You are here

The face of a Neanderthal woman

National Geographic currently has a feature on Neanderthals, a human species that flourished from 175,000 – 27,000 years before present in mostly Europe and to some extent the Middle East.  The feature centers on a fossil reconstruction of a Neanderthal woman.  Many bony parts, including the skull, come from those of an actual Neanderthal female, and feminized versions of bone remains of a Neanderthal male were used to complete the skeleton.  Muscles were added in accordance with the markings on the bones indicating points of attachment of muscles and the size of muscles.  The pigmentation is the best guess of the reconstruction team.  Genetic analyses have revealed that some Neanderthals had pale skin and red hair.

The face of the Neanderthal woman doesn’t look feminine (Fig 1) when she is contrasted with modern European women.

a Neanderthal woman, front view a Neanderthal woman, side view a Neanderthal woman with modern human males, Adrie and Alfons Kennis a Neanderthal woman hunter

Fig 1. Pictures of the reconstruction of a Neanderthal female by Adrie and Alfons Kennis (the brothers are shown; see details in National Geographic).  She had a face larger than that of modern human males.  The Neanderthals were shorter than modern Europeans.

Fig 2 shows two examples of male Neanderthals reconstructed from fossils by a different team, showing that the Neanderthal woman is indeed feminine compared to Neanderthal men.

a Neanderthal man a Neanderthal man

Fig 2. Two reconstructions of male Neanderthals by G. J. Sawyer and Viktor Deak.  Taken from The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans; this book has lots of excellent fossil reconstructions that are worth a look.

Just as there is tremendous diversity among modern humans, Neanderthals had diverse looks also.  Hence, there is a problem with forming a mental picture of how Neanderthals looked in general from a single fossil reconstruction, but one is limited by good fossil specimens and the availability of a team that is willing to undertake the painstaking task of reconstructing from bony remains how a flesh-and-blood version of the person would have looked like.  Nevertheless, some average differences can be noted.

One difference between the Neanderthals and humans of today involves the amount of bone deposited in the face.  The Neanderthals were much more robustly built.  In comparison with the Neanderthal woman, the modern human female shown below (Fig 3) looks feminine and clearly female even though she is somewhat masculinized among women of her ethnic background.  So we are looking at a drastic contrast showing how finer facial features can make faces look more feminine even though they are not feminine (among females) or more feminine.

Homo sapiens female Homo sapiens female Homo sapiens female

Fig 3. Non-feminine human female (from Met Art), 30,000 years after the extinction of the Neanderthals .

I can’t judge how feminine the Neanderthal woman shown here was among her co-ethnics, but she could easily be more feminine within her ethnicity than the modern human woman shown is among her co-ethnics.  A comparison of attractiveness would not be fair because the modern human is in a showered and clean state and with make-up, and the dates of birth are tens of thousands of years apart.  Tens of thousands of years ago, Homo sapiens (the surviving human species) had more robust facial features, but the ones found in Europe around the time both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens co-existed in Europe had finer facial features than the Neanderthals (Fig 4).

Cro-Magnon individuals

Fig 4. A Cro-Magnon brother and sister pair painting in a cave in Spain, about 20,000 years ago.  The image is taken from The Last Human.



Jesus! It's so ugly :O

It looks primitive, fat and repulsive and the way they reconstruct the hair so dishevelled and scruffy and with dirt all over it's face does not help at all. Lucky we don't all look like that nowadays. However, the female neanderthal kind of looks Asian because of it's robust features, wide nose, flattened face and small squinty eyes.

The model was made by a couple of Dutch artists who said they wanted to make something that will make people go "that looks like our aunt ", it is deliberately deceptive in my opinion. Here is the typical Neanderthal skull: the Old Man of Chapell Aux Saints
The reconstruction shown here is fairly accurate in my opinion
Neanderthals had scapulas that made them unable to throw spears but it is holding a long spear.
Neandethals had virtually no chin and according to this site women have less well developed chins but she has an extreme amount of chin compared to the men.
Neanderthals had retreating foreheads and long flat topped skulls with a jutting occuput but it doesn't and the head is way too high.
In Neanderthals the cheekbones and maxillary bone on each side formed a process which pushed the whole nasal region forward the nose was extremely projecting compared to real humans, it has none of this beyond what is observable in many living humans.
It has white skin as do the men, there is no evidence for this at all in Neanderthals

The nose is far smaller and she has fine features compared to the men yes, but the evidence is that the Neanderthal females had far less sexual dimorphism. According to NG they acompanied the males on the hunt this would involve grabbing and stabbing while wrestling the prey to the ground, most of the skeletons have broken bones. The Neanderthal men would probably have some thing like this attractive. That is beside the point this looks like a slightly modified modern human female to me a

Roy: You are dismissing a 6-month fossil reconstruction and citing a painting – and of a man – for a more accurate look! Neanderthals spanned a period of 150,000 years. Over this time their faces became more gracile. National Geographic doesn’t give a date for the female skull fossil, but if it is from the later period of the Neanderthals’ existence, then the faces will be closer to us than the earliest Neanderthal skulls. If the Neanderthal woman looks human, it is because she was a human.

