Science Shows Why You’re Smarter Than a Neanderthal

originally posted by: peter vlar

The only part I would agree with is the silly heaine if the ARTICLE. Have you looked at the actual paper or are you basing your entire interpretation on the headline of the article? If so your beef is with Smithsonian Magazine not the papers authors. The title of the actual paper is "New Insights into Differences in Brain Organization Between Neanderthal and Anatomically Modern Humans". Since you are oblivious to that you clearly have not read the actual paper which means you have no basis for your next statement below

Sorry you are confused, I guess that is par for the course around here when people, well you know.

I am not responding to the paper, did you see me cite the paper?
Did you see me take any data from the paper?

I am responding to the Opening post and the conjecture that the opening post made.
I am responding to the invalid assumption and the lack of valid scientific evidence shown in the opening post
I am responding directly to whats on ats.
I skimmed the paper and noted it was assumption and not verified, hence my posts.

Stop with the cool aid.

I wish Smithsonian would be truthful and cut the lies, it is a lie isnt it.
but hey, thats ok, its a valid scientific magazine so its cool, cool aid for some

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Hanslune

100% correct on all counts. Reading the paper was the first thing I did when I saw it linked. It's a short and sweet 7 pages and addresses all the concerns of the resident naysayer who happens to be as sensationalistic as the finest of journalists. This topic has been discussed for years and it's particular research has been ongoing since 2013 if I remember correctly. I simy can't fathom constructing my entire opinion solely on a magazine article or an abstract alone. But hey... To each their own I guess.

Oh is it me, the resident naysayer, cool.

Still the lies the Smithsonian have told in their headline need to be exposed as baseless unscientific fluff, are you going to argue that with me.

I am not constructing or deconstructing, I am doing what any one with a scientific mind should do, regarding the paper, the smithsonian or ats, asking for evidence

You should as well, dont drink the cool aid

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?

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 can type slowly if you like, nah, just kidding

If you read my previous posts I am sure you will find an answer, I think I explained in great detail my issue with the lack of scientific evidence over and over and over again

Lets just leave the religion out and deal with the lack of scientific evidence, can you do that? Can you focus on the issue, relating to evidence rather than the knee jerk yec carry on people here are subject to.

Even deal with the Smithsonian lies (the headline) that a few understood but decided to keep quiet about, why not expose that lie?

Really if this is about neanderthals and humans and time frames and such petty squabbling then you cant comprehend true science, you are lost.
Trying to turn a scientific issue in to an argument than a formula, a tongue tirade instead of an experiment that is quantifiable.

You shame yourself asking that question

Lay off the cool aid

originally posted by: borntowatch

I can type slowly if you like, nah, just kidding

If you read my previous posts I am sure you will find an answer, I think I explained in great detail my issue with the lack of scientific evidence over and over and over again

Again state specifically what evidence you say is lacking - since you didn't read the report it would appear you are whining about nothing

Lets just leave the religion out and deal with the lack of scientific evidence, can you do that?

No lets not since that is the basis of your bias.

We await your detailed explanation of what evidence you think is lacking - after you read the report and can find something to actually factually whine about, lol

Oh and do you believe that Neanderthals existed?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: borntowatch

I can type slowly if you like, nah, just kidding

If you read my previous posts I am sure you will find an answer, I think I explained in great detail my issue with the lack of scientific evidence over and over and over again

Again state specifically what evidence you say is lacking - since you didn't read the report it would appear you are whining about nothing

Lets just leave the religion out and deal with the lack of scientific evidence, can you do that?

No lets not since that is the basis of your bias.

We await your detailed explanation of what evidence you think is lacking - after you read the report and can find something to actually factually whine about, lol

Oh and do you believe that Neanderthals existed?

The basis of my bias is the lies told or at the least inferred

Your other questions dont deserve my respect and justify an answer

a reply to: borntowatch

So you dodge the question. ...
As per usual...

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.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

So you dodge the question. ...
As per usual...

Yeah I did dodge the question, my opinion is irrelevant.
You want to turn this in to a religious argument, I dont think my faith is relevant to the science of this issue. I am happy to argue the science of the matter

So now dont dodge the my question. Where is the science that is quantifiable, the experiments that make the statement that headlines this thread a fact

No please dodge away, its your safest bet. I am sure there is some cookies and coolaid in your fridge.

Why? Because there is none, no evidence, its an assumption and the paper states as much, the headline is a lie and its being sold to the coolaid drinkers.

Why wont I answer the question, its self evident.

a reply to: borntowatch

such sub standard contributions to this thread. its pretty pathetic. address the science, from the actual paper the OP is based on. You made comments saying you were only addressing the OP and what it contained but instead focus on a journalistic headline as opposed to the actual science while claiming the science is faulty. And you're not brewing your own special batch of Kool-Aid huh? keep that line of thought flowing, I'm sure it benefits you in every other area of yourt life to ignore all pertinent things and focus on the minutiae that supports you inanity.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: borntowatch

I can type slowly if you like, nah, just kidding

If you read my previous posts I am sure you will find an answer, I think I explained in great detail my issue with the lack of scientific evidence over and over and over again

Again state specifically what evidence you say is lacking - since you didn't read the report it would appear you are whining about nothing

Lets just leave the religion out and deal with the lack of scientific evidence, can you do that?

