The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Neanderthal Brains
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the NYT:

Narrower Skulls, Oblong Brains: How Neanderthal DNA Still Shapes Us

Two genes inherited from our evolutionary cousins may affect skull shape and brain size even today. What that means for human behavior is a mystery.

… By measuring Neanderthal skull volume, scientists have found that their brains were as big as ours on average, perhaps bigger.

By Carl Zimmer, Dec. 13, 2018

People who sign up for genetic testing from companies like 23andMe can find out how much of their DNA comes from Neanderthals. For those whose ancestry lies outside Africa, that number usually falls somewhere between 1 percent and 2 percent.

Scientists are still a long way from understanding what inheriting a Neanderthal gene means to people. Some Neanderthal genes may be helpful — improving our defenses against infections, for example — but other bits may leave carriers slightly more prone to certain diseases.

On Thursday, a team of scientists revealed that two pieces of Neanderthal DNA may have another effect: They may change the shape of our brains.

The study, published in the journal Current Biology, wasn’t designed to determine how Neanderthal genes influence thought — if they do so at all. Instead, the value of the research lies in its unprecedented glimpse into the genetic changes influencing the evolution of the human brain. …

Neanderthals and modern humans are evolutionary cousins whose ancestors diverged about 530,000 years ago, possibly somewhere in Africa. Neanderthals left Africa long before modern humans, and their bones were found across Europe, the Near East, and even Siberia.

Before they disappeared about 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals left behind signs of sophistication: spears used to hunt big game, for instance, and jewelry made of shells and eagle talons.

Yet scientists still wonder just how much like us these cousins were. Did they speak a full-blown language? Did they think in symbols?

One thing is clear: They were not short on brains. By measuring the volume inside Neanderthal skulls, researchers have found that their brains were as big as ours, on average, perhaps bigger.

But their brains did not mimic ours. “We have roundish brains,” said Philipp Gunz, a paleoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. “All other human species have elongated brain cases.”

Modern human skulls got rounder because certain regions of the brain changed size. At the back of the brain, for example, a part called the cerebellum dramatically expanded. …

These findings suggest that PHLPP1 and UBR4 evolved to work differently in modern human brains. The modern human version of PHLPP1 may have produced extra myelin in the cerebellum. And our version of UBR4 may have made neurons grow faster in the putamen. …

It’s very hard to predict people’s behavior from their genes, he noted — let alone try to account for a few Neanderthal genes. To learn what they are doing in the brain will require that scientists discern very faint signals amid the noise of the human genome.

“That’s a long way off, if ever possible,” Dr. Capra said.

The natural selection logic could go either way. On the whole, the reason that Eurasians have 98% of their genes inherited from anatomically modern humans is because anatomically modern humans’ genes turned out to have more Darwinian fitness on average than Neanderthals’ genes. On the other hand, the survival of some Neanderthal genes in our DNA over all this time suggests that those Neanderthal genes did something net beneficial, at least in the Eurasian environment.

 
Hide 113 CommentsLeave a Comment
113 Comments to "Neanderthal Brains"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. know nothing but have always suspected the presence of neandrathal DNA in all humans save the sub-Sahrans explained a lot. What, I’m not sure . . . but I can guess.

  2. Yeah, they are wondering if they had language, meanwhile Siberian Denisovans living in caves in 40,000 BC had rotary drill technology.

    http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0100-stone-bracelet-is-oldest-ever-found-in-the-world/

    I know the imperative of Progress compels them to interpret more ancient people as automatically less advanced and quasi-animal, but how the hell did they get stuck trying to retcon the missing link into 10kBC? In evolutionary terms if you want even a half monkey you should have to go back a couple million years or more. Why do they get stuck wondering if H. Neanderthalus even had language or if he could only grunt like a chimp? It’s like they’re trying to squeeze Darwins origin of the species into the last 10,000 years instead of 10 million.

  3. dearieme says:

    “It’s very hard to predict people’s behavior from their genes, he noted”: on what scale of scrutiny, I wonder.

  4. Carol says:

    Eurasian ancestry is so interesting. Gee why is that. Reich says we shouldn’t be so focused on our own heritage. He says he’s not, too boring. Then goes on to recite his ethnic history as a Jew. Exodus, Passover and all that.

    Doesn’t he realize that most of us don’t have that, or have any identity at all? My ancestors were so hell bent on forgetting Europe that I know little more about them than descendants of slaves know about theirs.

  5. The Neanderthals were smart enough to realize that the future was outside of Africa?

    • Replies: @Faraday's Bobcat
  6. Yeah, they are wondering if they had language, meanwhile Siberian Denisovans living in caves in 40,000 BC had rotary drill technology.

    http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0100-stone-bracelet-is-oldest-ever-found-in-the-world/

    I know the imperative of Progress compels them to interpret more ancient people as automatically less advanced and quasi-animal, but how the hell did they get stuck trying to retcon the missing link into 10kBC? In evolutionary terms if you want even a half monkey you should have to go back a couple million years or more, no? Why do they get stuck wondering if H. Neanderthalus even had language or if he could only grunt like a chimp? It’s like they’re trying to squeeze Darwins origin of the species into the last 10,000 years instead of 10 million.

  7. Patriot says:

    Actually, it is more likely that Neanderthals evolved outside of Africa from previous Homo species that left Africa long before, such as H. erectus and H. Habilis.

    • Replies: @Old fogey
  8. Altai says:

    This study like the previous one is seriously flawed. They took whole genome Neanderthal ancestry (so no real control of if any of it is related to skull morphology) and related that back to ‘Neanderthal’ skull shapes. But in reality what you’re doing is finding that populations with more Neanderthal ancestry have skulls that are more similar in some respects.

