In the reconstructions, there seems to be an assumption that Neanderthals had the same hair patterns as modern humans. That may or may not be a valid assumption. hair doesn’t normally fossilize. For all we really know, Neanderthals could have been covered with thick fur.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
Nor did they! Note how the “final” reconstruction slopes far, FAR more drastically, with a nearly unbroken line from the top of the brow ridges to the crown, than does the skull! It looks to me–and I’m trying to put away my pro-Neanderthal prejudices, John–like they are ignoring the original skull in order to give the appearance of “otherness.”
[/QUOTE]
It looks alright to me. I think you’re being thrown by the fact that the filled in the contour above the brow ridges with a bit of flesh. Instead of going in and up, the profile goes straight back, but it doesn’t look to me like they had to change the shape of the skull to do that.
Scientists have now sequenced small fragments of Neantherthal DNA from the thigh bone of fossil. Here is a link. It claims a 99.5% genetic similarity. How this compares with variations within our own genome, I don’t know.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Here is a really good reconstruction from the Yale Peabody Museum. If he were wearing a hat, you might not think him odd looking, but without a hat, that forehead just says something’s wrong with this guy.
[/QUOTE]
You clearly haven’t spent much time in British pubs… 
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Scroll down to the bottom picture in John’s link…and you’ve got a neandertal Patrick Stewart.
[/QUOTE]
I thought he looked more like a hung-over Curly from the 3 Stooges.
This thread got me thinking: What if H. sapiens & H. Neanderthalensis existed side-by-side today? In particular, civil rights might be quite different.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Here is a really good reconstruction from the Yale Peabody Museum. If he were wearing a hat, you might not think him odd looking, but without a hat, that forehead just says something’s wrong with this guy.
[/QUOTE]
I’d think he was British. Seriously.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
Nor did they! Note how the “final” reconstruction slopes far, FAR more drastically, with a nearly unbroken line from the top of the brow ridges to the crown, than does the skull! It looks to me–and I’m trying to put away my pro-Neanderthal prejudices, John–like they are ignoring the original skull in order to give the appearance of “otherness.”
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t link to a Discovery Channel picture, so I’m not sure which picture you’re referring to. Was there one in the Yahoo link that I gave that you’re thinking about?
solkoe: You usually see that extant humans are all 99.9% genetically identical. But you have to be a careful of reading too much into that number, since all genes aren’t created equal. Needless to say, we are quite close, genetically, to Neanderthals, and that should be no surprise.
No, the Peabody one YOU linked to and referred to the forehead of in Post 11, John. Trying to backpeddle, are you? 
[QUOTE=BwanaBob]
I thought he looked more like a hung-over Curly from the 3 Stooges.
[/QUOTE]
I was going to suggest Pete Townshend.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
No, the Peabody one YOU linked to and referred to the forehead of in Post 11, John. Trying to backpeddle, are you?
[/QUOTE]
What, he’s taking back stuff he already sold?
[QUOTE=dropzone]
No, the Peabody one YOU linked to and referred to the forehead of in Post 11, John. Trying to backpeddle, are you?
[/QUOTE]
No. I meant what I said about those shows like “Walking with Cavemen”-- modern actors made up to look like Neanderthals. The Peabody specimen is a reconstruction from an actual Neanderthal skull. That is the way most of them would have looked. The science of reconstructing facial and cranial features from skulls is pretty good these days, so I don’t see any reason to suspect that they exagerated the “otherness”. The finshed product is more in pofile than the skull, so I think seeing it from a slightly different angle is what’s causing the confusion.
Well, one thing that’s debateable is that all these neadertals are reconstructed as white guys. However, there’s no good reason to suspect their hair, skin and other facial features resembled current european populations. There’s no reason they couldn’t have epicanthic folds or woolly hair, or other traits that simply don’t exist in modern humans, although they probably had light skin like modern Europeans.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Well, one thing that’s debateable is that all these neadertals are reconstructed as white guys. However, there’s no good reason to suspect their hair, skin and other facial features resembled current european populations. There’s no reason they couldn’t have epicanthic folds or woolly hair, or other traits that simply don’t exist in modern humans, although they probably had light skin like modern Europeans.
[/QUOTE]
True, but changing any those things wouldn’t make him any more or less noticeable in a big city today. And if he was excessively hairy, you could just give him a good shave.
The real question is… would he behave in a way that made him unremarkable.
The Archaeology magazine article cited scientists who are looking at Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA. They say it shows no signs of Sapiens/Neanderthal interbreeding. No matter how alike the DNA we’re not them.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Here is a really good reconstruction from the Yale Peabody Museum. If he were wearing a hat, you might not think him odd looking, but without a hat, that forehead just says something’s wrong with this guy.
[/QUOTE]
Either that or “Let’s use biscuits and do some assemble-y.” He looks just like Norm Abrams.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Here is a really good reconstruction from the Yale Peabody Museum. If he were wearing a hat, you might not think him odd looking, but without a hat, that forehead just says something’s wrong with this guy.
[/QUOTE]
You mean like Elvira and Jenny Lee Snow also known as Zip and Pip the pinheads?
Interestingly enough, the guy who is the bigest proponent of the Multiregional Hypothesis of human evolution, Milford Wolpoff, looks quite a bit like a Neanderthal himself. 