Here is a reconstruction of a 150,000-year-old modern human (Homo sapiens; our species; taken from The Last Human). Contrast the features with those of current Europeans. 150,000 years is a long time for change, and the Neanderthals’ faces were changing over the period of their existence.

I don’t see why you are unable to note that the Neanderthal woman has a poorly developed chin, a very receding forehead and a strong brow. Maybe she didn’t have a very prominent nose because she was quite feminine or it could be an example of variation. Need I point the tremendous geographic variation among current humans regarding nose/mid-facial prominence and the variation that has existed among our species for the past 150,000 years? Why would you not expect a great deal of geographic and temporal variation among Neanderthals?

I doubt that the Neanderthals couldn’t chuck spears. If you have a citation, then let me know. And spears are not just for chucking. You can use them to bash or poke prey/enemy from a safe distance.

Here is what the artists said, 4 pages from back of magazine heading "Inside Geographic", "We want to make a character to recognize, maybe you'll see her and say 'That looks like Aunt Mary'". Another article in the current issue headed "Atomic Age" is a useful index of NG's reliability. By my way of thinking the map of known or suspected nuclear powers is less than exaustive.
You're right in pointing out the "woman" does have a heavier browridge and lower skull than I said, that was carelessness on my part. In my defence; why is her hair teased up like that if not to make the skull look less low and retreating? The maxilla and bony part of the nose is nowere near being prominent compared to the extremely late 45,000 to 30,000 years ago Neanderthal female skull from Gibraltar. This skulls mid-face projection is far more than any fully modern human and it is the mark of a completely different species according to the experts. Neanderthals varied with the climate, they were cold adapted and NG admitts they were without any clothing but draped skins, so they were extremely hairy if not furry. The chin is made to look more retreating than it is because of the swollen and pursed lower lip. Certainly its femininity relative to Neanderthal females would have been very great, however I just don't think any Neanderthal female ever looked like that. Interested in a cite for Neandethal women on hunts grabbing and stabbing prey,and they were almost totally meat eating, how about
NG itself says that the females went on hunts.They matured several years earlier than humans, like chimps.

Neanderthal Women Joined Men In The Hunt (New York Times)
"Their skeletons are so robustly built"
Neandertal Scapular Glenoid Morphology
Steven E Churchil , Eric Trinkaus (1990)
(American Journal Of Physical Anthropology)

The fate of the Neanderthals (Nature article by Paul Mellars)
The second page has a reconstruction of a female.

"Climate change 'did not kill Neanderthals'" (Telegraph)
Closer look at the female Neanderthal's face, The European Neanderthals were, if anything, even more odd looking than this which is based on fossils found in Israel. Now you can see how compared to the NG's farrago this model's orbits conform closely to the female Neanderthal skull shown in NG as does the total absence of a forehead and forward placement of the teeth
John Hawks says the explaination for the fate of Neanderthals could be "complicated metapopulation dynamics...In a nutshell a population sink is a region where the average rate of reproduction is below replacement levels. This region can remain populated only if individuals migrate in from other places.The places that reproduce above replacement are called population sources. ...Europe today is a population sink.The population of the contintent does not produce enough children to replace itself... There are several reasons to suggest that Europe may have been a population sink in prehistory as well".
No suggestion that the "migration gains" of prehistory were anything but irrelevant to the Neandethal demise. The NG model looks like a fully modern human European woman if it looks like anything. On another subject (Steve Jones saying evolution is coming to an end partialy because of population mixing) here is Hawks' last paragraph
"There's also an antiquated version of ethnocentrism here; how can we talk about the future of human evolution without considering the intense dynamics in today's developing nations? Relative to Africa and Asia, Europe is now a population sink.

Two state of the art papers (I hope you will find their methods interesting) and my last word on the subject
Facial Ontologeny in Neanderthals and modern humans.

Neanderthal brain size at birth provides insights into the evolution of human life history.

If you look at the photo with the artists you will see it has blue eyes, they had to change this as research contradicted it so digitally altered to it green brown. This is even more of a problem for the 'eye colour as side effect of pale skin' theory because green unlike blue is not linked to white skin. If Neanderthal females looked anything like the NG model there would have been evidence of widespread hybridisation discovered. There hasn't been so they didn't.

Alex :

Probably she is so ugly like you?.............what's a hell are you saying asian girls look like the female neanderthal? Most asian girls probably are lesser pretty than the caucasian girls but they are way feminier than caucasian girls. if you were male? have you ever been sleep with the asian girls? so you say they are robust lol fuckin shit.......most asian girls are way smell nicer and their skin are so smoother and the shape also fragile, have no body hair when compare to the British and the american trolls are so slow in bed, get over yourself.

