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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2