The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato
Faculty of Science and Engineering - Te Mātauranga Pūtaiao me te Pūkaha
Waikato Home Waikato Home > Science & Engineering > BioBlog
Staff + Student Login

November 2016 Archives

A while ago now (6 years ago, in fact! How time flies when you're having fun), I wrote a piece about some fairly wild claims made about Neandertals. Rather surprisingly this post (here, & over on where it's mirrored) continues to attract occasional comments from those who firmly believe in the idea that Neandertals were cannibalistic, brutish savages rather than our very close cousins, an idea promoted by the author Danny Vendramini. So I thought I'd re-publish it now, with some edits to update things.

After being asked about the 'killer Neandertal' claims after a Schol Bio workshop, I quickly found a website promoting a book by Danny Vendramini. Called Them and Us: how Neanderthal predation created modern humans, the book supposedly provides "new archaeological and genetic evidence to show [Neandertals] weren't docile omnivores, but savage, cannibalistic carnivores..." - the 'Neanderthal Predation theory'. (I noticed that the author uses the spelling 'Neanderthal' throughout - a bit surprising as the norm these days is to use 'Neandertal', after the correct German spelling for the river valley where the type specimen was found.) Given the lack of any real evidence, and of support for this from the wider scientific community, this position would be better described as an hypothesis...

The website goes on to claim that that

Eurasian Neanderthals hunted, killed and cannibalised early humans for 50,000 years in an area of the Middle East known as the Mediterranean Levant. Because the two species were sexually compatible, Eurasian Neanderthals also abducted and raped human females.... this prolonged period of cannibalistic and sexual predation began about 100,000 years ago and that by 50,000 years ago, the human population in the Levant was reduced to as few as 50 individuals.

The death toll from Neanderthal predation generated the selection pressure that transformed the tiny survivor population of early humans into modern humans. This Levantine group became the founding population of all humans living today.

These claims are accompanied by illustrations that make Neandertals appear more akin to gorillas than to modern humans, which is 'interesting' to say the least, given the information we now have on the genomes of sapiens & neandertalensis.  We're told that the Neandertal Predation 'theory' "argues that, like modern nocturnal predators, Neanderthals had slit-shaped pupils to protect them from snow blindness" (thus conflating two ideas - not all nocturnal predators live in snow-covered lands - on the basis of zero evidence, since eyeballs don't fossilise). And there's also the statement that Neandertals "had thick body fur and flat primate faces to protect them against the lethal cold."

Now, that last one is just ridiculous. As far as I know there have been no published findings of Neandertal fossils accompanied by evidence of thick body fur. On the other hand, there is tantalising evidence that they may have had the technology to make sewn garments, thus reducing any selection pressure favouring hirsuteness. In addition, Europe was definitely not in a state of constant glaciation during the few hundred thousand years that Neandertals lived there. During interglacial periods temperatures were fairly similar to what they are today - hardly conditions where a thick furry pelt would be selected for (let alone those slit-shaped pupils...).

As for the 'flat primate faces' - if you have a look at a gorilla skull you'll see that the nasal opening is flush with the surface of the facial bones: gorillas do indeed have flat faces & no protruding nose. But a Neandertal skull, like that of a modern human, does have projecting nasal bones & so, by extension, a nose that juts out from the face. In fact, the whole central region of a Neandertal face projects further forward than ours, so it's hard to see where Vendramini gets the idea of a 'flat' face from. He does provide an image of an Neandertal skull, superimposed onto a chimpanzee profile, & claims that the 'perfect' fit is evidence that neandertalensis "more closely resembled non-human primates than a modern humans". What's missing is any recognition that the skull is not in its 'life' position but presented at an angle that conveniently fits the point of view being espoused. If Neandertals really did hold their heads at this angle their posture would be distinctly odd, to say the least. (Similar techniques were used by some illustrators in the 1800s to support the idea that African negroes were closer to the apes than to Europeans.)

And the claims of rape and cannibalism are fairly extraordinary. As the late Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So let's go back to some of those statements. How about the supposedly much-diminished group of Levantine humans becoming "the founding population of all humans living today"? How, exactly, does this fit with the fact that the sapiens populations of Africa were not exposed to supposed Neandertal predation? Or with the colonisation of Australia by Homo sapiens around 60-70,000 years ago?

Or the idea of frequent interspecies rape, of sapiens by neandertalensis? By the way, if all this - the brutish images & tales of rape - isn't intended to demonise Neandertals, then I'm not sure what would. Frankly it smacks of the way this species was portrayed in the years immediately following its discovery, before palaeoanthropologists began to expose the details of its life - for example, a reconstruction by Frantisek Kupka, based on work by Marcellin Boule. Something of a dehumanising stereotype, in other words.

By the way, there's an interesting paper by Julia Drell (2000: Neandertals: a history of interpretation) that looks at how portrayals of Neandertal have changed over time, as more evidence has become available - and also as societal attitudes have changed. (NB this may well not be open-access.) Drell also notes that suggestions of cannibalism by Neandertals aren't new, first appearing in the 1860s. She cites an earlier author as saying that "there is no more universally common way of distancing oneself from other people than to call them cannibals."

