Genetic Research Confirms That Non-Africans are Part Neanderthal

William Ralliant-Clark, EurekAlert!, July 17, 2011

Some of the human X chromosome originates from Neanderthals and is found exclusively in people outside Africa, according to an international team of researchers led by Damian Labuda of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Montreal and the CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center. The research was published in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution.

“This confirms recent findings suggesting that the two populations interbred,” says Dr. Labuda. His team places the timing of such intimate contacts and/or family ties early on, probably at the crossroads of the Middle East.

Neanderthals, whose ancestors left Africa about 400,000 to 800,000 years ago, evolved in what is now mainly France, Spain, Germany and Russia, and are thought to have lived until about 30,000 years ago. Meanwhile, early modern humans left Africa about 80,000 to 50,000 years ago. The question on everyone’s mind has always been whether the physically stronger Neanderthals, who possessed the gene for language and may have played the flute, were a separate species or could have interbred with modern humans. The answer is yes, the two lived in close association.

“In addition, because our methods were totally independent of Neanderthal material, we can also conclude that previous results were not influenced by contaminating artifacts,” adds Dr. Labuda.

Dr. Labuda and his team almost a decade ago had identified a piece of DNA (called a haplotype) in the human X chromosome that seemed different and whose origins they questioned. When the Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010, they quickly compared 6000 chromosomes from all parts of the world to the Neanderthal haplotype. The Neanderthal sequence was present in peoples across all continents, except for sub-Saharan Africa, and including Australia.

“There is little doubt that this haplotype is present because of mating with our ancestors and Neanderthals. This is a very nice result, and further analysis may help determine more details,” says Dr. Nick Patterson, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University, a major researcher in human ancestry who was not involved in this study.

“Dr. Labuda and his colleagues were the first to identify a genetic variation in non-Africans that was likely to have come from an archaic population. This was done entirely without the Neanderthal genome sequence, but in light of the Neanderthal sequence, it is now clear that they were absolutely right!” adds Dr. David Reich, a Harvard Medical School geneticist, one of the principal researchers in the Neanderthal genome project.

So, speculates Dr. Labuda, did these exchanges contribute to our success across the world? “Variability is very important for long-term survival of a species,” says Dr. Labuda. “Every addition to the genome can be enriching.” An interesting match, indeed.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Wayne Engle

    A piece of research which has uncovered a fact that is hugely pregnant with racial significance. And, for that reason, a story which the mainstream media will bury deeper than the back door of Hades.

    If we, or rather our distant ancestors, did indeed interbreed with the Neanderthal, it explains a lot of things, doesn’t it? It proves that race is not just a “social construct,” and that we’re not “all the same under the skin.” Not the same in abilities, not the same in personality, not the same in a lot of ways. Let’s hope somebody picks this up and disseminates it far and wide, much to the dismay of those people who want to pooh-pooh the very idea of “race.”

  • Scott Wilson

    Coming soon: “Species is just a social construct.”

  • Anonymous

    Here’s the story I was ‘taught’ in my high school Western Civilization class. We’re all Africans out of Africa. We’re white blacks. When we migrated to a temperate climate, our skin became lighter. Other than that we’re no different than blacks or anyone else. This was all said very definitively. We were tested on that viewpoint to make sure we understood it.

    I’m sure that view will follow many of the students forced to learn it for the rest of their lives. I’ve read often of people spending their whole adult lives unlearning the propaganda they were taught in school. This saddens me.

  • Anonymous

    Those who read the February issue of American Renaissance would known these findings in much more detail and why they are important. Example, some key excerpts:

    Selected excerpts:

    “This discovery both underlines the genetic differences between African and non-African populations and contradicts the pure, ‘out-of-Africa’ version of human evolution, according to which all non-Africans living today are descended exclusively from migrants that left Africa less than 100,000 years ago. These migrants are said to have out-competed and eventually driven to extinction all other forms of homo and to have done so without interbreeding.”

