« The Neanderthal story in the NY Times | Main | Genocidal race war »

May 09, 2010

Comments

In a number of subtle ways, whites and Asians resemble Neanderthals in comparison to blacks. They have shorter limbs, stouter torsos, higher voices, than blacks.

but became extinct because of anatomical inferiority rather than mental inferiority.

Can you be more specific?

Bigger brains may not be the whole story. Neanderthals had larger brains, but they were shaped differently. Did they have large frontal and parietal lopes for instance. I don't know, but their low sloping forheads and narrow skulls might mean that they didn't. The P-FIT (parietal-frontal integration theory) proposed by Jung and Haier which is emerging from neuroimaging studies of intelligence seems to indicate that the volume (as well as white matter quality) of these regions is particularly important for g/abstract reasoning.

Interestingly, if you look at skulls of settled Eurasian peoples from ancient times till present you see that they have undergone a process of brachycephalization (their skulls have become broader - the parietal lobes are located on the side of the brain) and their foreheads have become higer and less sloped (where the frontal lobes are located). Cochran and Harpending, as well as Gregory Clark, have proposed that civilization may have made people smarter and perhaps changes in the relative volumes of certain areas of the brain reflect this.

Seriously who cares? I’m white and it doesn’t offend me one single bit. I’m all for unbiased non-pc science. I’d be more alarmed if the editor of this magazine decided not to publish this article because he believed that it could possibly offend some of the Caucasian readers.

When one studies the two continents of Europe and Africa today, it’s not hard to tell which of the two that have succeeded and which of the two that have failed.

Neanderthals went extinct soon after the "Great Leap Forward", the time when modern humans started showing art, more advanced weapons and tools, ect. It looks clear that for a long time, Neanderthals and humans were roughly the same in intelligence and technology, and then something important happened about 35,000 years ago (language? consciousness?) that allowed humans to overtake the Neanderthals. Despite their larger brains, they definitely were not smarter than we are now.

I read in National Geographic that a Neanderthal would require 4500 calories per day to survive, due to their heavy musculature. Modern humans are comparatively scrawny when compared to homo erecti and Neanderthals, but since an ectomorph with a spear is more powerful than an unarmed beefcake, the advantage of being muscular is comparatively minor. I would say that since homo sapiens required about half as many calories as the Neanderthals, that they were more numerous and could endure famine better.

Interesting article. The title was a bit misleading, though. I don't see any indication that the Neanderthals' (possibly) higher intelligence made them "too smart to survive." It's just that it couldn't compensate for their inferior larynx.

"Neanderthals had larger cranial capacity than Homo sapiens"

Yes, but they were very robust and muscular, so the cranial capacity was probably smaller when you adjust for muscle mass. Also, they look stupid because they were defeated by humans who are half their strength.


"Neanderthals may very well have been more intelligent than Homo sapiens (during the time of their coexistence), but became extinct because of anatomical inferiority rather than mental inferiority."

Well they were twice as strong as humans so in that way they were superior, however tall scrawny humans could probably jump higher, run faster, move quicker, reach further and survive on fewer calories. Kind of ironic that the nerdy human body build is physically superior to the jock neanderthal body build.

And I wonder what the reaction from the HBD blogs would be if the situation were indeed reversed?

Would you still be pointing out the "Neanderthals may very well have been more intelligent than Homo sapien" line in that case? Or is it only when it fits within your world view?

[HS: I only care about discovering the truth, not proving any particular world view.]

I heard that it was Homosapiens ability to cooperate which led to our domination.

Perhaps the Neanderthals were too busy pursuing useless graduate degrees in the humanities to reproduce.

In re: spears, a strong guy with a spear will still kick ass on a scrawny guy with a spear. Not least because he can carry a longer spear. I've done some SCA fighting and can assure you that hand weapons are not some sort of equalizer between hominids of differing strength. If anything the effect is the opposite.
One possibility among many is that fully human vocal capabilities gave the modern humans an edge. But it could also have been disease resistance or just a combination of things.
As regards Africans, I think it's likely that they have a storehouse of hominid genes of similar antiquity - it's just that because there was no long period of physical separation, we don't recognize the outgroups that they interbred with as separate species (nor would we be as easily able to identify them statistically), the way we do Neanderthals.

Doesn't this mean that Australian aboriginals also have Neanderthal genes? And don't aboriginals have some of the lowest g of any human population? Maybe the Neanderthal genes are completely irrelevant. The evolutionary developments that separated whites and Asians from Africans probably took place very recently, meaningful difference possibly only happened within the last 5000 years, i.e. after agriculture and horse taming.

[HS: I think it's likely that the bulk of the IQ increase in European and Asians relative to Africans took place AFTER the extinction of the Neanderthals.]

Although the Neanderthal brain was larger, I believe it contained less "free space" than modern humans. The tools made by Neanderthanls are often described as stupid tools made beautifully. Perhaps the larger size was taken up by the hard-wiring to make their tools. It could be that the cross breeding produced humans with larger brains and more free space, hence the great leap forward.

Yes, but they were very robust and muscular, so the cranial capacity was probably smaller when you adjust for muscle mass.

Why adjust for muscle mass? Going to the gym doesn't make peopple dumber.

This is interesting.The basic premise of evolution was that the smarter species always outlives the duller one.Now,HS bends the rule and claims that modern man was actually able to outcompete a more intelligent species and live.Talk about forcing reality to conform to ones prejudices.

