Science Shows Why You’re Smarter Than a Neanderthal

Just a tipfor people not interested in reading long boring stupid science papers, read the last paragraph, it should sum it all up

Here is the last paragraph

Whereas AMHs appear to have concentrated neural investment
in social adaptations to solve ecological problems,
Neanderthals seem to have adopted an alternative strategy
that involved enhanced vision coupled with retention of the
physical robusticity of H. heidelbergensis, but not superior
social cognition. For instance, only in Neanderthals, not
AMHs, does body mass [26], and hence brain volume [78],
increase over time. While the physical response to high latitude
conditions adopted by Neanderthals may have been very effective
at first, the social response developed by AMHs seems to
have eventually won out in the face of the climatic instability
that characterized high-latitude Eurasia at this time.

It appears that I may have to look elsewhere for scientific support, it seems they may have put the evidence some where else and may one day link it, or it appears they wont
It seems i may have said I would bow out of this thread, but it appears I havnt, there could be some evidence that I wont though it seems I might

But hey its scientific because it seems to appear that way

Atheists are smarter than Christians because they read science journals, apparently

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: borntowatch

So what in the paper do you find wrong? Or is your response a standard knee jerk reaction based on your being a creationist and not liking something that talks about Neanderthals as humans, or are you a YEC and Neanderthals in your world view didn't exist in the time frames talked about?

I would think creationists and Lloyd Pye "Neanderthal is bigfoot" adherents would latch onto this paper with a ferver as it's conclusion could be convoluted to show a closer affinity with other primates than with contemporary AMH. I would think any science paper that could be twisted to try and prune Neanderthal off of the human evolutionary tree would be heralded with trumpets.

Or maybe the thought had not yet occurred to them and I just gave them the idea...

originally posted by: borntowatch
I dont need to read the whole paper to see its unscientific, that it is assumption and conjecture.

But you do. It's like looking at the color red and emphatically stating that there is no full spectrum of colors, that red is all there is.

The onus is not on me, I am not faking science or making a comment based on the size of anything, I am just demanding evidence

But you're demanding that evidence based on your offense at the headline of an article printed by Smithsonian Mag and not the crux of the work. If you find fault in the data presented in the article, that is totally acceptable. But as you go onto mention in your following comment, 'the formula of science' which you expect to be applied to your comments is not being given in the first place. Not in my opinion at least. Scientists are wrong all the time. And its not always a bad thing. In school I learned just as much from my errors as I did from what I was correct about. When we research something and it doesn't pan out, that often sends us on the correct path because we now know where NOT to look or focus.

Thus, the onus is indeed upon you to hold yourself to the standard you require of others whom you debate and back up your assertions with the science. If there are actual errors, please point them out. To simply state that it is unscientific, it is conjecture and assumption doesn't make for a good argument.

You know the formula of science as opposed to religion, or as you would say,just making stuff up.

I wouldn't say just making stuff up, even from a religious perspective. I simply find no evidence to support religious interpretations of natural phenomena

The paper states nothing but assumption and opinion, its baseless, its valuless. It has no evidence to support it, show me the evidence, the experiment the conclusion, it has nothing to do with me proving it wrong, if its science the onus is on evidence, just call it what it is, religion, faith, belief

.
I don't believe either Hans or myself argues for you to prove it wrong, we simply asked you to support your statements with what specifically you found wrong with the science. After doing the dosey do repeatedly you're answer is pretty stock at this point so there really isn't much discussion to be had I guess if you're going to stick with your interpretation of the evidence or its lack thereof as opposed to pointing out specifics in the work.

I cant prove nothing of substance wrong, there is nothing to prove wrong because there is nothing there to argue.

This is something we are going to have to agree to disagree on. You believe there is no substance, I believe there may be. This is after all preliminary research and while supported, is just hypothetical at this point. Does the research need more work, more teeth to it, absolutely. As someone who spent the better part of 2 decades researching HSN and began my graduate work with them as the basis, you're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm of the mindset that they were our intellectual inferiors.

Neanderthals had bigger eyes so they are dumber than mankind.

That is not at all the correlation being made in the paper though. It is specifically about what areas of their brains vs AMH were adapted towards visual aspects as opposed to social skills. It's not about intelligence, it's about what made one successful enough to survive past the 28KYA-40KYA mark(depending on which research you favor).

Go read Hansalunes comment about dwarves, look at Pygmy brain sizes

I've seen it and I do believe that earlier in this thread I actually agreed with you that size and cranial capacity is equitable with intelligence. I also pointed out the correlation between brain size and body mass which is quite poignant when discussing primates. Another good example in relation to that would be H Floresiensis who while diminutive in size, were likely just as smart as any contemporary hominids based on their lithic technology.

