# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  Is the Neanderthal lineage older than we thought

## Angela

See:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ght-180972184/

"The Teeth of Early Neanderthals May Indicate the Species’ Lineage Is Older Than Thought"

"In a cave called the ‘pit of bones,’ up in the Atapuerca Mountains of Spain, a collection of 430,000-year-old teeth are curiously smaller than might be expected for the skulls they were found with. The anomaly has one scientist suggesting that the lineages of modern humans and Neanderthals split some 800,000 years ago, tens of thousands of years earlier than genetic studies have estimated.

Aida Gómez-Robles, an anthropologist at University College London, studies how ancient hominin species’ teeth evolved over the ages. She believes that because the ancient teeth look too modern for their era, they must have evolved unusually quickly or, as she finds more likely, had more time to evolve than has been generally believed. The new research was published today in _Science Advances_."

"Neanderthals and _Homo sapiens_ share a common ancestor, but exactly who that species was, and when the later lineages diverged from it, is a difficult mystery to untangle. But there are clues, and the new tooth study is far from the first evidence to emerge even from Sima de los Huesos, the fossil-rich cave site in Spain’s Atapuerca Mountains. "

"Genetics has helped us peer into the past and sketch out the ancient branches of the hominin family tree. A 2016 study of 430-000-year-old Neanderthal remains from the Sima de los Huesos site estimates the time of the Neanderthal split from the _Homo sapiens_ lineage at 550,000 to 765,000 years ago. Other genetic studies similarly suggest divergence times that are less than 800,000 years ago.Paleoanthropologist Rick Potts, director of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program, says that while Gómez-Robles raises some plausible ideas, he’s far from convinced that rates of dental evolution are as standard or predictable as the paper suggests. “She’s bitten off an interesting topic here, but I just don’t see the argument that dental rates of evolution are absolutely known to the point where we can then say that for certain the Neanderthal-modern human divergence must have been earlier than 800,000 years ago,” Potts says. “A variety of molecular genetic studies suggest it’s more recent.”

----------


## bicicleur

I'd say DNA tells more than teeth size, but of course it all depends on what resolution is available

----------


## Salento

> I'd say DNA tells more than teeth size, but of course it all depends on what resolution is available


Neanderthal DNA confirmed how Hairy my Back is, (in case I need to light a fire or make a rope) lol 
Seriously :) 



(not hairy at all, lol )  :Smile:

----------


## Angela

> Neanderthal DNA confirmed how Hairy is my Back, (in case I need to light a fire or make a rope) lol 
> Seriously :) 
> 
> 
> 
> (My back is not hairy, lol )


A Neanderthal relict gene of which I approve. :)

----------


## Duarte

> Neanderthal DNA confirmed how Hairy my Back is, (in case I need to light a fire or make a rope) lol 
> Seriously :) 
> 
> (not hairy at all, lol )


I have no back hair, but on the other hand I have many hairs on my face (beard bushy), on my chest, on my belly, on my legs, on my arms and in other parts that I prefer don’t talk about. It will be that, then, this is a Neanderthal heritage?? I believed it was a heritage of Homo Sapiens from Mediterranean. LOL. :Laughing:

----------


## Salento

> I have no back hair, but on the other hand I have many hairs on my face (beard bushy), on my chest, on my belly, on my legs, on my arms and in other parts that I prefer don’t talk about. It will be that, then, this is a Neanderthal heritage?? I believed it was a heritage of Homo Sapiens from Mediterranean. LOL.


???
I see that you don’t have any hair on your tongue either.

(Non hai peli sulla lingua) It’s an Italian expression.

Google it  :Grin:

----------


## Duarte

> ???
> I see that you don’t have any hair on your tongue either.
> 
> (Non hai peli sulla lingua) It’s an Italian expression.
> 
> Google it


Non ho peli sulla mia lingua, sebbene che Ho se che alcuni peli stanno comparendo sulle mia orecchie, che Ho strappo con un pinzette di sopracciglio. LMAO  :Laughing:

----------


## Carlos

In Spain we also say it. (To say frontally and frankly what one believes or thinks about a particular case or topic)


Although saying what you think without filters can be socially uncomfortable.


I prefer the negative aspect of the phrase and say, for example: The neighbor has no hairs on the tongue. For being a shameless, badly spoken, a shameless, a rabble, without shame get involved in your affairs.


I love.

----------


## Salento

it would be Priceless to watch the Expression of a Neanderthal watching a Brazilian Man getting a “Brazilian”.  :Petrified: 


(In the USA “getting a Brazilian” = bikini area hair removal) True! LoL  :Grin: 

don’t google it, especially videos. Don’t do it!

