You're thinking of Piltdown Man. And plenty of people readily admitted it was a hoax. Just not the guy who found it. There are many, many, many fossils of Neanderthals. Did I mention there are lots of them?

I think that was a biblical hoax where Woman was created with one of Adam's McRibs.

Before you start checking reality it might be to your advantage to have some grasp of it. You're implied anti-scientific strain doesn't sit well with checking reality. There is no other way to do it besides science.

Many, many Neanderthal fossils have been found, along with Neanderthal artifacts. The Neanderthal genome has also been sequenced. Interbreeding has been suggested as the reason why traces of neanderthal DNA can be found in people living today, especially Europeans. It is also believed that two additional extinct members of the genus Homo have been found. The first is Homo floresiensis (nicknamed the hobbit), while the second are the Denisovans, members of the genus Homo that is believed to be another previously unknown species of human that has gone extinct.

First were told humans killed them off, next that we bred them out of existence since we found hybrid skeletons. Now its bunnies??

And for those who don't know why they are called Neanderthals. Neanderthal was the name of the farmer whose feild the first Neanderthal skeleton was found.

And for those who don't know why they are called Neanderthals. Neanderthal was the name of the farmer whose feild the first Neanderthal skeleton was found.

"Neanderthal" is named after the Neander Valley, the place in Germany (east of Düsseldorf) where the species was first discovered.

No, Tim.

In the 1600s there was a preacher in Germany who later became rather famous. He gathered a good deal of his inspiration and did a good deal of his preaching in a little valley on the Dussel river. At the time it was known as "the rockiness" or "the cliff of dogs". By the early 1800s it had come to be known as "Neander's Hollow" and was officially named "Neander's Valley" in 1850. At the time the word for "valley" in German was "thal" (later changed to "tal"). In 1856 the remains of a prehistoric human were found in the Feldhofer limestone quarry in that valley. Once it was decided that this was a new, previously unknown species, it was called "Neanderthal" in recognition of the locale.

Didn't European settlements in Greenland become extinct in the late 1500's or so because the climate cooled, they couldn't keep raising cattle, and refused to adopt the seal diet of the indigenous population?

Whadyaa' Think?????

I think you're in the wrong article category, Phantom.

Animals aren't the planet's caretakers. They kill, migrate, and despoil all they can, same as any other species. Just look some of the animal populations when introduced to new regions and destroy the local wildlife, and then tell me they're "caretakers". Humans are just way better at exploiting the environment than other animals.

Archaeology is a great field (I wouldn't really call it a science): you can come up with wild speculation from a very limited amount of data and it's almost impossible to prove your theory right or wrong.

In this case, maybe the Neanderthals had a tradition of destroying the bones of rabbits.

I don't buy the wabbit theory... they were most likely out competed and out bred by the newly arrived modern humans. It was a slow and long decline that had nothing to do with not liking small game or being unskilled at hunting it. I'm sure Neanderthals ate everything they had to in order to survive - all native populations all over the world did that, sometimes not shying away from cannibalism when necessary. Why would they be any different?

This theory actually makes some sense. Studies have shown no evidence that Neanderthals used projectile weapons, including the bow and arrow. If you can't chase it down and thrust a spear into the animal, it's unlikely Neanderthals could kill it. They may have been able to throw a spear short distances, but a study showed they were incapable of the shoulder backward displacement needed to throw (like you would throw a baseball or spear). #.UTek7jckR1E

Max^108

I don't buy the wabbit theory... they were most likely out competed and out bred by the newly arrived modern humans. It was a slow and long decline that had nothing to do with not liking small game or being unskilled at hunting it. I'm sure Neanderthals ate everything they had to in order to survive - all native populations all over the world did that, sometimes not shying away from cannibalism when necessary. Why would they be any different?

I think you've missed the point Max. Small game is a last resort. A diet of rabbit is one of slow starvation. If your being 'out competed' for the good fatty foods (as you noted) you'll starve faster than the ones eating rat.

If life gives you lemons and you can't make lemonade, your screwed.

Where do you get such half baked theories that the animals were/Are not the Earth's caretakers.

