Computer model answers questions surrounding Neanderthal extinction

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

For a long time, archaeologists have suggested that modern humans wiped out Neanderthals because we had greater technological and cultural development, which allowed us to find and exploit resources more readily than Neanderthals did. It’s a plausible explanation, but it leaves us with pressing questions about the details of how this might have happened.

For a start, we know that Neanderthals had some culture, so exactly how much more would modern humans have needed to have in order to be more competitive? And modern humans entered Neanderthal territory in smaller numbers than the established Neanderthal population—could technology make up for what they lacked in numbers?

These questions highlight a major challenge with this model: there are other plausible explanations for the disappearance of Neanderthals. For example, they could have been wiped out by climate change or an epidemic.

Competition between species is “ultimately a matter of numbers,” the authors write. Where one species thrives, the other is reduced to zero. Modelling this interaction is a matter of boiling it all down to numbers: creating two mock “populations” in a computer model, giving them certain characteristics, and seeing what circumstances lead to one population wiping the other out.

Read full, original post: Computer simulation fills in the blanks of Neanderthal extinction

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-12_32_36-PM
Viewpoint: The state of U.S. vaccine policy? Dismal nationally, but some states are stepping up.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-1.39.26-PM
Viewpoint: ‘Safer for children?’ Stonyfield yogurt under fire for deceptive organic marketing
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-10.46.29-AM
Viewpoint: How to counter science disinformation? Science journalist offers 12 practical tips
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-12_16_37-PM-2
Viewpoint: Are cancer rates ‘skyrocketing’ as RFK, Jr. and MAHA claim? The evidence says mostly the opposite
the magic of mRNA
Viewpoint: Anti-vax fake ‘turbo cancer’ claims threaten cancer treatment breakthroughs
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-01_23_27-PM-2
Viewpoint: Will AI democratize personalized cancer treatment or fuel medical misinformation?
Defense_Secretary_Ash_Carter_tours_the_Microsoft_Cybercrime_Center_in_Seattle_March_3_2016
How criminals are using AI to target social media users and steal their money and confidential data
artificial intelligence brain think illustration md
Viewpoint — Digital gods and human extinction: Will we be the first species ever to design our own descendants?
ChatGPT-Image-May-12-2026-08_39_41-PM
GLP podcast: Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Food—health harming industries or life-saving innovators?
RFKjr-Tech-Vax-Misinfo
As U.S. officials spread medical misinformation, scientists fact check online
Picture1-1
Cooling the planet with balloons: Could a geoengineering gamble slow global warming?
Screenshot-2026-04-23-at-11.00.36-AM
Regulators' dilemma: Thalidomide, Metformin, and the cost of getting drug approvals wrong
ChatGPT Image May 12, 2026, 01_21_30 PM
How big health brands are funding online medical misinformation 
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.