... all in fun :)

----------


## bicicleur

> Neanderthal DNA confirmed how Hairy my Back is, (in case I need to light a fire or make a rope) lol 
> Seriously :) 
> 
> 
> 
> (not hairy at all, lol )


afaik, SSA people don't have more back hair

----------


## Salento

> afaik, SSA people don't have more back hair


I think so too.

Different genes or a combination of genes can produce a similar outcome.

It just means that this particular gene that I inherited is not Human.

----------


## Angela

> I think so too.
> 
> Different genes or a combination of genes can produce a similar outcome.
> 
> It just means that this particular gene that I inherited is not Human.


Well, it's not homo sapiens sapiens. Some would say the Neanderthals were "human".

The relative prevalence of body hair has its own "cline". I think East Asians have the least, then Africans, then West Eurasians having the most. 

Sometimes, within Europeans, I think fair haired men, for example, can be quite "hairy", but it's just not as visible as when the hair is very dark. It's even true of women. 

I'm sure there are more detailed studies around; I've just never pursued it.

Cultural attitudes toward it vary.

----------


## Duarte

> I think so too.
> 
> Different genes or a combination of genes can produce a similar outcome.
> 
> It just means that this particular gene that I inherited is not Human.


I agree with you, Salento,

Below, a Ritual of white supremacists drinking too much milk and saying, "If you can not drink milk, you have to go back."




In most of the ancient world, the gene that allows the digestion of lactose it was deactivated after childhood. But with the arrival of the first cattle herders in Europe about 5,000 years ago, a mutation that left this gene activated gave a very large nutritional advantage to almost all those who survived and started to carry the gene.


But there is an inconvenient truth to these white supremacists: A similar evolution has taken place among livestock farmers in East Africa.


It is the convergent evolution.


If the absence of hairs on the backs of many Europeans and Asians can be considered a genetic inheritance naenderthal, a convergent evolution has created a similar gene in the African Sapiens, which also gives them this characteristic, that is, have no hairs on the back.


We are all human. We're all brothers. We are a single species sharing the same planet.

----------


## Carlos

I'm afraid of the Neanderthals, it makes me want to run away.


In my generation it became fashionable to eat lots of yogurt and drink lots of milk. My older brother even fed him, my second brother detection and vomiting just for the day, he has taken note of adolescence, so the second is the lowest in stature. Now I see that modern generations do not drink and are drinking Red Bull, soda of all kinds and very fond of junk or pre-cooked food bought in supermarkets. So I have seen how people who are now 40 or 50 years old are bigger and have a better body than the current ones who have retired and I see them very weak. I do not know what happened so that the milk has been forgotten, at least in my country.


Then, at my age, I am better than many 20 years old with all my hair and without gray hair, a prodigy of nature that has given me my extraordinary anti-aging genetics.


Of all that roll of supremacy and the kinds of ridiculous people who think themselves superior, etc.

----------


## Salento

_Sensitivity Protocol :) 
_
What should we call that non modern human % in our DNA?
These hominids have many names.
_
from Spencer Wells insito.me:_

“... Your Results

NEANDERTHAL DNA
1.8%

MODERN HUMAN DNA
98.2%

Comparing your genome to that of *Neanderthals* and *Denisovans* reveals how much of your DNA was inherited from these *hominin* cousins.

WHY THIS HAPPENED
Modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia around 60,000 years ago where they met our *distant human cousins*, the Neanderthals and Denisovans. Today's human genome contains pieces of DNA retained from “_ancient_ _trysts”_ with these *archaic humans*....”

 :Thinking:  _Trysts meaning = a private romantic rendezvous between lovers_  :Satisfied:

----------


## MOESAN

I am not sure I have well understood these last posts about back hair...
- is the presence of this specific gene ruling back hair only the case of some Neanderthal lineages or the case of all Neanderthal people?
- concerning body hair and barbs, the old stereotypes 'hairy mediterraneans' and 'glabrous nordics' a re very inaccurate (as "every knows 'europoid races" are divided in two groups: swarthy small mediters' and blond big nordics!); in fact it seems that Coon and others of his time were not completely wrong even if far from the divine truth; the nordic regions were in the mix the "archaic" partly conserved forms were clearly visible ont the osteologic side, people, spite almost as light pigmented as other nordic regions people, had, apart different body proportions, a thicker skin (and so deeper wrinkles), and more body hair than slender typical 'nordic type' - the same occurs in Mediterranean regions where the most "conservative" (more Mesolithic remnants) show the same trends, spite a dark pigmentation close to the slender 'mediter type'; so the concept of 'mediterranean' here has to be refined. What could be of interest is that, if confirmed (it is possible to date?), it could show a link between "archaic" inheritage and more developped body (and face) hair among 'europoids'... 
- still speaking of stereotypes and reality, if as a whole 'mongoloid' types are poorly hairy, the Aynous have nothing to envy to our most hairy "white people", at least on the face! (Their women tattooed moustaches above their mouth to be more "esthetic", if I believe what I red!
- that said I 've some (rare) comrades with a well woolly back and woolly shoulders;
in fact every subtype in Europe showed some peculiarities concerning head and body hair distribution; and the most visible hairs are not always the densest ones; on another side, the tendancies of males are found, attenuated, among the females of their type!
&: all of this is statistical, individual variations exist, evidnetly, but it doesn't change the reasonings.

