/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1602267]

>However, a recent development in 2010 indicates that Neanderthal did indeed interbreed with Homo Sapiens at circa 75,000 BC to create modern humans (after homo sapiens moved out from Africa, but before they separated into Europe, the Middle East, and Asia). All modern human DNA is between 1% and 4% Neanderthal. (To appreciate how big of a percentage this is, consider that humans and chimps only differ in 1.5% of their DNA.) This 1-4% DNA from Neanderthals results in larger cerebral cortex and a range of abilities associated with higher intelligence. Interestingly, this 1-4% bit of DNA is only present in non-african humans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Problem, nigger subhumans?

[Anonymous No.1602284]

oh shit nigger!

[Anonymous No.1602294]

>citing wikipedia

[Anonymous No.1602312]

>All modern human DNA is between 1% and 4% Neanderthal
> this 1-4% bit of DNA is only present in non-african humans
>implying african human aren't modern human

[Anonymous No.1603233]

>>1602312

[Anonymous No.1603245]

>>1602267
You are aware that this Neanderthals DNA is only present in non-coding parts of the human DNA and thus as zero impact on us.

Those are vestigial code.
It make no difference to have it or not.

[Anonymous No.1603253]

>>1603245
You are aware that many non-coding regions are functional?

[Anonymous No.1603266]

>>1603253
If it's non-coding, then, by definition, it isn't functional. If it functions, then that means it is coding something.

Or you have to explain me what you mean by by "Functional".

[Anonymous No.1603273]

>>1602294
Wikipedia uses Citations in their articles. It's a legitimate resource.

[Anonymous No.1603274]

>>1603266
Non-coding only means it doesn't code for proteins or RNAs.

Examples of functional non-coding regions: all promoters, enhanchers, silencers, centromeric regions, telomeric regions...

[Anonymous No.1603289]

It codes for larger cerebral cortex and a range of abilities associated with higher intelligence, not to mention white skin and red hair.

[Anonymous No.1603293]

OTOH, it means that instead of calling us "crackers", niggers can now call us "neanderthals".

[Anonymous No.1603297]

>>1603274
I don't think The Neanderthal DNA is even in there either.

[Anonymous No.1603307]

>>1602267
Are you saying you believe the Homo Neanderthalus was superior to the Homo Sapiens.

If I remember correctly, Neanderthals had a stronger constitution, which mean they didn't need to build more complex tools.

[Anonymous No.1603314]

>>1603297
Crazy, but science doesn't care what you think.

[Anonymous No.1603332]

>>1603307

Neanderthals had larger brains, and although that certainly doesn't guarantee higher intelligence it's likely.

[Anonymous No.1603343]

>>1603314
Did I say "think"? I meant "remember". About some science articles on the matter I had read. That said those DNA mark had no function whatsover.

This wasn't about what science care what I think.

[Anonymous No.1603348]

>>1603307

Funny, as they've found Neanderthal fossils AND tools.

[Anonymous No.1603353]

>>1603348
I never say they hadn't tools, I said those tools were less complex.

[Anonymous No.1603372]

>>1603353

citation?

[Anonymous No.1603365]

This may help explain my pic.

[Anonymous No.1603369]

>>1603348
>they've found Neanderthal fossils
BREAKING NEWS, GUYS!

Seriously, you only needed to mention the tools.

[Anonymous No.1603381]

>>1603365
What does it have to do with DNA?

[Anonymous No.1603397]

>>1603307
Neanderthals are now believed to have been more intelligent, but to have had less dexterous hands and finger joints making it harder for them to construct and wield tools effectively.

[Anonymous No.1603415]

>>1603372
A good exemple is the Atlatl, typical of the Homo Sapiens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl
The Neanderthal never had the use of it as they were strong enough to launch spears on their own. thus, it is a tool they never developed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYas53pGGKg

[Anonymous No.1603429]

>>1603397
>Neanderthals are now believed to have been more intelligent
I think all we have found so far to back up that statement is the bigger brain volume, but except for that, I don't think there is any serious indication of a superior intelligence.

[Anonymous No.1603436]

>>1603429
In all species of primates brain volume to body mass correlates with intelligence.

[Anonymous No.1603440]

>>1603415
To think than, back in prehistoric time, they had to make it without drillers or glue in tube...

[Anonymous No.1603447]

>implying africans aren't the pure humans
>implying i didn't just get trolled

[Anonymous No.1603473]

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=371659380
The racist claims about "higher intelligence" were added by someone at an anonymous IP address, in the middle of some legitimate discussion of the new results.
Then an (intentional?) edit war erupted about something else and the racist claims were probably not noticed. Thanks for bringing it to this Wikipediafag's attention.

[Anonymous No.1603475]

>>1603436
>brain volume to body mass correlates with intelligence
They were larger than us.

[Anonymous No.1603478]

>>1603473
By the way, the Discovery article cited says nothing about the racist claim, i.e.
>This 1-4% DNA from Neanderthals results in larger cerebral cortex and a range of abilities associated with higher intelligence.
It only mentions the findings about interbreeding and that the other DNA is primarily in non-Africans.
OP, I guess you class New Guinean natives in with whites and Asians, since they also have the Neanderthal DNA?