No lets not since that is the basis of your bias.

We await your detailed explanation of what evidence you think is lacking - after you read the report and can find something to actually factually whine about, lol

Oh and do you believe that Neanderthals existed?

The basis of my bias is the lies told or at the least inferred

Your other questions dont deserve my respect and justify an answer

Again what lies were those? You seem to be unable to identify them. As the author of this thread I find your entries trollish and off topic - I will give you one last chance to actually answer the question or I'll get the mods involved.

a reply to: Hanslune
Hans thanks for posting that,
I am tending towards an idea that Hsn's demise wasn't so much because we were smarter, but had more to do with behavioural patterns and social constructs and organization.
There are some clues that show us that these factors had a hand in driving Hsn's physical evolution.
The fact overall physical robustness increases with time shows several things a) that in the beginning they were adapting to a colder environment.
b) since Hsn lived in a variety of temperate to sub arctic climates, it's not climate that is driving the increase in robustness.
c)It might seem that hunting strategies would drive robustness, Hsn would have been originally an ambush predator, since their shoulders would not allow for over hand throwing, so robustness would have been positively selected for, and it's here that the social aspects would start to come into play.
There are papers that have shown that face structure in males is for protecting the eyes from physical blows from other males.
All male primates use scowling as an intimidating gesture, brow ridge robustness is positively selected for in successful males, when we humans came along we took it past some glaring looks and a quick scuffle, to actual fighting. There is also work that shows that the evolution of the human hand , since HE , has been driven as much by fighting as by tool use.
One paper I've read on injuries in hsn, shows a disproportionate level of facial and lower arm fracture, just the kind of injuries midden humans get from fighting.

What I see in Hsn scociety is intense competition between males for mating rights, which implies a matriarchal type society, just like some moder n primates , where the alpha female controls breeding rights with the breeding females while the males compete amongst themselves. The stronger and better fighters, likely the more robust, males bred more often and passed those traits along.
Their societal organization may have been so deeply set that it was almost instinctive behaviour, that they couldn't change fast enough .
And their social practices may have kept their populations too low to avoid being assimilated into ours.
I just had solid idea right now, a couple of weeks ago I read a report on a French hsn site that was occupied for several thousand years. The report on faunal remains showed they were eating a variety of rodents, and most of them were the kind that only come out at night. Given Hsn's larger eyes and associated brain areas, might they have been semi nocturnal ? That could also account for the development of lighter skin, if your not out in the sun a lot you don't need the protection from it.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: borntowatch

such sub standard contributions to this thread. its pretty pathetic. address the science, from the actual paper the OP is based on. You made comments saying you were only addressing the OP and what it contained but instead focus on a journalistic headline as opposed to the actual science while claiming the science is faulty. And you're not brewing your own special batch of Kool-Aid huh? keep that line of thought flowing, I'm sure it benefits you in every other area of yourt life to ignore all pertinent things and focus on the minutiae that supports you inanity.

Do you have a dictator/messiah complex.
I dont have to address anything I dont want to, I certainly wont address something you manufactured for me to address. I never commented on the science in the paper, only the ludicrous lie in the headline.

I am addressing the headline of this thread
Prove it with science and I will stop responding

Prove this statement with science is all I am asking
Science Shows Why You’re Smarter Than a Neanderthal
So show me the proof, show me the science.

Now you sadly keep suggesting I am calling the article stupid, please show me where I call the article stupid.
The headline is a lie, science has proven nothing other than it is manipulated by the Smithsonian and those with an agenda of making people believe science has done what it hasnt

Hansalune again just for you

The lies told are that science has proven we are smarter than Neanderthals
I see no evidence, is that difficult to comprehend, is the science to difficult to get your hands on to answer me


Maybe you need to get help with comprehension, I want evidence, not empty threats

Not one drop of solid scientific evidence has been shown to substantiate the claim in the headline.

I never questioned the article, only the headline

Now go run to the mods, maybe even your mom

originally posted by: borntowatch


Do you have a dictator/messiah complex.
I dont have to address anything I dont want to, I certainly wont address something you manufactured for me to address. I never commented on the science in the paper, only the ludicrous lie in the headline.

which is precisely the problem, read the paper and tell me what is scientifically wrong with it instead of whining about journalistic sensationalism.

I am addressing the headline of this thread
Prove it with science and I will stop responding

I can't fix your comprehension with science, you're totally on your own with that.

Prove this statement with science is all I am asking
Science Shows Why You’re Smarter Than a Neanderthal
So show me the proof, show me the science.

The headline of the article itself is between you and Smithsonian mag, you really should write an editorial to them if you actually feel so strongly. I've explained what it all means, the paper explains it better. Get over yourself and read the whole paper if you can understand what is presented within it and then explain why it is wrong.

Now you sadly keep suggesting I am calling the article stupid, please show me where I call the article stupid.