    * * *

    “Why was the rigid ‘out-of-Africa’ theory so widely believed? Probably because it gave rise to the claim that “we are all Africans,” and because it suggested there were few biological differences between races. At the same time, the emphasis until recently on mtDNA rather than nuclear DNA, gave rise to dogmatic statements about distinct lineages and leant scientific backing to the idea.”

    “’Out of Africa’ supported the modern liberal view that race is a social construct and that the physical differences between races are trivial. In fact, racial differences are more dramatic than the differences between many closely related species of animals. There are objective racial differences in physiology, such as testosterone level, as well as differences in behavior and in average IQ. When we add to these differences the mix of genetic contributions from extinct or absorbed forms of homo, the liberal argument becomes even weaker. If homo sapiens were viewed as any other organism is viewed, it would no doubt be classified as several species rather than as a single species.”

    SOURCE: Vol. 22, No. 2 February 2011

    Out of Africa?

    Races are more different than previously thought.

    American Renaissance

    by Robert Henderson

    http://www.amren.com/ar/2011/02/index.html

  • Conrad

    Wouldn’t that have been between Neanderthal & Cro Magnon?

  • JuneWarren

    Neanderthals may not have been very handsome by modern standards BUT they are extremely robust, intelligent ancestors that I am proud to be related to. They lived and prospered for tens of thousands of years in an environment of unbelievable harshness that is almost beyond imagination.

    The next time someone disparages “cavemen”, remind them they might not be here except for those “brutes.”

  • John Engelman

    So, speculates Dr. Labuda, did these exchanges contribute to our success across the world? “Variability is very important for long-term survival of a species,” says Dr. Labuda. “Every addition to the genome can be enriching.” An interesting match, indeed.

    – William Ralliant-Clark, EurekAlert!, July 17, 2011

    ———

    American Renaissance reinforces my respect for it by posting an article that includes these sentences. Many of those who post comments seem to fear for the future of the Caucasian race as a thoroughbred race. Homo sapiens is a species in a process of arrested differentiation. It may take many centuries or a few thousand years, but there is going to be one race on this planet.

    Because superior intelligence is becoming increasingly necessary to earn a decent income, each of the existing races will not be equally represented in the coming hybrid, but genes from each will be present. The result will be a race and species that will be more versatile in responding to environmental changes, shortages in natural resources, and so on.

    There is plenty of evidence that Neanderthals were much less intelligent, on the average, than the Cro Magnons who replaced them. There was probably less of an intellectual overlap between Neanderthals and Cro Magnons than there is between Ashkenazic Jews and races that are still emerging from a paleolithic existence. Nevertheless, some of those Neanderthal genes were useful, and they benefited human evolution. In a similar manner every existing racial group has uniquely characteristic genes that will be useful to continuing human evolution.

  • sbuffalonative

    While I have no problem being told I have a genetic link to Neanderthals, I can see blacks trying to use this against whites.

  • Anonymous

    Only a four year old would believe this nonsense. The “Out of Africa” theory of evolution would have us believe that we first evolved from monkeys into African Blacks, and then evolved into European Whites. And they keep promoting this nonsense even though the skeletal remains of australopithecus or “Lucy” has proven to be nothing more than extinct form of ape.

    I’m surprised that Blacks don’t get angry at this theory of evolution — after all, it implies that after evolving from monkeys, African Blacks basically stopped evolving, while the White race continued to evolve to the point that 19th Century anthropologists weren’t sure that the two races should even be considered the same species.

    As far as the Neanderthals go, the White race also shares over 90% of their DNA in common with earthworms, but that doesn’t mean that we inter-bred with them sometime in the distant past.

  • Bill R

    But Wait! Just a minute…….I thought we were all descended from apes and chimps.