Uh... because they are intellectually incapable of comprehending such things as responsibility and conservation that would be required of caretakers? Because several species of animals such as ants, termites, beavers, and so on cause environmental destruction for their own exclusive benefit like humans do? Because animals will happily breed like wildfire and push other species into extinction if given the chance (see my earlier note about introduced species)?

So that's the source of my "theory". May I ask you where you get your idea that non-humans have some special responsibility for or tendency toward caring for the environment?

SF Accountant,

Apparently Phantom gets his knowledge of organisms (both plant and animal) dominating their ecosystem from sources other than the DECADES of research done by biologists. Any species, whether it be plant or animal, will dominate an ecosystem if the right conditions exist - lack of natural predators, destruction of habitat conducive to the survival of other species, etc. Hunting the North American wolf population to near extinction was a BAD thing for its food - moose, elk, deer, etc. The domination of kudzoo in Florida is a prime example of why it is destructive to introduce non-native species. And we won't even mention fire ants, another immigrant that has caused damage in Florida.

Nature red in tooth and claw. And I suppose root and spore, and everything else. Plants and animals are NOT "caretakers" in nature. They are participants in a very competitive process called life. If they can take advantage and push out anything that can compete, they will do so. This anthropomorphizing that nature is gentle and in balance all the time is pure fantasy. It's bloodthirsty and won't hesitate to crush anything that gets in its way. And yes, that means sometimes overwhelming the very environment they depend on.

From a old hunter. In my youth, I hunted rabbit and squirrel. Both darn tastee, I think. Anyway, both of these rodents have a great sense of hearing. If they hear you or something they do not like, they run some distance, stopping to listen and now also start looking to understand if they are safe or need to run more.

I got most of my kills with in 10 feet or less. As buggs skips thru the forest, they have trails/roads they use. I looked for them and just stood still waiting for it to hop along the bunny trail. They see you. That is when the rabbits second line of defence kicks in, they freeze. Its hard to see them even breath. Very slowly I'd take aim and shoot.

So, I could theorize that Neanderthal was just to stupid to notice this behavior or, maybe Neanderthals eyes and brain was motion sensitive. If he could throw a rock, he could have killed a rabbit or squirrel.

Lastly, if neanderthal could catch seals and birds, he could have got rabbit. So, this takes me to motion was needed to get his attention and to stupid to look down. He most likely ate mussels because he seen the seals eating them.

Most hunting of small game and gathering of smaller food items has been undertaken by females. They used baskets to gather fruits and nuts, nets and snares to catch animals and fish. The idea that a big hulking male would be running around trying to hit a rabbit with a rock, and failing, thus leading to extinction, is ridiculous. Women have always found and provided food, too--the mighty hunter dragging in the huge mammal to the waiting family is a mighty myth for the most part.

The writer, in a cute way, attempts to convey his/her belief that the Neanderthals were in fact, rather stupid. "Whats up Doc"?

First were told humans killed them off, next that we bred them out of existence since we found hybrid skeletons. Now its bunnies??

Only religion is 100% certain. The author of this theory points out that it is just a theory. There is nothing scientifically wrong about presenting various theories if there is some evidence to back them up. And, none of the three that you mentioned are mutually exclusive. A loss of food supply could have reduced the population, making it easier for modern humans to kill them off or out-compete them. The same food issues could have led them to inter-breed with modern humans. But, inter-breeding is only a reason for extinction if the off-spring was better adapted and out-competed "pure" Neanderthals.

So, humans learned to make hasenpfeffer and Neanderthals didn't. Who knew that would lead to survival or not?

Hey wabbit! You got some splainnen to do!!!!

Mike Nielsen - Rabbits are not I repeat NOT Rodents.

Like He!! They're Not

Holly thinks that if it has a fluffy tail, like rabbits and squirrels, it's not a rodent. However, they can be rodents even if they don't have a naked tail.

Rabbits are classified in the taxonomic order Lagomorpha, not in the order Rodentia (mice, rats, squirrels, beaver, porcupine, hamsters, guinea pig, capybara, etc).

Thus, rabbits are NOT rodents.

Just 'cause you like to put it down your pants or in your bum hole, does not make it a rodent.

