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."

24 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    2. 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 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.
  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. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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

  9. 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?)

  10. 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.

  11. 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...

  12. 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.