inside. The researchers suggest that the house was once topped by wood or other material the builders were able to find.

The house was found in eastern Ukraine, believed to be the oldest known built of bones, near the town of Molodova, a place that doesn’t have much in the way of trees, thus the Neanderthals who built the house were demonstrating an ability to live in a rather barren place, living in homes they’d constructed while cooking and eating mammoth to survive. It also suggests that were capable of working and living together in groups in established communities.

Perhaps even more interesting was the fact that some of the bones used to build the house had decorative carvings and added pigments, clearly showing that those that built the , were in fact, building a home.

Explore further: World's largest solar boat on Greek prehistoric mission

Related Stories

Russian site may show late Neanderthal refuge

May 12, 2011

Who's better at teaching difficult physics to a class of more than 250 college students: the highly rated veteran professor using time-tested lecturing, or the inexperienced graduate students interacting ...

Neanderthal 'butcher shop' found in France

Sep 27, 2006

French and Belgian archaeologists say they have proof Neanderthals lived in near-tropical conditions near France's Channel coast about 125,000 years ago.

Evidence Neanderthals used feathers for decoration

Feb 23, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers studying a large deposit of Neanderthal bones in Italy have discovered the remains of birds along with the bones, and evidence the feathers were probably used for ornamentation. ...

Neanderthals died out earlier than originally believed

May 10, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- According to a newly released report in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a newly refined method of radiocarbon dating has found that Neanderthals died off much earlier than o ...

Neanderthals more advanced than previously thought

Sep 21, 2010

For decades scientists believed Neanderthals developed `modern' tools and ornaments solely through contact with Homo sapiens, but new research from the University of Colorado Denver now shows these sturdy ...

Recommended for you

Violent aftermath for the warriors at Alken Enge

11 hours ago

Denmark attracted international attention in 2012 when archaeological excavations revealed the bones of an entire army, whose warriors had been thrown into the bogs near the Alken Enge wetlands in East Jutland ...

Dinosaurs doing well before asteroid impact

13 hours ago

A new analysis of fossils from the last years of the dinosaurs concludes that extra-terrestrial impact was likely the sole cause of extinction in most cases.

A word in your ear, but make it snappy

Jul 28, 2014

To most, crocodiles conjure images of sharp teeth, powerful jaws and ferocious, predatory displays – but they are certainly not famous for their hearing abilities. However, this could all change, as new ...

User comments : 46

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Nanobanano
2.1 / 5 (38) Dec 19, 2011
You fools still don't get it, do you?

These aren't "evolutionary ancestors" in the sense of what you believe as the "ape to man" evolutionary chain.

They are simply another "race" of humans, just like caucasian vs african vs asian, and perhaps most of their "unique" racially specific genes were lost due to war or a genetic bottleneck from catastrophism.

The stories of a flood and the tower of babel, and other catastrophism stories clearly tell us that a huge portion of the HUMAN population, in fact nearly all of them, were wiped out.

You know this happened, even if the details aren't exactly right, but you continue to refuse to face it.

Humans had ADVANCED construction technology and ADVANCED art and iconography at least 7000 years earlier than "history" records.

There was no transitional ape-man, nor "semi-intelligent" cave-man cousin.

youtube.com/watch?v=q6BFmhVV2dA

When are you going to get that the "ape to man" thing did not happen?
Nanobanano
1.8 / 5 (32) Dec 19, 2011
Gobekli Tepe is in the same basic time frame as the allegedly "mythical" Atlantis, and what do you know? Advanced construction, advanced art, and even the audacity (foresight?) to intentionally bury and preserve an entire city.

It's clear these people were no less intelligent than us today. In fact, I'd say the stone sculpture of animals is probably a lot better than what many people alive have ever done.

Neanderthals are explainable by genetic variation within the MODERN HUMAN race. Period.

If you don't believe that, try reading the Guiness book of records for things like tallest and shortest man/woman.

If these idiots found a tall skeleton next to a short one, they'd swear they were different "species" and reality is, they are like 4th or 5th cousins.