Note : I know the caucasian girls got prettier facial's feature however, its very quite a fews who look like the girls on this site, for example, the girls from holland, russia, finlandia, latvia and lithunia. the least of caucasians have got the robust shape and manish nasal, all in all you have to accept that every races have beautiful and ugly people.

feminine 30 years old korean girl.

Masculine 31 years old swedish princess.

Another piece of NG nonsense: the Neanderthals had to consume almost double the calories to support their muscle mass which was (extrapolating from the muscle attachments) double that of fully modern humans. Here is an illustration showing this unlikelyhood in a male, without the morbid obesity of HG's model
I have a better solution they were far more powerful because their muscles were weight for weight twice as strong, like chimps. (Vertical jumping performance of bonobos. Scholz)

The Swedish princess is of French ancestry. She's not a good example. Better, and more representative examples of Swedish women:








Asian women:




Nordic women are not at all similar in appearance to the primitive ancestors of man, such as the Neanderthal, whether they are feminine or not, whereas similarities can often be seen today in other races, I think.




Emily, first off some of the pictures you posted on this website represent your point badly. I looked through many and there are many pictures where the woman has a manly jaw or she has what I call the Nordic "pig nose" which seems to be very common. Now its not an extreme pig nose because its not as short or wide as a pig snout but it has a certain robustity to it and its weird and that is the closest I can get to describing it. The best nordic nose is the straight plain nose that is long but not too long and thin. Although for some strange reason I don't see that nose posted anywhere in your pictures, I see mostly "pig noses". Also, those women spend TONS of money on cosmetics, hair dye, etc. The Nordic countries are notorious for breast implants, lip injections, tanning, dying hair, etc. I think some Nordic women are beautiful but making the argument that they are always the best? No. It doesn't work. The pictures of Asian women you posted are so unfair. Honestly, they aren't even wearing makeup. Here is what I think of when I think of Asian women:

Nothing like the retarded pictures you posted. Honestly though get some self-esteem Emily. You gain yours by associating your success in the way you look because you belong to the "nordic" group. Honestly, the only reason you think you look good is because your "nordic" and you have to prove that nordic women are the best looking or then you can't be the best looking. youre dumb. Get a man if you can.

I won't respond to your silly personal attack. Personal attacks is not ever an argument, and non one takes you seriously when you resort to it. I think your..comment..speaks for itself, and so do my pictures that proves the point I was making.

A very interesting, and nice site Erik. Give us a small list of who you consider to be the most attractive women (I know that you have the galleries)

Do you think she is attractive? (link below) Is she more feminine/masculine? (face is what's important to me) Why?

Also, do you know the name of the model that's second from the bottom in the left column?
Is she really that masculine? Why? You make your point with the other models, but I find her very attractive.

For that girl at the top, would that be considered a "feminine" nose. Is this typical of Nordic countries?

Most Swedish women do not have blonde hair 'Emily'

Don't even take Emily seriously. She actually believes the crap she writes. Of course most Swedish women and most Nordic women in general DO NOT have blonde hair. She just lives in a fantasy world. The majority of blonde people live in the Nordic countries, but there are blondes all throughout Europe. In fact I have seen many blondes in Southern and Eastern Europe with lighter blonde hair than some Nordic women. I have traveled to Finland because I have friends there. My neice has platinum blonde hair. She is Hungarian,Polish, and Czech.

I think the Neanderthal lady looks ok. Yes very robust, but her face is balanced and harmonious in the frontal view. She lies within the aesthetic range of northern european women, her type can be found not infrequently in Sweden.Yes her face is outside the metrics of modern europeans but her morphology is often seen within contempory europeans.This reconstruction along with recent genetic research provide robust evidence for continuity in europe from the Neanderthal era to the present.All of us Europeans share deep Neanderthal ancestory.In short the Neanderthals were not replaced ,they(we) were absorbed. Ask yourself this,if you saw this lady on the street what race would you assign her to; Asian ,African,or European.

"emily" might as well be a 300 pound guy with porky pink skin and piggy nose and penus too small (most nordics have small ones)
oh and colorless eyebrows/eyelashes LOL
this website is totally retarded...
in the next 20 or 30 yrs people will mix so much ,that were all gonna be well on our way to becoming only one race , and its gonna be AWESOME :D
*I just wish we dont all get that piggie pink skin*

"...whereas similarities can often be seen today in other races, I think"

Yep negros :-) A lot of black people look like they are around 5 centuries behind in catching up to modern man. The evidence is there:-
Facial features
The hair
The long orangutan arms
Hopping while walking
Shouting instead of talking
Countless children
Double parking and holding up traffic
No regard for human life
Love of chicken
Love of watermelon
and many more.