Anything that eats the vegetables in my garden is a rodent, including birds.

However, recent DNA analysis and the discovery of a common ancestor has supported the view that they share a common lineage, and thus rabbits and rodents are now often referred to together as members of the superclass Glires.

If they ain't rodents, they're a close cousin.

Vermin by any other name, but I second, they are tasty when prepared properly.

The only reasons early humans managed to kill it is because we learned to count to three.

You can't stop at two. Those poor Neanderthals...

Ummm. . .LitterHater. . .if you don't get the cultural reference, it's best not to comment. Odd that you didn't mind that they didn't have hand grenades. . .especially Holy Hand Grenades.

LitterHater

uhh early humans didn't have a counting-scale you dimp-hut it took tens of thousands of years to evolve to the point where they could count, and draw, and read but obviosuly since you have no idea about palentology or science in generaal that would mean nothing to you.

No, no. You got it all wrong…

Early humans didn’t have comedy you rabbit-hutch it took tens of thousands of years to evolve to the point there they could do slap-stick, and deadpan , and satire but obviously since you have no idea about humor or fun in general that would mean nothing to you.

"I *warned* you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you *knew*, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little *bunny*, isn't it?"

They didn't have the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. So that's why they went extinct. And to think that all this time I was thinking it was competition, or disease, or climate change or something...

Nahh. All they needed was Jimmy Carter with a boat oar to show them how it's done.

Litterhater,

How can you prove when counting began?

There might not be any evidence of people recording a count, but what evidence do you have to show that nobody was counting in a non-recording fashion, such as by use of their fingers? Like up to three fingers, for use of the holy hand grenade.

One...two...five.

And these harmless little bunnies are eating cars at the Denver Airport. THe revenge of the bunny.

Any one else have a problem witht he Headline writer getting the Elmer Fudd quote wrong - it is not rascally rabbit but wascally wabbit. Read the headline and now in my mind Elmer Fudd will be the embodiement of a Neanderthal

If you really want a wild view in your head, try Elmer Fudd starring as Frank N. Furter.

"I'm just a sweet twansvestite, fwom Twansexual, Twansylvaniaaaaa"

nearly choked on my coffee with that one, lol. Sorry, poor Elmer will never be the same in my minds eye...

Now imagine Bugs, as Riff, with ears slicked back singing, "Frank N. Furter, it's all o_ver. Your mission is a failure, your lifestyles too exte_eeme."

I'm still trying to figure out Brad and Janet. Granny and Tweety? Porky and Sylvester? Porky as Eddie (Aw, Ma, Ham again[or bacon]?)(Hot p p p p patootie, b b bless my s s s soul, I really love that rock and ro ro roll)? Porky as the narrator? (This pig has no neck!)

I keep putting Yosemite Sam as Dr Scott.

The problem is, I'll never get Warner Brothers, or Disney's, permission to do this.

"What do you want?"

"Teeth"

Then Bugs teeth appear on screen singing, "Science Fiction, Double Feature."

I really haven't thought about this in years, but now it's stuck in my head again.

TonyInDallas,

Thats pretty funny. Reminds my of my idea of Pulp Jedi...

<jules and vincent cruising across Tatooine in a landspeeder>

"Do you know what they call a Quarter Pounder on Kashyyk?"

"They don't call it a Quarter Pounder?"

"No, they use the metric system. They wouldn't know what the f*ck a Quarter Pounder was."

"What do they call it?"

"RRAAAAAWWWARRRRAARR!!"

"What do they call a Big Mac?"

"Its a Big Mac, same as everywhere else..."

Elmer Fudd-- couldnt catch rabbits. ;)

That's "wabbits", wascally wabbits!

Elmer Fudd is extinct? Elmer was a Neanderthal? Please, oh please, don't tell us that the Flintstones didn't have a dinosaur for a cave pet! Jackalope, maybe?

The wabbits outsmarted the Neanderfudds.

The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog never dresses in drag or kisses strangers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCI18qAoKq4&feature=player_embedded#!

Great scene. I love that movie and the rest they did.

Or maybe they knew about tuleremia?