Pathetic.
Husky
3.8 / 5 (21) Dec 19, 2011
nano judgeing by your vocubalary i'd venture to say that indeed some cousins of the neanderthal still roam the earth.
signoftimes
5 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2011
Most white non African humans have Neanderthal genetic traces in them. It's already been scientifically proven. Most Asian's have Denisovan genetic traces. Africans are listed as having archaic genetic traces "We found evidence for hybridization between modern humans and archaic forms in Africa." I have yet to see an article stating what specific archaic forms they speak of. If anyone has more information I am interested to see it.
http://www.physor...nin.html
Nanobanano
1.3 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2011
nano judgeing by your vocubalary i'd venture to say that indeed some cousins of the neanderthal still roam the earth.


Hush.

I have a "superior" verbal I.Q. of at least 122, in at least the 97th percentile, as given by a professionally administered test, though Language Arts is admittedly my weakest subject.

I guess the Neanderthal's will take that as a compliment.

If I hung around smarter people than my mostly uneducated relatives, it would be a lot higher, I'm sure.
Blaspheyou
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2011
Neanderthal was not in homo sapiens' line of descent, but there certainly are other species that were. Why is this so threatening, nano?
Asclepius_Ophiuchus
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2011
no big breakthrough At Mezhirich ukraine in 1965,
check it out
donsmaps.com/mammothcamp.html
tadchem
not rated yet Dec 19, 2011
Evidently the job description "Agent of Species Extinction" is a human 'family tradition.'
Nanobanano
2.1 / 5 (18) Dec 19, 2011
Neanderthal was not in homo sapiens' line of descent, but there certainly are other species that were. Why is this so threatening, nano?


It isn't threatening at all, and they are Homo Sapiens.

They simply aren't classified correctly.

I don't have a problem with the notion of catastrophism or mass genocide having happened in the past, it's painstakingly obvious from all ancient history that both of these forms of genetic bottlenecks happened frequently.

Neanderthals are not another species.

Vienna
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 19, 2011
Nanobanano, I am completely with you.

The Neanderthal-as-semi-human concept is wrong, wrong. In fact, genetic studies seem to show that Neanderthal genes are mixed into most "Europeans".

But, even further, as you state, there is no such thing as an "ape-man".

Archeologists and paleontologists STILL have NOT FOUND a single, not even one fragment, ape-on-the-way-to-man skeletal discovery.

The famous "ape to cro-magnon to neanderthal to modern man" illustration should be retired without looking back.

LuckyBrandon
3.9 / 5 (13) Dec 19, 2011
@Nano & Vienna- it seems neither of you encompass the fact that, like all species, we are merely a subspecies (a branch if you will) out of the human like species. Just like there are many other similar primate species, we too had similar species to us. They weren't the same as us, they are simply too different from homo-sapiens in a wide scale. The argument you used of "stand a tall skeleton next to a short skeleton" is not viable, as the bone structure would be the same, etc...obvious signs of the same species...not so with our dead cousin species. Variation in bone structure between homo-sapiens is rare, limited to mostly mutation or disease (the same mutation ironically is part of the proof of evolution), and with that in mind, your example should be the conclusion *might* be that a short highly mutated homo-sapien next to a tall "normal" homo-sapien could be mistaken for different species. that i would agree with, as would most i think...
thales
4.9 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2011
The stories of a flood and the tower of babel, and other catastrophism stories clearly tell us that a huge portion of the HUMAN population, in fact nearly all of them, were wiped out.

You know this happened, even if the details aren't exactly right, but you continue to refuse to face it.


Tiny banana,

Ignoring, for a moment, your surprisingly arrogant tone and thinly veiled hostility ("fools", really?): the question is which details are right?