----------


## Duarte

> I am not sure I have well understood these last posts about back hair...
> - is the presence of this specific gene ruling back hair only the case of some Neanderthal lineages or the case of all Neanderthal people?
> - concerning body hair and barbs, the old stereotypes 'hairy mediterraneans' and 'glabrous nordics' a re very inaccurate (as "every knows 'europoid races" are divided in two groups: swarthy small mediters' and blond big nordics!); in fact it seems that Coon and others of his time were not completely wrong even if far from the divine truth; the nordic regions were in the mix the "archaic" partly conserved forms were clearly visible ont the osteologic side, people, spite almost as light pigmented as other nordic regions people, had, apart different body proportions, a thicker skin (and so deeper wrinkles), and more body hair than slender typical 'nordic type' - the same occurs in Mediterranean regions where the most "conservative" (more Mesolithic remnants) show the same trends, spite a dark pigmentation close to the slender 'mediter type'; so the concept of 'mediterranean' here has to be refined. What could be of interest is that, if confirmed (it is possible to date?), it could show a link between "archaic" inheritage and more developped body (and face) hair among 'europoids'... 
> - still speaking of stereotypes and reality, if as a whole 'mongoloid' types are poorly hairy, the Aynous have nothing to envy to our most hairy "white people", at least on the face! (Their women tattooed moustaches above their mouth to be more "esthetic", if I believe what I red!
> - that said I 've some (rare) comrades with a well woolly back and woolly shoulders;
> in fact every subtype in Europe showed some peculiarities concerning head and body hair distribution; and the most visible hairs are not always the densest ones; on another side, the tendancies of males are found, attenuated, among the females of their type!
> &: all of this is statistical, individual variations exist, evidnetly, but it doesn't change the reasonings.


Hello MOESAN, 
The posts on the distribution of hairs on the body, at least those that I and Salento have posted, are not backed on any scientific basis. It was much more a joke we did about the distribution of hairs in the body and its possible relationship with some naenderthal gene. Nothing to take seriously. In fact there is the stereotype of the Mediterranean, hairy and low, and the stereotype of the Nordic, smooth and tall, but we did not specifically address this issue, because, as you said, are stereotypes. I am a Mediterranean type with many hairs throughout the body. However I am not low: I have 1.82 meters tall, weighing 90 kg and my eyes are clear. But since I am not really an European, I can not be used as a benchmark for comparison with any of the supposed European ethnicities, since I am possibly a mixture of the DNA of all European ethnicities with a delicious dash of SSA DNA. Big Hug and a nice weekend  :Good Job:  :Smile:

----------


## Angela

I don't want to get off topic, but from discussions with archaeologists, I've always understood that the thicker the skin the fewer the wrinkles. In fact, my archaeologist for the last ten years or so, who is Korean American, told me that's why East Asians wrinkle less. 

From observation here in America, the more "North European", and specifically the more Celtic fringe the woman the faster the wrinkling and the decrease in collagen. I have Irish girlfriends who had so many wrinkles and crows feet at 35 that if you went by that alone you'd think they were 50 and more. Some of that may have to do with getting too much sun, but some of it is also due to fragility of skin.

So, maybe some new statistics have to be done.

Whether it has anything to do with Neanderthal ancestry I have no idea.

I swear I wasn't drinking.  :Grin:  It's dermatologists, not archaeologists. 

My dermatologist and I are close buddies after she found some questionable lesions. Nothing invasive, thank God, but I still have to see her every three months. Of course, that's probably excessive caution; there's a reason dermatologists are considered such money grubbers by other doctors.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Salento

@Duarte
For Clarity:
the Back Hair Neanderthal result I posted is not a joke, it’s real, all the Neanderthal results I posted are real.