    How did a predominantly Cro Magnon (White in other words) species develop? And if Neanderthal was bigger, stronger and smart enough to make and play a flute, how is it they were wiped out by the Cro Magnon? And as to inter-breeding? Prior to say 1960, why would anybody willingly inter-breed with a more savage, primitive, and arguably less intelligent species of humanoid? And if they did, how on earth did we evolve past the Neanderthal or the ape? One would expect that neanderthal genes would be dominant just as black genes are when mixing with other races. If all other races mixed with the black race without exception, we’d all be some less intelligent, less comely, less civilized species overall. Put simply, the “Stupid” gene is dominant. Not only would we have not been able to go to the moon, we wouldn’t be smart enough to make the motion picture camera and fake it. We would be Africa with no white men developing the guns, bling, etc they so dearly love, and no organized United Nations willing (or able) to throw money at the “problems” which simply stated are – these peoples simply cannot evolve. They cannot organize. They cannot plan beyond tomorrow. And they certainly cannot make a civilization. They can only destroy civilizations.

  • babar_becue

    Ok, so we’re pretty sure Neanderthals basically got outbred.

    As for the Neanderthal genes carried by non-Africans, I wouldn’t be surprised if they coded for longer gestation time, a larger skull, a lower rate of multiple births (twins or more), fairer skin and hair, greater intelligence, etc.

    Could there be a repeating pattern ? Humans moves north, adapt to cold and create industry, raising standards of living, contacting remote human groups, start reproducing less, perhaps get complacent and / or apathic, then eventually get outbred and replaced by humans from the south due to their superior fertility. Whatever genes were saved by interbreeding are carried onto the next “white” race, and the cycle goes on.

    Some journalist on BBC I think: “that means the Neanderthals are US !”

    Indeed.

  • Anonymous

    who wants to bet that if this does make it to MSM and main stream american knowledge, MSM, etc will start depicted neanderthals as comic book savage cavemen?

  • Jeddermann.

    X is also found in the Chippewa American Indian tribal group, including the Sioux [Lakota] tribe. Very ancient lineage and a puzzle to the experts. HOW did it get there? Is normally only associated with those folks have an European lineage. The Solutrean Hypothesis suggests cross-Atlantic migrants from EUROPE to what we now call North America. “Europeans” settling in the what is now the U.S. and wiped out except for the females by an invader crossing the Bering Strait. That invader we now call the American Indian. Spooky, isn’t it?

  • olewhitelady

    American blacks, of course, nearly all have white blood, so they won’t be able to cheer that they’re not part “caveman”! I, for one, am proud to have the genes of this hardy and resourceful people, and I’m thrilled that the know-it-alls who howled that Cro-Magnon and Neandethal never mated have been proven dead wrong!

    Damian Labuda, by the way, is Polish-born. On the discovery of the first Neanderthal bones in Germany, someone remarked that they probably belonged to a Russian–or Polish, I’m not sure–soldier. Anyway, it was a Slavic ethnicity. I have a lot of German blood, so I think it’s okay for me to poke a little fun at the fact that a Polish scientist gets the credit for this!

  • Anonymous

    More confirmation science is moving ever closer to the Urantia Book, which states that Neanderthal genes never made it into Africa or easternmost Asia:

    http://www.ubthenews.com/Eugenics_Race_Urantia_Book.htm

  • GetBackJack

    Good. Now they have to stop using that hogwash that we all originated in Africa. My people did not originate in Africa and no one is going to fool me about that.

  • Anonymous

    I guess the “make love not war” theory about Human/Neanderthal relations was correct. We didn’t force the Neaderthals into extinction, we merely ‘absorbed’ them. Hey, as a white prson that means I’m part Neanderthal!

  • HH

    The never-ending prevarication of modern science with regard to anthropology and genetics is breathtaking to behold. I supose some in that arena still think all that incessant contradiction, subterfuge, and evasive non-sense that is 90% politics – 10% science, has fooled us all enough that we don’t see what is so blindlingly obvious!