Obviously you think little of scientists who - in your opinion - make conclusions based on flimsy evidence. I wonder on what evidence you base your conclusion of a worldwide flood.
epsi00
not rated yet Dec 19, 2011
@Bob Yirka, there are better tools for English to French translation than a silly word for word translation of Musée national d'histoire naturelle into your translation " Muséum National d'Histories Naturelle ". Don't insult the readers.
Asclepius_Ophiuchus
1 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2011
nothing new here they discovered mammoth dwellings in the 1960/S in ukraine.
Pbiologist
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2011
My fav hominins, they keep surprising us. i've had the privilege to live the last exciting decades of fossils discoveries happening in Africa and the paradigm shift that now shows hominin evolution as a non-linear, multifaceted, complex phenomenon and that, given the fact that we share 98.6 of our DNA with the chimpanzee, from whose line we diverged 6 million years ago, all that evolutionary complexity lies within that 1.4 left. Hypotheses is Neanderthals might be our closest hominin relatives not just because skeletal morphology but also within this realm once the Neanderthal genome gets reasonably complete and the corresponding DNA hybridizations are made.
Sinister1811
1 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2011
If Homo sapiens and Neanderthals were so vastly different as we're led to believe, then how is it that they could have interbred? Or is the interbreeding just speculation? But then again, I suppose Lions and Tigers aren't directly related, and yet, they're capable of interbreeding to produce a hybrid. So Neanderthals could not have been too different from us.
Sinister1811
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2011
Two branches of the same evolutionary tree. Disregard the previous post.
MarkyMark
5 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2011
Two branches of the same evolutionary tree. Disregard the previous post.

I assume you are forgetting that Neanderthal and modern humans are also different branches of the same tree.

Also what nanobanano is basically saying is that Neanderthal's are from a different tree, and that god got rid of them via a fantasy flood with water that came from nowhere and then vanished without a trace.

Personally i am farely sure that the flood happened but it was a more local one that was big news in the east for some reason and over time and generations the story of the flood got embellished and altered leaving just a grain of truth in the current version of the story. Just like any other Bible story.
_nigmatic10
1 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2011
The stories of a flood and the tower of babel, and other catastrophism stories clearly tell us that a huge portion of the HUMAN population, in fact nearly all of them, were wiped out.


That statement alone says all i need to know about Nano's theories on this subject.

Back on the subject, it would only be prudent to assume hybridization between the species also occurred on a cultural level as well.

Bigbobswinden
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2011
You fools still don't get it, do you?

These aren't "evolutionary ancestors" in the sense of what you believe as the "ape to man" evolutionary chain.

They are simply another "race" of humans, just like caucasian vs african vs asian, and perhaps most of their "unique" racially specific genes were lost due to war or a genetic bottleneck from catastrophism.

The stories of a flood and the tower of babel, and other catastrophism stories clearly tell us that a huge portion of the HUMAN population, in fact nearly all of them, were wiped out.

You know this happened, even if the details aren't exactly right, but you continue to refuse to face it.

Humans had ADVANCED construction technology and ADVANCED art and iconography at least 7000 years earlier than "history" records.

There was no transitional ape-man, nor "semi-intelligent" cave-man cousin.

youtube.com/watch?v=q6BFmhVV2dA

When are you going to get that the "ape to man" thing did not happen?


With you all the way with this.
Sinister1811
1 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2011
Two branches of the same evolutionary tree. Disregard the previous post.

I assume you are forgetting that Neanderthal and modern humans are also different branches of the same tree.

Also what nanobanano is basically saying is that Neanderthal's are from a different tree, and that god got rid of them via a fantasy flood with water that came from nowhere and then vanished without a trace.


Thanks for clearing that up.
Mary1
5 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2011
Humans and Neandertals evolved separately, but had a common ancestor. Fully modern humans left Africa 60,000 to 50,000 years ago (give or take a few thousand years). They then met up with Neandertals in the Levant and Europe. There was apparently some in-breeding which explains the Neandertal DNA that some humans of (mostly) European descent have. All humans are descended from one woman who lived in Africa more than 100,000 years ago. However, the common Mitochondrial ancestor of humans and Neandertals goes back much farther. Neandertal Mitochondrial DNA has been sequenced. There have been no humans so far who have the same Mitochondrial sequence. It is out of the range of modern human variation. Google it.
I haven't read all the comments, so if someone else already explained this, forgive me for being repetitive.
All this doen't mean that Neandertals weren't intelligent. There brain size was slightly larger than ours. However, as a species, they are not our ancestors.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2011
They are simply another "race" of humans,
No. They are a sub species and maybe they were close to separate as there are few signs of interbreeding. Some but very little. That is not a mere racial difference.

perhaps most of their "unique" racially specific genes were lost due to war or a genetic bottleneck from catastrophism.
No. There was no such catastrophe. They interbred a little and then went extinct.