We did joke about it later on, but ... :)

----------


## Duarte

> @Duarte
> For Clarity:
> the Back Hair Neanderthal result I posted is not a joke, it’s real, all the Neanderthal results I posted are real.
> 
> We did joke about it later on, but ... :)


Sorry Salento. 
You are right. In fact, you have posted data from laboratory DNA analysis results did by you. We make a joke with the theme, but the data you posted are 100% real.  :Good Job:  :Smile:

----------


## MOESAN

> Hello MOESAN, 
> The posts on the distribution of hairs on the body, at least those that I and Salento have posted, are not backed on any scientific basis. It was much more a joke we did about the distribution of hairs in the body and its possible relationship with some naenderthal gene. Nothing to take seriously. In fact there is the stereotype of the Mediterranean, hairy and low, and the stereotype of the Nordic, smooth and tall, but we did not specifically address this issue, because, as you said, are stereotypes. I am a Mediterranean type with many hairs throughout the body. However I am not low: I have 1.82 meters tall, weighing 90 kg and my eyes are clear. But since I am not really an European, I can not be used as a benchmark for comparison with any of the supposed European ethnicities, since I am possibly a mixture of the DNA of all European ethnicities with a delicious dash of SSA DNA. Big Hug and a nice weekend


OK! But phoenotypes are based on statistical trends among pops and have their utility spite we know there is no true barrier between individuals and folks, as an unique specy. At the individual level you can be very mixed but show external look very close to a (rather) collective and "pure" phoenotype. these type have no value at the individual level; only high %'s can eventually show some links with the story of a population, the most of the time on relatively short scales of time compared to long term evolution. IMO.
Thanks for answer. I was really taking all this for God's words!

----------


## MOESAN

> I don't want to get off topic, but from discussions with archaeologists, I've always understood that the thicker the skin the fewer the wrinkles. In fact, my archaeologist for the last ten years or so, who is Korean American, told me that's why East Asians wrinkle less. 
> 
> From observation here in America, the more "North European", and specifically the more Celtic fringe the woman the faster the wrinkling and the decrease in collagen. I have Irish girlfriends who had so many wrinkles and crows feet at 35 that if you went by that alone you'd think they were 50 and more. Some of that may have to do with getting too much sun, but some of it is also due to fragility of skin.
> 
> So, maybe some new statistics have to be done.
> 
> Whether it has anything to do with Neanderthal ancestry I have no idea.


Angela, I beg your pardon (LOL!) - I expressed badly myself. For me the thick skins produce deeper and more visible wrinkles seen from far, but it's true, not denser ones. Sorry for imprecision. But wrinkles are surely not only linked to skin thickness; maybe some problems of collagen too, I think. But i'm not a specialist of derma, I have only eyes (two, the most of the time). I observed too that skin thickness is not by force a sign of health: some red hairs types have as a rule a thick but very fragile skin, and they too are often deeply wrinkled with age. Have a good rest after all our posts!

----------


## MOESAN

> @Duarte
> For Clarity:
> the Back Hair Neanderthal result I posted is not a joke, it’s real, all the Neanderthal results I posted are real.
> 
> We did joke about it later on, but ... :)


So, what is the answer? Were all Neanderthal people back naked or only the ones possessing your supposedly mutated gene? Thanks for answer...

----------


## Angela

> Angela, I beg your pardon (LOL!) - I expressed badly myself. For me the thick skins produce deeper and more visible wrinkles seen from far, but it's true, not denser ones. Sorry for imprecision. But wrinkles are surely not only linked to skin thickness; maybe some problems of collagen too, I think. But i'm not a specialist of derma, I have only eyes (two, the most of the time). I observed too that skin thickness is not by force a sign of health: some red hairs types have as a rule a thick but very fragile skin, and they too are often deeply wrinkled with age. Have a good rest after all our posts!


I can't believe I wrote archaeologists instead of dermatologists in the first line!  :Useless:  I'm starting to worry about these glitches. :Sad 2: 

I'm going to correct it.

Have a wonderful week-end Moesan.  :Smile:

----------


## Salento

> So, what is the answer? Were all Neanderthal people back naked or only the ones possessing your supposedly mutated gene? Thanks for answer...



I really don’t know Moesan. Sorry.

----------


## MOESAN

> I can't believe I wrote archaeologists instead of dermatologists in the first line!  I'm starting to worry about these glitches.
> 
> I'm going to correct it.
> 
> 
> 
> Have a wonderful week-end Moesan.


I'm not to bad too at this sport: 'bald' in place of 'bold' in another thread and so on...
but you have an almost 50% score (the 'mean', we say it in French) because you had the '-logists' part which was correct! And when wrinkles are very deep the dermatologist's work turns into an archeologist's one.
noswezh vad deoc'h. Bona notti!

----------