You called the study stupid and then claim your issue is with the article HEADLINE. Two different animals. Pick one to attack and stick with it. You're all over the place. Dispute the science not the journalism. The following quote is from page 1 of this thread and written by yourself...
yetyou haven't actually read or commented on the study, do you see the problem with your schizophrenic posting? you're everywhere and expect others to keep track of you you are whenever you come back and post. It's silly.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I guess they only used less than 10% of their brain
but still if its bigger than homosapien brains then they still use more than us,Text this is a stupid study based on absolutely nothing but assumption conjecture and 10% brain stupidity

Some people make stuff up with out thinking

The headline is a lie, science has proven nothing other than it is manipulated by the Smithsonian and those with an agenda of making people believe science has done what it hasnt

Perhaps before you start your next sermon you should perhaps familiarize yourself with board T&C which require headlining a thread with the headline of the actual article. Hanslune went on to include the link to the actual paper.

You continuously demonstrate your lack of comprehension and then attempt to attribute it to others, which to me, is fascinating. So please... continue your line of rhetoric thinking all along you're in the right.
Science isn't manipulated by Smithsonian Magazine, The Smithsonian MAg article is BASED ON the scientific paper, the one you haven'rt read and continued to deride and then switched tracks and claimed instead your problem was with the headline.

MOD NOTE:

I'd like to think intelligent folks could engage in debate without making it personal, but it would appear not to be true.

Please keep the conversation on topic without including insults or opinions of one another.

Do not reply to this post.

Blaine91555
Forum Mod

a reply to: borntowatch

We will patiently await a substantive evidence based response.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: borntowatch

We will patiently await a substantive evidence based response.

Ok I admit that the study was stupid in its conclusion that it is possible that HS are more intelligent than Neanderthals because there is no evidence .
Just assumption and conjecture

There is no evidence, I cant offer any evidence only that there is a complete lack of evidence. Thats my issue, no point asking me for evidence, I didnt make the substanceless claim, just challenged it.

Can anyone show me an experiment that shows evidence that Neanderthals were not as smart as homosapiens. if you do I will say.

Whoops dont I look silly, even feel silly that I made that comment, my apologies to all.

So the balls in your court and yes you are welcome to quote mine my statement, it might make you feel good

No conjecture, no assumptions, just real hard evidence.

Why has no one shown me the evidence, its an open challenge

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: borntowatch

We will patiently await a substantive evidence based response.

Ok I admit that the study was stupid in its conclusion that it is possible that HS are more intelligent than Neanderthals because there is no evidence .
Just assumption and conjecture

Assumption and conjecture is purely on your end. The study doesn't actually say AMH were smarter than HSN. It claims that areas if the brain were organized differently and that the amount of area that encompassed the visual cortex was considerably larger than that in AMH Skulls from the same time periods based on a compare and contrast study.

There is no evidence, I cant offer any evidence only that there is a complete lack of evidence. Thats my issue, no point asking me for evidence, I didnt make the substanceless claim, just challenged it.

But to challenge it you have to provide WHY you believe the science is wrong but either can't or won't b

Can anyone show me an experiment that shows evidence that Neanderthals were not as smart as homosapiens. if you do I will say.

Whoops dont I look silly, even feel silly that I made that comment, my apologies to all.

So the balls in your court and yes you are welcome to quote mine my statement, it might make you feel good

No conjecture, no assumptions, just real hard evidence.

Why has no one shown me the evidence, its an open challenge.

The science is in the linked paper. The onus lies upon you to read it thoroughly and explain why the conclusions are incorrect. Nobody else is going to provide you with "the science supporting it" until you cease to focus on the journalism and make your way through the paper that answers all your questions. I just don't understand your resistance to thoroughly reading the actual paper.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: borntowatch

We will patiently await a substantive evidence based response.

Ok I admit that the study was stupid in its conclusion that it is possible that HS are more intelligent than Neanderthals because there is no evidence .
Just assumption and conjecture

Assumption and conjecture is purely on your end. The study doesn't actually say AMH were smarter than HSN. It claims that areas if the brain were organized differently and that the amount of area that encompassed the visual cortex was considerably larger than that in AMH Skulls from the same time periods based on a compare and contrast study.

There is no evidence, I cant offer any evidence only that there is a complete lack of evidence. Thats my issue, no point asking me for evidence, I didnt make the substanceless claim, just challenged it.

But to challenge it you have to provide WHY you believe the science is wrong but either can't or won't b

Can anyone show me an experiment that shows evidence that Neanderthals were not as smart as homosapiens. if you do I will say.

Whoops dont I look silly, even feel silly that I made that comment, my apologies to all.

So the balls in your court and yes you are welcome to quote mine my statement, it might make you feel good

No conjecture, no assumptions, just real hard evidence.

Why has no one shown me the evidence, its an open challenge.

The science is in the linked paper. The onus lies upon you to read it thoroughly and explain why the conclusions are incorrect. Nobody else is going to provide you with "the science supporting it" until you cease to focus on the journalism and make your way through the paper that answers all your questions. I just don't understand your resistance to thoroughly reading the actual paper.

I dont need to read the whole paper to see its unscientific, that it is assumption and conjecture.

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

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

Neanderthals had bigger eyes so they are dumber than mankind.

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


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

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

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