The stories of a flood and the tower of babel, and other catastrophism stories clearly tell us that a huge portion of the HUMAN population, in fact nearly all of them, were wiped out.
Nonsense. The stories were local to the Middle East. They seem to have come from the Black Sea flood conflated with one or more heavy floods in the Tigrus Euphrates region.

The Babel story is just a story. There is no evidence to support it at all.

You know this happened,
No I don't know any such a thing and on this you really don't have a clue. I do.>>
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2011
but you continue to refuse to face it.
You refuse face it being just set of stories with only partial relationship to reality and even then nothing for the Babel story.

Humans had ADVANCED construction technology and ADVANCED art and iconography at least 7000 years earlier than "history" records.
No. Go ahead and produce evidence to support that claim. Its all nonsense from the Atlantis fans.

There was no transitional ape-man, nor "semi-intelligent" cave-man cousin.
Depends on your definitions of ape man and semi intelligent. There WERE species of primate that split to become the line that to humans and one that split to become the two species of gorilla and shortly there after our line had another split producing the two species of chimp.

We may even have found a species that is either our line or maybe the chimp line but it is so close it be either or from before the split.>>
CHollman82
2.9 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2011
Species classification is arbitrary, as is all classification. Don't get hung up on classification and categorization it's all made up to try to make conversation easier. In reality each individual organism is unique, and in classifying multiple organisms under the same label you necessarily ignore certain unique qualities that they do not each share.

Regardless of anything else, it can be stated that all modern humans and all neanderthals shared a common ancestor, and that's really what's important.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2011
When are you going to get that the "ape to man" thing did not happen?


http://en.wikiped...Primates

There is plenty of evidence for the us to establish the existence of a line of descent, or more like a sparse network, back to the split between us and the other apes. There is no transition from apes to men because we ARE apes.

When are YOU going to get that? Learn something. Stop going on your old disproved beliefs.

OK there are a lot if anthropologists that disagree with me on us being apes, at least in public. They need some cajones.

Neanderthals are explainable by genetic variation within the MODERN HUMAN race. Period.
No. They were split off for a long time. Starting about 300,000 years ago and lasting till till around 70,000 years ago with little or no interaction till then.

We and they seem to have come from Homo Erectus via separate paths but were still able to interbreed if only barely so.>>
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2011
Pathetic.
Yes you often are. You think you know much more than you do. On this what little knowledge you have has a lot wrong and more to the point you think no one else has the knowledge.

You finally gave up on Fundamentalist Creation. It is time to take another step towards reality.

http://en.wikiped...kli_Tepe

Interesting. Hadn't heard about that one. A little older then the earliest towns I had heard of before. However that is not advanced technology any more than other very early cities have been. It is just little earlier than anything I have seen before. Not as early as some of the mines in Europe.

You should be aware that the History Channel has a history of producing stuff that is pure nonsense as well as good stuff. They often go for sensationalism and frequently avoid using any critical thinking in the process.>>
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2011
Advanced construction, advanced art, and even the audacity (foresight?) to intentionally bury and preserve an entire city.
Lots of cities have been buried. It is not a matter of intention. Troy was been buried under later cities many times.

It's clear these people were no less intelligent than us today.
Is this a new idea for you? They might have smarter on average. This is not a new idea. People just knew less then. Kind of like you. It doesn't them or you dumb.

I have a "superior" verbal I.Q. of at least 122,
The way you act sometimes I thought you would claim much higher. That is only 7 above Sirhan B. Sirhan. 4 less than that claimed for George W. Bush.

though Language Arts is admittedly my weakest subject.
Math is my weakest.