I am NOT a racist but the above facts makes you think that I do have a point. Obviously not all are like that but the majority of them are. Thank god they have the power of speech otherwise we humans may have thrown them in the cage at the zoo along with the apes and the chimps!


"I am NOT a racist"

In that case Hitler wasn't a racist either, neither was KKK and other murderers that existed in history.

You're not a racist, just a MONSTER and I wonder why you even exist.

BTW I am not african, I am only too ashamed to admit I am a married white woman, I just have a more broader, informed and educated outlook than you do.

It's just strange how bigoted people can be and still consider themselves not racists.
I work as a promotional model (yes I am a model) and I was signing some local people as members for a Hospital Foundation trust and raising awareness for social issues in that area.

Some of the people (and they were white) wouldn't fill in the box that said race, black, asian, mixed. They said they do not believe in Race and never fill that box even for job applications.

I guess it goes to show that not everyone thinks the way Jake the racist thinks.


LMAO Jake! Wow!

Hopping while walking?

They like chicken?

WHAT THE FUCK! Are you a joke? This is fucking hilarious! Those are your reasons as to why Africans are primitive? Go learn something if you are actually going to claim Africans are primitive and practically sub-human. You sound like an idiot.

You are always going to sound like an idiot, but at least try to sound like an educated idiot. Like Emily.

"I wonder why you even exist"

I would never wish for Jake's non-existance whoever he is. I'm sure he is valuable person, just as every person is. I make fun of him but who knows why Jake is the way he is. He may have been conditioned to think this way. He might have insecurities. He might really just think that black people are primitive.

Either way he deserves to exist. What makes me sad is the fact that he is blind to bigger picture. He is in his own little bubble in his own little world, nice and safe but the world isn't nice and safe.

Voice of Reason

"...BTW I am not african"
OK, so you are a snow bunny. I understand now :-) Is animal sex legal in your state?

"...I am only too ashamed to admit I am a married white woman"
You don't need to be ashamed that you are married to a as most of them don't usually marry their biatches and just use them as trash. You lucky bunny chaser!

Voice of Reason

"...I work as a promotional model (yes I am a model)"
Ohhh, lol. Now I truly understand why you got all uptight about it. Yep model, yea sure... cough ... they all say they are models. Now I know where I saw you "model", it was on the snow bunny blog. Hmmm.

godis, it is no point arguing with you as you are a high entity and I could never compete with you, your godness but with the snow bunny I can go chin to chin.

It amazes me seeing the odd few deny something when it is a fact. All my points in the other posts can be proven/seen by anyone. OK, I admit it, I do have some black friends too but I see them more as pets as they behave like it. Actually I have 10 good black friends...
1. Tyrone - Mugger - Nice guy but watch your valuables
2. Winston - Mugger - OK guy but watch your pockets
3. Desmond - Granny rapist - Watch your ass with this one!
4. Trevor - Jamaican druggie with a gun in his jacket
5. Devon - Loves to stab strangers, mainly teens
6. Jermaine - Raped his sister, mugged many whites, uses drugs
7. Leroy - Mugging champion
8. Rufus - Mugger, fraudster, thief
9 Tyrone (2) - Mugger
10. Desmonde - Mugger, car jacker

All have been to prison, all have stolen, all have used drugs and all are black. Sad to say my buddies (pets) are bad but I do care for them. Anywhere in the world you can say any of these 3 words and people think the same thing:-
1. Pepsi - Nice refreshing cold fizzy cola drink
2. Pussy - Cat (Pull that tongue back in!)
2. Mugger - Black "person" but more thought of as a "Ni--er" or "N-gN-g" or "Go--iW-g"

Huh? And yes they do hop when they walk. Where do you think the word bunny comes from as in "Jun--e B-nn-"?

90% of crime in America is committed by our black brothas. Drugs, knives, guns etc. are all a big problem in the good ol' USA due to you know who. And all the decent folk are sick and tired of it. In all the years 7 of my black friends/pets were shot dead by you guessed it... brothas!

Well Jake you do have some good reasons there but you should still not talk about them as it is a known hush hush thing. I don't agree with everything you say but there is nothing anyone can do about these situations so just let it be and be on your way.

"90% of crime in America is committed by our black brothas. Drugs, knives, guns etc. are all a big problem in the good ol' USA due to you know who. And all the decent folk are sick and tired of it. In all the years 7 of my black friends/pets were shot dead by you guessed it... brothas!"

You are an idiot.

This one statistic proves you wrong. You are truly a mouth-breathing moron. How do people like you even breathe on your own?

Rawr you are a very bad person. You should say that they are wrong and not insult them. I think he is wrong but I will not go so low and insult people. May god bless your house and may your phudi be used by many and there will be happiness all around. Thank you for your time sir. Greetings.

