# Neanderthal Girl Image **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 5, 2008, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neanderthal-girl-image/466587 "2008-10-05T19:51:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neanderthal-girl-image/466587/21 "2008-10-06T20:22:47Z")
> [@WF\_Tomba](#): > > There is quite a bit of variation in body and facial hairiness just within _Homo sapiens_. I think that in the absence of direct fossil evidence one way or the other, the possibility that Neandertals were hairier than any _H. sapiens_ must at least be considered open. > > **Exapno Mapcase** , this possibility would not require Neandertals to have re-evolved body hair. _Homo sapiens_ still has body hair and so, presumably, did the common ancestor. It is only a question of degree. spoke- has been talking about Neanderthals being “covered with fur” and not being “naked apes.” That is not within the range of even the hairiest human individuals. It is an entirely distinct genetic makeup because of the changes it would imply to other body systems, like sweating, internal heat adjustment, vitamin D absorption, and a host of other things. You can’t change just one major system and assume it will have no impact on others. A change that major would have enormous systemic impacts that couldn’t fail to be picked up. It is in no way a question of degree. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neanderthal-girl-image/466587/22 "2008-10-06T20:31:08Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I don’t know of a single serious paleontologist who thinks the Neanderthals went around naked. So what? Do you know of any _Serious Paleontologists_ (harumph!) who have specifically considered that question? If so, cite 'em. As I said, I’m willing to be convinced. > [@](#): > > But if anyone though the two species were so far apart than one had hair, nobody would buy the interbreeding for a second. What makes you say so? Hair is no indicator of speciation. Look at the difference in hirsuteness within a single species between, say, a [Mexican hairless](http://www.kleo.ru/encyclopedia/dog/mexican_hairless_01.jpg) and a [Lhasa Apso](http://www.dogguide.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/1347489429_47fe87b1eb.jpg). > [@](#): > > The other problem is the assumption that the Neanderthals made this extreme adaptation because of the cold of an ice age. We simply don’t know exactly when the first Neanderthals appeared. Maybe 350,000 years ago, but that maybe is a huge trap. If you look at a [chart of temperatures over that period](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_ages) you see that the could have appeared either at the depth of an ice age or at the height of an interglacial. However they started they went through a complete cycle of warm and cold temperatures, just as Homo Sapiens did, in fact more than one. Any adaptations they did would have to be extremely quick and would have been counterproductive just a short time later. So how and why did wooly mammoths and wooly rhinos evolve _their_ thick coats? Neanderthals lived for 100,000 years through the last glacial age, presumably evolving right alongside those other mammals. It is generally acknowledged that Neanderthals evolved other cold-weather adaptations: short limbs, big nose, stocky bodies. Fur seems like a minor hormonal tweak by comparison. > [@](#): > > I know of absolutely no evidence that Neanderthals first appeared 600,000 years ago. Nor did I say that. I said their _ancestors_ may have been in Europe for 600,000 years. From [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal): > [@](#): > > The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago. > [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > It would help if you could provide some sites for your assertions. You can find all the general info on _Wiki_. Hairiness is conjecture, so anyone who talks about that is making an educated guess. We are necessarily looking at circumstantial evidence. > [@](#): > > Give us cites for when true Neanderthals appeared, for the climate that occurred at the time, for their never wearing skins, for their genetic profile to have changed over time to allow for fur. Don’t make us disprove all of this. Provide some positive evidence to back you up. I could say the same to you. You are assuming they were naked and wore clothes and asking me to disprove it. Where is your positive evidence that they were hairless? Where is your positive evidence that they wore clothes? Anyhow, I am not trying to _prove_ anything. Rather, I am challenging what seems to be a common _assumption_ about Neanderthals (that they were hairless and wore clothes) and asking whether the evidence really fits that assumption. ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neanderthal-girl-image/466587/23 "2008-10-06T20:42:09Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > spoke- has been talking about Neanderthals being “covered with fur” and not being “naked apes.” That is not within the range of even the hairiest human individuals. It is an entirely distinct genetic makeup because of the changes it would imply to other body systems, like sweating, internal heat adjustment, vitamin D absorption, and a host of other things. You can’t change just one major system and assume it will have no impact on others. A change that major would have enormous systemic impacts that couldn’t fail to be picked up. It is in no way a question of degree. It is in all ways a question of degree. All of the systems you describe would change in degree, but no system would appear or disappear entirely. Besides, major morphological differences between _H. sapiens_ and _H. neanderthalensis_ are known to exist. These differences would presumably imply significant corresponding differences in other body systems, just as thick fur would. If there was enough evolutionary time for these two species to develop significantly different amounts of bone and muscle (Neandertals had much more) and significantly different cranial capacity (Neandertals, again, had much more), why should there not have been enough time for evolution to make a significant difference in their hairiness? ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2008, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neanderthal-girl-image/466587/24 "2008-10-06T22:43:29Z")
I recall at least one academic - forgotten her name - who theorized that early humans saw Neanderthals as food, not people. They were, according to this theory, furrier than the tropical great apes, almost as strong as gorillas, and they didn’t talk. I’d like to see the theory ruled out conclusively, because it seems to explain a lot. Also, if it were true, it would be the mother of all ethnic cleansing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/neanderthal-girl-image/466587.md?page=1)