The Neanderthal 180

[Col. Tartleton]

I for one think it's funny in the span of a what a year or so completely changed the perception of these ancestors of modern man. We went from thinking they were the evolutionary dead end that got wiped out by "modern humans" and now we think they were reintegrated back in the mainstream human genome and could very well be partial ancestors of what we would consider "Caucasians." Not to mention all kind of talk about their bigger brains and perhaps more developed society.

I mean we went from thinking they were semi hairless apes to a current image of them being a distinctive ethnic divergence with a technological level not terribly behind what you'd see in North America a few hundred years ago.

As soon as we find out they're the indigenous white people it's suddenly no longer crazy to consider they're smart.

It's certainly evidence that science works. The story keeps changing for the better.

[LegionnaireX]

As far as I know the consensus still is that they were an evolutionary dead-end. We last shared a common ancestor with them half a million years ago. There has been a little recent research which might suggest scant evidence of Neanderthal DNA in some lineages of living humans, but nothing along the lines of an absorption into the Homo sapien genome as you would suggest.

[Claudius Gothicus]

We shared common ancestors(in fact the ancestor is called Homo Antecessor) but it doesn't mean that we shared the genetic or cultural make up at all.

What anthropologist did find was that mingling was a possibility since certain traces of Neanderthal DNA were found in other Sapiens, but limited mingling doesn't account for total assimilation and melting.

[Phier]

Limited mingling doesn't mean they were not our idiot cousins.

[Col. Tartleton]

Well I've been seeing stuff theorizing they have signs of a culture and religion whereas there's little evidence contemporary humans were developed in those areas although our weapons and other technology were clearly more advanced.

Although I think we might consider that part of the idiot cousin bit... "As you can see they believed in a better afterlife and that's why they all died out. The wiser Homo Sapiens convinced them to commit mass suicide by fighting mammoths with sticks."

I thought it was like 4% of Caucasian genes were clear neanderthal. Which I assume is arrived at differently than the generic "we have 98% in common with a gorilla" or whatever it is. That's like having one of your great great grandparents being a neanderthal.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding or I need better sources.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Well I've been seeing stuff theorizing they have signs of a culture and religion whereas there's little evidence contemporary humans were developed in those areas although our weapons and other technology were clearly more advanced.

They did ritually bury the dead

[Ancient Aliens]

They did ritually bury the dead

Though there are contemporary examples of ritual burials among homo sapiens, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Col. was under the impression wasn't the case.

[Col. Tartleton]

Though there are contemporary examples of ritual burials among homo sapiens, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Col. was under the impression wasn't the case.

Heck elephants have burial rituals. I was thinking it was a bit more complicated than that though. Though Elephants are smarter than humans I figure, they just didn't have to adapt their environment since they're well adapted to their own. Their brains are big as crap, they've probably got language, and they've easily got human level emotions if not more powerful.

In the scheme of things I think humans are anything but unique. Our primacy is a recent thing. Before modern weapons a bull elephant vs a hunter in a head on conflict wasn't going to end well.

I'd like to see someone try to wrestle a tiger in a full suit of plate armor. My money's still on the tiger killing the crap out of a person. I mean musket vs a Grizzly Bear was not exactly a wise move unless you had a large bore and a head shot or something.

[Claudius Gothicus]

In the scheme of things I think humans are anything but unique. Our primacy is a recent thing. Before modern weapons a bull elephant vs a hunter in a head on conflict wasn't going to end well.

On the contrary, our uniqueness comes from the fact that since we are not adapted to any environment we have to make do, we have to construct our own enviroments... what animal can purposely do that on a systematic scale?

[grinder]

I for one think it's funny in the span of a what a year or so completely changed the perception of these ancestors of modern man.

I always joked with my brother and father, that (former German national keeper) Oliver Kahn, was a living proof Neandertahler genes were still active in us.

If you want to see for yourselves (and do not know him) - here are some pics:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So, to quote Princess Leia "somehow I've always known".

[Phier]

Brain size goes up with body mass, even in dinos. Being above or below the best fit line gives a relative idea of the over all intelligence. Man is the highest, next are porpoises. Not sure how its all bunk. Its not the entire picture of course, but its not something that you can just brush aside as meaningless.

