Neanderthal extinction: a space physicist reopens the debate
Neanderthals have long been the subject of intense scientific debate. This is largely because we still lack clear answers to some of the big questions about their existence and supposed disappearance.
One of the latest developments is a recent study from the University of Michigan, published in the journal Science Advances. It proposes that Neanderthals went extinct for astrophysical reasons.
The work was led by Agnit Mukhopadhyay, an expert in space physics, a discipline that studies natural plasmas, especially those found within our own solar system. Plasma is the state of matter that dominates the universe: the Sun and stars are huge balls of plasma, as are the northern lights.
Mukhopadhyay's research suggests that a shift in the Earth's magnetic poles around 41,000 years ago, known as the Laschamp event, may have contributed to the extinction of Neanderthals.
According to his work, the extreme weakening of the Earth's magnetic field during that event allowed for greater penetration of cosmic and ultraviolet radiation. This would have generated more aggressive environmental conditions that Neanderthals could not withstand, giving our own species, Homo sapiens, an edge.
In this context, sapiens would have had an advantage over Neanderthals thanks to their presumed use of close-fitting clothing, ochre – a mineral with protective properties against the sun – and taking shelter in caves. Caves which, by the way, on numerous occasions were inhabited by both Neanderthals and our own species.
The hypothesis is interesting, and is based on innovative three-dimensional models of the Earth's geospatial system during this period. However, as with many hypotheses that attempt to explain complex phenomena on the basis of a single variable, its scope and some of the assumptions on which it is based need to be examined more closely.
One of the pillars of this hypothesis is that Neanderthals did not wear tight-fitting clothing, and would therefore have been more exposed to the harmful effects of solar radiation.
It is true that sewing needles have not been definitvely linked to Neanderthals. The first needles documented in Eurasia are associated with either Denisovan or sapiens populations around 50,000 years ago, and in western Europe they did not appear until around 23,000 years ago. But this does not mean that Neanderthals did not wear clothing.
In fact, the Homo sapiens who lived during episodes of extreme cold (such as the Heinrich 4 event, which occurred some 39,600 years ago) did not have sewing needles either, but they did have enough technology to make garments, and possibly tents and footwear.
There is ample archaeological evidence of Neanderthals processing hides, such as the systematic use of scrapers and other tools associated with the tanning process.
However, the use of fur or clothing has much older origins. In fact, the genetic study of lice has revealed that humans were already wearing clothing at least 200,000 years ago.
Furthermore, in cold environments such as those they inhabited in Europe, it would have been unfeasible to survive without some form of body protection. Even if they did not have needles, it is very plausible that they used alternative systems such as ligatures or bone splinters to adapt animal hides to the body. The absence of needles should not be confused with the absence of functional clothing.
The study also highlights the use of ochre by Homo sapiens, which it says offered protection against solar radiation.
Although experiments have been carried out to demonstrate certain blocking capacities of ochre against ultraviolet (UV) rays, its use by human populations is not limited to a single group. In fact, evidence of pigment use during the same period has been found in Africa, the Near East and the Iberian Peninsula, and among different human lineages.
The use of ochre has been documented in Neanderthal contexts for more than 100,000 years, both in Europe and in the Levant. Its application may have had multiple purposes: symbolic, therapeutic, cosmetic, healing, and even an insect repellent.
There are no solid grounds for claiming that its use for protective purposes was exclusive to Homo sapiens, especially when both species shared spaces and technologies for millennia. Nor can we be sure that it was used as a protective sunscreen.
Leer más:
One of the most significant factors may have been the marked difference in population size. There were fewer Neanderthals, meaning they would have been assimilated by the much more numerous populations of Homo sapiens.
This assimilation is reflected in the DNA of current populations, suggesting that, rather than becoming extinct, Neanderthals were absorbed into the evolutionary process.
Technology also played a part– as far as we know, Neanderthals did not use hunting weapons at a distance.
The invention and use of projectiles associated with hunting activities – first in stone and later in hard animal materials – appear to be an innovation specific to Homo sapiens. Their development may have given them an adaptive advantage in open environments, and a greater capacity to exploit different prey and environments.
Leer más:
Associating the Neanderthal 'extinction' to their supposed failure to adapt to increased solar radiation during the Laschamp excursion oversimplifies a phenomenon that remains the subject of heated debate.
Put simply, the archaeological record does not support Mukhopadhyay's hypothesis. There is no evidence of an abrupt demographic collapse coinciding with this geomagnetic event, nor of a widespread catastrophic impact on other human or animal species.
