It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why did ancient hominids have larger brains than us?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I was just reading of a recent find in China of a 120,000 year old hominid skull being 1800cc in size compared to average of 1260cc for modern day humans. It could be the first finding of a Denisovan Skull but awaits DNA testing. But when I searched the internet for reasons for their larger cranial size, the typical response found was - "larger eye and brain size was required for hunting". But that didn't sit well with me, an owl is a fabolous hunter, has large eyes, but with a brain size typically 100x smaller than our own.

Perhaps I am stating the obvious. But if our environment no longer rewards the survival of the fitest or smartest. Then human brain size must continue to devolve whilst technology advances (from sharing of intelligence), until an equalizition occurs, resulting in the stagnation of both technology and human intelligence.

So how we can ensure humanity evolves? Would it not kill two stones (over population growth and ensuring human evolution) to have a one child policy for couples with average IQ of less than 100. A two child policy for couples with average IQ between 100 and 120. And unlimited child policy for couples with average IQ of 120 and higher.

Would you agree to those sacrifices to help humanity evolve?

For those interested in the possible Denisovan Skull find:



One cranium has a huge brain volume of 1800 cubic centimeters—on the upper end for both Neandertals and moderns—plus a Neandertal-like hollow in a bone on the back of its skull. Both cra­nia have prominent brow ridges and inner ear bones that resemble those of Neander­tals but are distinct from our own species, Homo sapiens. However, the crania also differ from the western Neandertals of Europe and the Middle East. They have thinner brow ridges and less robust skull bones, similar to early modern humans and some other Asian fossils. “They are not Neandertals in the full sense,” says co-author Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist at Washington Univer­sity in St. Louis in Missouri.
Link




posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

damn i thought the title said ancient hemorrhoids and nearly choked on my drink! ha ha

i think the larger brains had something to do with expansion of compassion. It's possible that after the more gentle species known as the Neanderthals were suddenly wiped out in an incredibly short amount of time according to Scientific research, and the Cro Magnum took over ' a much more violent species' I might add, everything went to pot.


edit on 12-6-2017 by RisenMessiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   
i seem to recall reading something about larger not necessarily being better, something to do with neuron density or similar.

the 'solution' you're suggesting is what's known as eugenics, and if that's a new term to you, you should give it a bit of a google and see how well it turns out in practice.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend

Would you agree to those sacrifices to help humanity evolve?

That's some straight up Nazi s# right there, trying to engineer a master race.

But all that aside, and assuming evolution isn't utter bollocks, why would you pin the future course of all humanity on some old stupid test?



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

IQ has nothing to do with brain size.



So how we can ensure humanity evolves? Would it not kill two stones (over population growth and ensuring human evolution) to have a one child policy for couples with average IQ of less than 100. A two child policy for couples with average IQ between 100 and 120. And unlimited child policy for couples with average IQ of 120 and higher.


Come again, eugenics much?

Anyway to answer this, why bigger brains? Here's some from Neanderthal man which more is know about:



"Neanderthal brains contained significantly larger visual cortices. This is corroborated by recent endocast work, which found that Neanderthal occipital lobes are relatively larger than those of AMHs [anatomically modern humans]. In addition, previous suggestions that large Neanderthal brains were associated with their high lean body mass imply that Neanderthal also invested more neural tissue in somatic areas involved in body maintenance and control compared with those of contemporary AMHs.

Neanderthals simply didn't grow socially the way humans did, which indicates that different parts of their brains developed--those more focused on individual survival. ...our findings tie in with the suggestion that the Neanderthal and AMH lineages underwent separate evolutionary trajectories. Starting from the brain size of their common ancestor Homo heidelbergensis, we suggest that Neanderthals enlarged their visual and somatic regions, whereas AMHs achieved similarly large brains by increasing other brain areas (including, for example, their parietal lobes)."

Source

edit on 12-6-2017 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

The Amazon forest will be destroyed within 50 years. Indonesia's sumatran rainforest within 20 years. Clearly a planet without the means to make oxygen isn't workable for future generations. So something must be done today regardless how it effects your life or mine. Else it will result in extinction of all life.

China has already introduced a two child policy.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: RisenMessiah
a reply to: glend

damn i thought the title said ancient hemorrhoids and nearly choked on my drink! ha ha

i think the larger brains had something to do with expansion of compassion. It's possible that after the more gentle species known as the Neanderthals were suddenly wiped out in an incredibly short amount of time according to Scientific research, and the Cro Magnum took over ' a much more violent species' I might add, everything went to pot.


