
Modern Humans and Neanderthals May Be More Similar Than We Imagined - kqr2
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-neanderthal-children-grow-lot-modern-human-children-180964993/?no-ist
======
excalibur
Our understanding of the interplay between the different groups of early
humans and their relationship to us has been done a disservice by the
artificial lines we've drawn in the sand. The Neanderthal and the Denisovan
interbred. Both are the ancestors of modern humans, and on the same level of
our family tree (i.e. the same number of generations ago). To proclaim that
one group is homo sapiens and the other is not amounts to a weird sort of
racism against our own ancestors, leading to the popular view of the
Neanderthal as inferior.

~~~
grondilu
> by the artificial lines we've drawn in the sand.

You make it sound like the distinction was completely arbitrary or something.
There are anatomical differences that justified the separation into different
species, from a classical point of view.

Now, the concept of species is blurry and genetic analysis shows that
Neanderthal and Sapiens did interbreed. Nevertheless, the anatomical
characteristics of Sapiens remained, and none of the Neanderthal ones.
Therefore it seems to me that the distinction into different species remains
pertinent.

~~~
fish_fan
Err, isn't use of morphological classification to define species of animals
_super_ outdated? I was under the impression it was more useful to define
which groups of animals could produce viable offspring. In this definition,
neanderthals would be a subspecies, not a distinct species in itself. This
seems both more correct and more useful.

~~~
grondilu
> Err, isn't use of morphological classification to define species of animals
> super outdated?

It's still the best you have in most cases, notably in the fossil record.

I'm no expert but I believe that the concept of species is becoming more and
more problematic nowadays. There is a wikipedia article about it[1]. So, it's
complicated.

That being said, even if Neanderthal seems to have interbred with Sapiens, as
far as I know, nobody seriously thinks this should revise its status as a
separate species.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem)

------
indubitable
The study this article is based off seems to rely on a logical contradiction.

The entire study is founded on the age of the specimen. That age was
determined to a literally unbelievable level of precision ( _+ /\- 31.025 days
for a 50,000 year old corpse of a species that went extinct 40,000 years ago_)
by assuming that neanderthal growth rates were effectively identical to homo
sapien growth rates - so enabling them to determine its age by markers based
on homo sapien growth rates. They then use this assumption to show that the
growth rate of neanderthals were not, in fact, identical to homo sapiens. This
seemingly contradicts the assumption they used to determine the specimen's
age, which in turn would effectively nullify the entire paper since it thus
negates any attempt at such a precise measurement of age.

~~~
Stratoscope
It's always best to use the maximum possible precision. This way people know
they can trust your data.

Round numbers would lead people to believe you were just making things up.

Source:

 _How to Lie with Statistics_ , Darrell Huff and Irving Geis

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393310728/)

------
lkrubner
_Second, inspection of the cranium—which houses the brain—implied that brain
development in Neanderthals may have been a slightly more protracted process
than in Homo sapiens._

This can be read as yet more evidence that Neanderthals were smarter than homo
sapiens, with an even more protracted childhood to allow for longer brain
development. In saying this, I'm influenced by the old arguments that Stephen
Gould made suggesting a link between extended development and many of the
traits that we think of as uniquely human.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
This can also lead to some potentially dicey conclusions in certain corners
that analyze prevalence of Neanderthal DNA in human populations.

~~~
Method-X
Like what?

~~~
RepressedEmu
He is implying that a larger amount of Neanderthal DNA would lead to greater
intelligence.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
It's not my assertion, just that there are those who say that.

------
dghf
> Through an analysis of naturally occurring markings on the juvenile’s first
> left upper molar, Rosas and his coauthors concluded that the child had
> almost certainly died between the ages of 7.61 and 7.78 years.

That seems remarkably precise. What is it about the molar that allows that
level of precision?

~~~
aaronblohowiak
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483555](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483555)

[https://www.omicsonline.org/radiographic-evaluation-of-
devel...](https://www.omicsonline.org/radiographic-evaluation-of-
developmental-stages-of-third-molar-in-relation-to-chronological-age-as-
applicability-in-forensic-age-
estimation-2161-1122.S1-002.php?aid=7319&view=mobile)

~~~
dogruck
Both of those links are about using the third molar. Is that the same as the
"first left upper molar"?

~~~
bonzini
The third molars are the wisdom teeth. The first molar grows around 6 years of
age. At 7-8, kids only have the four first molars (molars only grow once, no
tooth fairy for them).

~~~
dogruck
Makes sense. Any links relevant to how they can be so precise using the first
molar?

------
zaroth
Can't agree more with the title. I mean, have you _met_ any fellow humans
recently? Clearly 50,000 years of evolution didn't do all that much for us!

------
theodorejb
Evolutionists who believe that Neanderthals were not fully human always seem
surprised by discoveries like this. As a creationist, I don't find it
surprising at all - more and more evidence keeps stacking up that Neanderthals
were fully human.

~~~
Simon_says
Shame on the people downvoting you. You're just expressing your opinion, which
happens to be extremely unpopular around here. I upvoted you for contributing
to the conversation.

I'm just more curious: how can you maintain your belief in creationism in
spite of all the evidence to the contrary?

~~~
ams6110
Matters of faith don't really depend on evidence.