[Anonymous No.1603485]

>>1603475

Yeah, but that ratio was still higher.

[Anonymous No.1603488]

>>1603436
Much more than the brain volume, it's amount of creases on the cortex that correlate with intelligence. And knowing the amount of creases on Neanderthals is almost impossible

[Anonymous No.1603492]

>>1603488
I'm not saying that creases don't matter. I am saything that braincase volume per body mass always correlates to intelligence amongst primates.

[Anonymous No.1603493]

>>1603436
>>1603475
>>1603485
You are aware you are not contradicting each other, right?

[Anonymous No.1603500]

>>1603478
Sub-Saharan Africans don't hold the Neanderthal DNA, those who did then branched out across the world.

[Anonymous No.1603507]

>>1603492
Yup, but degree of intelligence among primate is not proved by Brain volume, but through various test. Having only the brain volume isn't enough to make it a solid statement.

Which bring us back to the original question>>1603429
: aside for the brain volume, is there any other indication that the Neanderthals were more intelligent.

Because brain volume alone isn't enough to make the case.

[Anonymous No.1603516]

>>1603507
No but there IS a solid correlation.

Also, yeah they used tools as well. Other than that idk man.

[Anonymous No.1603514]

>>1603500
youheardme.jpg
So you think New Guinean natives have just as much "higher intelligence" as whites and Asians?
pic related

[Anonymous No.1603515]

>>1603500
WTF?

They branched out across the world before having Neanderthals DNA marks! It's only when they voyaged that they finally met some Neanderthals.

[Anonymous No.1603533]

>>1603514
Wasn't OP, but if they hold Neanderthal DNA, then they have just as much advantage as us. At least originally. Genetic drift since those 75 or so thousand years has probably favored us over them.

>>1603515
Yes, those that stayed below the Sahara didn't. Poor wording on my part, apologies.

[Anonymous No.1603540]

>>1603473
nobody's reverted it, haha

[Anonymous No.1603543]

I still don't think Neanderthals where more intelligent, whern't there tools art and culturel stuff not as advanced?

[Anonymous No.1603547]

>>1603353

Neanderthal tools were not less complex

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/aug/26/evolution

[Anonymous No.1603553]

[Anonymous No.1603554]

>>1603516
Yes, but less complex tools. which come in contradiction with the statement of superior intelligence.
Beside:
Homo neanderthalensis: 1,200–1,900
H. sapiens: 1,000–1,850

Those volumes are far too close (they almost overlap each other completely) to make it a call. You can't soundly decide Neanderthals is more intelligent on that element alone. You need other elements than this one to make the point.

Which bring us back to the question:
What other element than the brain volume correlate the superior intelligence of the Neanderthal?

[Anonymous No.1603558]

>>1603543

Neanderthal's cultural was not less advanced.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1952933,00.html

[Anonymous No.1603559]

>>1603516
We can look at their behavior and technology. They were culturally and technologically different from our species. They were building complex tents before our species existed. We may have initially learned tool making from them. The main behavioral differences, were that their tents were disorganized as compared to ours. (Geniuses always have messy desks, right?) And they preferred small tribal associates rather than the large social connections of our species.

For some reason, even when projectile technology was clearly available to them, they didn't want anything to do with it. They preferred weapons that they kept a hold of.

[Anonymous No.1603562]

>>1603554

"Neanderthals used tools that were just as efficient as those used by Homo sapiens."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/aug/26/evolution

[Anonymous No.1603578]

>>1603562
"As efficient" is the key word.

What I am asking is elements would back up more the "Neanderthals were MORE intelligent" theory. Brain's volumes are far too close to be relevant alone.

[Anonymous No.1603583]

>>1602267
Most niggers in America have white blood in them due to interbreeding in the last 200-300 years, they aren't pure african negroid subhumans.

[Anonymous No.1603591]

>>1603578

i wouldn't discount 3% - 20% difference in brain volume as insignificant.

[Anonymous No.1603592]

>>1603559
Sounds like having aspergers/autism was normal for Neanderthals.

[Anonymous No.1603605]

>>1603591
Not the guy you're talking to, but size probably had very little to do with our difference in intelligence. We can't judge surface area (notice all the folds in our brains to maximize this) of our brains through fossils.

[Anonymous No.1603610]

I read a neat National Geographic article that proposed that the reason why Neanderthals died out was because they had higher calorie needs than Homo Sapiens, and no other reason whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.1603613]

>>1603591
3% is insignificant. And it's the top average that matter here.

[Anonymous No.1603624]

What I would like to know is if people without the Neanderthal DNA have a similar incedence of "psychic" things to happen to them - knowing when a friend is about to call, feeling someone watching you, etc. I read an interesting sci-fi story that took place when the two species were interacting, and the biggest difference between the two was that the Neanderthals would psychically feel sensations that others around them had, including animals. If they killed something, they felt its pain. They had sex a lot in the story, as you can imagine. The modern humans could not feel pain they were inflicting on others, so they were much more inclined to violence, and that is why there's no more Neanderthals.