    But that needn’t be from an expression of Neanderthal introgression but just general skull ‘robustness’ that takes forms very similar in all hominids. It could simply be a correlation between Neanderthal ancestry and populations that were under less neotenic selection and had less Neanderthal ancestry through bottlenecks.

  9. @Redneck farmer

    The Neanderthals were smart enough to realize that the future was outside of Africa?

    The earliest example of White Flight!

    • Replies: @Anon
  10. @Science Dummy

    “know nothing but have always suspected the presence of neandrathal DNA in all humans save the sub-Sahrans explained a lot”

    sub-Saharans and also Australian aborigines I believe. And when I see how those two groups function, I’m quite grateful for every darn bit of Neanderthal in my genome.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  11. vinteuil says: • Website

    If 23&Me tells me I’m 1% Homo neanderthalensis, I guess that means I’m more Neanderthal than Elizabeth Warren is American Indian…

    In which case, I get intersectional pokemon points ’cause my people got genocided by those awful Homo Sapiens guys…right?

    Right?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  12. Bucky says:

    The Neanderthal human explored to the far reaches of Asia and Europe, and North America, for that matter.

    The Subsaharan African never left his “crib” so to speak.

    Notice how in certain populations today, vehicles are like Jordan sneakers: they’re used to connote status. While other populations, vehicles are tools with which to explore the expansive land.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @gcochran
  13. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    My guess is modern man would have arose more or less the same EVEN IF Neans had never existed.

    And even without Nean admixture, the Cro-mags would have developed whatever advantages Neans had. After all, Neans developed many features in the North. So, if such features could evolve among Neans, they could have evolved among Cro-mags even without Nean admixture.

    Also, it’s fallacious to think that if a certain people succeeded, their success had something to do with racial admixture. There are successful people in Latin America who are mostly white but have some Indio blood. So, are we to assume that they were advantaged due to small bit of Indio blood? Maybe but maybe not.

  14. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat

    The earliest example of White Flight!

    I think the first people who left North Africa were rather dark in skin.

    Still, the key point is they left North Africa. It was OUT OF NORTH AFRICA, not OUT OF AFRICA.
    North Africans had already evolved differently from other Africans already by 100,000s of yrs.

    So, the genetic distance between non-Africans and sub-Saharan Africans is much longer than 60,000 to 80,000 yrs.

  15. I think one of the current theories is that Neanderthals were really smart, but actually kind of universally ADHD–they could figure out solutions but couldn’t focus and organize to get them done. The h. sapiens sapiens grafting allowed the resulting population to settle down, in the behavioral sense.

    • Replies: @AP
  16. Whites are half-monkey. Even science agrees POC and Jews are true humans, not part caveman-monkeys. Good thing Darwinism is wiping out ape-whites lol.

  17. Neanderthal Brains

    The election was two years ago. Enough about the “popular vote” already!

  18. Luke Lea says:

    Why the cerebellum?

    • Replies: @Neuday
    , @Elsewhere
  19. Exiguous says:

    They wonder if Neanderthals had language, but aren’t pygmies and Aboriginals even more distantly related to Europeans than Neanderthals and they have language?

    I find it funny to note that if Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, etc still existed it would be unimaginably racist to say they are not human.

    • Replies: @gcochran
    , @Almost Missouri
  20. utu says:

    “The natural selection logic could go either way.” – The natural selection logic comes down to tautology: what is is, where between the two is’es one can insert an arbitrary story.

    • Replies: @gcochran
    , @Almost Missouri
  21. Anon[522] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bucky

    The Subsaharan African never left his “crib” so to speak

    Well done , this really had me laughing !!

  22. L Woods says:

    More interesting question: how does Neanderthal ancestry relate to personality traits within a given race. Neanderthals seem to be lone (relative) intellectuals, overcome by brute herd strength. As between races, so within them.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    , @S.E.
  23. Anectdotes plural ain’t data but… I have known some people with big heads. Really big heads. Kind of like Chuck Schumer, he has a big nugget. I never noted them as being bright at all but they invariably (in my limited and unscientific exposure to them) think they are, and to this day look with a skeptical see whenever I see a bighead. When they talk, I am even more skeptical. See Schumer for many pointed examples.

    Same thing for the pinhead crew, but that has more practical basis, it seems to me.

    Am I prejudiced against Neanderthals? Pinheads? Is there an HR program or consultant I need to talk to?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @a
    , @Ibound1
  24. Are we at the point yet where SSA’s should be categorized as a different species than the rest of what are referred to as humans?

  25. Lot says:

    “On the other hand, the survival of some Neanderthal genes in our DNA over all this time suggests that those Neanderthal genes did something net beneficial”

    I think I read on Cochran’s blog that their functional genes have been mostly removed by natural selection, with their non-coding junk DNA being left in our genomes. They were different enough that hybrids may have had reduced fertility.

    Also 23andme tends to show 2.5%+ for European peoples, not the 1-2% stated in the article.

    • Replies: @gcochran
    , @ben tillman
  26. dfordoom says: • Website
    @vinteuil

    In which case, I get intersectional pokemon points ’cause my people got genocided by those awful Homo Sapiens guys…right?

    It goes further than that. We now know that damage from trauma like slavery and the Holocaust can get passed on in their genes. So you’re probably suffering effects from the trauma of that genocide. You deserve more than intersectional pokemon points – you deserve reparations!