"Rawr you are a very bad person. You should say that they are wrong and not insult them. I think he is wrong but I will not go so low and insult people."

You broke your own rule.

It was only a matter of time before this site reeled in unbashed racist slime like Jake. Atleast Emily had the gall to only talk about issues relating to mental differences when she was driven over the edge, but a worthless cretin like Jake does it outright.

Also, Rawr, you might be right of how it's wrong of me to consider different forms of racial supremacy as so inherently worse than others, but I don't appreciate being called a racist because of that. You should know by now, with how I've argued, that I am not one.

"Also, Rawr, you might be right of how it's wrong of me to consider different forms of racial supremacy as so inherently worse than others, but I don't appreciate being called a racist because of that"

And you should know by now I don't care what you appreciate. If you say something stupid you will be told about it.

"You should know by now, with how I've argued, that I am not one."

I don't know you.

thunks peeple for stiking up for us as we seam to always get the bad end of stik. my mama always say it not the colar that matter but the heart so i listun to her and beleive this is true if evryone pleese think like her it be a good wurld thunk you

I think it's safe to say Jake is a joke, or he's extremely disturbed and is looking for attention-that he's getting too much of.

Perhaps if people stopped respnding to this idiocy, he might stop writing it. Justifying his remarks with anything....particularly the heated responses he's hoping for-and getting, is perpetuating his behavior.

If it doesn't warrant his immaturity, it might go away. One can hope.

I see nothing wrong with what Jake is saying. Blacks do look and behave primitive on average. People who claim to be broad minded are the ones who are very ignorant of simple facts. Or maybe some of these these educated farts (I have an MSc in Engineering BTW) are above living in reality. There is no reason why primitive humanoids would not survive till today.
I am not a White guy but Jake is only stating what I had suspected all along, that black Africans are the left-overs of some unevolved primitive humanoids.


I am not very educated and recently I have truly realized that logic is not my strong point(and I was in complete denial about this before and convinced myself I actually am a very logical person). However, it is my opinion that we cannot label any human being as "primitive" until we can prove that they are primitive. In terms of the way people look, we can prove that someone has more ancestral or "primitive" characterisitics by comparing them to our earlier not-quite-human-yet ancestors. However, even in terms of physical characteristics it is hard to actually "prove" those characteristics are primitive because you are basing your proof on two assumptions:

1) That the theory of evolution is fact in every sense. This means that our ideas about evolution up until now are 100% correct and provable? Not sure what the standards of "fact" are, but I'm sure they are high.

2)That the seemingly ancestral qualities are purely primitive in themselves and not the result of hormone levels or any other factors

However, although things are not always provable, sometimes we humans just "know" that they are so. In all honesty, many times these things are obvious to us. I call this "intuition"? and its what I personally seem to rely on, since I struggle with logic. So let's say your "intuition" is 100% correct, and just by looking at someone you can tell they are primitive. You cannot make the assumption that someone is primitive overall based on qualities like behavior. It will be 10X harder to get the right idea of why someone is the way they are based simply on more complex abstract qualities, like behavior, personality in general, intelligence, etc. Basing this on intuition, just won't do. These are all extremely complex things. Even today there is debate about what percentage of personality is genetic, and often any science on this is tainted with personal agendas and bias. We don't even understand the brain 100% so how can we prove that lower intelligence is based on being more "primitive"? There are too many other factors to consider. What affects intelligence? How much is based on nature? How much on nurture?

We don't have all these answers! Some of you may be reading this and saying, "Godis, we DO NOT NEED to have all the answers to come to a logical conclusion about these things. We can figure it out from the pieces we have. We can make the connections from what we do have. We can OBSERVE."

Yes, but there are too many missing pieces. The theory of evolution is still evolving itself. Observing more primitive animals, like chimps, and comparing them to us won't work either. Because making that connection is not strong enough. When it comes to classifying human beings and placing them on a scale of more human to less human we need MORE. These are human beings we are talking about! I think we can all agree that even the most "primitive" humans are still humans.

Another point I would like to make is: Is more evolved and less primitive really better? Especially in terms of humans. Humans are so much more complex!

Let's take into consideration birds. There is a type of bird called Crow, and they are pure black. Well, let's pretend that a small group of baby crows got abandoned by their mother because she was eaten by a predator. One of the baby crows is mutated, and instead of being black, it is light gray.

Now these crows live in an area with many big light gray boulders and rocks. A predator comes and spots the obvious black baby crows and eats them. But he doesn't eat the gray one, because the nest is on a gray rock, and the gray crow was camoflauged very well. Because the gray crow survives, it is able to find a mate and pass on its genes. Now there are crows that carry the mutated gene, and when two mutated crows mate, the gene now is expressed among the offspring (I am assuming this gene is recessive). These light gray crows thrive in the rocky area, because they camoflauge so well. These crows are more "evolved" than their ancestors, the primtive original black crows.