    Yes, a social-construct indeed! Amazing how the truth continues to dribble out, yet the overall narrative of “equality” and all its attendant foolishness remains as gospel.

  • Anonymous

    A whole hog Out-of-Africa account of human origins has always

    gratuitiously assumed that there were along the migration way no interfertile forms of life with which the migrants bred. It might be useful not merely to look at the topic of human origins but at the frailties of the science contributing various viewpoints. I find it puzzling that there appears no record anywhere of any forum in which multi-regionalists, on the one hand, discussed and rationally contended with, Out-of-Africa advocates.

  • Anonymous

    The out of africa theory is a BOLD FACED LIE. Modern humans did NOT diverge from Africans. Multi-regionalism is the new theory and supports the genetic evidence.

    This study that europanic and asians cross bred with neandertal is old news released years ago. This is even MORE evidence that the homo africanus species STAYED ISOLATED in AFRICA.

  • Anonymous
  • Harumphty Dumpty

    “So, speculates Dr. Labuda, did these exchanges contribute to our success across the world? ‘Variability is very important for long-term survival of a species,’ says Dr. Labuda. ‘Every addition to the genome can be enriching.'”

    So if whites were to magically regain control of all or a large part of this country, and were to restore our numbers, and had restored adequate control over disruptive minorities within our jurisdiction, should we be permissive of marriages between whites and minorities, on the grounds that in those circumstances such marriages would not be too great in number, and our genomes (if I’m saying that right) might be enriched?

    Anyone with knowledge of biology, heredity, whatever, care to respond?

    With all my prefacing, I may have obscured my point: under suitable circumstances, should we welcome some slight admixture with other races because it would enrich our genomes? (I’m not trying to cause trouble, I’m just interested, and also interested in the white race doing what’s best for itself).

    Dr. Labuda says only, “Every addition to the genome CAN be enriching.” (My caps). Not that every addition MUST be enriching.

    A bit about Dr. Labuda, and a photo:

    http://goo.gl/qfe40

  • Robert Binion

    It is brave Neanderthal as he gazes into early morning rime who makes inevitable the clarinet quintet of Brahms.

  • Kenelm Digby

    The ‘Out of Africa’ theory (or at least its ‘strong’ version),of human origins propounded with such bluster and forcefulness by its proponents (such as Dr. Chris Stringer), and hepfully trumpeted and advertised by a compliant media and establishment, has been revealed to be nothing more than a busted-flush.

  • RationalObservationist

    I have no problem with Amren’s columnists using data to further the site’s White, separatist agenda. However, the contradictions are getting ridiculous. Just last month, you posted an article, with one of your ever so entertaining subtitles, stating “more evidence against the ‘out of Africa’ theory”, which suggested you’re against the theory. (Here is the aforementioned article http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/06/human_ancestors_1.php) Now, you’re posting data that SUPPORTS it. Anything that will further deepen the lines of difference between Whites and Blacks, right? Make no mistake, I’m a race realist myself(and a daily reader of Amren). I just abhor intentional inconsistencies.

  • Anonymous

    Neanderthals were much stronger than humans. If there was significant breeding among the two groups, why don’t Europeans and Asians have heavier bones and more muscle mass than Africans.

  • rdc75

    @RationalObservationist

    Maybe you should reread both articles:

    1) The article you refer to weakens the out-of-Africa theory because of archeological findings that don’t fit. But of course with some creativity you could explain those findings and still cling on the out-of-Africa theory.

    2) This article not just weakens but destroys the out-of-Africa theory because the out-of-Africa theory depends on total genocide of all non-Africans with not a single Neanderthal gene surviving to today. Because it has now been proven that modern humans have Neanderthal genes, the out-of-Africa theory is dead because obviously humans came “out-of-everywhere”, not just Africa. And it does not matter how much, just one non-African gene that is found in a modern human is enough to disqualify the out-of-Africa theory.