I dont fully comprehend how I should argue against nothing, no experiment, no evidence, how do you argue a vacuum, a belief a religion.

That was not the contention being made though. both Hans and I were curious, specifically what you felt was lacking on the science end of things because you argue so vehemently based primarily on the title of a Smithsonian Mag article giving the impression you had at best merely glossed over some of the paper and at worst read none of it. Ironcially, you're statement regarding arguing against nothing, a vacuum, a belief, a religion is the basis for many of our disagreements/discussions on this board. I'm not trying to make this a personal attack, just making an observation on what I perceive as extremely ironic.

Neanderthals had big eyes so we think we are smarter than them.

But that isn't actually what the point of the paper is, you're getting that entirely off of what I fully admit is a sensationalistic headline created by a journalist to grab peoples attention.

What the paper is stating is that because a larger percentage of their brain was used in creating a larger visual cortex that compared to AMH, what was left, gave them less area for things like social skills or organization. The hypothesis being presented is that our social structures are what made AMH more successful in the long run than HSN. Personally, I'm not fully convinced that this is the whole story. I personally believe from my own research that there are many facets and factors into what allowed HSS to eventually become the sole surviving member of humanity when only a few tens of thousands of years ago there were several branches of our family tree coexisting simultaneously. Neanderthal was in decline already when AMH finally made its way into Eurasia and additionally, as I mentioned back on page 1, there are specific instances where AMH not just cooperated with but learned from HSN living in the Levant.

Hey look drink the cool aid I dont really mind what floats your boat, its dishonest to call it science

not at all, it's dishonest to say its not science based on the headline of a magazine article without looking into the actual research first. Again, this paper is a hypothesis, its not an addition to evolutionary theory nor is it as you stated earlier, fitting the theory to the puzzle pieces which don't belong(I'm paraphrasing here so if I am wrong on that statement please feel free to point it out).

Yes its a hypothesis, baseless and stupid.

For all we know Neanderthals had a higher spectrum of colour vision because we see evidence in the area of the brain suggesting superior development , that made them more perceptive, hence smarter.
See I can do baseless evidenceless conjecture as well. My statement is substanceless, there is nothing to validate what I say to argue it, nothing
I just wont call it science

For all we know, Neanderthals had insect like perception, the evidence is in their brains significantly larger visual systems. They may have even had a social structure like bees, seeing they had eyes like bees why not a bee like social structure.

I can make silly hypothesis up as well

originally posted by: borntowatch
Yes its a hypothesis, baseless and stupid.

I tend ti disagree with their conclusion but that does not mean the hypothesis was baseless.

For all we know Neanderthals had a higher spectrum of colour vision because we see evidence in the area of the brain suggesting superior development , that made them more perceptive, hence smarter.
See I can do baseless evidenceless conjecture as well. My statement is substanceless, there is nothing to validate what I say to argue it, nothing
I just wont call it science

For all we know, Neanderthals had insect like perception, the evidence is in their brains significantly larger visual systems. They may have even had a social structure like bees, seeing they had eyes like bees why not a bee like social structure.

I can make silly hypothesis up as well

You took a possible explanation for the larger eye sockets that is plausible and ended up at a completely unsupported notion. You claimed the study is baseless. Take each point and explain where they have erred or may have minimized the error margin.

So can you support the papers claim in any scientific way


Jarcoal I have taken a position that is baseless and stupid, Take each point f my position and explain where I have erred or may minimize my error margin.

originally posted by: borntowatch

So can you support the papers claim in any scientific way


Jarcoal I have taken a position that is baseless and stupid, Take each point f my position and explain where I have erred or may minimize my error margin.

The orbital volume is comparatively larger than in amh. The paper itself concludes higher visual acuity than contemporary AMH. Higher visual paucity could entail a wider spectrum that is where you started out plausible. Where you ended up at ridicu... .er implausible was at the insect eye comment even if you meant it sarcastic.

a reply to: borntowatch

Huge difference between what you state and the paper. Since you refuse to actually refute the science behind the paper or discuss it period there's really no point on continuing this. The paper is based upon direct comparison of contemporary anatomical features. Yours is just talking crap because you disagree with the headline of the article published by Smithsonian Mag. Considering your posting History regarding anthropological principles and evolutionary theory I'm not really sure why you're bothering anyway unless it's a vague and veiled attempt to slander science in that disagrees with your religious proclivities as baseless and ignorant. Have a happy holiday and enjoy your celebration of Sol Invictus.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Hanslune

Neanderthals are always fascinating and this paper makes intriguing reading.