Moreover, if solar radiation had been such a determining factor, one would expect high mortality also among populations of sapiens that did not wear tight clothing or live in caves (in warm regions of Africa, for instance). As far as we know, this did not happen.
When trying to explain the disappearance of Neanderthals, it is vital that we integrate multiple lines of archaeological, paleoanthropological and genetic evidence.
These humans were not simply victims of their own technological clumsiness or of a hostile environment that they failed to cope with. They were an adaptive and culturally complex species that, for more than 300,000 years, survived multiple climatic changes – including other geomagnetic shifts such as the Blake event, which occurred about 120,000 years ago. Neanderthals developed sophisticated tools, dominated vast territories and shared many more traits with us than was assumed for decades.
So did the magnetic reversal of the Earth's magnetic poles wipe out the Neanderthals? The answer is: probably not.
Este artículo fue publicado originalmente en The Conversation, un sitio de noticias sin fines de lucro dedicado a compartir ideas de expertos académicos.
Lee mas:
Neanderthals: the oldest art in the world wasn't made by Homo sapiens
Modern human DNA contains bits from all over the Neanderthal genome – except the Y chromosome. What happened?
How Neanderthal language differed from modern human – they probably didn't use metaphors
Las personas firmantes no son asalariadas, ni consultoras, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado anteriormente.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
20 minutes ago
- Medscape
BMJ Investigation Increases Concerns About Ticagrelor Trials
An investigation by The BMJ is raising fresh concerns about the clinical studies that supported the approval of the antiplatelet drug ticagrelor (Brilinta, AstraZeneca), almost 15 years after the medication was first approved and as generic versions are set to hit the market. Peter Doshi, PhD, a senior editor at The BMJ , previously reported inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 PLATO study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine , which showed ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in treating acute coronary syndrome. Now a follow-up investigation of two supporting studies published in Circulation , ONSET/OFFSET and RESPOND, has revealed primary endpoints were reported inaccurately, data were missing from the submission to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and study centers may not have received adequate training. Doshi said the results of his investigations call into question the drug's approval and suggested that it should be revisited. 'The FDA's approval in 2011 went against the evidence according to its reviewers, and now, my investigations into PLATO, ONSET/OFFSET, and RESPOND, suggest that even the data presented to the FDA and reported in The New England Journal of Medicine and Circulation , is not trustworthy,' he told Medscape Medical News. The investigation identified several problems with data integrity in the two trials. The original primary endpoint results for RESPOND, which aimed to test whether ticagrelor could convert nonresponders to clopidogrel into responders, were statistically nonsignificant ( P = .157) but were subsequently reported in Circulation as significant ( P = .005) because of an undeclared change in its primary endpoint definition. For ONSET/OFFSET, which reported ticagrelor provided faster and greater inhibition of platelets than clopidogrel, the investigators now claim several patients were excluded from the analysis. However, those who remained were identified as the 'intention-to-treat' population, implying all patients were included. Implausible data points were also included in the analysis of the primary endpoint but were first transformed through an unpublished data analysis, Doshi claimed. Doshi also gained access to readouts from some of the platelet function test machines used in the trial. He found more than 60 of 282 readings were not present in the datasets submitted to the FDA, and the levels of platelet activity in those readings were significantly higher than those reported in Circulation . Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and one of the more high-profile critics of ticagrelor, told The BMJ the missing readings show 'there are episodes of skyrocketing rebound and profound platelet inhibition after ticagrelor, making patients prone to thrombosis or bleeding. If doctors had known what happened in these trials, they would never have started using ticagrelor.' The investigation also revealed oddities around the authorship of the publications. One active trial investigator was never identified as a study author, while one author told The BMJ he was not involved in the trial. The BMJ states that AstraZeneca, the journal Circulation , and many of the original investigators either declined to comment on the new claims or were unreachable. Ticagrelor has been under fire since the beginning. The drug failed in its first bid for FDA approval and was the subject of an investigation by the US Department of Justice in 2013 at the urging of Serebruany. That investigation was closed in 2014 with no further action. A review of several major trials of ticagrelor by Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, concluded 'the clinical conventional wisdom and clinical trial guideline support for…ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel may be overemphasized.' Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor's recommendation in guidelines, according to the earlier The BMJ report.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Secure AI for America's future & humanity's too