    I see no contradiction between 1) and 2)

    Also, it may seem strange for an anti-white like yourself, but even if there were a contradiction between 1) and 2) free people like to read both versions and make up their own minds and don’t need a politburo to think and filter the news for them.

    If that confuses you, maybe you should go one of the many mainstream media websites – I’m sure they will be amazed that there is a “race realist” (LOL) who *WANTS* his news filtered.

  • Anonymous

    People seem to be confusing Out of Africa with afrocentrism. Out of Africa is still plausible, and does not mean “we are all the same.” Tracking the migrations of homo sapiens and our closest relatives is extremely difficult. To me it is startingly obvious that the physical differences between blacks and non-blacks imply a genetic separateness only “Erectus Walks Amongst Us” explains. Clearly blacks have interbred with erectus, and now we have proof europeans and asians interbred with neanderthals.

  • Anonymous
  • rdc75

    @17:

    Actually the “we are all the same” – delusion grew out of the out-of-Africa theory, to be exact the idea that “there was not enough time” for real races to form after “humans left Africa”.

    And no, out-of-Africa is no longer plausible because even a single non-African gene disqualifies it. The out-of-Africa theory depends on the Africans COMPLETELY replacing Neanderthals with no interbreeding. ONLY THEN can you claim that “there was not enough time” for differences between races to evolve.

  • John Engelman

    early modern humans left Africa about 80,000 to 50,000 years ago.

    – William Ralliant-Clark, EurekAlert!, July 17, 2011

    The out of Africa theory of human evolution does not mean that the existing races are comparable in native abilities and predispositions. It does mean that until comparatively recently human evolution moved faster within Africa than outside of Africa. This is because many more humans were in Africa, and a larger gene pool is likely to evolve faster than a smaller gene pool.

    According to the evidence of DNA and paleontology modern humans evolved in Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. 50,000 to 80,000 years ago one to two hundred of them left Africa. The humans they found in Asia, and later in Europe were much less intelligent then they were. Some mating occurred. All of us who are not 100 percent African Negro have some genes from the more primitive humans. Nevertheless, the vast majority of our ancestors who lived 50,000 years ago would not have been served in Woolworth lunch counters in the South 50 years ago. They would have looked more like blacks than modern Europeans.

    According to “The 10,000 Year Explosion,” Caucasians and Orientals did not begin to become significantly different from blacks in intelligence, personality, and character until they developed agriculture and urban civilization.

    http://www.amren.com/ar/2009/05/index.html

  • Bob

    Stan Gooch has been claiming for decades we are part Neanderthal. He was the first to predict they’d have red hair.

    He believes we got a lot of our creativity, along with such things as Bipolar Disorder and ADD, from our Neanderthal ancestry.

  • Anonymous

    Is there in all this some need for a just retrospective upon

    the theory of the late PROF. CARELTON S. COON re the origin of

    races?? It is indeed common knowledge among the campus red guards that Coon’s work was shaped by pseudoscience and racism

    and is devoid of merit. There may be more at stake than merely

    correcting misunderstanding of the facts of life.

  • jewamongyou

    Well, that explains why blacks do not play the flute.

    http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/

  • jewamongyou

    Re: RationalObservationish (#22),

    I don’t think the goal of Amren is to advance any specific racial theory other than the reality of race and the importance of white rights. Rather, the editors link to various race-related articles of interest. They don’t all have to agree. Both articles are interesting. Both have to do with race and are pertinent to whites. Mission accomplished.

    http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/

  • Bandmo

    This is why Whites save 15% on car insurance from “Gieco”. The “living under a rock” thing paid off.

  • The Bobster

    While I have no problem being told I have a genetic link to Neanderthals, I can see blacks trying to use this against whites.

    _________

    While posting on several MSM boards a few years ago, I noticed that Bantus started calling us “cavemen” as a form of insult. This fad seems to have passed, although they still say we smell like wet dog.

