if homo sapiens not the only sentient hominid

[EvolvedSaurian]

Oh yeah. Peking man was the one that was lost.

 

[DMA]

I guess weapons technology and religion don't require cognative skills....the Neandertals had plenty of developments in those areas.

But H. sapiens didn't stop developing better weapons where Neanderthals got to a certain level, which satisfied their needs, & stopped. We, on the other hand, have got as far as thermonuclear weapons launched by ICBMs.

(true, it wasn't very rapid change...but then again, homo sapiens also didn't change much or quickly for much of their history)

H. sapiens didn't need to change overly much as we developed various technologies to to make the changes for us. Neanderthal never did. But, as I was hinting at previously, H sapiens major abilty over everything else, was (& has always been even today) our ability to organise our society(s) at a mass level. And in doing so we deligate responsibilities to various individuals within the community.

In other words you've got Neanderthals or H. erectus in a family unit of say 12 people capable of probably only being able to do 2 things at once as a whole group - ie hunting & raising the young. H sapiens meanwhile, with a group of 50, are doing 6 or more things all at once acting as a complete team - hunting, gathering, tool & weapon making, raising their young, exploring, educating, etc, & are simply far more efficent & are thusly more competitive as a whole. This gives H. sapiens a long term strategic advantage & so their chances of survival are hence greater.

 

[Veneer]

I don't know where the dolphin and false killer whale are in relation to each other. So they produce off spring that are fertile with other dolphins? But wait, a quick check of Wikipedia shows that the beast is a (Pseudorca crassidens) or a large member of the Oceanic Dolphin family. So of course they can interbreed, they're the same species.

The Amazon River Tucuxi (Sotalia fluviatilis) and the orca (Orcinus orca), must by this logic constitute one species as well, since both are members of the family Delphinidae. So, for that matter, would human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) and Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Folklore * notwithstanding, I'm sure we can agree that this is not true.

In actuality, a "wholphin" results from the coupling of a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens).

* - Possibly apocryphal: Amongst certain remote tribes of Indonesia there exists the belief that the orangutan - "man of the forest" in Malay - is really human, but remains speechless in order to avoid payment of taxes.

 

[reddie]

I guess weapons technology and religion don't require cognative skills....the Neandertals had plenty of developments in those areas.

(true, it wasn't very rapid change...but then again, homo sapiens also didn't change much or quickly for much of their history)



see above.

Yes--homo sapiens just sort of "piddled along" from 150000-35000 or so BC, when the so-called "cultural revolution" (not to be confused with Mao's) occurred. This strange "great leap forward" led to all sorts of technological and even conceptual innovations, such as cave art. There is evidence that it wasn't only Homo sapiens undergoing these cultural changes--the neanderthals were, too. Still, adopting a more advanced tech didn't save the Neanderthals, whose population was in deep decline by this point.

Where the hell did the "cultural rev" come from? Is this about the time the "Ethicals" from Riverworld dropped a few wathan generators on the planet, or something?

 

[DMA]

Yes--homo sapiens just sort of "piddled along" from 150000-35000 or so BC, when the so-called "cultural revolution" (not to be confused with Mao's) occurred. This strange "great leap forward" led to all sorts of technological and even conceptual innovations, such as cave art. There is evidence that it wasn't only Homo sapiens undergoing these cultural changes--the neanderthals were, too. Still, adopting a more advanced tech didn't save the Neanderthals, whose population was in deep decline by this point.

Where the hell did the "cultural rev" come from? Is this about the time the "Ethicals" from Riverworld dropped a few wathan generators on the planet, or something?

I'll say two things both interlated (rather ironic considering what I'm about to say )

1) Neanderthals didn't die out. Rather they were bred out by H. sapiens.

2) By mixing Neanderthals & H. sapiens we get a hybrid Human develop in Europe, which then spreads out from there, from about 30 000 BC, & covers much of the world except for Australia & much of Africa.

Now I know there's no or little DNA evidence suggesting this hybrid theory. Nevertheless, there's much archeological evidence to support it (hybrid 1st generation baby remains etc). And this is despite the fact that DNA evidence proves that H. sapiens were originally black, whilst Neanderthals were white...

 

[Kidblast]

I'll say two things both interlated (rather ironic considering what I'm about to say )

1) Neanderthals didn't die out. Rather they were bred out by H. sapiens.