However, in what ways are these light gray crows BETTER than the black crows? The only difference is the color of the crow. The mutation has not affected intelligence, behavior, etc. Therefore, they are only better in terms of color because their color enables them to survive better, remember that everything(evolution specifically) is driven by SURVIVAL both the survival of the individual(crow, human, whatever) and the survival of the GENES through offspring. However, remember that their color only enables them to survive better in their specific environment. Therefore, the light crows are only superior in their environment. If a little light crow were to wander in the woody areas, where it is dark, it would not survive. In the dark woody area, the original black crows are superior, because they camoflauge with the darkness. Therefore, both crows are only superior in their specific environment. In life many people try to see things black and white. There is no black and white. There is no good and bad. What is, just is. Almost everything is subjective. Let nature be the first to demonstrate this to you.

Now, humans ARE more complex and their mutated genes have affected every aspect of them from coloring, to bone strucutre, to behavior, to intelligence. Can we really identify which race of human beings has the best combination of these genes to make them over all superior? Can we really label any of these mutations superior since many times they are most successful in a specific environment just like for example: the light crow gene was superior in the rocky environment while the black in the woods.

I would assume the most important mutations would be those that have contributed to higher intelligence, because intelligence and creativity is what puts us at the top of the food chain and is the single most important contributor to the success and survival of the human species. Certainly, the race of humans that has the best "intelligence" genes is probably the most superior.

To understand which mutations are linked to higher intelligence, we first must have a complete understanding of intelligence itself. Have the FINER features of Northern Europeans for example contributed to their intelligence? I ask this because many on this board believe that finer features are superior because they are more attractive and universally attractive. Do finer features create more room for a bigger skull in comparison to the face... which leaves more room for a bigger brain, which contributes to higher intelligence? But are big brains linked to higher intelligence?

From the evidence Erik has mounted up, it seems to me that finer features are selected for, but for what specific reason? What advantage do fine features provide human beings in terms of survival? One thing that intrigues me is why these features are universally attractive? I ask this because we have evolved to find fine features more attractive. Evolution has shaped us this way, because those that originally found fine features attractive were able to pass on their genes, and those who found more robust features attractive, were not. Therefore,almost all the offspring of modern humans(or so Erik's evidence tells us), are wired to find finer features attractive, because it is in their genes. It is amazing that this preference for fine features is universal, this means that we have preferred fine features from the very beginning.

And you know what, I'm going to stop there because I am very busy. If I let this go on, it will go into the direction of Neaderthals and points they are not inferior on. For example, many scientists believe that Neadnerthals had better brains than us, and were just overall A LOT more intelligent, just not a tad bit more intelligent. Interesting, because Neanderthals were for so long viewed as more primitive(which they were) and more inferior(which supposedly they were not in terms of intelligence at least) to us.

This is also going to go into the direction of aliens (which many believe evolved here on Earth, hence why they have similarities to us, at least the ones in pop culture) coming down to Earth and helping us evolve to multi-verses and how evolution isn't always right and for the better, and how certain qualities evolution has created in us can be hindering our future evolution, and how there is the possiblity of every possibility being played out in multi-verses. Of course that goes into more of MY personal speculation, that in some cases I have come up with now, in a matter of minutes. That also goes into philosiphy and quantum physics. These are ALL subjects I know little about, and what I do know about them I use for my speculation, which isn't very logically driven. Therefore, I'm going to stop, but maybe I'll go on later.

The point is Salman, there is a lot you are not seeing here. In addition, you may be viewing things from a right and wrong perspective. I struggle a lot with my philosiphies and my biggest struggle is morality and what makes something right vs. wrong, what makes something good vs. bad. I'm starting to see, and in all honesty I hate this, that everything truly is subjective in terms of positive and negative, and sometimes negative can be positive and visa versa. Oh the complexity!

And for your information Salman, when you refer to Africans you have to be more specific. Consider that there are Northern Africans and Southern Africans. Some are Caucasoid and some are not. For example, Subsaharan Africans are not Caucasoid. Northern Africans, however, like the Egyptians or the Moroccons or Iberians, for example are caucasoid. Now, by no means are they WHITE, the way we ignorantly view "Caucasian". However, they are still caucasian and probably more so than you, despite the fact they are "Africans"


I wrote the above. And I am sorry, I was starting to go in a million directions. I am 100% sure I have ADD, whatever ADD is, I have all the symptoms badly. I have trouble concentrating on any area. My mind wanders into a million directions and it becomes extremely hard for me to organize my thoughts coherently after a while. This is one reason, I assume, I struggle with logic.

I'd also like to add, that all you people, need to get out of the forest, climb the mountain, and look at ALL the trees, not just one or two. In other words, LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE!!!!

How is EVERYTHING connected?