  27. Travis says:

    Neanderthals were ethnically cleansed from Europe by the invaders from the South. Neanderthals had lower fertility rates than the invading Home Sapiens from Africa, thus were overwhelmed demographically. The peak population of Neanderthals was just 150,000, they had a low fertility rate and could not maintain their species when faced with an invasion of thousands of fertile Africans , who were set on raping all the neanderthal females and killing off the males. Some of the DNA from the few female neanderthals who mated with the invaders can still be found in the DNA of Europeans today.

    The same process can be observed today in Europe. The aboriginal Europeans are declining in population, because they have a low fertility rate, they are being invaded from the south by more fertile ethnic clans and thus the aboriginal peoples of Europe will be extinct. It will take just another 200 years at the current rate..in 5,000 years the people living in Europe may well have traces of DNA from the caucasians who once populated Europe. Just as the people of Europe today have some trace DNA from the Neanderthals who once populated Europe.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  28. @Brian Reilly

    O.J. Simpson has a big head.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  29. @Altai

    Aryan male: You got a lotta nice ground here, you’re naïve, and your women are friendly. But your ceremonies are stark, real, and frankly, kind of dark.

    Neandertal male: What the hell are you talking about?

    Aryan male: You need to embrace your inner child. Believe that you’re entitled, and so it shall be, according to your will. It’s wonderful.

    Neandertal female: Really? Can you show me how?

    Neandertal male: Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

    Aryan male: Ok. Maybe tomorrow. Have you ever tasted wine?

  30. Dan Hayes says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve,

    The Most Reverend Al Sharpton has a very large head which in recent years has been further accentuated by weight loss in the rest of his frame.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  31. Old fogey says:
    @Patriot

    I’m anything but an expert, but I think I would have noticed an article saying that Neanderthal fossils had been found in Africa. Do any of you experts know of hard evidence that they actually lived in Africa?

  32. gcochran says:
    @Bucky

    No sign Neanderthals ever reached North America.

    • Replies: @bucky
  33. gcochran says:
    @Lot

    Some were advantageous and have become common, most probably not.

  34. @L Woods

    That’s reasonably accurate.

  35. gcochran says:
    @utu

    Birds could have looked like big anvils.

  36. @Lot

    I think I read on Cochran’s blog that their functional genes have been mostly removed by natural selection, with their non-coding junk DNA being left in our genomes.

    Some people retain lots of functional Neandertal genes. There’s a wide range of variance.

    • Replies: @scrivener3
  37. Science catching up with Vault-Co? Not yet!

    Pack your rice! Roll your oats! Let the edjumafacated scienmajists run after peer reviews a DECADE after Vault-Co knew the truth! Six years after Koanic figured out edenic face reading!

    THE KWA IS DEAD
    LONG LIVE THE KWA

    ITZ COMING

    – (Formerly) Regular Vault-Co reader

  38. gcochran says:
    @Altai

    Not so, read the article. People with Neanderthal versions of certain alleles have less-globular heads.

  39. People with neanderthal traits usually have recessed (and sometimes also pointed) chins, receding periorbital sockets, en-bombe cranium, large eyes, large occiput and flat or negative parietal.

  40. @Altai

    This study like the previous one is seriously flawed. They took whole genome Neanderthal ancestry (so no real control of if any of it is related to skull morphology) and related that back to ‘Neanderthal’ skull shapes. But in reality what you’re doing is finding that populations with more Neanderthal ancestry have skulls that are more similar in some respects.

    I don’t know what they were doing, but it is a fact that some of today’s “humans” (persons, not populations) have long, narrow skulls because of Neandertal genes.

  41. For Neanderthal face morphs, see this:

    T= Thal
    M= Melon

  42. Anon[225] • Disclaimer says:

    On the other hand, the survival of some Neanderthal genes in our DNA over all this time suggests that those Neanderthal genes did something net beneficial, at least in the Eurasian environment.

    That’s not what it suggests at all. Is it possible? Sure. But the mere presence of Neanderthal genetics certainly doesn’t “suggest” the conclusion that they are valuable. That’s what is called a “hypothesis”.

    This type of BS “conclusion” is why you don’t have someone with a Bachelor of Arts in English, even if it is from Yale, lecture you on science.

    At only a 1-2% survival, Neanderthal genetics were clearly withered down from 50% when the first humans and Neanderthals mated.

    That could easily mean that, at such a low admixture, a natural selection stalemate was finally reached between mixed and full humans. It doesn’t imply something that is worthwhile in the Neanderthal genetics.

    That genetic stalemate could have been helped along by increasingly higher numbers of mixed individuals possibly due to temporary genetic isolation from non-mixed individuals.

    Rhetorical questions: can you fight off ten chimps with a bow and arrow? If not, are you willing to allow that Chimp genetics are valuable enough to enter the human genetic pool? Genetic survival does not “suggest” genetic value.

    It is more likely that a low-point was merely reached in the admixture percentage for which mixed humans weren’t easy enough to murder or otherwise out-compete to make it worthwhile or feasible on a large scale.

    By the way, don’t fall for the progressive phrasing in this article, and widely used to confusing results in other popular and research articles, which labels every manner of hominid to be “human”.

    If it were up to them, they’d have you believing that there were “humans” 2 million years ago (never mind that they would look somewhat like upright chimps to us). You can easily find such phrasing in the popular research.

    Such ridiculous categorization is merely a means of sneaking diversity into science; given that it will be revealed in the future just how out-mixed some races are with archaic non-Neanderthal hominids – think 8-11% admixtures with hominids like Heidelbergensis and others.

    The logic goes like this: if we don’t label every hominid to be human insofar as we can get away with it, then humans with high Neanderthal (Central Asian tribes) and Denisovan (East Asian tribes) admixtures are more likely to be considered to be part primate in the future.