2) By mixing Neanderthals & H. sapiens we get a hybrid Human develop in Europe, which then spreads out from there, from about 30 000 BC, & covers much of the world except for Australia & much of Africa.

Now I know there's no or little DNA evidence suggesting this hybrid theory. Nevertheless, there's much archeological evidence to support it (hybrid 1st generation baby remains etc). And this is despite the fact that DNA evidence proves that H. sapiens were originally black, whilst Neanderthals were white...

So Caucasians are Neanderthals? Interesting to say the least...

 

[DMA]

So Caucasians are Neanderthals? Interesting to say the least...

Well not completely Neanderthal, but sometimes one has to wonder...

 

[Dave Howery]

I have real doubts about the neanderthal/human interbreeding. They may have, but the children may have been sterile, like mules. The genetic evidence is overwhelming that humans are all virtually identical genetically, more than any other species around, except for cheetahs. The billions of humans on the earth have less genetic variation than the few thousand chimpanzees in Africa do. There's really nothing to indicate the presence of any alien genes. The only race with any real variation from the rest of us is the San, but even they are not that different. It's doubtful the first humans were black, at least as in the modern race. In fact, the Cro-Magnons were thought to be most like the Guanches of the Canary Islands; a tall blonde race, nothing like negroes. IIRC, negroes are one of the newer human races, arising after caucasions and orientals....

 

[DMA]

I have real doubts about the neanderthal/human interbreeding. They may have, but the children may have been sterile, like mules. The genetic evidence is overwhelming that humans are all virtually identical genetically, more than any other species around, except for cheetahs. The billions of humans on the earth have less genetic variation than the few thousand chimpanzees in Africa do. There's really nothing to indicate the presence of any alien genes. The only race with any real variation from the rest of us is the San, but even they are not that different. It's doubtful the first humans were black, at least as in the modern race. In fact, the Cro-Magnons were thought to be most like the Guanches of the Canary Islands; a tall blonde race, nothing like negroes. IIRC, negroes are one of the newer human races, arising after caucasions and orientals....

Well there may not be any hard conclusive evidence, indicating that clear interbreeding took place, but there is a more or less mountain of circumstantial evidence supporting the hybrid theory. But first to the science in question. As you've indicated, all of the human species are more or less identical genetic wise when we start comparing H. sapiens, Neanderthals, Cro- Magnon, & so forth. It could be simply that the testing proceedures have not reached the necessary accuracy yet in separating what could merely be one gene indicating Neanderthal influence in modern day man. Afterall the modern day human genome was only fully mapped a few years ago. It'll probably take a further 50 years before it's even fully understood.

Leaving that aside, though, there is numerous circumstantial pieces of evidence supporting the thoery. First is that Neanderthals were white. DNA evidence supports this. Meanwhile H. sapiens were black. Again DNA evidence supports this.

Secondly, within a few thousand years, from when H. sapiens reached & commenced colonisation of Europe, Neanderthals disappeared. Yet they were doing pretty much ok prior to H. sapiens arrival in Europe.

Thirdly, there's no doubt H. sapiens & Neanderthals conducted trade. In known Neanderthal sites, there are items, such as jewellery, tools, & weapons made by H. sapiens. We know this because Neanderthals tried to produce copies, even though they were different (various studies have indicated that there are particular Neanderthal traits to the work produced).

Forthly, there's the evidence of dead hybrid children. Now maybe they were sterile, & if there was no other evidence suggesting a mixing of the two species, then the odds maybe on your side, but my next point means the odds could very well mean the hybrids were very active little hornbags

Fifthly, linking to the points above, H. sapiens entered Europe with black skin. Some 5 to 10 thousand years later they exited with white skin. At the same time the Neanderthals simply disappeared from existence. Well the only way H. sapiens could get white skin, & so quickly (as evolutionary things go) is if it was changed through breeding.

Sixthly, the physique of H. sapiens prior to their move to Europe was that of a tall, lean athlete (as these things go). Neanderthals were somewhat shorter, but of a stockier build. After H. sapiens tookover Europe, & then moved onwards, not only had they become white, but the physique of individuals could resemble either specie in question. This particular fact is indeed still evident today.

