Table 1 taken from:

KRINGS, DNA sequence of the mitochondrial

hypervariable region II from the Neandertal type specimen,

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,

Vol. 96, pp. 5581–5585, May 1999.

This article can be found and accessed for free at

(in html or in PDF):

(Go to that article)

Figure 1. Illustration of Neandertal Man ,

John Gurche/National Geographic.

A fragment of the original article that Lindahl reviews in the next space (the first mtDNA comparison of a neandertal bone) can be found for free at:

Tomas Lindahl, Facts and Artifacts of Ancient DNA, Cell, Vol. 90, 1–3, July 11, 1997


“Neandertals, named after the German valley where these fossils were first discovered, were about 30% larger than an average modern man and of great muscular strength. They had low foreheads, protruding brows, and large noses with broad nostrils and were meat eaters.

The paucity of the fossil record has not allowed a direct resolution of this important problem, although recent morphological studies of the nasal cavity of Neandertals favor the alternative that they represented a distinct and separate species, Homo neanderthalensis (Schwartz and Tattersall, 1996).

The small amount of sequence divergence observed in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from different contemporary human populations, especially in Europe, also indicates a relatively recent origin of Homo sapiens without significant admixture of ancient Neandertal sequences… (Torroni, A., Lott, M.T., Cabell, M.F., Chen, Y.-S., Lavergne, L., and Wallace, D.C. (1994). Am. J. Hum. Genet. 55, 760–776.)”

“Neandertals, however, seem to have been more similar to modern humans than to apes in having a low species-wide mtDNA diversity. In the case of humans, the low genetic diversity seen in both mtDNA and nuclear DNA sequences is likely to be the result of a rapid population expansion from a population of small size, often assumed to have been made possible by some cultural

or genetic innovation, such as use of a complex language”.

Fragment taken from:

Krings, A view of Neandertal genetic diversity, Nature Genetics volume 26 • october 2000, 144-146

“For many years, the Neanderthals have been recognized as a distinctive extinct hominid group that occupied Europe and western Asia. Our ongoing studies indicate that the Neanderthals differ from modern humans in their skeletal anatomy in more ways than have been recognized up to now. The purpose of this contribution is to describe specializations of the Neanderthal internal nasal region that make them unique not only among hominids but possibly among terrestrial mammals in general as well. These features lend additional weight to the suggestion that Neanderthals are specifically distinct from Homo sapiens”.


Schwartz, J. H. and I. Tattersall (1996). “Significance of some previously unrecognized apomorphies in the nasal region of Homo neanderthalensis.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93(20): 10852-4.

The complete article can be accessed for free at (in PDF):

(Go to that article)

Neandertal and other possible Nephilimseeds” (from the artistical reconstructions):

Australopithecus afarensis Cranium -- Australopithecus africanus Cranium -- Homo habilis Cranium -- Homo erectus Cranium -- Neandertal Cranium

  1. Australopithecus afarensis Cranium, 2. Australopithecus africanus Cranium,
  1. Homo habilis Cranium, 4. Homo erectus Cranium, 5. Neandertal Cranium

Fragments of the history of this skulls:

Hominid Series of Five Skulls

“It is from casts, photographs, published diagrams and text describing these reconstruction's that sculptor Larry Williams has developed this Hominid Series.

Isaac de la Payrere, from France, discovered stone tools used by primitive men who, he claimed, lived in the time before Adam. In 1655 his findings and theory were greatly disapproved of and his books publicly burned by Church authorities.

In 1856, three years before Darwin propounded his theory of evolution, Neanderthal Man was discovered in Germany's Neander Valley near Dusseldorf. The skeleton possessed a number of peculiar traits that defined them as very ancient, including a low, narrow, sloping forehead, heavy eyebrow ridges, and a deep depression at the root of the nose.