    How far are we willing to take the logic in either direction?

    Last rhetorical question: are there unmixed humans?

    • Replies: @gcochran
  43. eagles says:

    Where does Rushton fit into this picture?

    • Replies: @Saxet Enacra
  44. Do we know if Neanderthals had light skin?

    • Replies: @Saxet Enacra
  45. MEH 0910 says:

    now i guess i’ll have to tell ’em
    that i got no cerebellum

  46. @eagles

    J.P. Rushton looks like a T-front (Thal-front) to me. Whenever someone’s against the Zeitgist at personal cost without promise for (or risking) social standing, it’s very likely he is a T-back, T-front, or both.

    Steve is a CBS (Cave Bear Syndrome), if you’re wondering. Henry Cavill, for example, is a TT (T-back, T-front). (CBS is a T variant)

    Bohr is T-front.

    Konrad Zuse is TT

    Wenher Von Braun was CBS

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  47. @Foreign Expert

    Definitely. Melanin=death in cold.

  48. @Saxet Enacra

    Steve is a CBS (Cave Bear Syndrome)

    I can live with that.

  49. bucky says:
    @gcochran

    Actually, yes there is. If East Asians are highly Neanderthal, arguably more so than Europeans, then it stands to reason that the Ameri-Indians who first migrated to North America from across the Bering Strait are also highly Neanderthal.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  50. a says:
    @Brian Reilly

    If SAT scores indicate anything then Schumer must be pretty bright since he scored a 1600.

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
  51. S.E. says:
    @L Woods

    Altruism, cold adaptation, late maturation, power>endurance, K strategists, inner-directed, live and let live, etcetera.

    Have a look at asperger’s (NOT autism) traits.

    http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

    http://rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php

  52. S.E. says:

    Oprah has a huge head, and so does Chris Langan. Correlation between volume and D IQ:

    http://michaelwferguson.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_9997.html

    I don’t know how accurate this is.

  53. gcochran says:
    @Anon

    not 50%. Can you count?

    • Replies: @Anon
  54. gcochran says:
    @bucky

    maybe 2.4%, as opposed to 2%. Highly?

    • Replies: @Bucky
  55. @Lars Porsena

    Dammit, we’re all out of Africa, so get the glories of Neanderthals and Denisovans out of your thick skull.

    • Replies: @Patriot
  56. NZLex says:

    Get out the calipers! Phrenology is BACK!

    • Replies: @S.E.
  57. S.E. says:
    @NZLex

    Search for “Altrugenics Xen” and “Aeoli Pera”.

  58. Bucky says:
    @gcochran

    These percentage stats are likely highly misleading.

    I believe that what separates us from chimpanzees and apes is 1% of DNA, no?

    Humans and apes both have four limbs, are warm blooded vertebrates, two eyes, etc etc.

    99% similarity, when you look at the evolutionary scale.

    But 1% makes all the difference.

    2.4%, and 2%, then is fairly significant.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    , @gcochran
  59. @Lars Porsena

    There are regions of the human genome that where Neanderthal DNA seems to have been expunged by natural selection.

    One of these “Neanderthal deserts” contains FOXP2. That might indicate incompatibility (at a genetic level) in speech.

  60. Patriot says:
    @The Alarmist

    “Dammit, we’re all out of Africa, so get the glories of Neanderthals and Denisovans out of your thick skull.”

    The above is a common logical flaw used by low IQ people. If you go back far enough, we’re all descended from rat-like creatures, and before that reptiles. Does that make all humans rats and reptiles?

    We now know that isolated human populations evolve differences incredibly fast. Certainly, the 50,000 yrs separating Sub-Saharan vs. the other human subspecies was enough time to evolve profound differences. Even more so when considering the million-yr separation of out-of-Africa Homo species that later bred with Out-of-Africa H. sapiens.

    It only takes about 200 human generations to evolve noticable differences. That’s why there is not a person on the planet who could not distinguish a racial Nigerian from a racial Tibetian, even though they had a common ancestor back in Africa, maybe 50,000 to 100,000 yrs ago.

    • Replies: @Anon
  61. Sean says:

    http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

    The Homo sapiens with the biggest brains lived 20,000 to 30,000 years ago in Europe. Called the Cro-Magnons, they had barrel chests and huge, jutting jaws …“Since the Bronze Age, the brain shrank a lot more than you would expect based on the decrease in body size,” Hawks reports. “For a brain as small as that found in the average European male today, the body would have to shrink to the size of a pygmy” to maintain proportional scaling. […]

    “When you select against aggression, you get some surprising traits that come along with it,” Wrangham says. “My suspicion is that the easiest way for natural selection to reduce aggressiveness is to favor those individuals whose brains develop relatively slowly in relation to their bodies.” When fully grown, such an animal does not display as much aggression because it has a more juvenile brain, which tends to be less aggressive than that of an adult. “This is a very easy target for natural selection,” Wrangham argues, because it probably does not depend on numerous mutations but rather on the tweaking of one or two regulatory genes that determine the timing of a whole cascade of developmental events. For that reason, he says, “it happens consistently.” The result, he believes, is an adult possessing a suite of juvenile characteristics, including a very different temperament.

  62. @Dan Hayes

    Hey, and both of those guys were clever enough to get away with murder! Though of course they also enjoy black privilege.

  63. @Exiguous

    “if Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, etc still existed it would be unimaginably racist to say they are not human.”

    Depends. If they had fair skin, nice neighborhoods and paid taxes, then we would never hear the end of their perfidious exploitiveness for they must pay reparations!