Firstly, I was reminded of my psychology days at uni - especially biological psychology. We have sensory body maps where some of our senses are heavy users of brain resources. These sensory maps differ across species so we might find rodents dedicating plenty of their brains to sense of smell and whisker sensitivity.

The textbook imagery was better than this, but it's as close as I could find:

A conception of the human sensory body map looks like The Neanderthal's cognitive map would have shown a larger area for the eyes. That made me wonder if there's a similar study in sense of scent? If there was greater use of visual cortex might there not also be a proportionate increase in olfactory senses? This would further reduce the amount of 'real estate' available for social cohesion etc.

As it turns out, there are studies that suggest Neanderthal olfactory senses were weaker than AMH. I say 'suggest' as there are always questions about sample sizes and variety across populations.

Considering that a minimum odorant detection threshold must be met to detect a smell in modern humans [3], in conjuncture with the effect of cold temperatures limiting odor volatility [20], it is possible that the loss of 10 Neanderthal and 8 Denisovan ORs may have had an affect on odorant perception for these hominin species. The loss of 10 ORs may be related to the decreased size of the olfactory bulb in Neanderthals, however inferring how gene loss may affect phenotype in extinct species remains challenging.

Loss of Olfactory Receptor Function in Hominim Evolution; Graham M. Hughes, Emma C. Teeling, Desmond G. Higgins

Obviously it's a discussion for those who are more informed. However, I wonder if Neanderthals' enhanced vision wasn't balanced by weaker senses of smell. If that were the case, they might well be losing some 200cc of brain to the stronger visual cortex and yet gain more 'real estate' from other areas.

This is a very astute point you raise. Certainly it's a valid assumption that if neanderthals can be shown to have smaller olfactory regions than do AMH, this may indeed balance out the excess real-estate available for more complex, high-level neural functioning. However, keep in mind that the olfactory areas of the brain are inherently smaller than the visual areas, so any difference there may be could potentially be negligible. Nonetheless, an interesting thought.

A message to "borntowatch." We are discussing a paper here. I'm sorry, but you have no grounds to be labeling it as unscientific. If you actually took the 15 minutes to read the paper, as the rest of us have, you'd quickly realize that it is indeed anything but unscientific. Nobody is arguing that assumptions are not being made. If you have an issue with the methods used, or the specific assumptions made, then you are encouraged to raise them. Other than that, there's no use in calling the headline a lie, or calling the paper unscientific without backing your claim up with any evidence. If that's all you plan on doing, then we get it, but we'd ask you politely to please discontinue posting on this thread.

originally posted by: Jarocal

originally posted by: borntowatch

So can you support the papers claim in any scientific way


Jarcoal I have taken a position that is baseless and stupid, Take each point f my position and explain where I have erred or may minimize my error margin.

The orbital volume is comparatively larger than in amh. The paper itself concludes higher visual acuity than contemporary AMH. Higher visual paucity could entail a wider spectrum that is where you started out plausible. Where you ended up at ridicu... .er implausible was at the insect eye comment even if you meant it sarcastic.

Great swerve, yes ridiculous...now how about some evidence

originally posted by: kayej1188


A message to "borntowatch." We are discussing a paper here. I'm sorry, but you have no grounds to be labeling it as unscientific. If you actually took the 15 minutes to read the paper, as the rest of us have, you'd quickly realize that it is indeed anything but unscientific. Nobody is arguing that assumptions are not being made. If you have an issue with the methods used, or the specific assumptions made, then you are encouraged to raise them. Other than that, there's no use in calling the headline a lie, or calling the paper unscientific without backing your claim up with any evidence. If that's all you plan on doing, then we get it, but we'd ask you politely to please discontinue posting on this thread.

Thanks Kayej
Valid and relevant, thanks for stating the fact.
Pity the truth, the lie the headline dont match the reality.

Guess its people like you who are happy to roll with the lies, sorry I cant, sorry I want to deny ignorance, sorry I cant put up with the constant stupidity.

Politely...NO
I am asking for evidence or that the lie be exposed as a lie, can you categorically state the Smithsonian lied, falsely stated something that was untrue.
I am not from the US, is the Smithsonian an unedited trash tabloid?