Anyway, there are other points, but they're the main ones. As far as we know, such sudden changes to H sapiens (or any other specie or that matter) can't happen in such a sudden point in time. Accustomed changes, such as darken skin due to tanning, cannot as far as we know, be transfered from parent to offspring as the original gene hasn't been effect through sun burn/tanning. Likewise the reverse - that being getting no sun & thus not getting a tan. Similarly the same can be said for physique other than a poor diet as a child. But again, that is an accustomed change to the individal in question. The genes that determine one's height is again uneffected by diet.

 

[Mark]

Defining a modern species is extremely difficult. We like separate categories, but nature is often a continuum. The ability to interbreed is usually taken as an important component, but there are problems there. And getting those fossils to breed at all is really difficult!

I don't try to keep up with the latest thinking on the taxonomy of Hominidae, but most of the recent papers I've seen argue strongly that Homo sapiens (us) and H. neandertalensis are separate species. Also, very few people now support Wolpoff's multiregional hypothesis (our ancestors from Africa interbred with local hominid populations, giving us the racial differences), given the evidence of an African origin for our species. That some people have heavier eyebrows is simply variation, not some neandertal genetic input.

One thing to keep in mind regarding the intelligence of H. floriensis is that there is more to intelligence (however defined) than absolute brain size or the brain/body ratio. From little reading I've done in this area, there appears to be a minimum brain size to allow the complexity needed for intelligence. However, if the body is large, then you also need a larger brain to control it. Therefore, H. floriensis may have had a good brain/body ratio, but the absolute size could still be too small for our level of intelligence.

 

[DMA]

I don't try to keep up with the latest thinking on the taxonomy of Hominidae, but most of the recent papers I've seen argue strongly that Homo sapiens (us) and H. neandertalensis are separate species.

Well that's the clincher isn't. However, people have been going on about horses, donkeys, & mules, as proof that H. sapiens & Neanderthals couldn't crossbreed. Yet Wolves & their "cousins" the Canine can easily crossbreed & their hybrid offspring can likewise breed with little effort. As a result, if we thus take the Wolf/Dog model, instead of the Horse/Donkey one, as our example of two related breeds crossbreeding, then there's no reason why H. sapiens/Neanderthals couldn't either.

Also, very few people now support Wolpoff's multiregional hypothesis (our ancestors from Africa interbred with local hominid populations, giving us the racial differences), given the evidence of an African origin for our species.

Actually it's an interesting theory - well to me anyway. It does, however, depend upon dates & whether you factor in the Second Great Migration period of humanity (the post 30 000 - 10 000 BC period)

That some people have heavier eyebrows is simply variation, not some neandertal genetic input.

Actually it's more about physique & skin colour than just eyebrows

 

[David bar Elias]

One reason our species is so similar genetically is due to Toba.

Toba was a supervolcano in Indonesia that erupted some 74,000 years ago. The effects of this were catostrophic for us...humanity very nearly went extinct.

A population "bottleneck" occured, and wheras there's evidence to suggest that humanity was much more genetically diverse before the Toba eruption, afterwards, when our population began to recover, our genetic identity was very similar.

Thank you Discovery Channel...

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
Sheep and goats are AFAIK inter-fertile (though not sexually compatible).

Well my family always jokes about us being descandent from neanderthals, shorter legs, barrel chest, body hair- though in the last hundred and fifty years those traits are beeing bred out. I can for instance wear normal pants and do not need custom tailored.

And if the species lived side by side, tribal ties would be more important then special.

 

[Dave Howery]

I would say that humans in Europe became white and stocky due to environment, rather than interbreeding with Neanderthals, for the same reasons Neanderthals became white and stocky. The cloudy climate encourages white skin, and the bitter cold is better suited for stocky builds. It is a matter of parallel evolution. If white humans were really descended from Neanderthals, they should have a massive variation in genetics from the rest of humanity... they don't. In fact, the only race that does have a variance from the others are the San in Africa... and even their variance is minute. Whites, blacks, and asians are so identical genetically that is considered to be insignificant...

 

[DMA]

I would say that humans in Europe became white and stocky due to environment, rather than interbreeding with Neanderthals, for the same reasons Neanderthals became white and stocky. The cloudy climate encourages white skin, and the bitter cold is better suited for stocky builds. It is a matter of parallel evolution. If white humans were really descended from Neanderthals, they should have a massive variation in genetics from the rest of humanity... they don't. In fact, the only race that does have a variance from the others are the San in Africa... and even their variance is minute. Whites, blacks, and asians are so identical genetically that is considered to be insignificant...