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  64. @Travis

    I thought, hey that’s a funny story: it wasn’t brutal Neanderthal men raping away the Sapienid women, it was suave Sapienid men demographically overwhelming the clumsy Neanderthal men and wooing away the buxom Neanderthal ladies by default.

    So I googled around a bit. Is Neanderthal DNA more common mitochondrially?

    Well, no. In fact, it seems that there is no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA today at all!

    Hmmm. So the funny story is maybe just a funny story and not history then. Back to hypothesis A: Neanderthal rapists. Is Neanderthal Y-chromosomal DNA more common?

    But it seems there is no Neanderthal Y-chromosome DNA today either!

    Double hmmmm. No one has a direct Neanderthal male ancestor, but no one has a direct Neanderthal female ancestor either. So what does that mean? Neanderthals are just a genetic optical illusion?

    I guess it means that there were mixed Neanderthal/Sapienid populations but everyone with a pure Neanderthal male or pure Neanderthal female ancestry died out while a few inconspicuous mischlings faded into the genetic background noise. So things look kind of exterminationist again.

  65. @utu

    Yes.

    Bird is colorful? = “Shows its robust genetic fitness.”

    Bird is drab? = “Camouflages itself from predators.”

    Colorful birds have no predators, while drab birds don’t worry about discerning genetic fitness, apparently.

    Snake is colorful and venomous = “Announces its toxicity so it need not bite predators.”

    Snake is colorful and nonvenomous = “Cleverly fakes out predators by pretending to be venomous.”

    Snake is drab and venomous = “Camouflage for hunting.”

    Snake is drab and nonvenomous = “Camouflage from predators.”

    Colorful vipers don’t need to sneak up on prey, while colorful nonvipers rest secure that all predators got the memo about their venomous cousins.

    Oops wait, some snakes really do need to hide to hunt and/or not get hunted.

    An enormous amount of Darwinist thought rests on these self-fulfilling tautologies.

    Whatever his other faults, Fred Reed is very good on this stuff, for which he gets a lot of guff but very few reasoned answers. But you probably already knew that.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @peterike
    , @notanon
    , @utu
  66. @Almost Missouri

    Nope. Unless you think that your maternal grandfather or paternal grandmother are illusions.

    There are no surviving Neanderthal MT or Y lineages, but there is plenty of Neanderthal autosomal DNA in modern humans.

  67. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lars Porsena

    starting to think and i seem to remember there was some support for this neanderthals might have been smarter but less aggressive or more social maybe less tribal? could be contra nick land cognition aint all that and maybe we are getting a taste of our own medicine from the dindu races due to our rape of the nicer smarter neanderthals passing on the cuck gene

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  68. @Science Dummy

    Sub-Saharans are surely more advanced than Aborigines in every way , but Aboriginies have plenty of the ol’ Neandthal DNA.

    • Replies: @TheJester
    , @anon
  69. Bill H says: • Website

    “Modern human skulls got rounder because certain regions of the brain changed size.”

    Or, perhaps, certain regions of the brain changed size because modern human skulls got rounder or, phrased more grammatically, “more round.” Since the brain is substantially more plastic than the skull, the latter seems more likely to me. In any case, none of us were there to observe the process, so we can only guess, but scientists have no problem stating an assumption as it it were fact.

  70. Neuday says:
    @Luke Lea

    Why a larger cerebellum? Helped make us not-African. From wikpedia:

    In humans, the cerebellum plays an important role in motor control. It may also be involved in some cognitive functions such as attention and language as well as in regulating fear and pleasure responses, but its movement-related functions are the most solidly established. The human cerebellum does not initiate movement, but contributes to coordination, precision, and accurate timing

    • Replies: @Luke Lea
  71. @Almost Missouri

    Usually the invaders do the raping , after they kill the males…it is interesting that the Neanderthals lived in Europe for 450,000 years, survived ice ages , climate changes and their population peaked 75,000 years ago , then declined rapidly when Africans arrived 60,000 years ago. the initial invaders are mostly males, as we see today crossing our border from Mexico each day. Bigger brains are no match for higher fertility combined with aggression and determination. Soon Europe will be ethnically cleansed again from Humans migrating from the South, with higher fertility and increased aggression. 10% of Aboriginal German females are mating with Muslim males to breed more Muslims and ethically cleanse the Christians from Europe.

    We saw the same type of near extinction of the Native Americans in North America soon after the Europeans arrived. The Indian population East of the Mississippi was near 750,000 people when A few hundred Europeans arrived…within 150 years the Last of the Mohicans was dying and the Indian population had been reduced by 99% with no full blooded Indians alive in the entire United States by 1900. The average Cherokee tribe member today is genetically 95% European. Every Cherokee tribe member alive today has a European Y chromosome.

    • Replies: @Nawyr
  72. Stick says:

    Why don’t we dissect Neil Young’s brain and see?

  73. @gcochran

    Except we are not supposed to call them ‘abos’ any more because it is racist.

    I think we are supposed to call them:

    beautiful, peaceful, technologically advanced indigenous Australian sun-people who were heinously murdered by ebil white debils

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @anon
  74. peterike says:
    @Almost Missouri

    An enormous amount of Darwinist thought rests on these self-fulfilling tautologies.

    Yeah, that’s what I thought about the whole “survival of the fittest” business. Ok, sure, so one day a Super Hyena gets born. He’s faster, stronger, sharper teeth: the biggest, baddest hyena of them all. As a youth, before mating, he’s kicking butt on all the other hyenas in his clan. Bad Bad Leroy Hyena.

    And then a lion kills him.

    Meanwhile, his scrawny kid brother goes on to mate and have 10 million hyena descendants.

