Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Neanderthals were not mentally inferior, study finds

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From ScienceDaily:

In the past, some researchers have tried to explain the demise of the Neanderthals by suggesting that the newcomers were superior to Neanderthals in key ways, including their ability to hunt, communicate, innovate and adapt to different environments.

But in an extensive review of recent Neanderthal research, CU-Boulder researcher Paola Villa and co-author Wil Roebroeks, an archaeologist at Leiden University in the Netherlands, make the case that the available evidence does not support the opinion that Neanderthals were less advanced than anatomically modern humans. Their paper was published today in the journal PLOS ONE.

“The evidence for cognitive inferiority is simply not there,” said Villa, a curator at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History. “What we are saying is that the conventional view of Neanderthals is not true.”

What? Is the world so far forsaking Darwin that we have entirely forgotten why the Neanderthals were originally thought to be inferior? As noted here and elsewhere earlier,

Paleontologists have long hungered for a species halfway between human and ape, to cast in the world’s face as irrefutable evidence for mud at work. Indeed, a little publicized assumption of Darwin’s theory was that future humans would eventually separate into different species:

The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Darwin didn’t think this out of bad will or bigotry; it is merely the logic of a theory that encompasses all of life. The human future took very different turns, it seems, but the quest for a non-human past survived them. Here are a few things we think we know: More.

See also: The search for our earliest ancestors: signals in the noise

and

The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)

