Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Postulate Extinct Hominid With 150 IQ

Hugh Pickens writes "Neuroscientists Gary Lynch and Richard Granger have an interesting article in Discover Magazine about the Boskops, an extinct hominid that had big eyes, child-like faces, and forebrains roughly 50% larger than modern man indicating they may have had an average intelligence of around 150, making them geniuses among Homo sapiens. The combination of a large cranium and immature face would look decidedly unusual to modern eyes, but not entirely unfamiliar. Such faces peer out from the covers of countless science fiction books and are often attached to 'alien abductors' in movies. Naturalist Loren Eiseley wrote: 'Back there in the past, ten thousand years ago. The man of the future, with the big brain, the small teeth. He lived in Africa. His brain was bigger than your brain.' The history of evolutionary studies has been dogged by the almost irresistible idea that evolution leads to greater complexity, to animals that are more advanced than their predecessor, yet the existence of the Boskops argues otherwise — that humans with big brains, and perhaps great intelligence, occupied a substantial piece of southern Africa in the not very distant past, and that they eventually gave way to smaller-brained, possibly less advanced Homo sapiens — that is, ourselves. 'With 30 percent larger brains than ours now, we can readily calculate that a population with a mean brain size of 1,750 cc would be expected to have an average IQ of 149,' write Lynch and Granger. But why did they go extinct? 'Maybe all that thoughtfulness was of no particular survival value in 10,000 BC. Lacking the external hard drive of a literate society, the Boskops were unable to exploit the vast potential locked up in their expanded cortex,' write Lynch and Granger. 'They were born just a few millennia too soon.'"

31 of 568 comments (clear)

  1. survival of the hungry by decula03 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mmmmmmmm Brains

    1. Re:survival of the hungry by nhytefall · · Score: 4, Funny

      BOOM!! Headshot!

      --
      0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
    2. Re:survival of the hungry by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Did they have vocal cords that were sophisticated enough to produce real language?

      House cats have vocal cords that are sophisticated enough to produce real language. Once when I was married, we visited a friend out of town and crashed on his couch, the next morning we heard a child outside the door whining for help. "Help! Help!" plain as day. I opened the door and his cat walked in and said, again plain as day, "hello". Cats, however, don't have sophisticated enough brains for complex communications.

      Even some birds can mimick human speech.

      Further, being born with a huge head is hard on female. With out C-sections, how would a woman survive?

      They would have had to have huge vaginas and usteruses, too. My last girlfriend's vagina was freakishly small, so small I could hardly have sex with her. Were it not for c-section she and her son would have both died in childbirth; there's no way a baby's head would have fit through that thing. Evolution would have done her in, just as evolution would have insured that these creatures had large enough reproductive organs to survive.

      The thought just occurred to me that perhaps the precursors to humans mated with theis species; maybe the males of that species like tight pussies, the females of our precursor species liked smart guys, and that's why they went extinct?

  2. One problem ... by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Evolution may favour the most clever and the most adaptable, but this homonid suffered from one utterly fatal genetic flaw: it was delicious.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    1. Re:One problem ... by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If evolution only favored big complex beings like ourselves, all the millions of other life forms which inhabit the earth, totaling a far greater mass than us, wouldn't be around.

      We aren't in competition with most bacteria (or viruses), so it doesn't really make sense to say that evolution favours one over other.

      The bacteria and viruses of today are more evolved than us, having been doing it for far longer.

      The bacteria and viruses of today have exactly as long evolutionary history than us.

      And the concept of "more evolved" doesn't really make sense. "Better adapted" does, as does "more complex", but "more evolved" doesn't mean anything because, all together now, "evolution doesn't have a goal, so there's no way to say which entity is more and which less evolved".

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:One problem ... by ilguido · · Score: 4, Informative

      The bacteria and viruses of today have exactly as long evolutionary history than us.

      No, they have much much much more ancestors than us. Evolution is not a matter of years, but of generations.

  3. Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ? by rotide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does a bigger brain necessarily mean they had a higher IQ? Does it really work like that? I get there could be the _potential_ for a higher IQ, but just because someone has more gray matter doesn't necessarily mean they are smarter.

    1. Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A dolphin, the mammal with one of the largest brains out there, is NOT smarter then a human.

      By what measure? As far as can be told, Dolphin's apply their brains to different types of activities and problems to humans. I can imagine having tests that compare dolphin intelligence levels relative to other dolphins, and of course there are tests that purport to measure human intelligence levels relative to other humans, but I doubt you could create any meaningful unified scale for comparing humans to dolphins. Where would you start?