Oh and I just have to adress this:

"People who claim to be broad minded are the ones who are very ignorant of simple facts"

People who are "broad/open minded" are not ignorant of the facts. People who TRULY are open minded invidividuals, where open minded is defined properly, are individuals who see things from multiple perspectives aka they see the "BIG PICTURE". People who are open minded are more creative and innovative because they can see things from different perspective. That is what makes them OPEN MINDED. Not everyone on Earth is a LINEAR thinker, because we do not live in a LINEAR world, where everything falls on a LINEAR spectrum.

Open minded does not mean you accept everything hence the "open" part. Open minded does not mean that you don't have a brain. Yes, open minded people are more receptive to new ideas because they have the ability to see things from a different and many perspectives. Just because you are receptive to many ideas, does not mean you accept all these ideas.

You actually contradicted yourself. If you truly knew what "open-minded" meant you would understand that you are actually claiming that closed minded people should be more open minded, not that open minded people should be more close minded. Although you believe you were explaining the later.

Firstly, the theory of evolution cannot be a fact. If it was a fact it would not be labeled a theory. It is widely accepted but it has not been entirely proved.

Secondly, why do we keep using the word "primitive" in such a demeaning fashion?

"Firstly, the theory of evolution cannot be a fact. If it was a fact it would not be labeled a theory"

I know that. That was my point. Evolution is not fact, it is theory.

However, what happens when theories become facts? Has that ever happened?

Of course theories have been proven. We just call them facts.

"Firstly, the theory of evolution cannot be a fact. If it was a fact it would not be labeled a theory:

"Of coursetheories have been proven. We just call them facts."

Yes. All I wanted to say was that the THEORY of evolution would have to be proven as fact to be fact. Simple as that. The theory of evolution cannot be fact, but the theory of evolution can be proven and turn into fact.

I don't remember addressing you regarding any of what you said. You might be confused.

Wow, this kind of scares me.

They are prediciting a date when WHITES WILL BECOME A MINORITY!!!

I am sorry I am not trying to be anything like Emily, but I do not want whites to become a minority EVER! That's scary to me.

I still feel we should retain all the races. I'm not against race mixing, but I don't think it should be done soo extensivley it should completely dilute the different races. I think we need to keep a balance. I don't know what I'm saying, I don't know enough about evolution to know what would be most advantageous for the human race. However, it makes me sad to think whites will be a minority. Really really sad.

Start having more kids white people. haha

"I still feel we should retain all the races. I'm not against race mixing, but I don't think it should be done soo extensivley it should completely dilute the different races. I think we need to keep a balance. I don't know what I'm saying, I don't know enough about evolution to know what would be most advantageous for the human race. However, it makes me sad to think whites will be a minority. Really really sad."

Yep, you don't know what you are saying at all. Most whites are not race mixing, they just aren't reproducing. As a society grows in affluence it normally declines in population. There turn out to be other forms of recreation beyond sex and one doesn't need dozens of kids because it is more likely your offspring will make it past 15. Therefore people have less children. The only reason I can see you having some kind of problem with population dynamics as they stand is if you think there is something inherently better about whites and you feel there should be more whites than other races because of that. Race mixing, though accepted in western society is not as widely practiced as you seem to think. Furthermore Whites as a minority is a HYPOTHESIS. It was first slated to happen in 2011. Notice they just keep pushing it back? Fear mongering racial politics at it's worst and you bought it.

"Fear mongering racial politics".

That basically sums up what the gutter press tends to print, any sensationalist news item aimed at spreading prejudice and bigotry is lapped up instantly by the masses.

I know this is not related to England but if you check the REAL CENSUS RESULTS in England, whites account for 92% of the total population and minorities only form 8%. These are the home office figures but according to the tabloids like Sun and Daily mirror, they make it sound like the minorities are the majority now despite only being 8%.
It's only the gullible who fall for such news, news is biased, some are very heavily biased and others to a lesser degree, no news is ever really unbiased.

Jesus! Your comments are so ugly. Primitive, racist and repulsive!

honestly. give me the neanderthal any day. I think she's beautiful.

Looks like my Aunt Jenny.