[Anonymous No.1603631]

>>1603613

no, the intelligence of the general population matters, so Neanderthal brain was on average 9% bigger than homo sapien brain.

[Anonymous No.1603637]

>>1603631
Which, to keep the same body/brain size ratio, would add about 15 lbs. to the body mass of an adult neanderthal. I think they were a bit bigger than that.

[Anonymous No.1603640]

>>1603624

You best be trollin' nigger, this isn't /x/

[Anonymous No.1603645]

>>1603592
Yes, exactly. A species of reclusive unsocial intellectual readheads.

[Anonymous No.1603649]

>>1603640
Aww, did someone not pay attention to their inner voices when they were a child and as a result lose their ability for precognition? Poor baby...

[Anonymous No.1603652]

>>1603592

yup, they were biologicly and psychologicaly aspies/auties

its just unfortunate they were killed by other humans

[Anonymous No.1603657]

>>1603613
Anyway, at this level (and even with bigger difference) It the amount of Cortex's Folds that matter, far much way more than the volume.

The Brain Volume isn't enough to make a call. That's why I am asking for other elements. So far, all I have got is that we were equivalent.

[Anonymous No.1603664]

>>1603652
Highly unlikely. They were physically superior in every way when it came to combat (or hunting). They probably died out because of genetic disease. They were at least 600,000 years old as a species. We're already feeling the sting of genetic disease, and we're only 200,000 years.

[Anonymous No.1603667]

>>1603652
There is no proof than we killed them. Even when it come to competition level, the number of Homo Sapiens was still too little at time to cause a treat. If anything, Neanderthals were at competition with themselves.

[Anonymous No.1603676]

>>1603664
Let's not go to fast on the genetic disease, there. Le'ts not forget Homo Erectus lived for more than 1.5 millions years.
(what caused the extinction of the homo Erectus by the way?)

[Anonymous No.1603680]

>>1603664
Yes, and we are fast approaching having the techmology to change our genetics. Soon, with enough manpower devoted to the problem, we will track down the junk DNA and disease-causing parts and edit them out to save ourselves. If I was in charge of that project, I would send the "cleaned" DNA humans to another planet to avoid interbreeding with the current genepool.

[Anonymous No.1603689]

>>1603676
"If you experience an erection lasting longer than 4 hours, contact medical help immediately!"

No doctors, bro.

[Anonymous No.1603691]

>>1603680

so they can build up a civilization on another planet then come back and enslave us?

[Anonymous No.1603698]

>>1603691
Sure, sounds like a good story!

[Anonymous No.1603707]

>>1603676
Noah's flood? Seriously, every 100,000 years you have to deal with a massive glaciation and a massive deglaciation with epic floods as glacial dams burst. Any species that isn't robust when a major change happens, or anyone unknowledgeable enough to build all their settlements on the sea coast during the ice age, is going to have trouble surviving the change.

In interesting, but maybe pointless, consideration, about neanderthals is that with their dense bone and dense muscle makes them more like gorillas than us in the water -- in other words, they were not buoyant enough to swim.

tl;dr -- I have no idea why h. erectus died.

[Anonymous No.1603720]

>>1603680
Hopefully you're right. /sci/bitches baw and moan about needing to becoming immortal, but the important thing is to make our SPECIES immortal. Earth would suck if there were no more humans around to exploit it.

[Anonymous No.1603729]

>>1603680


Wow that's cool bro, I like how you totally disregard the fact that each gene has multiple functions and that 'junk' dna is actaully pretty important to keeping down harmful mutations and that changing one gene has all kinds of knock on effects everywhere and 'cleaning' dna like you want to would reduce our already shit poor diversity.

[Anonymous No.1603745]

>>1603729
Well, I like how you disregard the part where I said that people would have figured out what the DNA parts do before editing them. We don't know now, but eventually we will. Way to not read what I said, guy.

[Anonymous No.1603783]

>>1603745
Let's be real: We'll start Genetic tweaking way before we fully know how the whole mesh really work. As sound as we manage to understand how few, yet relevant to us elements work, we'll start playing Wizard's Apprentice without waiting to know more.

I predict a whole fuck up and lost of diversity as soon as we'll industrialize Genetic modifications.

[Anonymous No.1603808]

>>1603783
That's how we all learn best, my man: fucking around with shit and seeing what happens. I would like to have a new pair of lungs cloned so I ideologically support cloning research. Not financially though, of course. There's rich people for that.

[Anonymous No.1603874]

>>1603808
Yeah, but this time, it's going to be one big kick in the nuts for our civilization. almost everyone will want to have stronger, gifted, intelligent children or be itself stronger, gifted and intelligent.

That will reduce the gene diversity to a degree never meet before (even, at the bottleneck time). Then just on Virus, and everybody die, because everybody went with the exact same kind of improvement. Only survivors will be the one who refused genetic modification, mostly for "moral" or "religious" reasons rather than logical ones. This mass extinction will be perceived as a punishment, a new kind of Babel, by many of the survivors. Obscurantism will be considered again as a "good value" and human will once again live in a new dark age where technology and improvement is considered a sin.

This is in no way a tough time that will improve us.