    2. Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ? by qbzzt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Intelligence is always useful.

      Not if it costs something. For example, IIRC the human brain takes 20% of a human's energy budget. If these hominids had bigger brains, they needed more food to keep them fed. More intelligence, in return for requiring more food to survive, may not be a good tradeoff.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    3. Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ? by Dmala · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Humans think they are smarter than dolphins because we build cars and buildings and start wars etc...and all that dolphins do is swim in the water, eat fish and play around. Dolphins believe that they are smarter for exactly the same reasons."

      -Douglas Adams

    4. Re:Does a bigger brain really mean higher IQ? by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, the article is total nonsense.

      If you compare across species, there is some correlation between brain size and intelligence, but not much. For instance, a whale's brain is a lot bigger than a human's, but there's no evidence that whales are all that much smarter than humans. Hamsters' brains are a lot smaller than horses', but they aren't dramatically dumber. The correlation gets somewhat stronger if you rate each species in terms of the ratio of brain size to body size. But in any case, the correlation is fairly weak, and is only a cross-species correlation. If you compare humans, there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence. Women have smaller heads than men on the average, but they're not less intelligent. The scientific consensus is that Boskop is not a separate species from H. Sapiens. Even if it was, the cross-species correlation is extremely loose, so you can't infer anything about one specific species. By the way, neanderthals also had bigger brains than humans, but the evidence is that they weren't any more intelligent. For example, there are areas where neanderthals and humans lived side by side for thousands of years, using identical types of tools. If the neanderthals were that much smarter than the humans, you'd think they'd have had fancier tools. Later on, humans started using more sophisticated tools (e.g., fish hooks and needles carved from bone), but IIRC the big-brained neanderthals never did.

      Human intelligence depends a lot on specific genes, such as FOXP2. These genes have dramatic effects on intellectual ability, e.g., verbal ability. Families with abnormal FOXP2 have problems with language, but their brains are normal in size, and you wouldn't be able to tell them from normal humans based on their skulls. When you splice FOXP2 into mice, the baby mice vocalize differently than normal mice. But again, you wouldn't be able to tell the mice were abnormal based on their skulls. FOXP2 has been sequenced from DNA from Neanderthal fossils at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and the result is that neanderthals have the same FOXP2 as modern humans. Note that they had to use molecular biology to find this out, though; you can't detect it by any amount of staring at the fossilized skulls.

  4. As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    The Discover article is a bunch of garbage. the idea that this was some sort of homonid species has been debuniked over 50 years ago.

    1. Re:As always... Wikipedia provides some sanity by ShatteredArm · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Some points from that article:

      First, if you do a simple Google Scholar search for "Boskop", you will discover that this has not been a going topic in human evolution for nearly fifty years. Most intellectual effort on the topic of "Boskopoids" happened between 1915 and 1930. I want to emphasize how easy it is to discover these things by a simple Google search. This is obscure knowledge, but for a good reason -- it's obsolete and has been for fifty years!

      This selection was initially done almost without any regard for archaeological or cultural associations -- any old, large skull was a "Boskop". Later, when a more systematic inventory of archaeological associations was entered into evidence, it became clear that the "Boskop race" was entirely a figment of anthropologists' imaginations. Instead, the MSA-to-LSA population of South Africa had a varied array of features, within the last 20,000 years trending toward those present in historic southern African peoples. Singer ends his paper thusly:

      It is now obvious that what was justifiable speculation (because of paucity of data) in 1923, and was apparent as speculation in 1947, is inexcusable to maintain in 1958.

      That is pretty much where matters have stood ever since. "Boskopoid" is used only in this historical sense; it is has not been an active unit of analysis since the 1950's. By 1963, Brothwell could claim that Boskop itself was nothing more than a large skull of Khoisan type, leaving the concept of a "Boskop race" far behind.

      Today, skeletal remains from South African LSA are generally believed to be ancestral to historic peoples in the region, including the Khoikhoi and San. The ancient people did not mysteriously disappear: they are still with us! The artistic legacy of the ancient peoples, clearly evidenced in rock art, is impressive but no more so than that of the European Upper Paleolithic or that of indigenous Australians.

      I hate to think that the theme of a 2008 book was pulled straight from a 1958 essay, but I don't know where else they would have gotten the idea. No anthropologists have written much about the so-called "Boskopoids" since 1958. There is no such thing as an "IQ estimate" for a fossil human; that's entirely nonsensical.