    There’s just too much randomness in nature for that survival of the fittest stuff to be anything but a tautology. As Tom Bethell used to explain it, “survival of the fittest” really just defines “fittest” as “those that have survived,” but tells you nothing about them being actually “more fit.” It should really be called “survival of those that survived.”

  75. @Almost Missouri

    You realise the archeological evidence suggests they were the subjects of genocide and species cleansing at the hands of “Out of Africa” hominids. That’s what you get for being tolerant and allowing interlopers in.

  76. Anon[816] • Disclaimer says:
    @Patriot

    even though they had a common ancestor back in Africa, maybe 50,000 to 100,000 yrs ago.

    No, they didn’t. This has been discussed here before at length. Sooner or later, you’re going to come to the truth that the races are due to inter-breeding events (with hominids) and not evolution. The common ancestor of all humans is the pure human and not a distant hominid. We have no idea where pure humans came from, as they did not evolve from any known hominid.

    I predict a response that will require the posting of a long text wall of research proofs that was posted here before.

  77. TheJester says:
    @inselaffen

    Your reference, please.

    • Replies: @inselaffen
  78. Anon[816] • Disclaimer says:
    @gcochran

    “not 50%. Can you count”?

    Thanks for the science fail. I’m sorry that you received the short end of the stick in terms of cognitive ability. Seldom does sarcasm help such people drive home their intended points. My humble suggestion is to abandon it in favor of a tone of appreciative inquiry.

    Yes, by definition, the first inter-breeding event between a pure Neanderthal and a pure human would have resulted in offspring with a rough 50/50 genetic admixture representing the two species. As I before explained in the post to which you responded, that mixed group would have experienced an eventual reduction in Neanderthal admixture to the “2%” commonly cited, with time, due to natural selection (competitive genetic selection).

    • Replies: @gcochran
  79. notanon says:
    @Almost Missouri

    i forget the details but iirc there’s a specific reason why ydna and mtdna can be selected against more strongly than autosomal dna.

    the survival of the small amount of neanderthal autosomal dna implies it might do something important (or did something important until recently)

    e.g. iirc some of the neanderthal dna is involved in fat digestion which may have been a big deal places where plants were unavailable most of the year.

  80. notanon says:
    @Almost Missouri

    An enormous amount of Darwinist thought rests on these self-fulfilling tautologies.

    god rolls lots of dice

  81. Anon[274] • Disclaimer says:

    I suggest studying 3-D and / or well-illustrated Neanderthal facial reconstructions. Once you do that at length, it gets fairly easy to discern Neanderthal phenotype expression in humans that have even faint Neanderthal admixture.

    It also gets easy to identify humans that are possibly without Neanderthal (or other hominid) admixture. The actor Daniel Craig likely represents that type of unmixed human (or as close as we can get today), to cite one such individual whose face you can study for comparison with Neanderthal reconstructions and modern humans with relatively light to heavy Neanderthal admixtures.

    To get a sense of which human tribes will logically have the most Neanderthal admixture (and as can be confirmed by studying their common phenotype expression should their genetic studies not be available or otherwise understandable), research what region(s) Neanderthals originated. It will come down to specific cave sites (hint: look at Armenia and Israel).

    Now hypothesize to what degree modern inter-tribal strife may be connected to a drawn out survival gambit on the part of Neanderthal (and other hominid) genetics.

  82. Ibound1 says:
    @Brian Reilly

    I once saw Bob Novak in an airport. His head was enormous. But he was a nasty POS. I never thought he was particularly bright or insightful.

  83. Nawyr says:

    This is fake news/bad science. I’m actually astonished at how bad the science and reporting out of Europe is becoming.

    Neanderthal skulls were wider and more globular than modern human skulls, particularly in the posterior region where they were laterally expansive, which is exactly the opposite of what these authors claim.

  84. Nawyr says:
    @Prodigal son

    Prodigal Son,

    I caution you against making comparisons between historical events and prehistorical events. Genetic analysis of Neanderthals indicates that the “invasion” of modern humans was primarily female. Neanderthals had modern human mtDNA from African females, and the Neanderthal admixture in modern humans today entered the modern human gene pool via Neanderthal males. There is no reason to assume that modern humans “raped” Neanderthals. Modern human women were simply more attracted to them, or it was Neanderthals who “raped” modern human women.

    Did human women contribute to Neanderthal genomes over 200,000 years ago?
    A new Neanderthal mitochondrial genome supports a remarkable hypothesis – that there was interbreeding with an extremely early migration of African hominins

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/18/did-human-women-contribute-to-neanderthal-genomes-over-200000-years-ago

    I would also like to advise you that your obsession with crying rape is reminiscent of #MeToo anti-male hysteria. You may want to take a little dianabol and sort your problems out with a therapist.

  85. AP says:
    @The Man From K Street

    AFAIK the current idea is that Neanderthals were sort of “autistic” – good at mechanical tasks but not as social or verbal. Also, their bodies required a lot more calories which meant they had to have smaller and more dispersed population, and their life spans were shorter so that it was rarer for Neanderthals to know their grandparents.

    As a result, although an individual Neanderthal may have been smarter than a modern human, new ideas were more likely to arise from the modern humans (there were many more of them), they were more likely to be spread around and shared (more verbal, larger trade networks due to greater population), and there was a reserve of grandparents sharing knowledge or wisdom with younger generations, resulting in a real advantage for the moderns.

    That having been said, it is interesting that Neanderthal % is positively correlated with average intelligence.

  86. Luke Lea says:
    @Neuday

    So like the fingers, lips, tongue, etc. For speech and stone tool making.