Between 1890 and 1892, Eugene Dubois (member of the Dutch colonial army) found pieces of "Java Man," (later named Homo erectus) that everyone agreed was more apelike than the Neanderthal. The importance of H. erectus was vastly increased from 1927 to 1937 as more than 40 similar fossils were found in limestone caves at Zhoukoudian, outside of Beijing. Also found were thousands of stone tools and evidence that H. erectus used fire. "Beijing Man" was somewhat like the Java erectus.

Homo erectus and Neanderthals were more manlike than apelike (Later termed Australopithecus). Then, in South Africa, in 1924, Raymond Dart discovered a apelike. It was followed by the discovery of similar apelike creatures in Africa, with a brain only slightly bigger than a chimpanzee's. The nose was flat. The jaw dominated the face and the mouth thrusted forward. But the teeth were human like and it had a bit of a forehead. Most importantly, it walked upright! Its spinal cored entered the brain not at the back of the head, like a gorilla's, but at the bottom of the skull, suggesting bipedalism. Although that didn't make it human, it allowed it to fall into the broader category of "hominid."

In all of the fossil finds, however, there was no evidence of where and when anatomically modern humankind first arose”.

Taken from:

Compare the skulls presented above with the next (male and female skulls in artistical reconstructions also):

Human Male and Female Skulls

Taken from:

Does Homo neanderthalensis play a role in modern human ancestry? The mandibular evidence. Rak Y, Ginzburg A, Geffen E. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 2002 Nov;119(3):199-204:

“The specialized Neanderthal mandibular ramus morphology emerges as yet another element constituting the derived complex of morphologies of the mandible and face that are unique to Neanderthals. These morphologies provide further support for the contention that Neanderthals do not play a role in modern human biological ancestry, either through "regional continuity" or through any other form of anagenetic progression.”

PubMed Abstract

Other fragment showing differences between humans and neandertals:

“Whatever social contact may have occurred, Hublin and Fred Spoor of University College London conclude that Neandertals and early modern humans did not interbreed. Computerized- tomography scans of nine Neandertal temporal bones, which surround the inner ear, revealed small semicircular canals and a distinctive inner ear shape compared to modern humans. "The differences are comparable to those separating ape species," they said”... “The bone came from a 13- by 16-foot structure made of stalactite and stalagmite fragments. Built by Neandertals, its purpose is unknown.”


Archaeology Newsbriefs, Vol. 49 # 5 Sept/Oct 1996, Neandertal News

Excerpts of an excellent comment of the article of Schwartz and Tattersall (1996) previously referred:

Laitman, J. T., J. S. Reidenberg, Samuel Marquez, and Patrick J. Gannon. (1996). “What the nose knows: new understandings of Neanderthal upper respiratory tract specializations.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93(20): 10543-5.

“Who were the Neanderthals? This brief question has been at the heart of paleoanthropology since the unearthing of the first Neanderthals almost a century and a half ago. First found at sites in western Europe, such as the Neander ‘‘thal’’ (now simply called “tal”) or valley in Germany, Gibraltar, Spy in Belgium, or La Chapelle-aux-Saints in France, these peculiar remains continue to be an enigma (1, 2). Were they mere variants of living human populations, somewhat different so as to indicate a distinct ‘‘race,’’ or were they imbued with sufficient uniquely derived characters (autapomorphies) so as to warrant their own species, Homo neanderthalensis?... it is generally agreed that Neanderthals... inhabited a range including much of Europe, western Asia, and the Levant... what happened to them? Although questions abound, definitive answers are few.

A confounding problem in the search to understand the Neanderthals, as with hominid(s)... in general, is that important aspects of their functional morphology and underlying behaviors have gone largely underinvestigated. This, in part, is because paleoanthropologists have had to focus upon the scant bony remains available to them, remains which often do not reflect some major biological systems. For example, although aspects of the dentition or postcranial skeleton have been reconstructed meticulously, others, such as features of the respiratory, digestive, or nervous systems have, more often

than not, either been ignored or relegated to a relatively minor role in discussions.