  • RationalObservationist

    @rdc75 Clearly, you’re having trouble comprehending the recent single-origin hypothesis and how the data presented in this article absolutely corresponds with it. The reason all modern Humans(EXCEPT Sub-Saharan Africans)have between 1%-4% Neanderthal genetic material is because…

    1)The Neanderthal range stretched from the Levant into the Altai mountains and back West all across Europe into Portugal. Neanderthal man did not return to Africa.

    2)Just like the article says, Early Modern Humans left Africa about 80,000 to 50,000 years ago and dispersed into the Middle east. In which case, they met and mated with Neanderthal.

    This “genocide” you speak of took place over 10s of thousands of years. Many factors(i.e absorption into Human population through mating, warfare due to competition, climate change) all contributed to their extinction. Mitochondrial DNA analysis *CLEARLY* indicates that Homo Sapiens arose solely in Southeast Africa approximately 150,000 years BP. Now, where does it destroy the “Out of Africa” model, again? This is an appeal to emotion and understandably so. However, empirical facts don’t care how much you hate Blacks.

  • Dave

    I am not a scientist, so feel free to poke holes in my hypothesis, so:

    The out of Africa theory implies that we all emerged from a black ancestor, so “we are all black”. How do these people know that this ancestor was black? Just because the early humans *supposedly* came out of Africa does not mean that this early human had to be black. Perhaps it was a non-black race that migrated to the rest of the world and evolved into the various modern day non-black races while a pocket of these early humans stayed in Africa and devolved into modern day blacks.

  • Blaak Obongo

    “…under suitable circumstances, should we welcome some slight admixture with other races because it would enrich our genomes?”

    Only with Orientals. I can’t imagine any possible benefits to be gained by interbreeding with blacks, mestizos or Australian aborigines.

  • Anonymous

    1 — Wayne Engle wrote at 5:38 PM on July 18:

    “If we, or rather our distant ancestors, did indeed interbreed with the Neanderthal, it explains a lot of things, doesn’t it? It proves that race is not just a “social construct,” and that we’re not “all the same under the skin.” Not the same in abilities, not the same in personality, not the same in a lot of ways. Let’s hope somebody picks this up and disseminates it far and wide, much to the dismay of those people who want to pooh-pooh the very idea of “race.”

    Just a thought; This comment as well as a number of others show a relationship prejudice. Let me explain; Why is it that we fail to see ourselves as superior Neanderthals, who absorbed others? Why do we assume that Neanderthals were ugly, or were “cavemen.” EVERYONE in the world was a “caveman” at that time. To make it more relevant, it is in Africa where the “caveman” consciousness, such as we commonly visualize it, persists. Even though I do not endorse the sort of pseudo-history that Stormfront often utilizes to make its Neo-Nazi politics seem viable (which it is not), there is an artists rendering of a blonde-haired, blued eyed Neanderthal child that goes a considerable way to illustrate that whiteness may have actually come from the Neanderthal influence.

    The explanation for Asian and European differences in colors, may merely be a sustained cultural preference for whiteness for the latter population, while the former formed a culture that favored darker traits. This would have been sustained by the natural geographic barriers of the Ural Mountains as well as the Himalayan ranges. I do not see how the darkness of Mongolians, and Eskimos can be explained otherwise, because the vitamin D rule is violated by their existence for so long in Northern climes.

  • Anonymous

    23 — Anonymous wrote at 10:25 AM on July 19:

    “Neanderthals were much stronger than humans. If there was significant breeding among the two groups, why don’t Europeans and Asians have heavier bones and more muscle mass than Africans.”

    I will attempt to answer you. First, you must recognize that the actual strongest men in the world are Caucasians. I refer to recorded events such as Olympic weight lifting, strong man contests, etc., world wide. The impression of the black as stronger is a cultural construct foisted politically on the white man. Second, there has been much time for differentiation of “useful” characteristics. That means that as people living in temperate climates and around oceans, lakes and rivers, NOT filled with human devouring life, the ability to swim would have selected for lighter bones. Some whites, such as myself retain the dense ossious material of Neanderthals. A dentist even remarked on my obvious Neanderthal genetics when he recently took a grinder to my jaw and got sparks. He was amazed.

