Neanderthal Intelligence

[geomattica]

A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome

Ok big thanks for this one. So it does seem like the neanderthal-homosapien thing is the case. Still, mixing was probably very uneven and jagged. And then its only 3-4% at most.

Also, some of the video you show brings up autism and relates it to ability to draw well/think abstractly and attributes such to Neanderthals originally.

If this is the case w/in the whole Neanderthal improving intelligence thing, then it seems like some are saying autism is an advantageous thing to have? Perhaps indeed for some things, yet there are certain functional ability problems that people w/ autism have which makes it difficult for them to function on a day to day practical pragmatic level for just everyday living.

Autism is a very interesting subject these days, and now everyone, white AND black appears to be diagnosed w/ it in the states more then ever. Some behavioralist I've talked to challenge] it as a disease or dysfunctional thing attributable to "bad wiring" ultimately stemming from genetics. Autism is interesting but I don't think its as understood as well as it could be. The diagnosis of it today among children, particularly in the states, seems far too frequent and perhaps unnecessary in some instances but that's a topic unto itself.

Also, neanderthal hunting tactics were ambush related and kills believed to be made in dangerously close contact to animals. Contrary, you have homosapiens who develop atlatl and bows, or killing technology that utilizes a leveraging and stored elastic energy respectively. And the bow comes out of Africa.

So in terms of coming up w/ key practical pragmatic things for everyday survival, neanderthals currently bare not strong evidence for this. At the moment, they seem best at perhaps artistic development, which is fine and demonstrates some intelligence but at c. 30,000 BC and really throughout all of time, the most important thing, necessary for survival is:

FOOD.

And finding ways of obtaining it practicaly, pragmatically, and efficiently. Neanderthals seem to have lacked this as evident by their close quarters hunting techniques. Analysis of Neanderthal bones frequenly indicates many fractures surmised to have been caused during hunts where the animals attack back since they got so close. Check this article out:

http://www.ghosttn.com/History/Anthr...anderthals.pdf

Granted, its old and from 1978, but it does note that Neanderthals had indeed some intelligence and took care of their injured. Still, injury was a very frequent thing for them and it likely stems from inability regarding how to effectively kill an animal for its nurishments w/out have to practically get on top of it. Although the article doesn't make that claim, its still regarded as the most likely explanations of such frequent injuries:

http://factsanddetails.com/world.php...6&subcatid=361

Based on evidence of wounds and injuries and the stone points they used, scientists believe Neanderthals attacked their prey directly by thrusting knives and spears instead of throwing things at that at them. "They were unable to conceive of projectiles," French archaeologist Jean-Michel Geneste told National Geographic. "We don't know why." Some scientists theorize they relied more on thrusting weapons because they mostly hunted in dense forests, where setting up ambushes and fighting at close quarters makes more sense than trying to throw something through trees and bushes.

Also:

Hunting large animals was dangerous business and this seems have been borne out by the large numbers of healed fractures found on Neanderthals upper limbs and skulls. Goring were probably relatively common occurrences.

I still feel that their inability to come up w/ better hunting techniques involving the use of say things like bows and atlatls probably didn't help then in regards to survival.

Also shows a lack of the pragmatic like I said before.

Perhaps artistic expression was enhanced by Neanderthals but at the end of the day, I'd rather make sure I know how to get food on my plate w/o getting myself killed or fatally injured.

[RupertVanstersher]

Ok big thanks for this one. So it does seem like the neanderthal-homosapien thing is the case. Still, mixing was probably very uneven and jagged. And then its only 3-4% at most.

Incorrect. It's approximately 5% in the 5 people tested in Paabo's original study. It's as much as 7% in Tuscans. Tuscans are the people of Tuscany: e.g., Florence, Siena, Pisa, the home of the Renaissance. Famous Tuscans include Dante, Brunelleschi, Puccini, and three of the four Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Donatello, Leonardo, and Michelangelo.

Also, some of the video you show brings up autism and relates it to ability to draw well/think abstractly and attributes such to Neanderthals originally.

It was probably the hybrids. We don't know how heterosis affects cognition, but hybrid songbirds sometimes produce uniquely complex music.

If this is the case w/in the whole Neanderthal improving intelligence thing, then it seems like some are saying autism is an advantageous thing to have?

It is:

Individuals with ASC have significantly better visual acuity (20:7) compared with control subjects (20:13)-acuity so superior that it lies in the region reported for birds of prey.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18649873

Perhaps indeed for some things, yet there are certain functional ability problems that people w/ autism have which makes it difficult for them to function on a day to day practical pragmatic level for just everyday living.