The recent observations by Schwartz and Tattersall (3), in this issue of the Proceedings, on Neanderthal nasal apomorphies shed new light on the relationship of Neanderthals to other hominids and add important new data for our understanding of the functional morphology of a major physiologic system, the upper respiratory tract. The authors’ primary interest is, of course, how these newly described features will affect the interpretation of Neanderthal phylogeny. To be fair, the position of Schwartz and Tattersall on this issue is well known among anthropologists, with both recognized as ‘‘splitters’’ who see Neanderthals as comprising a distinct species from either living or archaic Homo sapiens (1, 4, 5). Their prior views notwithstanding, the evidence they present is of value in its own right and will henceforth have to be factored into any discussion of Neanderthal relationships.

The findings by Schwartz and Tattersall regard specializations of internal nasal morphology. This aspect of the nose has gone largely unexplored in our fossil ancestors. This is because fragile internal nasal structures are often not reserved in fossil hominids and because many aspects of the functional morphology underlying the mammalian nose and associated paranasal sinuses remain poorly understood. Although accounts of internal nasal morphology have been cursory, there have been studies on external nasal dimensions of both extant and fossil hominids (6–9). Indeed, the large size of Neanderthal external nasal dimensions, and the significant differences they exhibit from those of extant humans, has been commented upon and documented for some time (10–12).

Schwartz and Tattersall now bring to the discussion three internal nasal features which have been previously unrecognized and which they feel are autapomorphic to Neanderthals: (i) an ‘‘internal nasal margin,’’ a medially projecting rim of bone just within the anterior edge of the anterior nasal (piriform) aperture; (ii)a pronounced medial swelling of the lateral nasal wall; and (iii) a lack of an ossified roof over the lacrimal groove.

Should the features observed by Schwartz and Tattersall indeed prove to be true apomorphies, they would provide strong evidence to support the contention that Neanderthals are different from extant or fossil Homo sapiens in seminal ways. But in what ways? And what do distinctions in their nasal region reflect? While focusing upon questions of Neanderthal systematics, Schwartz and Tattersall have led us to ponder pivotal questions about how the Neanderthals may have differed from us in aspects of their respiratory tract and constituent behaviors.

The acquisition and processing of oxygen and its byproducts is the primary mission of any air-breathing vertebrate. Chewing, walking, reproducing, thinking are all fine, but first one has to breathe. Anthropologists sometimes seem to forget this... Although...

some workers have attempted to reconstruct the... aspects of our more elusive respiratory behaviors. This work has focused largely on reconstructing the upper respiratory, or aerodigestive, tract and has been principally concerned with establishing what the overall positioning of structures such as the larynx, tongue, and pharynx may have been like in hominid(s)... Our own studies (13–16) among others (17–19) have shown that aspects of the external contour of the skull base are intimately related to the topographic arrangement of aerodigestive tract structures and can, in turn, serve as a guide to help reconstruct the anatomy of the region... In essence, we have learned that the basicranium is the ‘‘roof’’ of the upper respiratory tract and that it can serve as a blueprint from... the ‘‘house’’ below... By coupling these data on how upper respiratory tract structures can be reconstructed with our growing knowledge of the comparative and functional anatomy of this region in extant mammals (20, 21), we have begun to gain insight into what the upper respiratory tract may have been like in… australopithecines (22).

The configuration of this region in Neanderthals has been the subject of thought beginning, at least, with the great anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (23). The focus, however, has usually not been on respiratory requirements and related behaviors but, rather, on the ‘‘vocal tract’’ component. Although few studies wrestle with the key issues of upper respiratory change, it seems as if almost everyone has a word to say on what a Neanderthal’s vocal tract may have been like.

Although the question of Neanderthal speech capabilities is indeed intriguing, this allure has seemingly caused many to lose sight of what the area’s main functions were: respiration and, secondarily, ingestion of food. The region did not evolve for the sole purpose of vocalization, a fact often overlooked by many.