LOL

Never even considered neanderthals as being gentle and compassionate. Definitely food for thought.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

Yes but they're all dead, which is sad. Those bastardized Cromags are to blame!



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 02:55 AM
link   
They didnt eat gmo food , watch reality t.v , didnt attend the modern indoctrination institutions .



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: NthOther

The Amazon forest will be destroyed within 50 years. Indonesia's sumatran rainforest within 20 years. Clearly a planet without the means to make oxygen isn't workable for future generations. So something must be done today regardless how it effects your life or mine. Else it will result in extinction of all life.

China has already introduced a two child policy.


1. Through evolution, our brain has become more efficient, requiring less mass. Neanderthals are extinct for a reason.

2. Half of the planet's oxygen comes from phytoplankton, the other half comes from land plants. Meaning less then 1/4 comes from rainforests. We're not in danger of asphyxiation anytime soon.

3. Are you volunteering as the first IQ sacrifice? Because your reasoning skills would seem to make you a prime candidate.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

It might be the fact how evolution works the answer to your first question. Maybe the old hominuds had larger skulls due to the current brain development. After the brain was developed sufficiently it shrunk to it's optimal size. Call it evolutionary optimization. This can be observed in many parts of nature, and I bet there is connection in the human brain development as well.


About your second question... No. All humans must be treated as equals. Division is disgusting idea.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

Because the true story is,they have no idea,there is a good chance that the civilization before us was much more advanced,from the time you start school your being engineered into believing Scientist's and they only tell what they are allowed to,if it doesn't follow current system,then it's fake or a crazy person's theory,they can use there 3 card monty tests,but in fact they have no idea



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

Not buying that eye size has anything to do with how they reacted socially with one another. This study disputes that speculation. Nor was their eye size that much bigger relative to their mass.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Brain size increases from protein intake. Our brains grew from eating cooked meat.

But complexity is a much more determinant quality of intelligence.

So is efficiency.

Those are the qualities that came with Evolution, not just size.

The neocortex is also undergone major development. Our ability to work together and communicate because of this has 10 folded our progress. Tbh, we're no where near as smart as we are coordinated. Your daily life revolves around several idiots doing a job you cannot do, and you doing one they cannot.
edit on 12-6-2017 by Mordekaiser because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: dreamingawake

Not buying that eye size has anything to do with how they reacted socially with one another. This study disputes that speculation. Nor was their eye size that much bigger relative to their mass.


Eye size? The visual cortex and "including, for example, their parietal lobes" is not eye size.


The visual cortex of the brain is a part of the cerebral cortex that plays an important role in processing visual information. It is located in the occipital lobe in
- continued at wiki



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn




1. Through evolution, our brain has become more efficient, requiring less mass. Neanderthals are extinct for a reason.


Probably because we wiped them out. They may have been more intelligent but they were tribal, living in small groups and didn't unite like humans could. I remember reading that somewhere..



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

Stop the government from subsidizing people who make poor life choices and it will sort itself out.
Cut off welfare for unwed mothers and people will get married to start a family.
Have state run boarding schools for the children whose parents cannot support them, those former social workers can now become councelers/tutors at said school.
There are multiple ways to encourage responsibility and most of them require 'less' government handouts not more.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: glend


Measuring intelligence is a tricky one. An average Australian Aboriginal, probably couldn't do calculus. But can live in a very harsh environment , the guy who could do calculus, would die within a short time. So who is the most intelligent?



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

I think you are missing a trick here.

The skull only tells you about the cubic capacity of the braincase. It tells you nearly nothing about the construction of the brain itself, how many neurons are in operation within it, how developed or under developed (when compared with current human development) various sections are.

Put another way, the craft which landed on the moon had on board computers which were actually quite physically large. Yet, I have in my pocket a computer which could run rings around that computer, as well as give me access to the World Wide Web.

Size, as they say, is not everything. It is very probable that while having more mass, the arrangement and developmental priority given to different parts of the brain of this hominid, are less efficient in terms of processing speed, than the brains of the modern human. Its linguistic centres for example, were probably much less developed than ours, meaning its ability to communicate complex concepts, or indeed form them in their own mind, was probably far less than we have to work with.
edit on 12-6-2017 by TrueBrit because: grammatical improvements



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

What makes you think IQ has anything to do with natural selection or evolution?

Generally it's the strongest that survive not the smartest.

Children can be as intelligent as you like but if there immune system is garbage or if they suffer from some other malady or ailment, genetic, mental or otherwise, there chances of survival into adult hood and procreating to carry out there biological imperative has little to do with intellect and more to do with health and stability.
edit on 12-6-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join