I politely ask you to show some evidence or state the Smithsonian are liars, arnt a valid scientific ....anything

and yes
its not science,
science is
repeatable
observable
and testable

Merry Christmas, enjoy your family and the fun to be had, its more important than you can imagine.
Thank a Pagan, its their gift.
Sincerely
m

a reply to: borntowatch

With all due respect borntowatch,

All your counter points only have to do with words like assume and may have in the paper, and the title of the article about the paper? How is that working out for you? I ask because in an article you linked (www.colorado.edu...) they say "Neanderthals thrived in a large swath of Europe and Asia between about 350,000 and 40,000 years ago.". They didn't use words like assume, or may have, or possibly, when they refer to how long ago they lived. I know you don't like bringing religion into the conversation, and want to only stick with the science. Needless to say those numbers don't agree with your current worldview. Now I know you may be wanting me to show some evidence to back up how long ago Neanderthals lived but I'm not going to do that for a couple of reasons. Mainly because I know you have been in threads where the subject or related subjects has been discussed and evidence presented, and you adamantly disagree.

Back to the article you linked... At the end they briefly mention genome research. "The researchers argue that the real reason for Neanderthal extinction is likely complex, but they say some clues may be found in recent analyses of the Neanderthal genome over the last several years." I bring this up merely because I'm interested in your opinion of genetic research in general and the reasons you may consider it faulty in some way shape or form. Again, because the results of a lot of genetic research would clash with your worldview.

So why did you link an article that makes statements you don't agree with? Cherry pick much?

Sorry to have to bring your position as a YEC into it. It's kind of hard not to because it's pretty much the crux of your position on science. Even if you don't believe it is. I am all ears to hear your thoughts on various flaws or faults you have with science, without bringing religion into it. It's a claim I've seen a lot around these parts make and as yet I've yet to see anyone make any real attempts to back up those claims.



ETA:
Just so I can go on record, as an atheist. Being an atheist doesn't make anyone more or less intelligent. There are stupid people and intelligent people in the world, and they encompass all walks of life. Nobody is right about everything, everyone is wrong about something.

I am a YEC, its logical to bring my pov in to an issue.
Whats illogical is assuming that my comments pertaining to this thread and the science assumed is based on YEC beliefs.
Show me the evidence and I will reconsider my position on YEC

Me personally, I think your beliefs are clouded by your views on evolution

Why did I use a stupid article to answer another stupid article that neither offers evidence.
i will let you work that out for yourself

Remember the acronym ROT ,not that I think its rotten

science is repeatable observable and testable

As for the age of Neanderthals, lets see how many evolutionist sites conflict on their age, yet you are going to show me conclusive evidence, I think not.

Want to play a game?

I know I could be wrong about this, I have been wrong so many times in the past

Mind you I know the headline is a blatant lie by a institution calling themselves science based.
Deny ignorance is different to deny stupidity

the Smithsonian are liars, do you argue that statement?

a reply to: borntowatch

Dude, leave. Do you not understand that you're hijacking and trolling this thread? Nothing we do is going to satisfy you, so let's just call a spade a spade. The evidence in this paper isn't good enough for you--that's great; as it turns out, the paper did a pretty good job convincing me and a few others here. And we actually read it. We could not possibly care less whether you're convinced or not, it doesn't matter to us. Please see your way out and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

a reply to: borntowatch

OH, and EVERY method they used in this paper was repeatable, observable, and testable. Please show me how the methods in this study were not repeatable, observable, and testable. I truly do not understand what your problem is. To be honest, I'd guess that you haven't spent a great deal of time reading scientific literature during your life, because frankly there is absolutely nothing shocking or too controversial about this paper whatsoever. They propose a method for comparing brain volume sizes, they carry out that plan, and then they draw conclusions. It's up to the audience to judge whether the authors provided enough evidence and drew valid conclusions. Smithsonian magazine seemed to believe this was a respectable study with some interesting results and valid methodology, so I truly don't understand what it is you're so upset about? Nobody is telling you what to believe. You don't need to read smithsonian mag.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I am a YEC, its logical to bring my pov in to an issue.
Whats illogical is assuming that my comments pertaining to this thread and the science assumed is based on YEC beliefs

Certainly, I won't argue that if that's the position behind your stance in this issue, that it is indeed valid. I would disagree however with the assertion that your YEC beliefs have no pertinence to the thread in general. If the science is based on comparative analysis of skulls that are in a range of tens of thousands of years and you believe the age of the earth is approximately 6000 years it becomes an important aspect of the debate.

.

Show me the evidence and I will reconsider my position on YEC

I know I have a tendency to be rather combative with you so in the spirit of the holiday season I'm waving my white flag in hopes of a rational discussion. What is your biggest issue with the scientifically ascribed date of the Earth? Is it the geological record? The radiometric dating? I would like to appropriately address the specific concern you have instead of writing a wall of text detailing a variety of scenarios that would inevitably be ignored or ruled unscientific by you.