I was wondering why that hypothesis wasn't presented. Sounds as reasonable as any other.

little

I'm sure the neanderthals learned to count before you learned to spell. What's that? They haven't taught you to spell yet?

hey starb why don't you come here to midtown and say some crap like that, I've spelt for more times then you have brain cells and obviosuly you still haven't evolved out of your ancesteor's nenanderthall state because you still are a brainnless tough inter-guy who thinks he can get what he wants by being annoying but that's not going to work when reall men are in town to deal with your crap your pint-twig.

Typical goper "tough guy" mentality. You're so funny.

Hey LitterHater - Unless you live outside the US, the word is SPELLED, not spelt. Spelt is a type of wheat. PS, obviously is not spelled obviosuly, ancester doesn't have an o, neanderthal doesn't have an extra n and l, brainless only has 1 n, and real only has one l. If you're going to try and insult someone's intelligence, try and do it intelligently.

Ancestor is spelled with 'o'. Isn't Muphry a bitch?

Litter, don't drink and type. It never turns out well.

Folks, we have a winner! Not only is LitterHater a horrible speller, He/She/It is completely clueless. (Psst, LitterHater, Custom1911 was referring to YOU.)

I'm convinced litter is fake and just goofing on us. Nobody could be that weird

Yeah, they can.

Well, they must have been capable hunters to take down large game, but the tools and traits needed for that are very different from the ones needed to hunt rabbits, birds, fish and whatnot.

Still... it does seem like a stretch. At the same time though, I don't think there's enough Neanderthal DNA in us for them to have simply bred themselves into older human populations. We just don't know yet, so we have to keep making wild guesses and comparing the data to see if they check out.

yes, obviously the tools and techniques would be different, and as i said, the adaptations would not have been done overnight. they would have evolved over time. DNA still present in human populations over thousands of years is pretty significant evidence that they were assumed into that other pop[ulation.

Ah, but local biospheres CAN change overnight. Also, a gradual change in the biosphere (such as the primary game animals disappearing as other mammals appear) does not guarantee that any given species will adapt. Many simply go extinct. Even over a long period of time, it's possible that Neanderthals never managed to cope.

I've always felt that Neanderthals were not so much a separate species, but more like a sub-species or race. If they had remained separate from modern humans that were moving in, they may have continued to evolve into a separate species. But from all the evidence we have now, they were not so different from us.

You're right about the cable channels, FOX NEWS!

Even Neanderthals would see through Fox News. You've seen the commercials. Every one of them have it all over Sean Hannity.

Have you not seen MSNBC lately...it's gotten really weird.

Well, duh. They disappeared 30,000 years ago because the Earth didn't exist then. How could they continue existing without Earth?

That IS a pretty useful evolutionary trait. But the ability of Neanderthals to take down big game suggests that they probably had the tools and physical qualities to defend themselves militarily. It might have come down to numbers (aided by humans' more efficient bodies) or tactics (aided by humans' presumed advantages in communication and abstract thought), I suppose. Neat theory!

These people were around for over 200,000 years. I am sure they figured out how to survive

No because most people don't move about as much as that, they tend to stay and reproduce closer to home with people of their own 'race.' Maybe in a million years we'll all be brownish. Unless we move to another planet where the climate makes us pink with purple polka dots.

Mammals will eat anything they can survive on, not anything at all; desperation will not let a cow survive on meat, or a wolf on fruit. Humans could not survive on grass if that were the only available plant. There's also the matter of wether a given species can obtain a given food supply. To use your (silly) example, if dogs and cats somehow had no options for food other than humans, then they would be on the extinction express because they generally can't kill us for food and we don't tend to keep our dead out of their reach.

Ya, you can get more cheese from a live cow, and more eggs from a live chicken, than dead ones.

mudd

that may be true, but how did you come to this conclusion? Just curious...does anybody know if there is evidence of Neanderthals and agriculture?

They were probably too single minded to switch from big game to small game.

"Where all mastodons go? We hungry."

"Hey, why don't we kill little animal. The long eared ones that are everywhere?"

"What?!? It no more than mouthful. It wouldn't feed all us."

"What if we kill two?"

"What is 'two'?"