  87. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon

    starting to think and i seem to remember there was some support for this neanderthals might have been smarter but less aggressive or more social maybe less tribal

    I seem to remember there was a theory that Neanderthals lived in small family groups while our ancestors lived in substantially larger groups, essentially small tribes. So if a conflict arose there’d be two or three adult male Neanderthals against maybe eight to ten of our lot.

    You can be very strong and very smart but with those odds you’re gonna lose every time.

  88. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    I think we are supposed to call them:

    beautiful, peaceful, technologically advanced indigenous Australian sun-people who were heinously murdered by ebil white debils

    You forgot to mention that they lived in harmony with the environment. The extinction of the entire Australian megafauna soon after they arrived was a complete coincidence.

  89. Anonymous[261] • Disclaimer says:
    @Science Dummy

    What I found telling over the years since the discovery that modern humans outside of Africa carry Neanderthal DNA was that suddenly people began to look into whether Neanderthal genes played a role in intelligence and trying to see if they were smarter than humans. No one started to work off the hypothesis that this suggested that they were likely less intelligent after that. People know the truth about black IQ, and show it, whether they verbalize it or not in this oppressive day and age.

  90. utu says:
    @Almost Missouri

    An enormous amount of Darwinist thought rests on these self-fulfilling tautologies.

    I would say that the Theory of Evolution does not rest on these tautological stories. But a lot of practitioners of the Theory of Evolution unfortunately comes up with the stories thinking that they have explanatory power while forgetting that the stories they weave are really untestable just-so stories. Unfortunately they take them with whole seriousness as a manifestation of science at work. It is not science at work but not too smart self-indulgent people at work who are not that much different from people in social and gender studies.

    http://www.unz.com/freed/darwins-vigilantes-reichard-sternberg-and-conventional-pseudoscience/#comment-2532858
    The problem with the ToE is that it is de facto tautological so there is no means of falsification. Thus it is a dogma that any living organism that exists is the outcome of evolutionary process. There is no other possibility. So all the stories that can be told about this organism must a priori be framed within the ToE. The ToE has no predictive ability. We must resign ourselves to accept any outcome because whatever will evolve had to evolve. We can only construct a posteriori stories that justify the outcome. The stories are no different from the just-so stories except that Kipling had sense of humor while evolutionsts take themselves dead seriously. Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism. This is not necessarily overtly acknowledged but it is implied. The veracity of the stories is usually unprovable in the sense of rigorous proofs available in other branches of science. It is unimaginable that any evidence could derail or even put a dent in the ToE. For all the reasons above the ToE is true because it must be true and nothing can be done about it.

    Jerry Fodor has some stories about hunter gatherers:

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings
    ‘We like telling stories because telling stories exercises the imagination and an imagination would have been a good thing for a hunter-gatherer to have.’

    ‘We don’t approve of eating grandmother because having her around to baby-sit was useful in the hunter-gatherer ecology.’

    ‘We like music because singing together strengthened the bond between the hunters and the gatherers (and/or between the hunter-gatherer grownups and their hunter-gatherer offspring)’.

    ‘We talk by making noises and not by waving our hands; that’s because hunter-gatherers lived in the savannah and would have had trouble seeing one another in the tall grass.’

    ‘We like to gossip because knowing who has been up to what is important when fitness depends on co-operation in small communities.’

    ‘We don’t all talk the same language because that would make us more likely to interbreed with foreigners (which would be bad because it would weaken the ties of hunter-gatherer communities).’

    ‘We don’t copulate with our siblings because that would decrease the likelihood of interbreeding with foreigners (which would be bad because, all else being equal, heterogeneity is good for the gene pool).’

  91. @TheJester

    Seriously? It was discussed in all the papers right from the very first one that ‘broke’ the news. Do you guys even read what you’re talking about before spouting off about it (like the guy earlier basically saying ‘blacks and aboriginals don’t have neanderthal DNA which is why Europeans are more intelligent than them’).

    Here:
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/655

    illustrative picture from that paper:

  92. scrivener3 says: • Website
    @ben tillman

    red hair freckles long head are N traits. if only junk remains whither those traits

  93. @Bucky

    The differences between humans and great apes are based on looking at mostly neutral DNA, the Neanderthal and Denisovan contributions to modern humans are not based on the same type of analysis. If you looked at neutral genes they would much higher than 98.4 percent. These are functional genes not neutral ones, humans are much more like these hominids than any great ape.

  94. gcochran says:
    @Anon

    Out of a human population, a few mated with Neanderthals. The F1 offspring are 50%, but that gets diluted by all the the other humans that never mated with Neanderthals. No natural selection is required for that dilution.
    The original percentage in that human population might have been 3 or 4%. It apparently decreased later, at least partly due to natural selection./ But some Neanderthal alleles have become common.

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
  95. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @inselaffen

    We’ve got plenty of Africans in Australia now to compare with our Abos, so here’s the latest:

    You can demonstrate a skill to an Abo, say operating a Boom Lift, and he’ll pick it up straight away.
    Sub Saharan Africans are as dumb as a box of frogs, and no power on Earth will ever change that.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  96. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peripatetic Commenter

    I think we are supposed to call them:

    beautiful, peaceful, technologically advanced indigenous Australian sun-people who were heinously murdered by ebil white debils

    Who says that, apart from yourself?
    Here’s some facts for you:
    Aborigines were hunted down in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Tasmania so their lands could be turned over to Wool growers.
    After the invention of refrigeration in the 1870s, the hunting down started in North Queensland and Northern Australia generally, to turn their lands over to the Beef cattle ranchers.