A technological revolution is unfolding — one that will transform our world in ways we can barely comprehend. As artificial intelligence rapidly evolves and corporate America's investment in AI continues to explode, we stand at a crossroads that will determine not just America's future but humanity's as well. Many leading experts agree that artificial general intelligence (AGI) is within sight. There is a growing consensus that it could be here within the next two to five years. This is a fundamental shift that will lead to scientific and technological advances beyond our imagination. Some have referred to the development of advanced AI as the Second Industrial Revolution, but the truth is that it will be more significant than that — perhaps incomprehensibly so — and we are not prepared. The potential benefits of AGI are extraordinary. It could discover cures for diseases we have battled for generations, find solutions to the most difficult mathematical and physics problems, and create trillions of dollars in new wealth. However, there is real cause for concern that we are racing toward an unprecedented technological breakthrough without considering the many dangers it poses. This includes dangers to our labor force, U.S. national security, and even humanity's very existence. As Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently suggested, AI could lead to a 'bloodbath' for job-seekers trying to find meaningful work, and that is just one threat. The same technology that could eradicate cancer may also create bioweapons of unprecedented lethality. Systems designed to optimize energy distribution could be weaponized to destroy critical infrastructure. As countries sprint to develop advanced AI, the one conversation we are not having is about the possibility that the same tools that might solve our greatest challenges could create catastrophic and even existential risks. Back in 2014, Stephen Hawking warned, 'The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.' More recently, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman claimed, 'AI will probably most likely lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime, there will be great companies.' According to Bill Gates, not even doctors and lawyers are safe from AI replacement. AI advancement is developing at warp speed without any brakes. We are unprepared to deal with those risks. For this reason, we are launching The Alliance for Secure AI, with a mission to ensure advanced AI innovation continues with security and safety as top priorities. We have no interest in stifling critical technological advancement. America can continue to lead the world in AI development while also establishing the necessary safeguards to protect humanity from catastrophe. Safeguards begin with effective communication across political lines. We will host strategy meetings with coalition partners across the technology, policy, and national security sectors, ensuring that conversations are informed about the dangers of AGI. Beyond the halls of Congress, this will require a public education push. Most Americans are unaware of the unprecedented threats that AI may pose. Our educational efforts will make complex AI concepts accessible for everyday Americans who must understand that their livelihoods are at risk. By convening AI experts, policymakers, journalists, and other key stakeholders, we can connect leaders who must work together to get this right for America, and humanity. We have no choice but to build a community committed to responsible AI advancement. I am profoundly optimistic about AI's potential to improve our lives. And yet, alongside its potential benefits, AGI will introduce serious and dangerous problems that we will all need to work together to solve. The advanced AI revolution will be far more consequential than anything in history. Daily activities for everyday Americans will be forever changed. AGI will impact the economy, national security, and the understanding of consciousness itself. Google is already hiring for a 'post-AGI' world where AI is smarter than the smartest human being in all cognitive tasks. It is critical that the U.S. maintains its technological leadership while ensuring AI systems align with human values and American principles. Without safeguards, we risk a future in which the most powerful technology ever created could threaten human liberty and prosperity. This is about asking fundamental questions: What role should AI play in society? What are the trade-offs we need to consider? What limits should we place on autonomous systems? Finding the answers to these questions requires broad public engagement — not just from Big Tech, but from every single American. _____ _____
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Marvel unveils new Fantastic Four popcorn bucket – and it gives us our best look yet at the titular team's ship Excelsior (AKA the one that's not in Thunderbolts*)
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Move over, Galactus! Marvel is clearly hoping fans can stretch their budgets to two popcorn buckets when seeing The Fantastic Four: First Steps, now that it's unveiled a new design centered on Pedro Pascal's Reed Richards. Not only does the second bucket offer up some cool retro lettering, Richard's elongated arms, and our best look yet at the superheroes' suits, we also get a great glimpse at Excelsior, the First Family's ship. Due to its 'F4' emblem and similar silhouette, many assumed that their spacecraft was the one spotted in the Thunderbolts* post-credits scene, but Marvel Studios boss Kevin Feige later squashed the theory. "Their ship is the Excelsior, and there is a Fantastic Four ship entering the MCU... But I'm not sure they're the same ship," he told Empire Magazine (via Culture Crave). On the bucket, the differences are clearer, particularly when it comes to the boosters and landing legs. Consider us intrigued! Also starring Joseph Quinn, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, and Vanessa Kirby, The Fantastic Four: First Steps releases on July 25, 2025. The titular team are set to face off against Silver Surfer (Julia Garner) and Galactus (Ralph Ineson) in the flick, though it's no surprise we should expect some multiversal shenanigans, too, given the fact that they're clearly not on the same timeline as Captain America, Yelena Bolova, and the rest of the MCU's big players currently. While we wait, check out our guide to all the upcoming Marvel movies and shows on the way, as well as our guide to how to watch the Marvel movies in order.