[Elfdude]

You're using a raptor/bird as the dinosaur standin to compare brain size? Explain sauropods and stegosaurus then. There is no necessary relationship between size of creature and brain size. There's a typical trend line but I would say it has little to do with being in response to the size of the animal and states absolutely nothing about the intelligence of the animal.

[Phier]

You're using a raptor/bird as the dinosaur standin to compare brain size? Explain sauropods and stegosaurus then. There is no necessary relationship between size of creature and brain size. There's a typical trend line but I would say it has little to do with being in response to the size of the animal and states absolutely nothing about the intelligence of the animal.

Mammals and reptiles are on different groupings.

I suppose its all coincidence that intelligence just happens to be greater in those over the line and lower in those below.

[Helm]

There wasn't a mainstream human genome we just shared a common ancestor about 200K years that being Homo heidelbergensis. They were more or less the same as modern humans in that if you brought one up in the modern world they would seem normal just a very powerfully built, a bit ugly and not quite as bright as button.

[Elfdude]

I would say that it is a coincidence. I would say body size has 0 to do with the brains ultimate efficiency and ability. I would not be surprised if all larger brains had better power but that's clearly not the case. Seems to me that it has more to do with how the brain is wired not some correlative relationship between body size and brain size. Also the relationship breaks down with just about any other group of animals beyond mammals.

[Phier]

I would say that it is a coincidence. I would say body size has 0 to do with the brains ultimate efficiency and ability. I would not be surprised if all larger brains had better power but that's clearly not the case. Seems to me that it has more to do with how the brain is wired not some correlative relationship between body size and brain size. Also the relationship breaks down with just about any other group of animals beyond mammals.

Its the ratio. Its having EXTRA brain compared to body size. there is an obvious correlation in mammals, and the smarter ones have more brain for the body. Humans don't have massive heads just to wreck our mothers vaginas for fun.

[Elfdude]

Its the ratio. Its having EXTRA brain compared to body size. there is an obvious correlation in mammals, and the smarter ones have more brain for the body. Humans don't have massive heads just to wreck our mothers vaginas for fun.

If a sauropod moves with the brain of a walnut obviously something else is happening. It does not require a larger brain to move a larger body. That'd be like saying anything bigger than a walnut results in intelligence because obviously if a dinosaur can move with a walnut brain then everything has more than enough brain for its size.

I would say it has 0 to do with size to body size and rather the organization of the brain itself. With the nervous system physiology always trumps size. Explain people with half their brain missing. Do they somehow fall lower on the brain to body size ratio? Does not the same proportion of brain become assigned to movement of their now larger in proportion body? Your logic is heavily flawed. It's a good correlation but it breaks down and tells us absolutely nothing in legitimate terms about the intelligence of the animal. Under my paradigm the human brain is much more obviously equipped for intelligence and similarly it explains why larger brains aren't producing more intelligence and explains why the females brain which is on average a third smaller results in no net difference to IQ and why cutting out half of the brain doesn't necessarily result in any developmental disabilities. It also explains things like why a shrimp has the best eyesight in the world despite a tiny brain.

[Helm]

Neanderthals had larger brains but apparently it wasn't as "plastic" as a homo sapiens brain, a neanderthals brain was fully mature at 10 while in humans its 30. Also the brain was more broken up into separate compartments for specific tasks there wasn't the more general integration our brains have. So they would have been intelligent but they may lacked imagination, art and culture. They just survived in their natural environment and would still be doing that now.

[Elfdude]

Neanderthals had larger brains but apparently it wasn't as "plastic" as a homo sapiens brain, a neanderthals brain was fully mature at 10 while in humans its 30.

Oh god, I don't know where to start with this statement. First define fully mature. Second explain to me how you've had access to neanderthals to perform developmental experiments on them.

Also the brain was more broken up into separate compartments for specific tasks there wasn't the more general integration our brains have.

Again, how do you know this? Further our brains are very specialized, general integration is also known as dyslexia.

So they would have been intelligent but they may lacked imagination, art and culture. They just survived in their natural environment and would still be doing that now.

This is all wrong from what we know except may have been intelligent.



Great job helm, glad to know you haven't changed a bit.

[Helm]

Its difficult to judge intelligence based purely on brain size though it has something to do with it. Homo floresiensis had the brain the size of a chimpanzee but made sophisticated stone tools associated larger brained homanids such homo erectus. Also if you someone like Albert Einstein his brain was significantly larger than the norm.