The general picture of the Neanderthal upper respiratory tract that has emerged over the last few decades by those attempting to reconstruct it has been of a region which differed somewhat from that in living humans. Both our own (15, 16, 24) and other studies (17, 18, 25) have emphasized that some Neanderthals (such as the ‘‘Classic’’ western European specimens) would have exhibited a larynx slightly higher in the neck than that of modern humans, with these Neanderthals having a more limited oropharyngeal segment with a greater portion of the tongue occupying the oral cavity. When one factors in their large external nose and sizable paranasal sinuses, the overall Neanderthal anatomy suggests a group that relied more heavily upon the nasal rather than the oral route for respiration then do living humans. These specializations were very possibly due to respiratory-related adaptations to their environment. A by-product of this respiratory-driven anatomical configuration would be that Neanderthals could not have produced the same array of sounds that living humans can (16, 17, 26). They were not apish mutes; they were just not identical to us.

Although the above scenario has been accepted by many, it is unpalatable to some. This group, often called ‘‘lumpers,’’ is primarily comprised of those who view Neanderthals as falling within the range of variation represented by diverse modern human populations (27). Given their predilection, it becomes a priori impossible for them to view Neanderthals as ever being sufficiently different so as to exhibit highly derived respiratory anatomy or specialized respiratory or vocal behaviors. If they are us, then they cannot be fundamentally different. Observations on the difference between Neanderthals and extant populations are routinely dismissed as being within the range of ‘‘human’’ variation.

Given the above, Schwartz and Tattersall’s nasal findings harbor important implications. The three traits they describe clearly suggest a morphology that is different from ours and appears designed to subserve specialized functions. The large internal nasal margin they describe, their major observation, may serve to expand the internal surface area, thus allowing for an increase in ciliated mucosal covering. The placement of this margin, at the very entrance of the cavity, also suggests a location ideally suited to be the initial vehicle to confront

inspired air or the last opportunity to interact with expired air.

In some ways, this medial projection is reminiscent of Waldeyer’s Ring, the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissues (lingual, palatine, nasopharyngeal tonsils) that surround internal respiratory and digestive portals. Could Neanderthals have had a similar ‘‘donut-shaped’’ filter system at the entrance to the

nasal cavity?

Both the internal nasal margin and Schwartz and Tattersall’s second feature, a swelling of the lateral nasal cavity, may be related to expansions of the paranasal sinus system. Indeed, sinuses have long been known to be extensive in Neanderthals (28), and amplifications of these would thus be logical. Al-though the exact function(s) of mammalian paranasal sinuses remains unclear, and have indeed become the focus of much recent study (29–31), it is likely that in Neanderthals they played at least some part in an air-exchange process, perhaps in warming and humidifying cold and dry air. The relationships/ functions of an unossified roof over the lacrimal groove, Schwartz and Tattersall’s third observation, is less clear. The absence of a rigid roof, however, would clearly permit more expandability for components of the nasolacrimal duct system (which, in humans, contains a venous plexus forming erectile tissues and can, when engorged, obstruct the duct).

Absence of a bony roof would also allow for a more direct communication of nasolacrimal duct contents with the environment of the nasal cavity proper.

As an initial foray into this region in Neanderthals, many questions have yet to be addressed. An important issue, not covered by Schwartz and Tattersall, regards the extent (or even presence) of these proposed apomorphies in Neanderthals from different geographic areas. For example, because the Neanderthals focused on by the authors are from western Europe, it will be important to determine the extent of these characters in Neanderthals from other areas, such as eastern Europe or the Levant. If regional variations are found, could there be any relationship to climatic differences? Similarly, further work is needed to determine... whether, as the authors suggest, the presence of a ‘‘poorly developed’’ medial projection in the Steinheim cranium (a specimen

generally thought not to be a Neanderthal) is evidence for an entire Neanderthal clade.