  • Anonymous

    Two thoughts to offer;

    4,000 to 8,000 years ago is long ago enough to have avoided being classed as black in any sense, since that racial description arrived far later.

    Today, Geneticists call the black genes the “oldest,” meaning that they are the most unmutated of all extant racial populations. This was seized upon by Louis Farrakhan and his short-circuited, Afro-centric model of politically biased racial and genetic interpretation. This kernel of ignorance has often been utilized by blacks who think they are making debate points in various forums, either at black speak ins, or online blogs. What they miss is that what it really means is that black “dominant” characteristics are old, they are an old, unimproved model, a racial group that remains more primitive than any other. Therefore, black genetics are to be avoided, if gains made by the natural selection process and evolution are to be retained.

    If these simple ideas could be understood by whites, and Asians as well, they would avoid copulating with blacks.

  • Jack

    To RationalObservationist:

    They are posted as they are relevant to the discussion.

    Simply posting a story for discussion does not endorse any particular theory, come on now.

  • Jack

    “Out of Africa is still plausible,…”

    No it’s not. The major plank of the theory has been destroyed.

  • Question Diversity

    22 Rational Observationist:

    Wow, you found an inconsistency. Good for you.

    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” — Thoureau

    “Consistency is for dorks.” — Me

    (Note to those of you who are about to argue with me: We’ve been through this before. I don’t dislike “consistency” in mathematical, logical, computational, legal, scientific, etc. forms. When I talk about “consistency” being a pursuit for dorky little minds, I mean it in terms of ideological rectitude. I know, because I used to be one of those dorks. Believe me, I can look back at my former self and see how right Thoreau was about the “little mind” I once possessed.)

  • henry

    Two things about Neanderthals: they had bigger brains (1500cc) than we do on average (1350cc), and they had very small pelvises with a narrow, long outlets, which would have made childbirth extremely hazardous, and must have contributed to their extinction.

    They were highly intelligent, and had the gene of planning (thinking out of the box) which enabled them to survive the cold winters. This distinguished them from the vast majority of homo sapiens (especially in Africa) which has a purely hunter-gatherer approach to life, and cannot survive without handouts in today’s commerce based society.

  • Anonymous

    “physically stronger Neanderthals” “with language skills”

    Ever notice how the “strongest man” contest on TV is nearly all white guys?

    I played sports in high school and it was clear to me back then that blacks could run faster but we white dudes were stronger. Now I know why!

  • buridan

    The out-of-Africa theory has something strong for it : it is perfectly congruent with the fact of the inferiority of the Black. A small clever population left Africa. Having evolved in Africa, it couldn’t mix with non-African populations, so it eliminated these non-African populations, so present-day non-African populations are clever. On the opposite, it could mix with the other Africans, so there was a dilution of its cleverness and we have a dumb African population.

    Now, we can still suppose that the interfertility between Neanderthal and the clever out-of-Africa population was low…

    That said, a possible alternative is that the population that left Africa, when it left, was not clever, and that it became clever later, in the Middle-East for instance.

    Or we can have a mix of the two theories : in Africa they were already relatively clever, and they still evolved when in the Middle-East. In Africa, they diluted in dumb African populations, out of Africa they mixed very little…

  • Peejay in Frisco

    Sbuffalonative#8:Blacks HAVE used the Neanderthal part of us against us.The Nation of Islam has said that we are part Neanderthal.But, were the Neanderthals really bad people?According to them, they must have been.

  • Jeddermann.

    “Neanderthals were much stronger than humans. If there was significant breeding among the two groups, why don’t Europeans and Asians have heavier bones and more muscle mass than Africans”

    To my knowledge the World’s Strongest Man competition has NEVER been won by anyone other than a whitey American or European man.