Yes. Humans are Eusocial. That should have been clear from the video.

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
― Albert Einstein

Autism is a very interesting subject these days, and now everyone, white AND black appears to be diagnosed w/ it in the states more then ever.

There is some evidence that it is less common south of the Sahara and in populations with significant African ancestry. However, humans have always been migrating, and there is evidence that different local hominids in Africa, China, and Tibet also adaptively admixed with local humans.

Some behavioralist I've talked to challenge] it as a disease or dysfunctional thing attributable to "bad wiring" ultimately stemming from genetics.

It is very heritable, but it's more complicated than simple SNPs. There seems to be a significant epigenetic component, as well as sensitivity to de novo copy number changes of existing genes.

Autism is interesting but I don't think its as understood as well as it could be.

No, really?

The diagnosis of it today among children, particularly in the states, seems far too frequent and perhaps unnecessary in some instances but that's a topic unto itself.

The rate increase isn't due to better diagnosis but they'll probably keep saying that for a few more years.

Also, neanderthal hunting tactics were ambush related and kills believed to be made in dangerously close contact to animals. Contrary, you have homosapiens who develop atlatl and bows, or killing technology that utilizes a leveraging and stored elastic energy respectively. And the bow comes out of Africa.

That is one of many hypothesis in a field that relies on drawing elaborate narratives from scant physical evidence.

So in terms of coming up w/ key practical pragmatic things for everyday survival, neanderthals currently bare not strong evidence for this.

Incorrect.

It looks like Neanderthals may have beaten modern humans to the seas. Growing evidence suggests our extinct cousins criss-crossed the Mediterranean in boats from 100,000 years ago.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-mariners.html

[EliasAlucard]

Another well-placed thread.

Race & Ethnicity in Society ---> Evolution

//mod

[Skomand]

The Schöningen spears show Homo Heidelbergensis to be a skilled spear-maker, thrower and hunter. It's unlikely that these techniques were not passed on to Neanderthals. The spears are ballistically as good as modern javelins.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...t-the-Olympics

"The wider implications of the Schöningen spears are both exciting and mind-boggling. The skills needed to make them are not what have generally been thought of as being within the capabilities of peoples 400,000 years ago. Each individual spear is made from the trunk of a 30-year-old spruce tree, and in each spear the end with the tip comes from the base of the trunk where the wood is hardest.

Further, and with equally great implications for the erroneous picture of the achievements of prehistoric peoples that has been dominant for more than 200 years, each of the spears has the same proportions, with the centre of gravity a third of the way from the sharp tip - just like a modern javelin. Robin Dennell, who is at the Department of Prehistory and Archæology at the University of Sheffield, speculates that efficient hunting techniques suggested by these finds may have been the key to survival in northern Europe at that time, when the climate was generally much colder than today. In reference to the Schöningen spears he says:

"These represent considerable investment of time and skill - in selecting an appropriate tree, in roughing out the design and in the final stages of shaping. In other words, these hominids were not living within a spontaneous 'five-minute-culture', acting opportunistically in response to immediate situations.

Rather, we see considerable depth of planning, sophistication of design, and patience in carving the wood, all of which have been attributed only to modern humans."

http://www.morien-institute.org/anomalies.html

[Pulaar]

A quote from "The 10,000 year explosion"


What evidence is there for and against the hypothesis that modern Eurasians' higher average intelligence than Sub-Saharan Africans stems from the interbreeding with Neanderthals that we now know took place?

Great start! Now all you have to do is start a political party to advance your ideas and you'll be well on your way for justifying genocide

How very liberal of you to assume the intellectual inferiority of Sub-Saharan Africans

[geomattica]

Incorrect. It's approximately 5% in the 5 people tested in Paabo's original study. It's as much as 7% in Tuscans.

.

So? Its typically 3-4% at most for 23andme results and most score something like 2.9% at best, if one has it at all.

Tuscans are the people of Tuscany:

.

No shit. You don't say.

Famous Tuscans include....three of the four Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Donatello, Leonardo, and Michelangelo.

.

Actually those are ficticious characters. That deserves another eyeroll.

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
― Albert Einstein.

.

This is a pretty terrible quote to use here for this subject. We are comparing two sub-species of a relatively close, shared common ancestor. And both live(ed) in the same habitats. Yet only one persists now at 95%. The other at just 3-5% at best so to speak. Warrants yet another eyeroll:

We don't know how heterosis affects cognition, but hybrid songbirds sometimes produce uniquely complex music.

