5 ms·
Modern Humans and Neanderthals May Be More Similar Than We Imagined
- dghf 9y ago> Through an analysis of naturally occurring markings on the juvenile’s first left upper molar, Rosas and his coauthors concluded that the child had almost certainly died between the ages of 7.61 and 7.78 years. That seems remarkably precise. What is it about the molar that allows that level of precision?
- aaronblohowiak 9y agohttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483555 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483555 https://www.omicsonline.org/radiographic-evaluation-of-developmental-stages-of-third-molar-in-relation-to-chronological-age-as-applicability-in-forensic-age-estimation-2161-1122.S1-002.php?aid=7319&view=mobile https://www.omicsonline.org/radiographic-evaluation-of-devel...
- dogruck 9y agoBoth of those links are about using the third molar. Is that the same as the "first left upper molar"?
- dogruck 9y agoI came here to post the exact same quote, with the same question. I also know some kids who would like to cheekily answer "how old are you" with that precision.
- spodek 9y agoNo one can prove them wrong.
- lkrubner 9y agoSecond, inspection of the cranium—which houses the brain—implied that brain development in Neanderthals may have been a slightly more protracted process than in Homo sapiens. This can be read as yet more evidence that Neanderthals were smarter than homo sapiens, with an even more protracted childhood to allow for longer brain development. In saying this, I'm influenced by the old arguments that Stephen Gould made suggesting a link between extended development and many of the traits that we think of as uniquely human.
- SerLava 9y agoMaybe the length of brain development evolved to be longer due to pressures selecting for /what/ the brain would be capable of doing, and then further evolutionary pressures compressed the time frame?
- rgrieselhuber 9y agoThis can also lead to some potentially dicey conclusions in certain corners that analyze prevalence of Neanderthal DNA in human populations.
- Method-X 9y agoLike what?
- RepressedEmu 9y agoHe is implying that a larger amount of Neanderthal DNA would lead to greater intelligence.
- rgrieselhuber 9y agoIt's not my assertion, just that there are those who say that.
- excalibur 9y agoOur understanding of the interplay between the different groups of early humans and their relationship to us has been done a disservice by the artificial lines we've drawn in the sand. The Neanderthal and the Denisovan interbred. Both are the ancestors of modern humans, and on the same level of our family tree (i.e. the same number of generations ago). To proclaim that one group is homo sapiens and the other is not amounts to a weird sort of racism against our own ancestors, leading to the popular view of the Neanderthal as inferior.
- papaf 9y agoI thought that there were sizable modern populations with no Neanderthal DNA which would suggest that they are not ancestors of modern humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_m...
- eponeponepon 9y agoThere are, but not a great many, and that doesn't by any stretch countermand the gp's point.
- marchenko 9y agoSub-Saharan Africa is almost entirely free of Neanderthal DNA except for some groups who acquired a bit through introgression from Eurasian modern humans. Various sources of Archaic admixture have been observed or postulated for different modern human groups; determinations about their similarity to modern humans are made in broader grounds. As a practical matter, taxonomic distinctions between different hominid species/subspecies are generally retained until sufficient evidence accumulates to justify dissolving the boundaries. The idea that archaic groups like Neanderthals were very cognitively sophisticated has been around for a long time; the question is whether it is more informative to maintain them as different taxa.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- theodorejb 9y agoEvolutionists who believe that Neanderthals were not fully human always seem surprised by discoveries like this. As a creationist, I don't find it surprising at all - more and more evidence keeps stacking up that Neanderthals were fully human.
- bonzini 9y agoNo one believes they were pre-human. They were our cousins.
- grzm 9y ago> Evolutionists who believe that Neanderthals were some sort of pre-human That's not saying anything more than they're ignorant of the details of paleontology, no different than people who believe that T-Rexes snacked on homonids, or anyone who doesn't know the specifics of a particular domain they know only superficially.
- Simon_says 9y agoShame on the people downvoting you. You're just expressing your opinion, which happens to be extremely unpopular around here. I upvoted you for contributing to the conversation. I'm just more curious: how can you maintain your belief in creationism in spite of all the evidence to the contrary?
- ams6110 9y agoMatters of faith don't really depend on evidence.
- arkona 9y agoThis must be a troll, and it's a pretty bad one...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- indubitable 9y agoThe study this article is based off seems to rely on a logical contradiction. The entire study is founded on the age of the specimen. That age was determined to a literally unbelievable level of precision (+/- 31.025 days for a 50,000 year old corpse of a species that went extinct 40,000 years ago) by assuming that neanderthal growth rates were effectively identical to homo sapien growth rates - so enabling them to determine its age by markers based on homo sapien growth rates. They then use this assumption to show that the growth rate of neanderthals were not, in fact, identical to homo sapiens. This seemingly contradicts the assumption they used to determine the specimen's age, which in turn would effectively nullify the entire paper since it thus negates any attempt at such a precise measurement of age.
- Stratoscope 9y agoIt's always best to use the maximum possible precision. This way people know they can trust your data. Round numbers would lead people to believe you were just making things up. Source: How to Lie with Statistics, Darrell Huff and Irving Geis https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/
- aaron695 9y agoAlthough possible I guess, but it seems weird they are so accurate on tooth age but don't even know the sex of the child. "bone robusticity strongly suggests that it was male "
- zaroth 9y agoCan't agree more with the title. I mean, have you met any fellow humans recently? Clearly 50,000 years of evolution didn't do all that much for us!