      Perhaps most important:

      Both Lynch and Granger are experts in neuroscience, with a long list of publications on memory, cortical organization, and chemical regulation of brain activity. Neither of them is an anthropologist or archaeologist.

      It would seem John Hawks has thoroughly debunked the idea.

  5. We know how things go in our Idiocracy by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The smarter people will invariably be the minority overridden by the less smart masses for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways. One only has to look at the dark ages to see that in action. And every time we see politics manipulate science we see more of the same.

    If 10,000 years ago a bunch of rock throwers witnessed the "magic" of these smarter people, they too might have believed they were evil or a threat to be destroyed.

    With all that said, the premise of the discussion is completely guess-work. Big brain doesn't mean big mind.

    1. Re:We know how things go in our Idiocracy by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The smarter people will invariably be the minority overridden by the less smart masses for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways.

      Persecution complex much? Just about everything you just whined about is utter bullshit. The smart have always ruled. The smart generals have triumphed from the less gifted leaders, helped by the inventions of the smart engineers, enabled by the discoveries of the smart scientists. Don't let your historical shortsightedness and your obsession with modern day American conservatives or even your movie-watching make you think otherwise.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  6. Not everything is used for abstract thought by ErikZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had read that around the time Man domesticated dogs, the size of their brains changed.

    The theory being that since we always had dogs with us, we didn't need large parts of the brain dedicated to smell anymore.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  7. Re:IQ is a relative scale, not an objective one by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, a dollar is a dollar, a pound is a pound and a euro is a euro... until you start measuring one against the other. 100 on the IQ scale for Boskops is 150 on the scale for us.

  8. This is really old news by jimbobborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The skull was found in the early 1900s. There's been speculation about them for years. And NOW Discovery is writing about them? I think the better story to link to is about the giant snake they just found in a mine in South America. 40+ feet long, weighing in at over a ton, lived about 60 Million years ago, indicating that the temperature was significantly higher than it is now in the Equatorial Rain Forest.

  9. Nerds vs. Jocks by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

    humans with big brains... they eventually gave way to smaller-brained, possibly less advanced Homo sapiens

    A triumph of wedgies and swirlies paving the way for the modern day high school.

  10. Brain size and birth by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Homo Sapiens' brains are as large as they can get without being a significant disadvantage. The large cranial size causes problems in birth, reducing the number of individuals that survive the process and reduces the reproduction rate. A hominid with a larger brain size but not major other physiological changes would reproduce even more slowly and would be easy to kill off as a species, even if the adults males were harder to kill individually (the adult females would die in childbirth a lot more frequently than their smaller-skulled equivalents).

    If, on the other hand, the rest of his skeleton was proportionally larger, then this would not have been a problem. He would have been stronger, but possibly less able agile, and would have required more food. In times of relative food shortage, the smaller-skeletoned variant would have had an evolutionary advantage. He would be able to keep his muscle mass sufficient to move around quickly on a much more limited diet.

    There is quite a bit of evidence that skull sizes have been shrinking over the last few thousand years, but there's no evidence that this correlates with reduced mental ability. Humans are far from having the largest brains of any modern mammals (whales win that one by a long way). You can't jump straight from brain size to IQ, you need to also look at how the brain is divided. Dogs, for example, have a huge amount of their brain devoted to controlling their noses. Dolphins have about as much brain tissue just devoted to turning sonar returns into a coherent picture of their environment as humans have in total. It's possible that a hominid with a 50% larger brain had an average IQ of 150, but it's also possible that it had an average IQ of 200 or of 50. It's impossible to tell just from the skull.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  11. Selection bias and old news by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'll just quote an actual anthropologist about this "discovery".

    in fact, what happened is that a small set of large crania were taken from a much larger sample of varied crania, and given the name, "Boskopoid." This selection was initially done almost without any regard for archaeological or cultural associations -- any old, large skull was a "Boskop". Later, when a more systematic inventory of archaeological associations was entered into evidence, it became clear that the "Boskop race" was entirely a figment of anthropologists' imaginations. Instead, the MSA-to-LSA population of South Africa had a varied array of features, within the last 20,000 years trending toward those present in historic southern African peoples. Singer ends his paper thusly:

    It is now obvious that what was justifiable speculation (because of paucity of data) in 1923, and was apparent as speculation in 1947, is inexcusable to maintain in 1958.

    That is pretty much where matters have stood ever since. "Boskopoid" is used only in this historical sense; it is has not been an active unit of analysis since the 1950's. By 1963, Brothwell could claim that Boskop itself was nothing more than a large skull of Khoisan type, leaving the concept of a "Boskop race" far behind.