.

So then why would we be so quick to say such gave certain groups of Eurasian's a boost in intelligence?

That is one of many hypothesis in a field that relies on drawing elaborate narratives from scant physical evidence.

Incorrect. Archaeology is about discussing the implications of the actual physical evidence actually found from years past and how it relates to human development. Right now, some are saying mating w/ Neanderthal gave Eurasian's an edge in intelligence yet there is in reality no clear proof of that. So what discipline now relies on scant phyiscal evidence to make grand elaborate narratives?

Furthermore, atatl and bow have yet to be found among Neanderthal cultural contexts. Both crucial tools for improving hunting capabilites. Both only surface in modern homo-sapien cultural contexts.

However, none of this apparently stops one from citing fictional archaeology when it suites one's overall hypothesis. Case in point from the article you cited:

But the details remain lost in history. Any craft were presumably made from wood, so rotted away long ago. The oldest known Mediterranean boat, a dugout canoe from Lake Bracciano in Italy, is just 7000 years old. Ferentinos speculates that Neanderthals may have made something similar.

IT LOOKS like Neanderthals may have beaten modern humans to the seas. Growing evidence suggests our extinct cousins criss-crossed the Mediterranean in boats from 100,000 years ago - though not everyone is convinced they weren't just good swimmers.

I'd also like to bring this up:

I know someone w/ two sons who have severe autism. They don't have developed voice boxes and must communicate w/ special electronic devices. Their grades are terrible and they have severe functional day to day issues.

They'll basically be owned for life.

I don't see them doing 23andme anytime soon but I will post this question:

Neanderthal's genetic legacy: Blessing or curse?

[Cail]

Just as a sidenote - "If Neanderthals were smarter, why did they die out?" is not really a valid arguement, since intelligence is not the main factor for the group's surviving. Breeding is. Turks, Arabs, Africans steadily outbreed native Europeans in Europe, despite having lower culture and intelligence (in general). Homo Sapiens could very feasibly just outbreed Neanderthals, and dominate them by sheer numbers.

[geomattica]

^I thought this thread was about figuring out if the hybridization of two different subspecies of genus Homo contributed to Eurasians being smater. Which there is no firm or direct evidence of so far.


hmmm...well last I checked Arabs, and Turks are Eurasians and Neanderthal was in those areas as well.

[Cail]

^I thought this thread was about figuring out if the hybridization of two different subspecies of genus Homo contributed to Eurasians being smater. Which there is no firm or direct evidence of so far.


hmmm...well last I checked Arabs, and Turks are Eurasians and Neanderthal was in those areas as well.

I wasn't implying otherwise. It's just a countering example to the arguement "Sapiens is smarter because it Survived". Europeans are smarter (for cultural/social, not biological reasons, but it doesn't matter in this short-term situation) than middle-easterners and africans, but the latter outperform them in terms of breeding (which leads to long-term survival).

[geomattica]

I wasn't implying otherwise. It's just a countering example to the arguement "Sapiens is smarter because it Survived". Europeans are smarter (for cultural/social, not biological reasons, but it doesn't matter in this short-term situation) than middle-easterners and africans, but the latter outperform them in terms of breeding (which leads to long-term survival).

That may be but given the choice populations I'm afraid we've hit some circular logic here. Consider Europe at c. 6000 BC:

Its receiving "immigrants" from present day Anatolia. And they were among the first farmers that brought agriculture to Europe. And its no surprise then that the earliest civilizations pop up around the Aegean, Mesopotamia, NE Africa, etc.

Much of what makes a population thrive has to do w/ the circumstances of the times. So while Turks and Arabs may have disadvantages today, prior people who were almost certainly their ancestors living years ago in the territories these ethinicities call home today were actually prospering w/ advanced civilizations way back when. And again, Neanderthal was there to.

One may say then, that Europeans at the time of their early Neolithic and Bronze ages were more backwards or even less intillegent based on the level of their social complexity or "civilzation" compared to their Near Eastern neighbors.

Agriculture, and horse domestication aren't even indigeneous to Europe unless the Pontic Caspian steppes is considered the epicenter of horse domestication but that's in present day Ukraine which has a myriad of unfortunate problems societal wise etc. and some people consider them and their situation backwards.

It can be rather subjective and due to the circumstances of the times why one group thrives over another.

Same can be said regarding Neanderthal vs homo-sapiens.