The apomorphies described by Schwartz and Tattersall offer strong evidence that the internal morphology of the nasal moiety of the Neanderthal upper respiratory tract may be as distinctive as that previously reconstructed for the more caudal laryngo-pharyngeal component. Taken together, these specialized

features of different upper respiratory tract compartments allow greater insight into an apparently more global pattern to Neanderthal upper respiratory specializations. Although these specializations may not by themselves validate

Schwartz and Tattersall’s preference for Neanderthal taxonomic distinctiveness, they certainly lend strong support to those who see Neanderthals as considerably different from living Homo sapiens. Indeed, further clues to understanding just how different Neanderthals are from living humans may be

as plain as the anatomy inside the noses on their faces.”


1. Tattersall, I. (1995) The Last Neanderthal: The Rise, Success, and

Mysterious Extinction of Our Closest Human Relatives (Macmillan,

New York).

2. Stringer, C. & Gamble, C. (1993) In Search of the Neanderthals:

Solving the Puzzle of Human Origins. (Thames & Hudson, London).

3. Schwartz, J. H. & Tattersall, I. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA

93, 10852–10854.

4. Schwartz, J. H. (1993) What the Bones Tell Us (Henry Holt, New


5. Tattersall, I. (1986) J. Hum. Evol. 15, 165–175.

6. Thomson, A. & Buxton, L. H. D. (1923) J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 53,


7. Wolpoff, M. H. (1968) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 29, 405–423.

8. Glanville, E. V. (1969) Am J. Phys. Anthropol. 30, 29–38.

9. Franciscus, R. G. & Trinkaus, E. (1988) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

75, 517–527.

10. Coon, C. S. (1962) The Origin of Races (Knopf, New York).

11. Franciscus, R. G. & Trinkaus, E. (1988) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

75, 208.

12. Trinkaus, E. & Shipman, P. (1993) The Neandertals: Changing the

Image of Mankind (Knopf, New York).

13. Laitman, J. T., Heimbuch, R. C. & Crelin, E. S. (1978) Am. J.

Anat. 152, 467–483.

14. Reidenberg, J. S. & Laitman, J. T. (1991) Anat. Rec. 230, 557–569.

15. Laitman, J. T., Reidenberg, J. S. & Gannon, P. J. (1992) in

Language Origin: A Multidisciplinary Approach, eds. Wind, J.,

Chiarelli, B., Bichakjian, B. & Nocentini, A. (Kluwer, Dordrecht,

The Netherlands), pp. 385–397.

16. Laitman, J. T., Heimbuch, R. C. & Crelin, E. S. (1979) Am. J.

Phys. Anthropol. 51, 15–34.

17. Lieberman, P. & Crelin, E. S. (1971) Ling. Inq. 2, 203–222.

18. Grosmangin, C. (1979) Mem. Lab. Anat. Fac. Med. Paris 40,


19. Budil, I. (1994) Hum. Evol. 9, 35–52.

20. Laitman, J. T. & Reidenberg, J. S. (1993) Dysphagia 8, 318–325.

21. Harrison, D. F. N. (1995) The Anatomy and Physiology of the

Mammalian Larynx (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.).

22. Laitman, J. T. & Heimbuch, R. C. (1982) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

59, 323–344.

23. Negus, V. E. (1949) The Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of

the Larynx (Grune & Stratton, New York).

24. Laitman, J. T., Reidenberg, J. S., Friedland, D. R., Reidenberg,

B. E. & Gannon, P. J. (1993) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Suppl. 16,


25. Crelin, E. S. (1987) The Human Vocal Tract: Anatomy, Function,

Development and Evolution (Vantage, New York).

26. Lieberman, P., Laitman, J. T., Reidenberg, J. S. & Gannon, P. J.

(1992) J. Hum. Evol. 23, 447–467.

27. Wolpoff, M. H. (1996) Human Evolution (McGraw–Hill, New


28. Tillier, A. M. (1975) The`se de 3 e cycle (Univ. of Paris, Paris).

29. Scharf, K., Lawson, W., Shapiro, J. & Gannon, P. J. (1994)

Laryngoscope 105, 1–5.