Your hypothesis are based on completely arbitrary assumption (that Neanderthals just ate whatever was around), hypothetical evidence (that rabbit bones might be found at other settlements or camps), and the assumption of bias by the researchers involved (parenthesis are fun!). I find it far less compelling than the theory in the article, which at least has a little bit of evidence to support it.

Um, nobody thinks that Neanderthals were humans. They were a completely separate species that evolved from similar origins and eventually died out.

SF accountant-how do you explain their DNA in present day humans? if a local biosphere changes overnight as you said is possible there wouldnt be a rush to interbreed with other groups. the extinction of neaderthals as a group probably resulted from a number of factors over time but, again, DNA does not lie. they are alive and well amoungst us all to this day.

Well, once they interbred with sapiens, they were no longer Neanderthals, so technically speaking, no, they're not.

And I'm not sure why I need to explain the DNA presence in modern humans. It's clear there was some interbreeding at some point, and I don't dispute that.

ok, just that the neaderthal didnt go extinct so much as they were absorbed into human groups. so i dont thiink we should be tlaking about rabbits when its jsut another example of a human group merging with others .

Again, this may seem like a matter of semantics, but there are no organisms distinguishable as Neanderthals alive today. Therefore they are extinct by definition.

I think what you mean is that they weren't all killed off, dino-style.

Relly - how do YOU explain that the amajprity of Human and Chimp DNA is the same?

Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor

LOL,

Litter, I understand you surpass this percentage and now have 100% Neanderthal genes. You would be an excellent scientific experiment - It would OK that you donate your mind and body to science. You probably have the extended forehead, supra-orbital ridge and long extended arms that drag your knuckles on the ground when you walk. Perhaps changing your avatar to "Alley Oop" because your current avatar shows you to be a bunny rabbit. Your thought process is also of Neanderthal average too.

DNA tests done recently shows 4-12% of the population have Neanderthal genes

"DNA tests done recently shows 4-12% of the population have Neanderthal genes"

I am just glad that there is only that percentage of Republicans left, aren't you?

Rabbits have plenty enough fat on them, enough for them to survive the winters. Wild rabbits and just about any other wild animal is going to be more lean than domesticated one, but people have survived for eons on wild game.

I suppose that pound for pound, you would have to expend a lot more energy trying to catch enough rabbits to feed your tribe, so the energy balance wouldn't be quite as good as say a big woolly mammoth or a nice buck. But I think it is a stretch to say that Neanderthals couldn't catch small game like rabbits and therefore they were starved into extinction. More likely the rabbits arrived at the time of some other change that the Neanderthals couldn't cope with. Just because two things happen at the same time does not mean one was causal to the other.

Borg neanderthals? Who would have thought.

You do realize that a failure to test even a majority of the human population does not prove, or even suggest, that the results of those surveys are incorrect, right? Statistics is a science too, and like other sciences, you need better evidence than "they could be wrong because they haven't tested literally EVERYTHING" in order to prove a given theory wrong.

sfa you have to procced with a "everything is not true until proven true" metnality with this science b.s, so that you don't let idiots tripping out on acid and holding beakers make all the universal laws that clueless idiots like yourself will follow to just because some governing scientific-body believe in them. i agree with derek that you have to be schepitlce when it comes to sketchy claims like this that sounds recidulous at faceee-value and maybe if you actually read the article a little deeper thewn you'd understand that too.

Judging from your posts, LitterHater, English isn't even a second language for you. Again, if you're going to try and insult someone's intelligence, do it intelligently.

Derek,

Not familiar with how statistical surveys are conducted, are we? One takes a sample size large enough (we don't need the ENTIRE human population) to provide accurate measurement, given a margin of error.

LittlerHatter, you do see the spell checker, right? Will make your illogical posts easier to read, but not comprehend or logical. SF is correct, that's what science does, develops an hypothesis, collects empirical data in order to support/refute said hypothesis and draws a conclusion from said collection of EMPIRICAL evidence. I emphasis the word EMPIRICAL in order to distinguish from anecdotal evidence.

litter is a fake. He's just pretending to be someone to get a rise out of the ostensibly sane people here.