Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday September 23 2017, @06:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the let-me-think-about-that-one dept.

A new study of a Neanderthal child's skeleton has suggested that Neanderthal brains developed more slowly than previous studies had indicated:

A new study shows that Neanderthal brains developed more slowly than ours. An analysis of a Neanderthal child's skeleton suggests that its brain was still developing at a time when the brains of modern human children are fully formed. This is further evidence that this now extinct human was not more brutish and primitive than our species. The research has been published in the journal Science.

Until now it had been thought that we were the only species whose brains develop slowly. Unlike other apes and more primitive humans modern humans have an extended period of childhood lasting several years. This is because it takes time and energy to develop our large brain. Previous studies of Neanderthal remains indicated that they developed more quickly than modern humans - suggesting that their brains might be less sophisticated.

But a team led by Prof Antonio Rosas of the Museum of Natural Sciences in Madrid found that if anything, Neanderthal brains may develop more slowly than ours. "It was a surprise," he told BBC News. "When we started the study we were expecting something similar to the previous studies," he told BBC News.

Also at Science Magazine, NYT, and Discover Magazine.

The growth pattern of Neandertals, reconstructed from a juvenile skeleton from El Sidrón (Spain) (open, DOI: 10.1126/science.aan6463) (DX)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @07:08PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @07:08PM (#572152)

    We be web diggers, uh-huh.

    We don't dig no smelly green web, no sir.

    But we sure dig juicy red web. Eh, fuck it.

    • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @07:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @07:40PM (#572156)

      What's wrong? Can't you spell

      .______.._________._______.._.......
      (..__..\.\__...__/(..____.\|.\..../\
      |.(..\..)...).(...|.(....\/|..\.././
      |.|...).|...|.|...|.|......|..(_/./.
      |.|...|.|...|.|...|.|......|..._.(..
      |.|...).|...|.|...|.|......|..(.\.\.
      |.(__/..)___).(___|.(____/\|../..\.\
      (______/.\_______/(_______/|_/....\/
      ....................................
      ._......._________._______.._______.._______.._______.._______..._____..
      (.(..../|\__...__/(..____.\(..____.\(..____.\(..____.)(..____.\./.___.\.
      |..\..(.|...).(...|.(....\/|.(....\/|.(....\/|.(....)||.(....\/(.(...).)
      |...\.|.|...|.|...|.|......|.|......|.(__....|.(____)||.(_____..\/.././.
      |.(\.\).|...|.|...|.|.____.|.|.____.|..__)...|.....__)(_____..)....(.(..
      |.|.\...|...|.|...|.|.\_..)|.|.\_..)|.(......|.(\.(.........).|....|.|..
      |.)..\..|___).(___|.(___).||.(___).||.(____/\|.).\.\__/\____).|....(_)..
      |/....)_)\_______/(_______)(_______)(_______/|/...\__/\_______)....._...
      ...................................................................(_)..

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @07:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @07:11PM (#572153)

    It has happened, and the Apes are us.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Saturday September 23 2017, @08:50PM (1 child)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Saturday September 23 2017, @08:50PM (#572165) Journal

    humans have large brains, that take a long time to grow and mature, because it isn't possible to *fit* through a human female pelvis fully grown.

    Neanderthals had larger brains. Unless they'd found neanderthal remains of females with huge pelvises, how did they think the big brains developed?

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @10:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @10:47AM (#572278)

      Well the summary suggest now they think it happened "more slowly". So previously, they must have thought they developed "more quickly".

      I only read the very first line though...

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @09:23PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @09:23PM (#572168)

    Africans develop faster than Europeans, who develop faster than Asians.

    Africans have no Neanderthal blood (okay, some Ethopians do due to migrations south as glaciation reached its maximum levels). Europeans and Asians have Neanderthal and Denisovan blood. The DNA is compared to a Neanderthal/Denisovan hybrid baseline from a specimen found in a cave.

    Some European descended people are walking around with 5% Neanderthal specific genes. That's the equivalent to a great-great grandparent being full-blooded Neanderthal. We know that isn't the case, but that's the amount of Neanderthal blood still running through European veins.

    The farther east you go, the more Denisovan-specific genes and the less Neanderthal. From about 0.1 percent in South India to a full 5% (again, the great-great grandparent) in Oceania.