30. Koppe, T., Rohrer-Ertl, O., Hahn, D., Reike, R. & Nagai, H.

(1996) Okajimas Folia Anat. Jpn. 72, 297–306.

31. Marquez, S., Gannon, P. J., Reidenberg, J. S. & Laitman, J. T.

(1996) Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. Abstr. 19, 158.

This original comment can be found only in PDF for free at:

(Go to that article)


Some mitochondrial DNA fragments from neandertals:

In the next address can be freely found this and any other sequence from living beings:



Krings,M., Stone,A., Schmitz,R.W., Krainitzki,H., Stoneking,M. and Paabo,S., Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90 (1), 19-30 (1997)

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mitochondrial D-loop hypervariable region 1

         1 gttctttcat gggggagcag atttgggtac cacccaagta ttgactcacc catcagcaac
       61 cgctatgtat ctcgtacatt actgttagtt accatgaata ttgtacagta ccataattac
      121 ttgactacct gcagtacata aaaacctaat ccacatcaaa cccccccccc catgcttaca
      181 agcaagcaca gcaatcaacc ttcaactgtc atacatcaac tacaactcca aagacgccct
      241 tacacccact aggatatcaa caaacctacc cacccttgac agtacatagc acataaagtc
      301 atttaccgta catagcacat tacagtcaaa tcccttctcg cccccatgga tgacccccct
      361 cagatagggg tcccttgat


Krings,M., Geisert,H., Schmitz,R.W., Krainitzki,H. and Paabo,S., DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the neandertal type specimen, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (10), 5581-5585 (1999).

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mitochondrial control region, hypervariable region II.
         1 ttttcgtctg gggggtgtgc acgcgatagc attgcgagac gctggagccg gagcacccta
       61 tgtcgcagta tctgtctttg attcctgccc cattccatta tttatcgcac ctacgttcaa
      121 tattacaggc gagcatactt actaaagtgt gttaattaat taatgcttgt aggacataat
      181 aataacgact aaatgtctgc acagctgctt tccacacaga catcataaca aaaaatttcc
      241 accaaacccc ctttcctccc ccgcttctgg ccacagcact taaacacatc tctgccaaac
      301 cccaaaaaca aagaacccta acaccagcct aaccagactt caaat

Ovchinnikov,I.V., Gotherstrom,A., Romanova,G.P., Kharitonov,V.M., Liden,K. and Goodwin,W., Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus, Nature 404 (6777), 490-493 (2000).

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mitochondrial D-loop, hypervariable region I.
         1 ccaagtattg actcacccat caacaaccgc catgtatttc gtacattact gccagccacc
       61 atgaatattg tacagtacca taattacttg actacctgta atacataaaa acctaatcca
      121 catcaacccc ccccccccat gcttacaagc aagcacagca atcaaccttc aactgtcata
      181 catcaactac aactccaaag acacccttac acccactagg atatcaacaa acctacccac
      241 ccttgacagt acatagcaca taaagtcatt taccgtacat agcacattat agtcaaatcc
      301 cttctcgccc ccatggatga cccccctcag ataggggtcc cttga

Krings,M., Capelli,C., Tschentscher,F., Geisert,H., Meyer,S., von Haeseler,A., Grossschmidt,K., Possnert,G., Paunovic,M. and Paabo,S., A view of neandertal genetic diversity, Nat. Genet. 26 (2), 144-146 (2000).

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mitochondrial hypervariable region I sequence.
         1 gttctttcat gggggagcag atttgggtac cacccaagta ttgactcacc catcagcaac
       61 cgctatgtat ttcgtacatt actgccagcc accatgaata ttgtacagta ccataattac
      121 ttgactacct gcagtacata aaaacctaat ccacatcaac cccccccccc catgcttaca
      181 agcaagcaca gcaatcaacc ttcaactgtc atacatcaac tacaactcca aagacgccct
      241 tacacccact aggatatcaa caaacctacc cacccttgac agtacatagc acataaagtc
      301 atttaccgta catagcacat tacagtcaaa tcccttctcg cccccatgga tgacccc

Krings,M., Capelli,C., Tschentscher,F., Geisert,H., Meyer,S., von Haeseler,A., Grossschmidt,K., Possnert,G., Paunovic,M. and Paabo,S., A view of neandertal genetic diversity, Nat. Genet. 26 (2), 144-146 (2000).