    So, find out who controlled the Wool Industry and the Meat Industry in the U.K. in the 19th. Century, and you’ll have found the culprits.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  97. Pat Boyle says:
    @a

    You realize, I hope, how he did that.

    Schumer worked for a company that provided cheat services to those who wanted to do well on the SAT. They had a cadre of pseudo-students who took the SAT and wrote down all the questions they could remember. I’m told Chuck Schumer took the SAT 26 times before he got that perfect score.

    BTW many people have taken the SAT and gotten a perfect score honestly. I myself got a perfect 800 on the verbal half of the GRE (the big brother to the SAT). Trust me I’m not that smart.

    • Replies: @a
  98. Pat Boyle says:
    @gcochran

    Enough bickering. More simple facts please. I have known that about 2 to 3% of the modern white human genome is from Neanderthal admixture for several years now. It seems to me that someone should know something more about these sequences after all this time.

    I read lots of speculation but it seems to me someone by now should simply know . I’ve heard about disease immunity, cold adaptation, and the form of the skull. If you don’t know, who does? Paabo. Reich, someone else?

    • Replies: @Sean
  99. The fact that one particular population on Earth lacks these genes might be the answer to your question, same goes for Denisovan mixture.

  100. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon

    We’ve got plenty of Africans in Australia now to compare with our Abos

    We decided we just didn’t have enough racial problems, so we imported more.

    The Abos are mostly harmless as people. The Aboriginal activists (who are usually at least three-quarters white) are a pain in the arse and seem to be mostly out to feather their own nests. There’s still a fair degree of sympathy for the Abos on the part of white Australians, but probably not as much as in the 70s.

    Native Americans used to be a very fashionable minority group, now they’re very unfashionable. They’re so 1970s. Something similar has happened, to a lesser extent, with the Abos. Asylum seekers are much more trendy.

  101. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon

    Here’s some facts for you:
    Aborigines were hunted down in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Tasmania so their lands could be turned over to Wool growers.
    After the invention of refrigeration in the 1870s, the hunting down started in North Queensland and Northern Australia generally, to turn their lands over to the Beef cattle ranchers.

    There’s a lot of propaganda to that effect. Most of it has been thoroughly debunked.

  102. a says:
    @Pat Boyle

    I didn’t know any of that. I just looked it up and read something some guy wrote about it. Very interesting.

  103. @gcochran

    “Abos have Neanderthal admixture, also Denisovan.”

    Thank you, I stand corrected.

  104. Sean says:
    @Pat Boyle

    No one knows whether the Neanderthal genes in Europeans are detritus or a boon. According to one of the authors of a study on Neanderthal genes I heard being interviewed on BBC radio a couple of years ago the evidence is fairly compatible with a slow purge of Neanderthal genes from the modern human genome inasmuch as the Neanderthal genes tend not to be absent only in inessential areas. So Neanderthal genes may well be a net nuisance, or have become so.

    All archiacs are more robust and thus sensitive to testosterone than modern humans. The Neanderthals were robust and more testosteronised than modern humans going by their digit ratio. Neanderthal hybridization with modern humans resulted in the gorilla-like physiques of early Cro-Magnons (barrel chests, no neck, big head) which is a marker for aggression, specifically male–male competition for access to females (one man got multiple women). Early Cro Magnons were bull-headed oafs who hunted with thrusting spears, a sign that game was abundant and easy to kill.

    Some Neanderthal genes probably were useful for interspecific competition, a bit like a wolf/dog cross will dominate the pecking order in a pack of sled dogs even though it is not very good at pulling the sled. Once the last glacial maximum of the Ice Age came in the Neanderthal genes were less useful, because the environment was so harsh, and food was hard to come by So in the Magdalenian, humans hunting herds of reindeer (the worlds most mobile land animal) out on the steppe required all kinds of technology (fitted clothing, food storage tents, dart throwers, traps)

    In the new environment the demands were on different things. A man who go out (this was on foot in sub zero remember) and brought home the bacon got a wife, and more importantly could support a family (one wife). Big tough men could not intimidate the reindeer, they had to go and catch them, then get back. So the priority changed and the genes for violence died out. It is known that there was a reduction in size, robustness and cranial capacity during the Magdalenian. The corollary was that women were in competition for men, hence the rare woman in which (Neanderthal) red hair genes came through to expression had an advantage. Big Neanderthal noses were a disadvantage though.

    • Replies: @Sean
  105. Sean says:
    @Sean

    Craniometric analysis of European Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic samples supports discontinuity at the Last Glacial Maximum

    This study used craniometric data to explore temporal and geographic variation in pre- and post-LGM specimens, using a large, well-dated data set for these periods. The pre-LGM showed greatest divergence in our analyses, pointing to the LGM as a disruptive event in the population history of Europe. No clear morphological division was detected between the late glacial and Holocene groups, suggesting that the division between them is arbitrary from a biological perspective.

  106. Maasai says:

    Steve you’re usually so good at getting to the politically incorrect heart of new scientific studies. Can’t believe you missed this one:

    “These findings suggest that PHLPP1 and UBR4 evolved to work differently in modern human brains [i.e. those without the Neanderthal version of the gene] […]
    Why these changes? Simon Fisher, a co-author of the new study at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in the Netherlands, speculated that modern humans evolved more sophisticated powers of language. They may have also become better at making tools.”

    TRANSLATION: modern Europeans sometimes have Neanderthal genes that make them dumber. Sub-Saharan Africans fortunately lack these genes.

    You’re welcome.

  107. KeinBernd says:

    I think I might have some Neanderthal genes. I need to get tested.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?