In fact, there's not a lot of evidence of cannibalism in Neandertals, and what we have - published recently in the journal Science -  is evidence of Neandertals eating other Neandertals, not Homo sapiens, for the simple reason that our own species wasn't in that part of the world at the time the eating was done.  And that over the total span of their existence. (I do wonder why they'd turn to cannibalism anyway, given that they were extremely successful hunters of large game going by the butchered remains associated with neandertalensis living sites.) There is no published evidence that supports the contention that Neandertals ever ate non-Neandertal hominins, let alone on the scale that Vendramini suggests. On the other hand, there is evidence of Neolithic sapiens eating each other.

Nor is there evidence of frequent interspecies rape in the gene pool of modern humans. Back in 2010, Green et al announced the sequencing of the Neandertal genome, and the results of a comparison of this and the sapiens genome. Since then the amount of data available on the Neandertal genome has increased enormously. Differences in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) suggest the two species diverged 550,000-690,000 years ago. However, comparisons of nuclear DNA do show some introgression, so that there clearly was a certain amount of interbreeding going on. (The data did not support the idea that all modern humans are descended from a remnant human population in the Levant, as Them and Us would have it; Neandertal genes are notably absent from African populations. Nor does it support the idea of Neandertal predation, despite claims to the contrary on the book's website.)

The Them and Us website also provides a link to a paper, Neanderthal predation and the bottleneck speciation of modern humans, for the 'academically minded'. Strangely for an academic paper, the pdf contains no publication details (journal name, volume, & so on) & a Google Scholar search doesn't throw up any published papers with that name. So it's a fair bet that this has not been subject to the normal pre-publication process of peer review - something I would expect for an hypothesis that's supposed to turn our understanding of human evolution on its head...

J.R.R.Drell (2000) Neanderthals: a histroy of interpretation. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19(1): 1-24

| | Comments (2)

I've just come across a most excellent article by the Genetic Literacy Project. In it, Nicholas Staropoli notes that a proportion of the human genome actually has viral origins.

This might sound a bit strange - after all, we tend to think of viruses as our enemies (smallpox, measles, and the human papilloma virus come to mind). But, as Staropoli notes, there are a lot of what are called 'endogenous retroviruses' (ERVs) - or their remains - tucked away in our genome. (An ERV has the ability to write its own genes into the host's DNA.) And he links to a study that draws this conclusion: 

We conservatively estimate that viruses have driven close to 30% of all adaptive amino acid changes in the part of the human proteome conserved within mammals. Our results suggest that viruses are one of the most dominant drivers of evolutionary change across mammalian and human proteomes.

Carl Zimmer writes about one such example in his blog The Loom: it seems that a gene that's crucial in the development of the placenta (that intimate connection between a foetus and its mother) is viral in origin. In fact, one gene encoding the protein syncytin is found in primates - but carnivores have a quite different form of the gene, while rabbits have a different form again, and mice yet another!

This is a very complex evolutionary story indeed. And so you could do much worse than read the two articles, by Staropolis and Zimmer, in their entirety. 


| | Comments (0)

I've written before about the so-called 'miracle mineral solution', aka MMS (here, for example), but I see that it's hit the news again recently.

MMS is essentially bleach1, but one Jim Humble has made quite a little empire (and a 'church') out of selling the stuff, and has previously claimed that it's a preventative & cure-all for just about anything that might ail you - including malaria, cancer, and HIV. (It isn't, and it won't: the proposed mode of action is preposterous.) While Humble has recently distanced himself from those claims, it appears that one of his church's archbishops continues to promote them. The associated fevers and gastro-intestinal upsets associated with ingesting a bleach solution? Simply a sign that the 'treatment' is doing its job. /<snark>

Now, if adults choose to 'treat' themselves thusly, then that's their decision. However, MMS has also been promoted in some quarters as a 'cure' for autism, with parents advised to administer MMS to their autistic children multiple times over a period of 72 hours - alongside thrice-weekly enemas2 of the stuff. The proponents of this activity claim that autism is due to parasite infection, and that the evidence lies in the dead parasites that can be seen in the poor kids' bowel movements. I say 'poor kids', because what those ropey strings of membranous stuff actually are, is the mucosal lining of the intestines themselves.

I can think of two words that apply here; 'treatment' & 'cure' are not those words.

Over at Respectful Insolence, Orac has once more picked up on this story following a news segment about Humble & his so-called church, and handled it in his inimitable way.

1 MMS is a solution of 28% sodium chlorite in distilled water. When this is is added to water containing citric acid (or some other acid), it generates chlorine dioxide ie a bleach. 

2 500mL water + 10-15 drops of MMS, administered and left in the colon for 20-30 minutes

| | Comments (1)

December 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Recent Comments

  • Alison Campbell: That would be a resounding 'nope'. And I would urge read more
  • herr doktor bimler: No love for Vendramini's genetic-engram neo-Lamarckian racial memory theory? read more
  • Alison Campbell: The defining characteristic of obligate carnivores is empathy. This one read more
  • Arthur Robey: The defining characteristic of obligate carnivores is empathy. A carnivorous read more
  • herr doktor bimler: The "church" part of the scam seems to be modelled read more
  • Alison Campbell: Oh yes, & hantavirus isn't an STD. Unless you're indulging read more
  • Alison Campbell: I've approved this comment (which is obviously spam) for one read more
  • Alison Campbell: Thanks, Paul, I appreciate your feedback and comments, & I'll read more
  • Lauren Rielly: I am very much delighted to every viewers that is read more
  • Paul Sullivan: Alison, I have been reading your commentary regarding Communities of read more