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis mitochondrial hypervariable region II sequence.  
         1 ttttcgtctg gggggtgtgc acgcgatagc attgcgagac gctggagccg gagcacccta
       61 tgtcgcagta tctgtctttg attcctgccc cattccatta tttatcgcac ctacgttcaa
      121 tattacaggc gagcatactt actgaagtgt gttaattaat taatgcttgt aggacataat
      181 aataacgact aaatgtctgc acagctgctt tccacacaga catcataaca aaaaatttcc
      241 accaaacctc cccctccccc gcttctggcc acagcactta aatacatc

Schmitz,R.W., Serre,D., Bonani,G., Feine,S., Hillgruber,F., Krainitzki,H., Paabo,S. and Smith,F.H., The Neandertal type site revisited: interdisciplinary investigations of skeletal remains from the Neander Valley, Germany, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99 (20), 13342-13347 (2002).

Homo sapiens neanderthalsensis mitochondrial D-loop hypervariable region I, partial sequence.  
         1 gttctttcat gggggagcag atttgggtac cacccaagta ttgactcacc catcagcaac
       61 cgctatgtat ttcgtacatt actgccagcc accatgaata ttgtacagta ccataattac
      121 ttgactacct gcagtacata aaaacctaat ccacatcaac cccccccccc catgcttaca
      181 agcaagcaca gcaatcaacc ttcaactgtc atacatcaac tacaactcca aagacaccct
      241 tacacccact aggatatcaa caaacctacc cacccttgac agtacatagc acataaagtc
      301 atttaccgta catagcacat tacagtcaaa tcccttctcg cccccatgga tgacccc

Comparing Neanderthal sequences with human's (with "BLAST"), and also human - human comparisons:

Go to the first part of this review:

More Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA Research:

Clear proofs of Neandertal Cannibalism: Cave finds revive Neandertal cannibalism (Evidence found at cave site in southeastern France):

Science News, Oct 2, 1999, B. Bower

Neanderthal Eats Neanderthal:

Discover, Dec, 1999

Neandertals' diet put meat in their bones:

Science News June 17, 2000, B. Bower

Neanderthals Did Their Own Killing:

By Trina Wood, News, June 13, 2000

White, Tim D. (August, 2001). “Once Were Cannibals"Scientific American 58-65.

An excerpt in Word Document of this thoughtful article

Some other references of the neandertal cannibalism:

Defleur, A., T. White, et al. (1999). "Neanderthal cannibalism at Moula-Guercy, Ardeche, France." Science 286(5437): 128-31.

Richards, M. P., P. B. Pettitt, et al. (2000). “Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal predation: the evidence from stable isotopes.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97(13): 7663-6.

White, T. D. (1992). “Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346."Princeton University Press

Marlar, R. A., et al (September 7, 2000). “Biochemical Evidence of Cannibalism at a Prehistoric Puebloan Site in Southwestern Colorado."Nature (407):74-78. CHEWED OR CHIPPED? Who Made the Neanderthal Flute? HUMANS OR CARNIVORES? By Bob Fink Updated Nov, 2ooo

New attempts made by a Scientific foolishness: the "reproduction" of two individuals of the same sex: "Theoretically, these new techniques could eventually also allow same-sex couples to reproduce", according to the article of Peter O'Connor ... this example and any other homosexually oriented program, are wrong, according to God's Word:

New Experimental Fertility Technique

Tasters of the Word (YouTube), videos recientes: "Astronomía y Nacimiento de Jesucristo: Once de Septiembre Ańo 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).