6 ms·

Can’t help but feel we wouldn’t have to go too far back in time to discover people ate whatever they could. Are you likely to find evidence of fruit having bee

Can’t help but feel we wouldn’t have to go too far back in time to discover people ate whatever they could. Are you likely to find evidence of fruit having been eaten?

bad_user 7y ago
Of course, the Homo family are very adaptable and fruits and honey have been eaten where available. Evidence of fruits or tubers or seeds is harder to come by from the Paleolithic era because plant fossils are rare (vs bones that are common), but more recent tests looking at dental tartar does confirm a very diverse diet.
TSiege 7y ago
I think it's safe to say yes, given that human's evolutionary ancestors lost the ability to produce vitamin C ~60 million years ago and there's no reason to assume they didn't require a similar diet to our own. To your larger point, that has always been the case from what I've seen from archeological and anthropological studies. Take Pokeweed for example which is toxic unless it's boiled three times in salt water. However, the larger point of the article is that Neanderthals were a much more intelligent and adaptable species than we've given them credit. Given this evidence of food it would not be surprising if they found net sinkers or other tools associated with fishing. It seems every time we learn more about Neanderthals the more they resemble our species than not.
- zelly 7y ago
  Not only were they smarter than we give them credit for, they were smarter than modern humans. There's nothing about intelligence that guarantees not becoming extinct.
  - chippy 7y ago
    Its really too much of a leap from they were "more smart than we give them credit" to "smarter than modern humans" really with no evidence.
  - zelly 7y ago
    They had bigger brains. In all the studies of humanoid fossils, there's a clear relationship between brain size and ability to make tools etc. (which is presumably caused by intelligence). It would be very strange that this is the sole exception to that relationship. This relation is defined between different species--irrelevant to the more controversial claim that brain size matters between humans (of the same species) which is probably why you're rejecting the idea.
    - TSiege 7y ago
      They might have had bigger brains in relation to body weight than humans, but encephalization quotient isn't a perfect measure of intelligence. Without having a living breathing Neanderthal to compare us to we really can't say. We might have a unique brain structure or some of difference in our brains that fill make this difference meaningless or irrelevant. The wikipedia on encephalization quotient actually has a section dedicated to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient#EQ_in_paleoneurology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient#EQ_in...
    - woodandsteel 7y ago
      Structure matters a lot. Look how intelligent crows are, in spite of having such small brains. Humans do all sorts of things Neanderthals never did, so maybe we have differently structured brains that allow us to do them.
      - zelly 7y ago
        Humans never did anything either for approximately 100% of history. Newton could have lived a caveman's life if his top priority was basic survival, regardless of the quality of his hardware.
        woodandsteel 7y ago
        True, but if you are going to argue Neanderthals are smarter than homo sapiens, you have to ask why they didn't do anything that humans couldn't when both were foraging societies.
sarbaz 7y ago
Basically, why aren't we treating the null hypothesis as "neanderthals and modern humans eat exactly the same foods"? Rather than "neanderthals don't eat at all" which seems to be the case here.

Can’t help but feel we wouldn’t have to go too far back in time to discover people ate whatever they could. Are you likely to find evidence of fruit having been eaten?

bad_user 7y ago

Of course, the Homo family are very adaptable and fruits and honey have been eaten where available. Evidence of fruits or tubers or seeds is harder to come by from the Paleolithic era because plant fossils are rare (vs bones that are common), but more recent tests looking at dental tartar does confirm a very diverse diet.

TSiege 7y ago

I think it's safe to say yes, given that human's evolutionary ancestors lost the ability to produce vitamin C ~60 million years ago and there's no reason to assume they didn't require a similar diet to our own. To your larger point, that has always been the case from what I've seen from archeological and anthropological studies. Take Pokeweed for example which is toxic unless it's boiled three times in salt water. However, the larger point of the article is that Neanderthals were a much more intelligent and adaptable species than we've given them credit. Given this evidence of food it would not be surprising if they found net sinkers or other tools associated with fishing. It seems every time we learn more about Neanderthals the more they resemble our species than not.

zelly 7y ago
Not only were they smarter than we give them credit for, they were smarter than modern humans. There's nothing about intelligence that guarantees not becoming extinct.
- chippy 7y ago
  Its really too much of a leap from they were "more smart than we give them credit" to "smarter than modern humans" really with no evidence.
- zelly 7y ago
  They had bigger brains. In all the studies of humanoid fossils, there's a clear relationship between brain size and ability to make tools etc. (which is presumably caused by intelligence). It would be very strange that this is the sole exception to that relationship. This relation is defined between different species--irrelevant to the more controversial claim that brain size matters between humans (of the same species) which is probably why you're rejecting the idea.
  - TSiege 7y ago
    They might have had bigger brains in relation to body weight than humans, but encephalization quotient isn't a perfect measure of intelligence. Without having a living breathing Neanderthal to compare us to we really can't say. We might have a unique brain structure or some of difference in our brains that fill make this difference meaningless or irrelevant. The wikipedia on encephalization quotient actually has a section dedicated to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient#EQ_in_paleoneurology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient#EQ_in...
  - woodandsteel 7y ago
    Structure matters a lot. Look how intelligent crows are, in spite of having such small brains. Humans do all sorts of things Neanderthals never did, so maybe we have differently structured brains that allow us to do them.
    - zelly 7y ago
      Humans never did anything either for approximately 100% of history. Newton could have lived a caveman's life if his top priority was basic survival, regardless of the quality of his hardware.
      - woodandsteel 7y ago
        True, but if you are going to argue Neanderthals are smarter than homo sapiens, you have to ask why they didn't do anything that humans couldn't when both were foraging societies.

sarbaz 7y ago

Basically, why aren't we treating the null hypothesis as "neanderthals and modern humans eat exactly the same foods"? Rather than "neanderthals don't eat at all" which seems to be the case here.