Well at the prima facie level this may seem like a good theory. However, what an individual gains, such as tanned skin, through their lifetime doesn't get automatically transfered to their offspring. The only way that can be done is through the parent's genes. Now if the genes don't get modified at some point, any offsping will not have any significant variation from their parents - especially to the extent required for a complete skin colour change &/or physique.

But there's a far more easier way to test your theory rather than comparing abstract arguments. And that is examining nature itself. As such, I'll discuss the experiences of the Australian Aboriginals. They originally came to Australia some 40 000 years ago. DNA testing shows that a full blooded Aboriginal is a direct descendant of the original H. sapiens. It is not surprising, then, that they have black skin.

Now, contrary to popular opinion, Australia isn't a hot dry continent everywhere. Up north (Darwin, Cairns, etc), it would be fair to say that the climate & environment is similar to the land where H. sapiens evolved: in other words Kenya etc. But down south (Melbourne, Hobart, etc) we're talking about warm summers, but cool to cold winters. In fact we'd be talking a climate not too disimilar to say France. Afterall Melbourne isn't known as a "European" city for nothing. Hobart, especially in winter, could even pass for somewhere in southern England. In other words, the conditions in the south-eastern part of Australia is somewhat similar to what you've described above where white skin is encouraged.

Yet this hasn't happened to the local Aboriginals who have lived constantly in the Mebourne region fo around 25 000 years, whilst those in Tasmania have lived there for around 15 000. Considering we know that H. sapiens entered Europe around 35 000BC, & became white by 30 000BC, we're talking a 5 000 year window where dramatic changes took place. Yet the same H. sapiens group in Australia, living in a similar climate & environment as their European cousins, did not change for up to 5 times the amount of years than it took for those in Europe.

However, change did eventually take place for the Aboriginals, but only after their 40 000 year isolation was broken thanks to European contact in the form of the British arriving in 1788 & taking over the place. Inevitably, within a few years of 1788, there was a mixing of the British & Aboriginals leading to offspring. Within a few generations these offspring began to look more & more like the Anglo-Celtics rather than Aboriginals. And, needless to say, this is even more so the case today more than ever.

So, with this is mind, I can't accept the theory that just because a People may live in a certain location, for a few thousand years, your skin &/or physique will change all by itself. However, it can & will change dramatically, within a century (if not within a few decades) if there is cross breeding between similar human species as clearly demonstrated by the experience of the Aboriginal People of Australia.

 

[Gladi]

Oh I read somewhere , that Europoid features appear with increased frequency in small isolated communities. Get few thousand people alone and in several hundred years they will go around with blue eyes...

 

[DMA]

Oh I read somewhere , that Europoid features appear with increased frequency in small isolated communities. Get few thousand people alone and in several hundred years they will go around with blue eyes...

Well the Australian Aboriginals were so isolated for 40 000 years & didn't change. They kept their black skin, black hair, & brown eyes until European contact took place in the form of British colonisation of Australia.

 

[monkey]

We dont know anything about the skin colour or hair paterns of hominids this does not fosilise. We can only guess from the enviroment they lived in and would of adapted to.

Brow ridges were present in homosapiens in Africa both before and after Sapiens spread through Eurasia. All genetic evidence points to all living people being decended from a small group of people 100,000 to 60,000 years ago. Neanderthals are decended from homo hiedebergensis living in europe 500,000 years ago. And DNA extracted from Neanderthal teeth confirms that they are considerably different genetically.

Neandethals have very diferent limb proportins with fore arms and shins shorter than there upper arms and thighs. Longer fingers and shorter thumbs than ours. Analysis of there short and stocky skeletons and there smaller iner ears sugest they were much less adapted to long range walking or runing than ther Homo Ergaster or Hieldebergensis ancestors or Sapien competitors. Instead specialising in ambush hunting in the European foerests, living in small groups. Neanderthals may not nescesarilly of been dumber, more agression or a mouth less suitable for speech may of caused the larger tribal groupings not forming, leading to less sucess in war and ideas not spreading.

Living in shady european woods with a fish free diet it woud make sense that they were white. But that does not mean that is where Europeans got the white skin from all we know is that sometime between leaving africa 60,000 years ago and the begining of recorded history 2,000 years ago they did. Asians also have several unique features is ther any evidence they aquired these from homo erectus?

I order to suvive long ocean voyages the Polynesians have become the stockiest people on the planet. With no Neanderthals to breed with.