Me personally, I think your beliefs are clouded by your views on evolution

For some that may be true. I can't speak for everyone participating in the thread. With that said, there are certainly several of us who, while firm believers in MES, are because of out backgrounds, interested in evidence as opposed to hyperbolic conjecture and maintaining a paradigm. If there were
Evidence that definitively showed all the dating incorrect and that the earth
And or universe were 6KY old then I would have to accept it.

Why did I use a stupid article to answer another stupid article that neither offers evidence.
i will let you work that out for yourself

Wait... Didn't you earlier in the thread argue with me that you aren't claiming the article is stupid? This is why a said previously that you're all over the place and lacking a consistent argument that shifts frequently.

Remember the acronym ROT ,not that I think its rotten

I'm not familiar with the likely intended acronym you allude to. When I was in the military it meant Radar On Targrt so I doubt that's what you're getting at. What does ROT refer to? Rule of thumb? See... I'm not a know it all dictator! I can admit when I don't know something!

science is repeatable observable and testable

And if you read the entire paper you will find the aspects that were observed, tested and repeated by other researchers.
It's all there for you to dispute appropriately.

As for the age of Neanderthals, lets see how many evolutionist sites conflict on their age, yet you are going to show me conclusive evidence, I think not.

I think the appropriate view would be how many anthropologists and evolutionary biologists have differing views, not "evolutionist websites". That's essentially the same as comparing and article geared towards the layman/average reader
To an actual paper presented for publication and review.

What is your personal view of HSN? Do you biefe them to actually be a seperate species? To have lived for a short period of time pre biblical flood? What precisely is your issue with the dating attributed to Neanderthal? You lob a lot of generalities that make the issue difficult to appropriately address.

Want to play a game?

I know I could be wrong about this, I have been wrong so many times in the past

Mind you I know the headline is a blatant lie by a institution calling themselves science based.
Deny ignorance is different to deny stupidity

the Smithsonian are liars, do you argue that statement?

Liars? No. Sensationalizing a journalistic headline geared
Towards a nonprofessional readership and then allowing them to view the data and make their own interpretation... Sure! While published by the Smithsonia, your ire should be geared towards the EIC who thought the heaine was appropriate and the author of the article as opposed to the Smithsonian Institute as a whole.

Isnt it sad when science has to be sensationalised to gain interest and credibility, isnt sensationalising something adding something to it that doesnt exist.

Thats not science.

Repeatable
Observable
Testable

a reply to: borntowatch

Please tell us how any of your beliefs regarding the age of the Earth or the diversity of life, are observable, testable, and repeatable. We can leave religion out of it and stick to the facts. In other threads I have seen you say you have studied, and you have done research. It would be a welcomed change of pace for you to start backing up your position with scientific evidence (that is ofc observable, testable, and repeatable) instead of attacking the conclusions and findings of the larger scientific community. I've noticed you like to shift the burden of proof away from yourself by acting as if you have nothing to prove. Wrong. With all the claims I've seen you make in various threads about how "evolutionists" have it wrong, you absolutely do!

Do I think the Smithsonian Institute are liars? I don't know and I don't care. I don't read their magazines or articles. Only once have I been to a Smithsonian exhibit. I did enjoy it (saw a lot of items from history). When I read an article I know it's just that, an article. There isn't going to be a lot of real meat, if any, to be garnered from reading a few paragraphs let alone a headline. If I find something in an article I find interesting, I dig deeper and do more research.

a reply to: Hanslune

Well I still dont think its possible to determine "intelligence" without knowing for certain the composition of the brain. Structure is fine and good, but composition can have HUGE differences in intellect. Large or smaller brains arent better. Specific structures arent the source of intelligence. Its brain matter composition that determines capacity for intelligence.

Neanderthal had more developed ocular nerves, smaller vocal regions but larger spacial cognition centers from what I gather.

These things would not be limiting. Einstein had an odd brain composition as well as structure. It was similar to neanderthal in many ways.

But hey, we are the new kids on the block. Might as well feel good about our current abilities by downgrading a successful sentient life form which lasted longer than we have been around yet..... Sorry. I couldnt resist.

a reply to: borntowatch

So instead of addressing any of the science from the paper you're still harping on a jrnalistic construction. The science isn't sensationalized, its in the paper which you continue to ignore. As that is the case, and I attempted to be courteous here and allow you to address the science or address a direct inquirtpy, fthere clearly is not anything to discus further because if you bothered reading the paper, the science is observable, repeatable and testable so you either don't understand it or simp,y don't care and can't be bothered to read it. That's what is sad about this entire endeavor. If you ever feel like coming up for air and want to educate yourself and discuss the science feel free. Until then, the festival of Sol Invictus nears us so e joy your holiday.