Comments
Ace, Save for the minor fact that you have no evidence of genetic duplications doing anything of significance, and the brain is the most complex structure known to man, you may have been within sight (with a pair of good binoculars) of remote feasibility.
Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified - December 2010 Excerpt: The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around, but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201101.htm#20110103a Hopeless Matzke - David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton (Refutation of all popular examples purporting to show the origination of new information by Darwinian processes) - August 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.html Evidence that the Mind is not the Brain: Excerpt: The brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. That is not all the brains on Earth, nor all human brains, but merely a single brain of a single human. With over 100 billion nerve cells, or neurons, and a quadrillion synapses, or connections, it is, as one researcher described, “truly awesome.” Researchers have found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, or as one evolutionist admitted, almost to the point of being “beyond belief.” https://docs.google.com/document/d/15oyK3PlUILewPmxGZreNHd1gZrTTlZ68Gf9LURNTquY/edit
Verse and Music:
Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD. Johnny Cash - Goin' By The Book http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEyujOSEexM
bornagain77
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Please note, on the preceding site, how the sclera (white of the eye), a uniquely human characteristic, was brought in very early on, in the artists' reconstructions, to make the fossils appear much more human than they actually were, even though the artists making the reconstructions have no clue whatsoever as to what the colors of the eyes, of these supposed transitional fossils, actually were.
Evolution of human eye as a device for communication - Hiromi Kobayashi - Kyoto University, Japan Excerpt: The uniqueness of human eye morphology among primates illustrates the remarkable difference between human and other primates in the ability to communicate using gaze signals. http://www.saga-jp.org/coe_abst/kobayashi.htm
Ace, you then state
"What? Is the world so far forsaking Darwin that we have entirely forgotten why the Neanderthals were originally thought to be inferior?" Utter nonsense, this has nothing to do with Darwin. Neanderthals and humans share a fairly recent common ancestor (most estimates put this split back at about 400KYA. Also in that 400,000 year window, they came under the same pressure as the other homo lineages to evolve a greater capacity for intelligence.
Funny that, with this 'pressure to evolve greater capacity for intelligence', the brains of Neanderthals were, on average, larger than human brains currently are and that, where the fossil record is most complete, we find that human brain size is actually shrinking:
"Neanderthals are known for their large cranial capacity, which at 1600cc is larger on average than modern humans." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Anatomy Are brains shrinking to make us smarter? - February 2011 Excerpt: Human brains have shrunk over the past 30,000 years, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-brains-smarter.html If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
Moreover, it might interest you to know that Natural Selection, in so far as it has been shown to do anything, reduces genetic information instead of creates it:
"...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED From a Frog to a Prince - video (17:00 minute mark Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information) - No Beneficial Mutations - Gitt - Spetner - Denton - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClleN8ysimg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1031 "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-
In fact Ace, your belief that natural selection 'puts pressure' on anything is far more imaginary than you may realize:
Another Difficulty with Darwinian Accounts of How Human Bipedalism Developed - David Klinghoffer - February 21, 2013 Excerpt: A Darwinian evolutionary bedtime story tells of how proto-man achieved his upright walking status when the forests of his native East Africa turned to savannas. That was 4 to 6 million years ago, and the theory was that our ancestors stood up in order to be able to look around themselves over the sea of grasslands, which would have been irrelevant in the forests of old. A team of researchers led by USC's Sarah J. Feakins, writing in the journal Geology, detonate that tidy explanation with their finding that the savannas, going back 12 million years, had already been there more than 6 million years when the wonderful transition to bipedalism took place ("Northeast African vegetation change over 12 m.y."). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/another_difficu069411.html Donald Prothero: In evolution, stasis was general, gradualism rare, and that’s the consensus 40 years on - February 2012 Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. Rather than answers, we have more questions— Donald Prothero - American paleontologist, geologist, and author who specializes in mammalian paleontology. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/donald-prothero-in-evolution-stasis-was-the-general-pattern-gradualism-was-rare-and-that-is-still-the-consensus-40-years-later/ "Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing…. Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics, 2001 (pp. 199-200) William Provine - Professor of Evolutionary Biology - Cornell University
Aceofspades25 you then state:
Finally our increased intelligence may be simply down to a few duplications of a gene (SRGAP2) responsible for the growth of the brains neocortex. All chordata have SRGAP2 but humans also uniquely have SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C and SRGAP2D. I wouldn’t be surprised if those duplications arose before we split off from the Neanderthal lineage.
bornagain77
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Aceofspades25 you state in 4:
As somebody who accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus,
Without any questions? Well seeing that free will, and sense of 'self', is merely an illusion in the neo-Darwinian scheme of things, then that would, at least, make you consistent in that regards:
1984 Apple - Darwinbot video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant:,,) Read more here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
You then state:
I never thought they were inferior.
But what were you doing bucking the scientific consensus if you were someone who accepts 'overwhelming consensus'? Did you, contrary to the materialistic determinism you believe in, freely choose to buck the consensus because of what the evidence said, or were you merely a victim of your anomalous brain state which did not agree with the consensus at the time?
Neanderthals behaving like us - Dec. 2013 Excerpt: This fascinating insight into community life is worthy of our attention because the group members were Neanderthals. For too long, they have been portrayed as pre-human and have been used to buttress evolutionary stories about the origins of mankind. However, archaeological evidence discussed here (and here) suggests that these stories are embellished with evolutionary spin. The evidence shows that Neanderthals are human cousins and deserve quite a different place in history. Unfortunately, this truth about Neanderthals has been missed in the past because the presumption of evolutionary transformation has constrained the minds of researchers. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2013/12/03/neanderthals_behaving_like_us
Of note, the primary 'evidence' that Neanderthals were brutish human forebears were cartoon caveman drawings:
An early (1888) reconstruction of what a Neanderthal male may have looked like; reconstructions such as this proved influential in the reception of "Neanderthals" in popular culture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neanderthaler_Fund.png
In fact cartoon drawings have been, and still are, a major propaganda piece for Darwinists
New York Times Inherits the Spin, Republishes Darwinists’ Error-Filled “Answers” to Jonathan Wells’ – 2008 Excerpt: And all three of these textbooks include fanciful drawings of ape-like humans that help to convince students we are no exception to the rule of purposelessness. Some biology textbooks use other kinds of illustrations,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/new_york_times_inherits010581.html Paleoanthropology Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature: "Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears (or eyes). Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture." http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Paleoanthropology "National Geographic magazine commissioned four artists to reconstruct a female figure from casts of seven fossil bones thought to be from the same species as skull 1470. One artist drew a creature whose forehead is missing and whose jaws look vaguely like those of a beaked dinosaur. Another artist drew a rather good-looking modern African-American woman with unusually long arms. A third drew a somewhat scrawny female with arms like a gorilla and a face like a Hollywood werewolf. And a fourth drew a figure covered with body hair and climbing a tree, with beady eyes that glare out from under a heavy, gorilla-like brow." “Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140 picture - these artists "independently" produced the 4 very "different" ancestors you see here http://www.omniology.com/JackalopianArtists.html
