Recent reports of Neanderthal and more data:

Note: To write "Neanderthal" with the "h" is in the old german style, because "thal" in Germany was the old word for "valley". To write "Neandertal" without the "h" is the modern german form of the word, because today (in the last century), in Germany "valley" is written "tal". But because the different authors use one or the other form, BOTH forms will be used here (according the original authors used them.)

Ancient DNA Neanderthal population genetics.

“The relationship between Neanderthals and humans remains enigmatic… Details of the Mezmaiskaya Cave (in the northern Caucasus) sequence (of DNA from the mitochondria) also support the suggestion that there was no contribution of the neanderthals to the pool of mitochondrial genes in modern human populations”. Matthias Höss. NATURE, 30 MARCH 2000, 404:453-454.

DNA Shows Neandertals Were Not Our Ancestors

7-11-97, University Park, Pa.

A team of U.S. and German researchers has extracted mitochondrial DNA from neandertal bone showing that the neandertal DNA sequence falls outside the normal variation of modern humans.

"These results indicate that neandertals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans," says Dr. Mark Stoneking, associate professor of anthropology at Penn State. "neandertals are not our ancestors."

The research team includes Matthias Krings, graduate student, and Dr. Svante Paabo, professor of zoology, University of Munich; Dr. Ann Stone, postdoctoral fellow, University of Arizona; Ralf W. Schmitz and Heike Krainitzki of Rhineland Museum, Bonn, Germany; and Stoneking.

though they may have lived at the same time, neandertals did not contribute genetic material to modern humans.

Since 1991, an interdisciplinary project of the Rhineland Museum, headed by Schmitz, has focused on the neandertal-type specimen. This specimen was found in 1856 near Dusseldorf, Germany. As a part of this project, a sample was removed for DNA analysis.

The researchers used a method of overlapping short strands of DNA to obtain a mitochondrial DNA sequence of 378 base pairs.

To begin amplification, the researchers used two human primers -- small pieces of DNA that match the beginning of the sequence to be amplified.

"The first two human primers we chose worked," says Stoneking. "It turns out this was a lucky choice."

To check that the amplified DNA was really neandertal, the researchers prepared primers based on their extracted sample and ran them on numerous human DNA samples.

"The neandertal primers did not amplify any human DNA," says Stoneking. "Most human primers would probably not work on neandertal DNA."

The researchers compared the neandertal sequence with 2,051 human sequences and 59 common chimpanzee sequences. They found that the differences in neandertal DNA occurred at sites where differences usually occur in both humans and chimps.

When the researchers looked at the neandertal sequence with respect to 994 human mitochondrial DNA lineages including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, Australians and Pacific Islanders, they found the number of base pair differences between the neandertal sequence and these groups was 27 or 28 for all groups.

"While neandertals inhabited the same geographic region as contemporary Europeans, the observed differences between the neandertal sequence and modern Europeans do not indicate a closer relationship to modern Europeans than to other contemporary human populations," says Stoneking.

Taken from:

Excerpts from:                              

* Cell, Vol.90, 19-30, July 11, 1997

Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans

Matthias Krings, Anne Stone,t Ralf W. Schmitz, Heike Krainitzki, Mark Stoneking, and Svante Pääbo

“1- Neandertals are a group of extinct hominids that inhabited Europe and western Asia.

2- They coexisted with modem humans... without contributing any genes.

Figure 6

Distributions of pairwise sequence differences among humans,
the neandertal, and chimpanzees.
X axis, the number of sequence differences; Y axis, the percent of
pairwise comparisons.                                                                 Comparison of the distribution of 986 human lineages between themselves (human-human), between the 986 lineages and the Neanderthal mtDNA fragment (human-neandertal), and between the 986 human lineages and 16 common chimpanzee lineages  (human-neandertal). The average number of differences among humans is 8.0 ± 3.0 (range 1-24), that between humans and Neanderthals 25.6 ± 2.2 (range 24-34), and that between humans and chimpanzees, 55.0 ± 3.0 (range 46-67). Thus, the average number of mtDNA sequence differences between modem humans and the neandertal is about three times that among humans, but about half of that between modern humans and modern chimpanzees.

3- Both pairwise sequence comparisons and phylogenetic analyses (where the pressumptions have errors of unknown magnitude associated with them) tend to place the neandertal mtDNA sequence outside modern human mtDNA variation. (This concluding remark) is also in agreement with assessments of the degree of morphological difference between neandertal skeletal remains and modern humans that would classify neandertals and modern humans as separate species."


This illustration, from Ian Tattersall's, The Last Neanderthal (208 pages “Rev edition” (December 1999),Westview Pr., shows the brain extremities of Neandertals in comparison to modern man. Click on the image for a full-sized view.

Left: image that depicts the power of a neandertal's grip. The neandertal finger bone is on the left, a modern's on the right.

Right: image of a modern weightlifter's femur, on the right, contrasted with the thickness of a neandertal femur on the left. The pictures were taken by Erik Trinkaus.

There are two different varieties of neandertals: 'classical' and 'progressive'. The morphology which we have been discussing is primarily that of 'classic' neandertals, much like the ones in the photos above. 'Progressive' neandertals, on the other hand, do not have as many strong features as the 'classic's' we have been talking about. They had less pronounced brow ridges, less mid facial projection, and they were more tall and gracile than the 'classic's. Their bone structure was also not as robust as their counterparts. In fact, some believe that 'progressive' could possibly represent (sterile, because of the mtDNA fact) hybrids of neandertals and Homo sapiens.

Taken from:

Some of the “classic” neandertal morphology characteristics are:

1.      The skull is lower, broader, and elongated in contrast to the higher doming of a modern skull.

2.      The average brain size (cranial capacity) is larger than the average modern human by almost 200 cubic centimetres.

3.      The forehead is low, with heavy brow ridges curving over each eye.

4.      There is a slight projection at the rear of the skull (occipital bun).

5.      The cranial wall is thick compared to modern humans.

6.      The facial architecture is heavy, with the mid-face and the upper jaw projecting forward (prognathism).

7.      The nose is prominent and broad.

8.      The frontal sinuses are expanded.

9.      The lower jaw is large and lacks a definite chin.

10.  The body bones are heavy and thick and the long bones somewhat curved.

Regarding the “progressive” or “advanced” neandertals:

Their shape is sometimes explained as the result of gene flow (hybridization) with humans. This hybridization would lead, maybe, to sterile descendants. Those sites having ‘advanced’ Neandertals are:

·         Vindija Cave remains, Croatia — twelve individuals.1

·         Hahnofersand frontal bone, Germany — one individual., 2, 3

·         Starosel’e remains, Ukraine, CIS — two individuals.4

·         Stetten 3 humerus, cave deposits, Germany — one individual.5

·         Ehringsdorf (Weimar) remains, Germany — nine individuals.6

Completing that hybrids, there are at least 107 individuals from five sites who are usually grouped with fossils of humans. However, they are often described as ‘archaic moderns’ or stated to have ‘Neandertal affinities’ or ‘Neandertal features’. These five sites are:

·         Oberkassel remains, Germany — two individuals.7

·         Mladec (Lautsch) cave remains, Czech Republic — minimum of 98 individuals.8, 9, 10

·         Velika Pecina Cave skull fragments, Croatia — one individual.11, 12

·         Bacho Kiro Cave mandibles, Bulgaria — two individuals.13

·         Pontnewydd Cave remains, Wales — four individuals.14

"But we now have instances in which Neanderthal types are found intermixed with, and quite clearly contemporaneous with, men of completely modern type. This is true of the discoveries on Mount Carmel in Palestine, which revealed a mixed population that made any clear distinction between the two types impossible in this instance (Howells, William, Mankind So Far, Doubleday Doran, New York, 1945. Howells refers to the skull finds in the following terms: "It is an extraordinary variation. There seems to have been a single tribe ranging in type from almost Neanderthal to almost sapiens.")"

"Alfred Romer observed in commenting on the collection of fossil finds from Palestine (Mugharet-et-Tabun, and Magharet-es-Skuhl), "while certain of the skulls are clearly Neanderthal, others show to a variable degree numerous neanthropic (i.e., 'modern man') features" (Romer, Alfred, Man and the Vertebrates, University of Chicago Press, 1948, pp.219, 221). Subsequently he identified such neanthropic skulls as being of the general Cro-Magnon type in Europe ‹ type of man who appears to have been a magnificent physical specimen. He proposed later that the Mount Carmel people "may be considered as due to interbreeding of the "dominant race" (Cro-Magnon Man) with its "lowly predecessors" (as we know now: Neanderthal, an hominid or humanoid, but not a human predecessor)."

"As an extraordinary example of the tremendous variability which an early, small isolated population at the periphery can show, one cannot do better than refer to the finds at Choukoutien in China, from the same locality in which the famous Pekin Man was found. These fossil remains came from what is known as the Upper Cave, and consist of a group of seven people who appear to be members of one family: an old man judged to be over 60, a younger man, two relatively young women, an adolescent, a child of five, and a newborn baby. With them were found implements, ornaments, and thousands of fragments of animals."

"A study of these remains has produced some remarkably interesting facts, the most important of which in the present context is that, judged by cranial form, we have in this one family a representative Neanderthal Man, a "Melanesian" woman who reminds us of the Ainu, a Mongolian type, and another who is rather similar to the modern Eskimo woman."

"In commenting on these finds, Weidenreich expressed his amazement at the range of variation. Thus he wrote: "The surprising fact is not the occurrence of paleolithic types of modern man which resemble racial types of today, but their assemblage in one place and even in a single family considering that these types are found today settled in far remote regions" "

"He then proceeded to point out that the upper Paleolithic melting pot of Choukoutien "does not stand alone." In Obercassel in the Rhine Valley were found two skeletons, an old male and a younger female, in a tomb of about the same period as the burial in Choukoutien. Weidenreich said, "The skulls are so different in appearance that one would not hesitate to assign them to two races if they came from separate localities." So confused is the picture that he observed (Weidenreich, Franz, "Homo Sapiens at Choukoutien," News and Notes, in Antiquity, June, 1939, p.87)."

Taken from: The Custance Library


1.      Ahern, J.C. and Smith, F.H., 1993. The transitional nature of the late Neandertal mandibles from Vindija Cave, Croatia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Supplement 16, p. 47.

2.      Tattersall, I., Delson, E. and Van Couvering, J., (eds), 1988. Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory, Garland Publishing, New York, p. 241.

3.      Stringer, C. and Gamble, C., 1993. In Search of the Neanderthals, Thames and Hudson, Inc., New York, pp. 179–180.

4.      Ref. 2, p. 56.

5.      Oakley, K.P., Campbell, B.G. and Molleson, T.I., (eds), 1971. Catalogue of Fossil Hominids, Trustees of the British Museum — Natural History, London, Part II, p. 209.

6.      Wolpoff, M. and Caspari, R., 1997. Race and Human Evolution, Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 177,182.

7.      Boule, M. and Vallois, H.V., 1957. Fossil Men, The Dryden Press, New York, p. 281.

8.      Smith, F.H., Falsetti, A.B. and Liston, M.A., 1989. Morphometric analysis of the Mladec postcranial remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 78(2):305.

9.      Wolpoff, M.H. and Jelinek, J., 1987. New discoveries and reconstructions of Upper Pleistocene hominids from the Mladec cave, Moravia, CCSR. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 72(2):270–271.

10.  Minugh, N.S., 1983. The Mladac 3 child: aspects of cranial ontogeny in early anatomically modern Europeans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 60(2):228.

11.  Smith, F.S., 1976. A fossil hominid frontal from Velika Pecina (Croatia) and a consideration of Upper Pleistocene hominids from Yugoslavia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 44:130–131.

12.  Ref. 5, Part II, p. 342.

13.  Ref. 2, pp. 56,87.

14.  Klein, R.G., 1989. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 236–237.


Nephilim according to the studies of Ethelbert W. Bullinger:


Neanderthal = Nephilim? (maybe the Neandertal can be considered just one of the diverse breeds of the Nephilim):

Adaptive Comparisons of Cave Animals:

Tasters of the Word (YouTube), videos recientes: "Astronomía y Nacimiento de Jesucristo: Once de Septiembre Año Tres A.C.", "Estudio sobre Sanidades" (en 20 episodios), "Jesus Christ, Son or God?" and "We've the Power to Heal":

Tasters of the Word (the blog, with: "Astronomy and the Birth of Jesus Christ"):


And a commercial before we go:

Window Cleaning of Ronnie Petree, where my wife works (smile): Good Looking Glass of Houston (serving also at: Katy, Surgarland, Conroe, Kingwood, Woodlands, Galveston).