Neanderthal DNA in modern humans

It makes kinda sense though.
I recently read a piece by Domen where it was said that meat versus grain intake influenced brain size.
I am no biologist at all but it sounds plausible to me that a diet resting on the ability to hunt and way moreover resting on high protein intake - it sounds plausible to me that this kind of lifestyle means larger brains than feeding on grains.
So this explains the larger brains of Neandertal and it would also explain bigger brains of northern versus southern people.

What?

I am sure those barbarians had huge brains.

I find that post to be quite wrong, in a somewhat alarming way. I have lived for years in a northern country (England) and nothing leads me to think there is any obvious difference in IQ. It sadly seems that most of the people around in all euro or euro-born countries are in general of the same low level by now, with few exceptions (like myself :) ).

ps: i suppose though you meant that "north"=all of europe, and "south"=africa and below. Still seems very simplistic, and the articles are suspect.
 
^In the same or very related 'species' (as in types of humanoids) it probably does; going by the analogous in dinosaurology it would seem this is the main view (eg the Stegosaur is considered as one of the dumbest dinosaurs, due to the smaller brain-body ratio it had to most other dinosaurs).
 
Doesn't intelligence infer the ability to use one's brain? Or by extension the ability to use the knowledge that humanity has at any given moment? Even people with smaller brain sizes would be able to use what they have. Capacity just means the ability to store information. Of course we would not want humans to determine their intelligence by their ability to surf the web, but the concept is there in theory. Most information is useless and random. IMO, putting information together in an efficient and workable manner would indicate intelligence.
 
Well, yeah, but isn't it a bit like arguing that the very best games for the Amstrad were possibly better than the average or below average games for the Amiga?

The norm would still be dramatically in favor of the more intricate machine :)
 
Well, yeah, but isn't it a bit like arguing that the very best games for the Amstrad were possibly better than the average or below average games for the Amiga?

The norm would still be dramatically in favor of the more intricate machine :)

Or personal preference?
 
Personal preference can account for numerous views there, but not in regards to the processing abilities of the machines (8bit vs 16bit) or graphical scales, animation programs, ability to be used in work and not just games, programming languages which function easily on them and so on :D
 
We are probably at the whim of personal emotions, and using the ability as contrasted with capacity was my point. I was not disagreeing with your point. I was pointing out that if the "better" machine only played certain games and they did not appeal to the person, then the person would still go for the lower ability machine that did offer games that appealed to them.
 
Neanderthals had ON AVERAGE larger brains than modern Homo sapiens populations. Important difference. Among modern humans the brain size varies quite a lot, without obvious consequences for those individuals' intelligence.

What this fact indicates though was that the Neanderthals were probably comparable to modern humans in intelligence, unless there is some major "software" difference we cannot sea. But the Neanderthal skulls indicate that despite their shape the key centres we associate with language and abstract thinking were comparably developed as ours.

Which, come think of it, is amazing - two human (sub)species have evolved towards full sentience independently, in different climates and very different circumstances. It would perhaps indicate that once the basic parts were in place, the evolution towards more brain power was unstoppable.

Yes, the Neanderthals' diet was predominantly meat, but that's more of an environmental response - there simply wasn't that much free stuff to gather as in the warmer climates. Large animals were plentiful and an excellent source of proteins, fats, and useful materials (bones, hides, sinew, etc.)

What's interesting is how practical archaeology changed our view of Neanderthal technology. Until relatively recently, it was assumed that since Homo sapiens tool set seems more 'miniaturized', it was better. But in reality, it was not - it was functionally equivalent to what the Neanderthals had.

The crucial advantage of Homo sapiens seems to lie in a different lifestyle, larger social groups, that sort of thing. This is very behaviour-dependent and unless we have a living Neanderthal to study, we probably will never know.
 
I'll repost it in this thread, because this lecture really summarizes how our view of the Neanderthals have changed recently:


Link to video.

I didn't know that they were collecting grains and cooking them (steaming them, actually) or that they were building elaborate camps or produced threads.

Amazing.
 
Do you mean the ties that bind?
 
Top Bottom