If I hung around smarter people than my mostly uneducated relatives, it would be a lot higher, I'm sure.
Possibly. A little maybe. Start reading more. Especially about human history.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2011
It isn't threatening at all, and they are Homo Sapiens.
The usual designation is Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis these days.

They simply aren't classified correctly.
The evidence was ambiguous till the recent genetic evidence.

Neanderthals are not another species.
Looks to have been a near thing. They seem to have been pretty close to a complete split.

And yes Anthropologist have always had a nasty habit of thinking of small variations as showing speciation. Bugged me even when I was a kid and my mother was getting her degree in Anthropology.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2011
Neanderthal was not in homo sapiens' line of descent,
The latest genetic evidence is to the contrary. Surprised me.

Why is this so threatening, nano?
He wasn't threatened. Why did you think that?

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2011
Archeologists and paleontologists STILL have NOT FOUND a single, not even one fragment, ape-on-the-way-to-man skeletal discovery.
True not a single one. Many.

http://en.wikiped...Primates

The famous "ape to cro-magnon to neanderthal to modern man" illustration should be retired without looking back.
Only the Neanderthal part is wrong. And even that was based on a bad reconstruction of the first one found.

And again we ARE apes. No tail, color vision, large brains, facile hands. The main difference is long legs, modified for walking, brain size and a large penis for apes. Oh less hair except for Robin Williams.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2011
All humans are descended from one woman who lived in Africa more than 100,000 years ago.
There must have been some epidemic or famine or flood. Surely her progeny didn't just slaughter every other family alive.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2011
That isn't what happened. Its just a matter of how descent works. ALL humanity descended MATHEMATICALLY from a person that long ago. However if you were to oh say leave out the Australians you might find it goes back 200,000 years but it won't be a million years because the statistics of that system isn't as realistic as the people that came up with it thought.

For one thing isn't ONE woman its between one and fifty. Second the stats are based only on mitochondrial DNA and if they used the Y chromosome they would have got a different answer for the last common male ancestor and if they used, semi random number here, chromosome 6 they would have got yet another answer.

See Richard Dawkin's An Ancestor's Tale for a discussion on this.

And I see we have another lunatic with a sockpuppet on the loose. My guess is that I got hit to cover up the identity of the asshole. Or it could be yet Zephir got tired of losing a debate with me but I don't think that was it this time.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2011
One might entertain the idea that the neanderthal were the nephelim of the bible. They were stronger, heartier. Their brains were bigger. And, as they had been existing as a temperate/subarctic species for a long time, their reproduction had possibly become synchronized with the seasons.

Meaning that they were only distracted with the desire to conceive for part of the year. Which left the rest of their time free to think rationally. This could have made them a very wise and introspective species indeed.

However this is what probably led to their extinction in a number of ways. As their culture was not based on conflict they were probably not very good at it. And their repro rate could not keep up with the tropical cromags who were replacing battle losses at greater rates.

Being wise though could have made neanderthals natural Leaders of cromags. Marrying the comely daughters of men would have diluted the lineage unless forced intermarriage as with euro dynasties took place.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (11) Dec 24, 2011
Note the prominent brow and hairy eyebrows:
http://en.wikiped...1992.jpg

Note the strong jowls good for extracting marrow and cracking nuts:
http://en.wikiped...011).jpg

-I propose that traditional dynastic Rulers be tested for neanderthal (and/or saurian - what the hell) genetic evidence, with or if necessary without their knowledge.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2011
There is even a recent example of sorts...

"The four tribes who had been forced to pay tribute to the Varangians Chuds, Slavs, Merians, and Krivichs drove the Varangians back beyond the sea, refused to pay them further tribute, and set out to govern themselves. But there was no law among them, and tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against the other. They said to themselves, "Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to custom". Thus they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus...The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichs and the Veps then said to the Rus, "Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come reign as princes, rule over us". Three brothers, with their kinfolk, were selected. They brought with them all the Rus and migrated."

-So. Humans have ceded leadership before, to Those obviously better at it than they. Maybe Neanderthals were the original germanic Overlords.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2011
However if you were to oh say leave out the Australians you might find it goes back 200,000...
It seems like if you leave out everyone except you and Zephir it might only go back only 100 years or so.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2011
It seems like if you leave out everyone except you and Zephir it might only go back only 100 years or so.


Please tell that was just a really stupid, mindless joke.

Please tell me you didn't really think that or anything close that.

To do that you could explain why mitochondrial DNA can easily mislead. I know why, the question is if you do.

Otto
"The four tribes who had been forced to pay tribute to the Varangians Chuds, Slavs, Merians, and Krivichs drove the Varangians back beyond the sea
Harold Hardrede was the Captain of the Varangian guard before he became the King of Norway. One of his collateral descendents was Alexander Nevski. The Rus and the Varangians were both Norse.

My spell check just died a horrible death.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2011
Note the prominent brow and hairy eyebrows:
Note the nose and eye socketts. Then look at a Neanderthal skull. Note the lack of similarity.

Its only a few genes Otto. Not much of Neanderthal, that was unique to them, was passed on to modern Europeans.

Note the strong jowls good for extracting marrow and cracking nuts:
That isn't how humans get at either. We use rocks. There are birds that use rocks but not was well. They drop the bones on rocks but that makes a mess. Humans usually use a wedge and hammer technique. This can be seen by the way bones are split open. No other animal does that.

The Neanderthal teeth were likely large for the same reason Inuit teeth are large. Working animal hides to soften them.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 27, 2011
It seems like if you leave out everyone except you and Zephir it might only go back only 100 years or so.

Please tell that was just a really stupid, mindless joke.
Well maybe a bit cruel.

Please tell me you didn't really think that or anything close that.
Point being any two people on this planet are separated by 6 or maybe 7 generations at most. So about 130 years should do it.
To do that you could explain why mitochondrial DNA can easily mislead. I know why, the question is if you do.
No. Why?
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2011
Well maybe a bit cruel.
Sorry it was just stupid. This latest post makes it clear it really wasn't a joke, just purest ignorance.

Point being any two people on this planet are separated by 6 or maybe 7 generations at most. So about 130 years should do it.
I am curious. Just whose ass did you pull that out of?

All pure Australian aborigine has been separated from the rest of the human race for tens of thousands of years. Most Amerinds were separated from Asians for over ten thousand years. Some came over later, such as the Navajo and Apache and have been separated for less time.

So then you really don't understand why the mitochondrial DNA data is misleading for the simple reason don't even slightest clue about gene pools, migration, and pretty much anything in biology.

No. Why?
Then you are in the wrong discussion.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2011
I am curious. Just whose ass did you pull that out of?
Sorry I thought that was common knowledge. Maybe it was just some ignorant anthropologist on TV.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2011
All humans are descended from one woman who lived in Africa more than 100,000 years ago.
There must have been some epidemic or famine or flood.
Per Mr. Wiki the mitochondrial lines of descent become extinct when the last family in a distinct branch has no daughters. Never thought about that. So now we know I guess.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2011
Note the nose and eye socketts. Then look at a Neanderthal skull. Note the lack of similarity.
Genetic drift and inbreeding perhaps? Bloodline traditions dont really preserve genetics.

The narrow-set eyes are a mystery. Perhaps neander Leaders had less need for parallax as they had cromags hunting and fighting for them for so many generations? You need only one good eye for a double gun.
Sorry I thought that was common knowledge. Maybe it was just some ignorant anthropologist on TV.
Perhaps you misunderstood the 6 degrees of separation?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2011
Working animal hides to soften them.
Well only the women though. That may explain this phenomenon:
http://www.social...rt-down/
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2011
Sorry I thought that was common knowledge.
Perhaps it was the six degrees of separation idea. Best seen in the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon site.

http://en.wikiped...in_Bacon

Per Mr. Wiki the mitochondrial lines of descent become extinct when the last family in a distinct branch has no daughters. Never thought about that. So now we know I guess.
Yes. For that you get a five.

Ethelred