    Africans are the pure blooded homo sapiens. The rest of the world are mutts, mixed in with Neanderthal and Denisovans, on a spectrum that roughly flows more Neanderthal as you enter into Europe, and more Denisovan as you head East. Race mixing has happened for a very long time, and our point of reference for DNA testing is a Neanderthal/Denisovan mutt.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @09:42PM (12 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @09:42PM (#572174)

      Were Neanderthals more intelligent than homo sapiens, but they died out because of slow growth and short lifespans limiting their potential?

      • (Score: 2) by driven on Saturday September 23 2017, @10:19PM (2 children)

        by driven (6295) on Saturday September 23 2017, @10:19PM (#572177)

        Or maybe we just developed a better immune system? Given human similarity with Neanderthals, we could have infected them with diseases they couldn't handle.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @02:05AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @02:05AM (#572218)

          We could have murdered them for being smarter than us, and once all the neanderthals were gone, begun doing the same thing to smarter homo sapiens until there was mostly idiots, and a few smart individuals who hid among the idiots until their time to rise to power happened, leading to tribalism and then feudalism, before finally reaching a point where the idiots needs the false veneer of freedom of choice to live happily. Leading to today where the freedom of choice is actually considered a bad thing and the backpedalling into authoritarianism is taking place so that the mindless masses can once again feel comfortable with their uncomfortable lot in life.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @10:06AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @10:06AM (#572273)

            We obviously didn't murder enough of them, as Detroit and Somalia clearly demonstrate.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday September 23 2017, @11:31PM (3 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday September 23 2017, @11:31PM (#572191)

        More intelligent on what scale? If the Neanderthals developed the test, odds are that they would score more highly on it than other species.

        How intelligent are homo sapiens on the dolphin scale?

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @11:35PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 23 2017, @11:35PM (#572193)

          You're being dishonest with that comparison. Use that tiny homo sapien brain of yours to figure out why your comment was stupid.

        • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:58AM (1 child)

          by unauthorized (3776) on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:58AM (#572253)

          The sale which most accurately predicts greater problem solving ability.

      • (Score: 2) by bart9h on Sunday September 24 2017, @01:06AM (1 child)

        by bart9h (767) on Sunday September 24 2017, @01:06AM (#572205)

        They haven't "died out". They were driven to extinction by the invasion of the Sapiens.

        The tribes at the time were only around 100 to 150 strong. One theory says that the Sapiens developed a more abstract language first, and that allowed them to coordinate larger groups of people.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 24 2017, @03:37AM

          by frojack (1554) on Sunday September 24 2017, @03:37AM (#572230) Journal

          quote>They haven't "died out". They were driven to extinction by the invasion of the Sapiens.

          A distinction without a difference.

          They couldn't compete or chose not to, or they had genes that became recessive in interbreeding. There's no end of theories.

          There's not a lot of evidence for inter species warfare. If anything they were probably "inter-bred to extinction".

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by unauthorized on Sunday September 24 2017, @06:02AM (1 child)

        by unauthorized (3776) on Sunday September 24 2017, @06:02AM (#572254)

        Probably not. Were they more intelligent than us, they would have developed advanced society much quicker than we did. If they did half as well as we did over the thousands of years of their existence, we wouldn't have been able to wipe them out.

        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:10PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:10PM (#572378) Journal

          Not true, because they lived in smaller groups that were more widely dispersed. They evolved that way to survive when the glaciers moved into Europe. Similar adaptations occurred among Sapiens tribes that later moved into the Arctic regions, but they had by then a more advanced technology, and weren't cut off from the gene flow with tribes living further south.

          Living in small groups tends to retard cultural change even if you are slightly more intelligent. (I also disagree with the concept of "general intelligence", but that's only slightly relevant here.) If a Neanderthal invents something and shows it around, a wandering tradr may carry it elsewhere. When he visits a CroMagnon site he'll carry it to a lot more people than when he visits a Neanderthal site. He'll also trade with more customers. So ideas/artifacts would naturally tend to travel towards CroMagnon sites, and traders would prefer to go between them, only stopping by Neanderthal sites in passing. The idea of "network effect" may also apply.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday September 24 2017, @04:59PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 24 2017, @04:59PM (#572369) Journal

        Well, possibly. But not likely.