Having read these comments(on a random info search) I have become both shocked and dismayed by the general level of ignorance among all "races" who have engaged in the petty fighting above.
The whole concept of racial difference being bandied about in the above text is dated and owes it's roots to 1920's era elitism, the difference in genetic make-up between the peoples of the world is minimal to say the least, where as the culture and climactic difference's between us is primarily responsible for what we see as race difference.
The historic power and influance of european culture lies behind the "universally accepted notion of beauty" if, as an example, the Chinese Han people of the 1300,who at the time were the most tecnoligicly advanced culture on the planet, had they expanded beyond their borders and influanced the rest of the world we very well might be of a mind to think that the gracial faces of Aisia the most beautiful.
It is a lie that we as a planet will eventuly breed ourselves into a homogony of one "racial" type, the genetic background is too deep for this to happen, it is mere rasict scare mongering.
As seen from the model above our speices has been adapting and changing for millions of years there have been winners and losers, at one stage up to 7 yes seven types of homonid were alive and well at one time.
Equaliy just because this version of homonid, Homo Sapian Sapian is the last survivor does not automatecly make it the best,only and just only the latest.
It would be worth remembering that you are in a sense Homo domesticus as the vast majority of us could not now survive with out controling the enviroment around us (heated houses,electricity, farming etc) all the knowlage used to create the enviroment in which we now live is in print and bits and bites not in your head, vis a vis you would die out there in the wild of cold or hunger or pride.
I am greatly saddend to hear comments re. racial superiority when in the end with all this power,educatin(often free) and domesticty we as a species in the western world can't manage to produce well educated reasoning people who can see past our superficial differences to embrace our unique cultural selves and celebrate the diversity of this beautiful ape Homo Sapian Sapian.
yours in hope and love Dr. Searbratach McUaide

Hello, Dr.,

I haven't visited this site in over a year and also found it randomly through a search. I tried arguing with some of these people on other threads, but it is pointless. Some of them choose their own ignorance. Others just aren't educated enough to be able to know when they str being misled or how to reply with sufficient facts.

The site is full of misinformation involving the misunderstanding of an outdated view of genetics coming mostly from eugenics. Among the uneducated you'll often hear things like, "evolution is just a theory," because they don't know the difference between theory and hypothesis and how much evidence is required before something even becomes a theory. They are the same type of arguments you'll hear from young earth creationists.

I just dropped by because I was curious about whether this disaster was still around. The last time I visited spam bots were pretty ubiquitous. Disappointed to see the site is still up and people are still buying it.

I sometimes feel like I should go on here and post facts in the hope that it will reach at least a couple of people. Even a simple snopes search disproves the whole "blondes will be extinct" nonsense that seems to reappear every few years. There really is no point though here. The best thing to do is vote for people who support better education I suppose.

I'm no anthropologist, but as far as I've read, and in the Bio Anth class that I took, Neanderthals had genes for red hair and fair skin. As far as the lack of sexual dimorphism, I think that's up for debate. As with many early species of Homosapiens, the sex of a specimen is often unknown. It certainly could account for some of the wide morphological variation in Neanderthals, if there was a wide sexual diffference that is simply not recognized as such in Neanderthals.

Yes, I understand. What a disappointment! And you thought she should look like Raquel Welch. Tsk Tsk... Hmmm... I wonder why she looks primitive? Maybe because she IS PRIMITIVE? Personally, I think she looks kinda attractive, and I bet she can whip your butt (ha ha)...

The laugh is on you. In April this year it was proven that all European and Asian and South Pacific/Australian gene pools have Neanderthal DNA. Only the African gene pool does not. Now that's a reversal for you

I live in europe and never have seen a white women look closely to the feminine women on this site. even among the dutch or german. most of them (only the women) are just as big or fat as the american women, robust brow ridge, uneven eyes and big nose especially the mediterranean women. the only feminine-looking white european are white european from slavic origins and some scandinavian with saami blood. for example, latvian lithinian, estonian etc.
I know many of the glamour models from this site are either northern scandinavian or russian women. technically those have some asiatic blood so they have up-turned nose, weak jaw and high cheekbones - I have never seen women with such a look in western europe that much. the ones who look like women on this site are always say they come from poland or russia or scandinavian women who have finn origin. by the way I got a lot of friends who are 100 percent western european like dutch, german or british and they are all can tell the difference between their people and the slav or baltic people and they don't find those women to be attractive at dutch girl I know is almost tall 187 cm. she tried to act and look like angelina joli. she would get angry if the foreigner like me mistaken those girls ( baltic girls) in netherlands as dutch people. she finds them unattractive and look stupid eventhough they can speak fluent dutch. she said she can tell the difference. the baltic and scandinavian women have smaller child like upturn nose and boarder face. the western european women have long big nosril, boney small face, and more masculine in shape which she finds it is attractive and those traits to her are a symbols of what white women should have.

Hi, bendaria

then what is the point in asians going through rhinoplasty when they already have noses that are "equal" to those of nordic people? I cannot imagine a scenario where an asian girl dreams of making a rhinoplasty because she hates her "nordic like" nose and wants a western european "masculine" nose.

As for your picture to picture comparison. What could we take from it when you bring us many photos of a european female showing her many angles giving us the possiblity for better analysing her nose and at the same you only bring us a single picture of asian girl showing a single angle and besides, suspect of nose surgery as any asian model must be.

it's not so elementary as you pose

besides, why don't stick to only one nick name instead of multiple pseudo names that you use in order to pass the impression that many people share the same wrong and laughable ideas with you?

Click here to post a new comment