The southern hemisphere has less ozone layer than the northern one, And not being warmed by the gulf stream means that despite having a european climate Hobart is much closer to the equator than the equivalent climate in europe. Thanks to this modern white Australians and New Zealanders have the highest skin cancer rates in the world.

That other a picture is a modern human wearing makeup, a better image can be made by creating a model around the cast of a skull. However despite many examples in museams my searching of the internet has not found many.

Stephen Wordsworh

 

[The Mists Of Time]

I think it depends on how close to homo sapiens the other sentient hominid species is. A big factor is whether they are close enough to us that interbreeding between the two is possible. If it is, that brings up a lot of possibilities.

Also, when you say "hominid" does that mean a primate species? Or does it mean a species that walks upright on two legs?

An interesting situation would be two sentient "hominid" species, one primate based (homo sapiens) the other non primate. Perhaps a race of sentient two legged beings that evolved out of the cat line kind of a felis sapien.

 

[Umbral]

Sigh. Right...

Why do you assume neandertals and other Homonid species would be less intelligent than homo sapiens? neandertals and homo florensis were actually smarter than h.sapiens.

We do not know this. There is currently considerable discussion on what intelligence is, and how to measure it. If we cannot agree on how to measure intelligence in ourselves, how can we make the least guess about species which died out twenty-five thousand years?

The notion that intelligence is somehow related to brainsize was part of a notion known as "phrenology" which has been totally disproved.

they also had a section of the brain that humans didn't!
(as did the Hobbits...though their extra brain-part was in the front)

News to me.

there's a tiny barrier: the species barrier. horses and donkeys don't produce viable self-replicating offspring.

We do not know enough about these species to say whether fertile offspring could be produced or not. There is simply not enough genetic material remaining.

While it is generally true that members of two different species cannot produce fertile offspring due to chromosome counts, this is not absolute. Chromosomal abnormalities do happen, such as in the case of Downs Syndrome. A very few cases have been confirmed where such hybrids have produced offspring with one or the other parent species.

I've heard some talk in scientific circles that the mutation which reduced human hairiness didn't crop up until ~200000 BC--Neanderthals branched off from the mainline much earlier than that. Neanderthals may have had a much less human appearence than assumed.

Pure speculation warning: The image that springs to mind when trying to picture a hairy, Neanderthal is suprisingly like a Troll. (The legend, not the D&D or cuddletoy one)

Yes--homo sapiens just sort of "piddled along" from 150000-35000 or so BC, when the so-called "cultural revolution" (not to be confused with Mao's) occurred. This strange "great leap forward" led to all sorts of technological and even conceptual innovations, such as cave art. There is evidence that it wasn't only Homo sapiens undergoing these cultural changes--the neanderthals were, too. Still, adopting a more advanced tech didn't save the Neanderthals, whose population was in deep decline by this point.

Where the hell did the "cultural rev" come from? Is this about the time the "Ethicals" from Riverworld dropped a few wathan generators on the planet, or something?

One speculation on the human advantage over other species is in the realm of abstract language development. The theory goes that human language permitted the development, and transmission of much more and more complex concepts. That would include technological concepts. Also, it would allow the retention of knowledge past one generation.

Personal speculation: Once human numbers rose past a certain treshold, the memetic environment became capable of much greater complexity. In other words, greater numbers permitted a linking up of extelligence.

I'll say two things both interlated (rather ironic considering what I'm about to say )

1) Neanderthals didn't die out. Rather they were bred out by H. sapiens.

2) By mixing Neanderthals & H. sapiens we get a hybrid Human develop in Europe, which then spreads out from there, from about 30 000 BC, & covers much of the world except for Australia & much of Africa.

Now I know there's no or little DNA evidence suggesting this hybrid theory. Nevertheless, there's much archeological evidence to support it (hybrid 1st generation baby remains etc).

A rather large study a few years back indicated that no genetic trace of Neanderthals remain in the Homo Sapiens genome. Now, I personally don't hold too much faith in the study, as I remember noticing at the time that they had used a definition of Homo Sapiens genome that would exclude the possibility of any other conclusion.
However, if there were any genetic leakage between the populations, it was likly minute.

Some remains of individuals which may have had hybrid traces have been found, though. There just are not enough Neanderthal traits in the later remains to justify the notion that any hybrid developed and spread out from Europe. Europe seem to have been suprisingly late on the Sapiens colonization list.