One can see that 'artistic license' for human evolution being played out on the following site.
10 Transitional Ancestors of Human Evolution by Tyler G., March 18, 2013 http://listverse.com/2013/03/18/10-transitional-ancestors-of-human-evolution/
bornagain77
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Aceofspades25 you state in 4:
As somebody who accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus,
Without any questions? Well seeing that free will, and sense of 'self', is merely an illusion in the neo-Darwinian scheme of things, then that would, at least, make you consistent in that regards:
1984 Apple - Darwinbot video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant:,,) Read more here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
You then state:
I never thought they were inferior.
But what were you doing bucking the scientific consensus if you were someone who accepts 'overwhelming consensus'? Did you, contrary to the materialistic determinism you believe in, freely choose to buck the consensus because of what the evidence said, or were you merely a victim of your anomalous brain state which did not agree with the consensus at the time?
Neanderthals behaving like us - Dec. 2013 Excerpt: This fascinating insight into community life is worthy of our attention because the group members were Neanderthals. For too long, they have been portrayed as pre-human and have been used to buttress evolutionary stories about the origins of mankind. However, archaeological evidence discussed here (and here) suggests that these stories are embellished with evolutionary spin. The evidence shows that Neanderthals are human cousins and deserve quite a different place in history. Unfortunately, this truth about Neanderthals has been missed in the past because the presumption of evolutionary transformation has constrained the minds of researchers. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2013/12/03/neanderthals_behaving_like_us
Of note, the primary 'evidence' that Neanderthals were brutish human forebears were cartoon caveman drawings:
An early (1888) reconstruction of what a Neanderthal male may have looked like; reconstructions such as this proved influential in the reception of "Neanderthals" in popular culture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neanderthaler_Fund.png
In fact cartoon drawings have been, and still are, a major propaganda piece for Darwinists
New York Times Inherits the Spin, Republishes Darwinists’ Error-Filled “Answers” to Jonathan Wells’ – 2008 Excerpt: And all three of these textbooks include fanciful drawings of ape-like humans that help to convince students we are no exception to the rule of purposelessness. Some biology textbooks use other kinds of illustrations,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/new_york_times_inherits010581.html Paleoanthropology Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature: "Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears (or eyes). Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture." http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Paleoanthropology "National Geographic magazine commissioned four artists to reconstruct a female figure from casts of seven fossil bones thought to be from the same species as skull 1470. One artist drew a creature whose forehead is missing and whose jaws look vaguely like those of a beaked dinosaur. Another artist drew a rather good-looking modern African-American woman with unusually long arms. A third drew a somewhat scrawny female with arms like a gorilla and a face like a Hollywood werewolf. And a fourth drew a figure covered with body hair and climbing a tree, with beady eyes that glare out from under a heavy, gorilla-like brow." “Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140 picture - these artists "independently" produced the 4 very "different" ancestors you see here http://www.omniology.com/JackalopianArtists.html https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/human-evolution-skull-1470-it-turns-out-has-a-multiple-personality-disorder/
One can see that 'artistic license' for human evolution being played out on the following site.
10 Transitional Ancestors of Human Evolution by Tyler G., March 18, 2013 http://listverse.com/2013/03/18/10-transitional-ancestors-of-human-evolution/
bornagain77
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Aceofspades25- My point still stands- the blind watchmaker didn'tdoit.Joe
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
When will this Darwinian lunacy stop? The irony here of course is that it is the Darwinian zealots that are holding science back not the Abrahamic religions.humbled
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans. This naturally raises the question: is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence? The short answer is “no.” One group of researchers who used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so they “often feel on shaky ground.” [The Human Fossil Record—Volume Three, by Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C. Broadfield, and Michael S. Yuan, 2004, Preface xvi.] Why? Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.” [Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/September 2008, p. 72.] Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes? What, though, about the humanlike fossils of the so-called Neanderthals, often portrayed as proof that a type of ape-man existed? Researchers are beginning to alter their view of what these actually were. In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.” [American Journal of Physical Anthropology, “How Neandertals Inform Human Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff, 2009, p. 91.]Barb
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Joe, the duplicates aren't all that different from the original but they do have the effect of amplifying the original protein product sufficiently to stimulate further growth in the neocortex.Aceofspades25
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
An interesting read, thanks for the paper PiotrAceofspades25
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
In a blind watchmaker scenario there just isn't enough time to duplicate genes and then have them change in such a way as to produce new functioning proteins.Joe
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
These duplication are apparently present in both Neanderthals and Denisovans (and their estimated time of origin is 3.4-1 Mya): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3365555/pdf/nihms378423.pdfPiotr
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
As somebody who accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus, I never thought they were inferior. What? Is the world so far forsaking Darwin that we have entirely forgotten why the Neanderthals were originally thought to be inferior? Utter nonsense, this has nothing to do with Darwin. Neanderthals and humans share a fairly recent common ancestor (most estimates put this split back at about 400KYA. Also in that 400,000 year window, they came under the same pressure as the other homo lineages to evolve a greater capacity for intelligence. Finally our increased intelligence may be simply down to a few duplications of a gene (SRGAP2) responsible for the growth of the brains neocortex. All chordata have SRGAP2 but humans also uniquely have SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C and SRGAP2D. I wouldn't be surprised if those duplications arose before we split off from the Neanderthal lineage.Aceofspades25
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
What do you mean by "originally thought to be inferior"? There was a time when the evolution of hominins was (wrongly) represented as linear progress, with Neanderthals ancestral to (and more "primitive" than) modern humans. But it's been known for many decades that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals are sister species. Whether Neanderthals were innately smarter or less smart, or just as smart as modern humans, no contemporary paleoanthropologist regards them as "half ape, half human".Piotr
May 1, 2014
May
05
May
1
01
2014
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
But scientists use the body mass to brain mass ratio rather than brain mass alone in their speculation about intelligence. I don't know why this ratio is considered significant. As far as we know, sperm whales might be brilliant philosophers! And large heavy people are probably no less intelligent than anorexic ones. If Neanderthals had smaller brains than contemporary humans, it would immediately be interpreted to once again "prove" evolution because modern humans, being smarter, won out. Unfortunately, once again, the data are going the wrong direction. For all we know, Neanderthals were smarter (what ever that means) than humans. -QQuerius
April 30, 2014
April
04
Apr
30
30
2014
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
Cognitive inferiority??? Well if this is a real measurement then everyone can be so measured eh. I got a hunch its all about brain sizeism. brain size is ireelevant to smartness size. its just a presumption unproven. by the way remember your spectrums. there must of been a neander with a bigger brain then the rest and a human with a smaller brain and so the difference would be little to none. Watch your spectrums.Robert Byers
April 30, 2014
April
04
Apr
30
30
2014
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply