Slashdot Mirror


Manga Girls Beware: Extra Large Eyes Caused Neanderthal's Demise

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports on a new study of prehistoric skulls which suggests that Neanderthals became extinct because they had larger eyes than our species. As a consequence of having extra sized eyes, an average 6 millimeters larger in radius, more of their backside brain volume was devoted to seeing, at the expense of frontal lobe high-level processing of information and emotions. This difference affected their ability to innovate and socialize the way we, modern people (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) do. When the last Ice Age set on 28,000 years ago, Neanderthals had no sewn clothes and no large organized groups to rely on each other, hastening their fall. Yet, they were not stupid, brutish creatures as portrayed in Hollywood films, they were very, very smart, but not quite in the same league as the Homo Sapiens of Cromagnon."

35 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And from the departement of wild speculations we have the following gem...

    1. Re:This just in by PoliTech · · Score: 3, Interesting
    2. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    3. Re:This just in by PoliTech · · Score: 3, Funny

      Woman payed to do the surrogate mom thing, then payed for the live Internet streamed birth, then more gals going for their Neanderthal payday. Eventually leading to Neanderthal Pron! Now with that kind of planning you could finance the entire Neanderthal cloning project with money left over. Then we'll know more than we ever wanted to know about Neanderthals.

    4. Re:This just in by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Other than playing Frankenstein....why would you want to? This isn't some alien here, its just a failed branch of our own tree, its not like these Neanderthals would be all that different from us which is why cloning them (unlike say dinosaurs) wouldn't be THAT difficult if you sunk enough money into it.

      I mean seriously what WAS the Neanderthal? It was a little more compact than us, with a body designed to take more punishment at the cost of speed and agility (some unscrupulous military might find them attractive...if it weren't for the fact that giving troops armor is way cheaper), had a little smaller brain but not by a huge amount, we're not talking Lucy or early Java man here folks, and they had a brow ridge although again not as bad as many of the earlier offshoots.

      At the end of the day what you'd probably have was a slightly squatter human that would probably fit into the low average end of the bell curve and honestly probably wouldn't have THAT hard of a time fitting into our modern society once they learned the ways of those around him/her. Hell I've known guys uglier than Neanderthal that had no problem getting GFs so most likely they'd just breed themselves right back out of existence in a few generations if you didn't stick 'em on an island somewhere and make 'em a protected species.

      So I honestly don't get what the appeal of bringing one of these back would be for, other than just to say we did it and maybe morbid curiosity? If you were talking Lucy or early Java man or even those little hobbit people? THEN I could see the point, they were so different from us it would be like having an alien species brought to life, but with Neanderthals there is debate even to this day whether they just died out or we fucked them out of existence, so what would be the point of making more? So you could point and go "Ha ha, your brow ridge makes you look funny"? Hell 50k in plastic surgery and they wouldn't look any weirder than some of the guys I've run into over the years.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:This just in by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And from the departement of wild speculations we have the following gem...

      There is a way to test this hypothesis. There is a variation in eyeballs size among modern humans. If this hypothesis is correct, people with bigger eyeballs should be dumber. So get a random sample of people, measure their eyeballs, give them an IQ test, and see if there is any correlation.

    6. Re:This just in by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More likely they just take a large tissue sample from one well-preserved Neanderthal, do a standard "puree a bunch of cells, scan the DNA fragments, then reassemble the data into a complete genome". It's unlikely that any given section of DNA will be damaged in all, or even most cells. Then you just send the genome to a DNA synthesis lab and get a vial containing fresh new pristine DNA to inject into your target egg. That's a lot easier than trying to piece together a viable genome from multiple disparate individuals.

      Of course you still wouldn't have a "true" Neanderthal since it's mitochondria and probably much of it's epigenetics would be inherited from the egg donor, still, we appear to have been able to interbreed with them so the chimeric child would at least probably be viable, and could give us *some* insight into the differences between our species.

      Might even turn out that they were actually more intelligent than us, and our advantage was purely a cultural accident. I mean come on - we were all wandering around as the dominant predators in pretty much our current (physical) state for what, 50-100,000 years? But no, instead it's: Oh, this other species with bigger brains than us also had bigger eyes, and clearly using them drained their brainpower. Nevermind that they say nothing about the relative number of photoreceptors (big lenses don't consume brain power), or that there's not a 1:1 correspondance between photoreceptor and nerves signals reaching the brain. Or that visual processing is a complex process, many of whose subsystems actually appear to get re-purposed on demand for abstract reasoning purposes.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  2. Idle speculation by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Personally, I'm more partial to the theory that we *are* Neanderthals (hybrids) and that they didn't 'die out', but were simply bred away.

    There has been little hard evidence that Neanderthals were any less intelligent than Sapiens, just less evidence found for their intelligence, likely because there were far fewer of them. Studies of their flint knapping abilities show they were at least as skilled at toolmaking as Sapiens.

    Anyhow, the article reads ore like a daydream than a piece on science, as evidence for the most important part (percent usage of the brain for eyesight, and the retardation effects of this difference)are omitted.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:Idle speculation by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Homo Sapiens seems quite "stupid and brutish" most of the time. Just saying.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Idle speculation by theVarangian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Homo Sapiens seems quite "stupid and brutish" most of the time. Just saying.

      Actually, even when compared to our closest relatives the great apes, humans get along remarkably well. The frequency of violence in human communities is remarkably low compared to many other species. Chimpls for example have have rates of aggression between two and three orders of magnitude higher than humans. .

    3. Re:Idle speculation by glebovitz · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are some theories that the Neanderthals were actually quite smart, compassionate, and had a sophisticated social system. This is based on burial sites that indicated that they took care of the elderly. Some evidence points to a myth that Neanderthals were hunched over and ape like. It is also interesting that, except for some groups in Africa, most people have traces of Neanderthal DNA indicating that Neanderthals didn't die out, but were interbred with and absorbed into other populations.

      I found this story on NPR that talks about one interesting speculation on how this may have happened.

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/03/08/173813194/what-happened-when-humans-met-an-alien-intelligence-sex-happened

    4. Re:Idle speculation by CAIMLAS · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, no kidding. My first response was, "what the fuck?" This is (seemingly typical) bad science.

      I'm sorry, there's more than 10mm variability in eye size in existing populations. That variability is kind of how you get stereotypes and things like manga in the first place. Not only that, but extrapolating "they didn't have mental capacity because they had larger eyes" doesn't even begin to follow, logically. Maybe their visual cortex was the same size? Maybe it was actually smaller and significantly more efficient, allowing them to actually process more of what they saw (unlike us, who ignore most of it)? Maybe, just maybe, they used more of their brains - which were actually bigger, despite the "they were stupid by modern standards" stereotypes.

      Pretty tiring. It's pretty irritating to see the "science" out of these types.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    5. Re:Idle speculation by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Informative
      Wikipedia disagrees with you on (adult) eyes varying so much in size...

      Dimensions See also: mammalian eye The dimensions differ among adults by only one or two millimeters. The vertical measure, generally less than the horizontal distance, is about 24 mm among adults, at birth about 16–17 millimeters (about 0.65 inch). The eyeball grows rapidly, increasing to 22.5–23 mm (approx. 0.89 in) by three years of age. By age 13, the eye attains its full size. The typical adult eye has an anterior to posterior diameter of 24 millimeters, a volume of six cubic centimeters (0.4 cu. in.),[3] and a mass of 7.5 grams (weight of 0.25 oz.).[citation needed]

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

    6. Re:Idle speculation by Sique · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In certain ways, yes. Chimps are known to torture other chimps, and ape packs are known to go after other packs of the same species and try to kill them all off.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:Idle speculation by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Animals might be more aggressive, but they sure as fuck aren't as evil as humans...

      You're confusing motives with capabilities. Chimps, baboons, etc., are practically psychotic compared to us. If the few of them that are "nice" could build prisons to keep the really dangerous, murderous ones from bothering them and killing their offspring, I expect they certainly would.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:Idle speculation by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do animals build prisons to hold and torture fellow animals?

      There are species of shrimp that keep live starfish alive for months while eating them. Komodo dragons kill with a toxic bite that takes days to die from.

      Do animals build concentration camp to hold and kill millions of it's own kind?

      No, but pack animals banish members to die of starvation or be killed by others. No other species has built as complex of a societal structure to compare with. So we simply don't know. Most social animals probably wouldn't bother with prisons to begin with, they'd simply kill or banish any drain on the pack or herd, or leave them behind to die. Humans typically don't do this. We take care of our elderly and sick.

      Do animals build nuclear bombs to destroy fellow animals far away?

      Of course not, they're too fucking stupid to do so. Do animals donate blood or perform surgery so save other members? Do they donate organs to save each others lives? Did they start the Peace Corps? Or donate time to Habitat for Humanity? Have they started shelters to care for homeless humans? Do carnivores and omnivores ever choose to be vegetarians? Have they invented vaccines for chronic illnesses? If they had nuclear weapons to use against their enemies, you can bet your ass there are many species who would.

      Animals might be more aggressive, but they sure as fuck aren't as evil as humans...

      I'm not sure about evil, as animals don't really think in those terms as far as I can tell. but I would guess that more great ape physical confrontations per incident that end in death than do humans. There are probably less fights over mating in the human world than in the animals. As far as "evil" have you ever seen a cat play with its quarry after it's injured it? Or a Trigger fish eat the eyes of another fish and let it swim aimlessly before eating it? There is plenty of cruelty in the animal kingdom. Don't think for a second that humans are alone in this.

    9. Re:Idle speculation by gandhi_2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ahh. See, now you are anthropomorphizing the humans.

      They don't like that.

    10. Re:Idle speculation by tibit · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are good reasons for that. The eye's diameter's square affects the eye's surface area. The surface area pretty much determines how fast our eyes can move -- our eye's performance is limited by the drag of the tear film. There's no room to grow larger eye muscles to compensate for it. One must remember that in the fast (saccadic) motions of the eyes, the viscous drag is "the" term that matters. The inertia can be ignored. Our eyes would move the same even if they were made of a material 10x as dense as water.

      Remember: we're blind during a saccade - as the image blurs on the retina, it is suppressed. Fast saccades are a useful thing to have :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    11. Re:Idle speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      In certain ways, yes. Chimps are known to torture other chimps, and ape packs are known to go after other packs of the same species and try to kill them all off.

      It's been quite some time since you were in high school, hasn't it?

  3. But...... by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    We all know those big-eyed anime little neanderthal girls were killed of by tentacle monster rapists, thus preventing procreation!

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:But...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh sure, they always blame us tentacle monsters. We're always the villains if we show up in movies at all. Have you ever stopped to think that we have feelings too?

      And feelers. Lots and lots of feelers.

  4. Tabloid headlines by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can you please stop the tabloid headlines. "Extra Large Eyes Caused Neanderthal's Demise" would have been just fine, thanks. No need to try and sex it up with some manga girls. BTW, manga boys have big eyes too.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Bigger than their stomachs? by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 3, Funny

    my mom always warned me about that

  6. Just admit you dont know and get over it by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This difference affected their ability to innovate and socialize the way we, modern people (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) do.

    It amazes me that comments like this, with so little data to make such a conjecture, can be taken seriously by people who scoff at religion. We know slightly more about these other branches of humanity (their biology aside) than we do about the historicity and culture of Atlantis. Yet we are supposed to take for granted that we can just know, with virtually nothing known about neanderthal society, what caused them to go extinct.

    Unbelievable.

  7. Re:Idle speculation: Size Matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I say BS! Neanderthals died out because the females preferred the larger penis of the Homo Sapiens.

  8. Breeding by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Informative

    They were bred out - this has been shown by DNA analysis. Early homo sapiens bred with them, and the homo sapiens traits were more effective.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  9. Demise? by theVarangian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The last time I checked Neanderthals/Denisovans did not suffer a demise. It seems that at least some of them were absorbed by modern human populations so in a way Neanderthals/Denisovans are still around. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to eat a dinosaur.

  10. Am I the only one? by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 4, Funny

    I first read that as "they were not stupid, british creatures".

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  11. Hrm by papasui · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought it was already proven that Europeans are the ancestors of Neanderthals through DNA sequencing? And it's this very DNA responsible for a strong immune system in people with large amounts of Neanderthal DNA.

  12. Re:Idle speculation: Size Matters by pnutjam · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, back then they used to wrap them around their waist, unfortunately all the interbreeding with small peni'ed Neanderthal has left us with the 10 inches we have today. (Doesn't everyone else have 10 inches?)

  13. Brain Size == Simplistic Drivel by repetty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Equating intelligence with brain size has always been both stupid and puzzling to me, particularly since there's no good evidence to support it that can't be countered by contra-evidence that at least as good or better.

  14. Re:Radius vs. Diameter by narcc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yep. From the article:

    Ms Pearce found that Neanderthals had significantly larger eye sockets - by an average of 6mm from top to bottom.

    From the summary:

    As a consequence of having extra sized eyes, an average 6 millimeters larger in radius,

    Submitter must be a science reporter...

  15. While size does matter... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While size does matter, larger eye sockets does not automatically mean more of their brain was used for processing visual stimuli. For that to be valid, one would need to know what the size of the pupil and retina was, not the eye socket. It is quite possible that Neanderthals has more muscular eyes, just like they had more muscular bodies, but the actual visual portion of their eyes, the part that actually sees, was not significantly different than homo sapiens. Another explanation could also be that when Neanderthal developed, during the ice age, light levels were lower in the climates that they inhabited and the larger eyes were an adaptation, which again would not indicate more of their brain was used to process visual stimuli, but instead the larger eye was simply to enable more light gathering capability than their ancestors near the equator.

    Without having an actual Neanderthal brains and eyes to examine, one cannot simply make this determination simply based on the size of the eye socket.

  16. Re:You make Grug cry by JeanCroix · · Score: 3, Funny

    Baby, no hurt Grug.

  17. That's not the complete nature of the brain by erroneus · · Score: 3

    That the human brain generally works a particular way is no indication of how the neanderthal brain worked.

    We know, for example (thanks to a slashdot story) that a man with like 1/4th of a brain's normal volume (http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Quarter-Brained-Man-60542.shtml) can lead a pretty normal life. We also know that brains route around damage and adapt. So what is it with this obsessive belief that brain size is equated with X, Y and Z of intelligence and behavior?

    While the article presents an interesting hypothesis which fits in with why humans would have dominated neanderthals (better group behavior/communications), it can't really be said for sure based on the size of the eyes. There's a WHOLE lot of assumption and speculation going on there.

    I find it interesting that the notion of being "really smart" (based on brain size) but without good communication skills. This would imply they were effectively advanced apes... unable to learn from one another, but able to learn on their own and through mimmickry. (No stored knowledge means no building or accumulation of knowledge.)