        Neanderthals had shoulders that weren't designed for throwing, so they needed to get in close to kill their prey. Or drive them off cliffs, but that's only possible in a few places and is very wasteful. Also the head of Neaderthal babies were thinner (and longer) so a cross between a Neanderthal woman and a CroMagnon man was quite likely to end in the woman's death. (Hence the lack of Neanderthal mitochondria.) Etc.

        Neanderthals were also specialized to live in harsh climates with minimal technology (compared to modern Innuits), so they were adapted to live in small groups widely dispersed. This made cultural change slow.

        None of the things I've mentioned even address the basic intelligence. They were probably smarter about some things and slower about others than CroMagnons were. But then I don't accept the concept of "general intelligence". I think capabilities are always developed to address needs, but can often be repurposed. (Were I to accept general intelligence, it would be for the capability used to repurpose other capabilities.)

        Neanderthals didn't have a pronouncedly shorter lifespan, but they had a shorter expected lifespan because they couldn't use distance weapons, i.e. throwing spears. (There's no evidence that bow and arrow yet existed, and I doubt that the Neanderthal shoulder would allow the use of a spear thrower, though I've heard no analysis of that...just that they probably couldn't throw spears.)

        As to why they died out...I think it was because of competition for resources against hominids that *could* throw spears, and therefore were more successful hunters. (They didn't need to be able to get as close to be successful.) There are places where both varieties existed for a long, and probably overlapping, time. Given the uncertainties of dating it's impossible to be sure that they occupied the same place at the same time, and they probably didn't, because all tribal groups tend to avoid strangers (except as occasional visitors, and many even then).

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @04:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @04:13PM (#572354)

      people have said that some(all?) africans are not full blooded homo sapien, but have some homo erectus mixed in.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @01:24AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @01:24AM (#572207)

    Wtf?

    Is anything wrong with slower?

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Sunday September 24 2017, @01:31AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday September 24 2017, @01:31AM (#572209) Journal

      My summarys get less unshitty the more I write of them in one day.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:48AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:48AM (#572252) Journal

      Is anything wrong with slower?

      According to the summary, not. Quite the opposite: More slowly = more intelligent.

      So the next time you miss a deadline, don't feel bad about it: You were just to intelligent. ;-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by acid andy on Sunday September 24 2017, @03:22PM

      by acid andy (1683) on Sunday September 24 2017, @03:22PM (#572333) Homepage Journal

      Grammatically speaking, "slower" is an adjective, a comparative adjective. Adjectives apply to nouns, not verbs, so it would only work if the sentence were rephrased as "Neanderthal Brains Had a Slower Development than Human" (I also think it should be "Human", for "than Human Brains" or "Humans' Brains", rather than "Humans"). "Slowly" is an adverb, so "Developed More Slowly" is the grammatically correct choice, not "Developed Slower".

      </pedantry>

      You were asking about the grammar, right?

      --
      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @04:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @04:49AM (#572244)

    What you mean is modern humans.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @07:30AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @07:30AM (#572257)

    Looking at humans today:

    Asians babies are least capable. They have small heads. They are slow to walk. They keep their brains growing though, and in the end they are smartest.

    Europeans have middle capability, both at birth and in the end. They do have large heads at birth, matching up with mothers having larger pelvis openings.

    African babies are most capable. They are quick to walk. The fixed joints of the skull (soft spots on a baby's head) harden quickly, providing protection but limiting growth.

    We can go beyond humans:

    Compared to humans, the chimpanzee is unusually capable at birth. Of course, they end up relatively dumb. The skull joints harden faster than those of a normal human baby. Abnormal human babies are sometimes like this; the result is retardation.

    Then there is the giraffe. Those babies stand right up after birth, despite falling 6 feet to the ground. It isn't long before they run. Giraffes are even dumber.

    • (Score: 1) by caffeinated bacon on Sunday September 24 2017, @10:59AM (1 child)

      by caffeinated bacon (4151) on Sunday September 24 2017, @10:59AM (#572279)
      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:19PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:19PM (#572381) Journal

        Well, it says what you say it says, but I don't find it convincing. I'm rather certain that larger (not fatter, larger) women have larger babies...assuming that the mothers are healthy and well-nourished. Any other result would be sufficiently unexpected to require rather strong evidence, which that article doesn't supply. (It supplies suggestive evidence, and talks about different measurements being used in different places.)

        It also didn't address the grand-parent's claim about the rate of hardening of the bones of the skull, which would be extremely significant if it could be either substantiated or rejected...and which I find dubious, but not impossible.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(1)