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 SidrĂ³n (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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (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) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> 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?