And this is despite the fact that DNA evidence proves that H. sapiens were originally black, whilst Neanderthals were white...

It certainly does not.
Assuming that the original Homo Sapiens were black seems reasonable, and seems to fit the known information. We know nothing about the Neanderthals. DNA, to the best of my knowledge, does not give any information on this whatsoever.
DNA tests done on crime scenes, etc can match certain sequences of an individual's DNA with a database of 'signature characteristics' that vary substantially by race.

In december 2005, Cheng claimed to have identified the actual skin color genes.

That is what we can do with individuals today. Consider the notion of applying this to the remains individuals that have been dead for 25 000 years.

It's doubtful the first humans were black, at least as in the modern race. In fact, the Cro-Magnons were thought to be most like the Guanches of the Canary Islands; a tall blonde race, nothing like negroes. IIRC, negroes are one of the newer human races, arising after caucasions and orientals....

It is true that human beings have exceptionally low genetic diversity. It is interesting to note, however, that genetic diverstiy in Africa, as I recall, is about twice that of the rest of the human species. This is consistent with Homo Sapiens originating in Afirca about 150 000 - 200 000 years ago, and a small group spreading out from Africa 100 000 - 70 000 years ago.

It also indicates that the Africans are the most similar to the original human phenotype.

I don't know who would speculate on the coloration of the Cro-Magnon based on some skeletal similarity with natives of one island in the canaries. (Cro-Magnon normally only applies to the oldest humans in Europe, anyway)

Anyway, there are other points, but they're the main ones. As far as we know, such sudden changes to H sapiens (or any other specie or that matter) can't happen in such a sudden point in time.

They can, depending on the stressors of the new environment. Such changes can occur extremely rapidly, in evolutionary terms, when a species is introduced to a new environment.

Accustomed changes, such as darken skin due to tanning, cannot as far as we know, be transfered from parent to offspring as the original gene hasn't been effect through sun burn/tanning. Likewise the reverse - that being getting no sun & thus not getting a tan. Similarly the same can be said for physique other than a poor diet as a child. But again, that is an accustomed change to the individal in question. The genes that determine one's height is again uneffected by diet.

HOX genes do, in fact, provide a mechanism for aquired traits to be passed on through inheritance. I would guess that the odds of them having influence on skin color in humans is low, but that is no more than an educated guess.

Well at the prima facie level this may seem like a good theory. However, what an individual gains, such as tanned skin, through their lifetime doesn't get automatically transfered to their offspring. The only way that can be done is through the parent's genes. Now if the genes don't get modified at some point, any offsping will not have any significant variation from their parents - especially to the extent required for a complete skin colour change &/or physique.

Darker skin in an european environment, depending on the cloudiness of the Ice Age climate, colud lead to vitamin D deficiency and in extreme cases, the rickets. Weak bones and stunted growth would mean bad breeding possibilities. Lighter skin would develop quite rapidly under such circumstances.

But there's a far more easier way to test your theory rather than comparing abstract arguments. And that is examining nature itself. As such, I'll discuss the experiences of the Australian Aboriginals. They originally came to Australia some 40 000 years ago. DNA testing shows that a full blooded Aboriginal is a direct descendant of the original H. sapiens. It is not surprising, then, that they have black skin.

It does not. Although obviously we are all descendants of the the original Homo Sapiens, and a full blooded aboriginal is no different.

In addition to the UV radiation factor already pointed out, it should be added that the same evironmental challenge will not always lead to the same adaption in different groups. Paralell evolution may happen, but is not compulsory.

Also, what kind of gentic exchange would have happened among aboriginals? Anyone know? A rapid adaption would be most likly in the case of a population group isolated by natural barriers. (DNA studies of aborigines with Tasmainian heritage would be interesting.)

Oh I read somewhere , that Europoid features appear with increased frequency in small isolated communities. Get few thousand people alone and in several hundred years they will go around with blue eyes...

Blue eyes, and some other caucasian features, are genetically recessive. That means that they can lie dormant in a small gene pool for generations before expressing.

In the absence of genetic evidence one way or the other, I think it is possible that some genetic exchange occured between us and the Neanderthals. It was likely minute, and most traits would have been eradicated within a few generations, as they would not have been too functional in the Sapiens lifestyle.
Possible remnant traits could be blonde hair or the european nose.

-Umbral, biochemical engineer