5 ms·
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 ass
by 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 agoNot 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 agoIts 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 agoThey 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 agoThey 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 agoStructure 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 agoHumans 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 agoTrue, 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.
- sbierwagen 7y agoDomesticated animals are generally much dumber than their wild phenotype-- intelligent animals are generally reluctant to take orders. There's some evidence homo sapiens self-domesticated: trading off intelligence for superior group coordination: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/early-humans-domesticated-themselves-new-genetic-evidence-suggests https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/early-humans-domesti...