    So there you have it. There wasn't an extinct hominid with an IQ of 150, it was just the fallacy of selection bias exhibited by some anthropologists more than 70 years ago.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  12. Boskop Man = Discredited Hypothesis by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, the idea of a "Boskop race" or "Boskop Man" is long discredited. The hypothesis occurred by actively selecting the larger skulls from the available set, and misclassifying them as a distinct population.
    It turns out that by examining the whole set of preserved skulls, cranium size distributions are similar in South Africa, Europe, and China for the period in question. Skulls of that era with rather large crania (comparable to the Boskop specimens) can be found in all regions.
    Cranium size distributions are similar between those regions today also, but the distributions have shifted to slightly smaller sizes than they were around 10000 BCE (probably due to agriculture & civilization). http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/paleo/lynch-granger-big-brain-boskops-2008.html

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  13. Re:Yes we all know size is everything... by pnewhook · · Score: 5, Funny

    Exactly how many paper hats did you keep trying on until you realized you would break them, genius? ;-)

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  14. Re:brain size != survial by Nexus7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a simplistic argument made often by non-city folk. In anarchy, the populations that will win out first are those that are better organized. Better organized in terms of food distribution, against mobs, the weather elements, division of labor - you know, like city folk. And for every animal out there that the "self-sustainable" folk can go and hunt to eat, the city is that much closer to transportation that can handle heavy loads, like tons of grain, or pickled herring, or whatever.

    Because make no mistake, after a brief period of panic, an economy will be put into place. There are economies in slums, in primitive societies, in war-torn and disaster-ravaged areas, there are economies upon economies and co-existing underground economies. The ones who have access to the best economic resources can put back their economy the soonest, and are the ones who will be self-sustainable.

  15. Re:Yes we all know size is everything... by aurispector · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Einstein's brain had an unusually large number or glial cells which support neuronal function. It's the brain equivalent of cardiovascular conditioning due to aerobic exercise although it's not clear if they facilitated or resulted from complex intellectual pursuits.

    The idea that hominids got dumber is kind of charming but isn't supported by measuring cranial volume. If these early hominids with large brains are postulated to be ancestors of modern humans, it's possible the larger brains were evolutionarily pared down. An analogy might be an early creature with very large wings that was an ancestor of one with smaller, more efficient wings that enabled faster, more agile flight.

    --
    I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  16. Re:Yes we all know size is everything... by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative

    Different areas of the brain handle different tasks - the back of the brain is where the visual center is, while the sides are where the audio recognition/speech centers are (as determined from individuals who have lost parts of their brains from surgery, accidents or diseases).

    The insular cortex seems to have been the most recent part of the brain to have evolved.

    It isn't so much brain size alone, as the ratio of brain size to body size that seems to be a measure of intelligence. There seems to be a minimum amount of brain volume required to manage the metabolism and immune system of body of a certain mass, so any excess about that amount has some other purpose like cognitive thinking, memory, recognition.

    These can be placed in a graph:

    Graph #1
    Graph #2

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  17. Re:more evolved means better by COMON$ · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Incorrect. You have to look at evolution like a ruler, there is no de-evolution or unanimously superior trait. You simply have favorable traits for a given environment. By favorable you just mean that they were able to breed more successfully and survive the environment than their competitors. However, if a species were able to get around the concept of traditional breeding such as by cloning or some method that doesnt require both parents you would see a different mechanism for success. IT would also shift if we figured out how to stop aging. But your point is somewhat correct, viewpoints that encourage breeding will have an advantage. However if those more successful breeders keep killing themselves off due to being unable to integrate into their environment, they will not succeed as well as their more adaptable brethren.

    But I am not a biologist so what do I know. I do know in the US the Conservatives will kick the crap out of Liberals unless the liberals start breeding better.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  18. Re:Yes we all know size is everything... by mister_playboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    You know you're a nerd when your IQ is a larger number than your bench press. :)

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  19. Re:Yes we all know size is everything... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nah, it's just Jocks vs. Nerds a few millenia ago.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Re:Yes we all know size is everything... by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Funny

    Either that or they discovered WOW and stopped breeding.

  21. Re:Yes we all know size is everything... by Nikker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe surrounded by other intellectuals they discovered a way to escape the planet or call other intelligent species from other planets to get them out of here. Then come back every once in a while and give us anal probes.

    --
    A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.