(04-01-2024, 09:48 AM)BIAD Wrote: It seems to me that the media are involved in a constant push to have Neanderthals
seen as a 'above-average' group! But I would wager there's an agenda we're not aware of
yet from the MSM.
To be fair, Neanderthals did have much larger brains than current modern folk - 1600cc average vs 1480-1520cc average. With that said, the devil is in the details Their brains were shaped differently to ours, which means they were organized and used differently. For example, Neanderthals had a much larger occipital region, heavily involved in sight, and a much smaller frontal region, heavily involved in thinking and particularly abstract thought. "Bigger" may only be "better" as regards certain proclivities and abilities. In other words, "above average" has limits drawn from differing abilities. I.e. "above average" at some things, but "below average" at others.
Now, if we combine the larger occipital brain region governing sight with the fact that Neanderthal eyeballs were a lot larger as well, and more widely spaced, we could conceivably arrive at the conclusion that Neanderthals were more nocturnal than diurnal, which shoots this "morningness" nonsense right in the foot. Of what survival value is being a morning person when all of your activity is done at night? Larger eyeballs gather more light. More widely spaced eyeballs extend the range of binocular vision. Those factors combined with a larger vision processing center in the brain means that Neanderthals had much better vision than we do, and very likely far better night vision for nocturnal activities.
It's all in the interpretation of what they WANT to find in a study.
Also on the subject of brains, it has been discovered that over generations, modern human brain size is actually shrinking. Early European Paleolithic populations had bigger brains than current Europeans have, for example. The shrinking started accelerating around 5000 or 6000 years ago, just about the time that farming and animal husbandry got it's start. Whether the two events are interrelated is undetermined, and we must keep in mind that correlation does not equate to causation in any event.
Quote:Quote:Daily Mail Article:
Maybe this diagram is a clue to what the divisive media are up to?
And another!
Guardian Article:
There's something going on.
See the cross-hatched area in the northern Levant, Turkey, northern Iraq, and the Georgia/ Caucasus region? THAT is actually where modern humans, "a new kind of human", originated - not Africa. "Modern humans" are actually the product of cross-breeding between archaic north Africans and Neanderthals/ Denisovans, and that occurred in that cross-hatched area initially.
Sub-Saharan African populations cross-bred with entirely different archaic hominins (as recorded in their modern DNA). The Archaics they interbred with are currently unknown, and are referred to in the literature as a "ghost population" because they have not yet been identified. There is none of he Neanderthal DNA found in all other human populations to be found in subsaharan Africans. Instead, they interbred with entirely different archaic hominins.
The products of these various cross breeding events is one of the major factors that led to differences in modern races - a concept that, for some odd reason, modern "science" is furiously trying to downplay. My guess is that "races" should be considered as different subspecies at best, and possibly different species altogether because of the hybridization with entirely different archaic populations leading to wider DNA divergence..
But modern "science" ain't having none of that - it doesn't fit the current political paradigm. I dunno why. It wouldn't mean that one race was "less human" than another, any more than a dog is "less canine" than a wolf, or vice-versa, or that a tiger is "less feline" than a lion.
Species and sub-species are just differing forms of the same thing, bred to and formed by different conditions, tailored to their environment.
.