[HS: When the hell was it ever a proposition of evolution that "smarter species always outlive duller ones"? The Earth is full of species which aren't very bright. Humans are an exception to the general rule of nature that human-level intelligence is not necessary for a species to survive.]

I think you're all missing the point. Cochran and Harpending showed in 10,000 Year Explosion how an allele favored by selection can and, assuming it gets through a certain number of early generations, will eventually, spread through an entire population. The argument is it's likely the homo sapiens cross-bred with the neanderthals --even just a few would do the trick, and thereby certain alleles favored by selection spread through humanity --that part of humanity that was already out of africa that is. Well, you might ask, what about bad alleles? Easy, they die out. What about the neutral ones? Who cares? They kinda die out too. It's the one's that give you a competitive selection edge that thrive. So if we have neanderthal genes today, it's likely they were favored by selection when we first got them.

BTW, it doesn't matter at all if the Neanderthals were smarter, faster, stronger, better dancers, good chess players, had bigger heads, extra limbs --or lacked any of that, or whatever; it doesn't matter why they died off. That's all secondary. It's whether _the offspring_ of mating between neanderthals and homo sapiens picked up alleles favored by selection. It's whether the kids were better off with those alleles.

What did you think a story about present day humans having some neanderthal genes could possibly mean anyway? Who cares if team Neanderthal kept losing to Team Homo Sapiens and lost some sort of imaginary race war? The story is about some homo sapiens --some of us, now, having neanderthal genes. Assuming they didn't have gene splicing tech back then or that some aliens or something mixed them up, there's only one way the mix happened. What follows?

The elephant in the room, of course, is the difference in IQ's between Africans and non-Africans (i.e. people whose ancestors 10's of thousands of years ago probably picked up those favored neanderthal genes).

bbartlog,

You take the long spears, I'll take the short ones and the atlatl.

HS:
The NYT article omits this part from the Bloomberg article: "The scientists identified 212 regions with these types of variations including 20 where the evidence was strongest. Among them are three genes that, when mutated, affect cognitive development and have been linked to autism, schizophrenia and Down syndrome, the team reported."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aiITYeFVcz9o

Related, if you want to do HBD-themed investing, you should stop proselytizing the HBD concept. It is like pari-mutuel betting, the more people bet on a certain horse, the smaller the win for the same risk.

[HS: My blog is not going to affect the prices major stocks.]

"The evolutionary developments that separated whites and Asians from Africans probably took place very recently, meaningful difference possibly only happened within the last 5000 years, i.e. after agriculture and horse taming."

So your saying, blacks, whites and East Asians all had about the same IQ until 5000 years ago? I disagree. I think the racial differences in intelligence began to evolve the moment humans stepped out of Africa and half the population died off because they didn't have the intelligence to adapt to a colder climate. A lot you had to learn and figure out and so many novel problems to solve (i.e. shelter, making clothes, sewing, planning for seasonal change, hunting large animals, killing off the super strong neanderthals, etc) I think agriculture was much more the product of increased intelligence than the cause of it, and I believe Lynn noted that humans did not have the intelligence to master agriculture until mostly the brightest had suvived an ice age. It would be interesting to know when the racial differences in brain size evolved.

Its unclear why neanderthals went extinct. But fact are they were quite sophisticated they had tools on the same level as cromagnons, they had burial traditions (a very high level of sophistication by caveman standards) .Several thing were against them such as being prone to some disease , quite possible due to lack of nutrients for their massive bodies.

Possibly inferior larynx could be a factor as well.
But its very possibly they were as smart or even smarter than cro magnons ,and in case they were smarter that would certainly explain why asians and Caucasians are smarter than blacks

"Neanderthals went extinct soon after the "Great Leap Forward", the time when modern humans started showing art, more advanced weapons and tools, ect. It looks clear that for a long time, Neanderthals and humans were roughly the same in intelligence and technology, and then something important happened about 35,000 years ago (language? consciousness?) that allowed humans to overtake the Neanderthals. Despite their larger brains, they definitely were not smarter than we are now."

Don't confuse individual intelligence with collective intelligence. Perhaps neanderthals were smarter as individuals than we are, they just couldn't communicate their high intelligence with one another to produce an intelligent culture that pools their ideas together and passes it on from one generation to the next. Perhaps they had some vocal inferiority that prevented them to talk to one another efficiently. Humans may have had the ability to talk, but not the brains to say anything intelligent, until they breeded with neanderthals and absorbed their high IQ genes. Now with both the ability to talk well and smart things to say, the great leap forward was possible and the smarter but less vocal neanderthals were toast.

"Why adjust for muscle mass? Going to the gym doesn't make peopple dumber."

But neanderthals were genetically more muscular and needed more brain mass to cordinate the extra bulk. Similarly, much of the brain size difference between men and women vanishes when you account for differences in fat free body mass. If you judged intelligence by absolute brain mass, elephants would be smarter than people. It's only when you adjust for body size do humans have the biggest brains on Earth.

"It could be that the cross breeding produced humans with larger brains and more free space, hence the great leap forward."

Or it could be that the crossing produced of big brained big body neanderthals with small brained small body humans produced hybrids with big brains and small bodies thus a high encephalization quotient (which is more correlated with intelligence across species than absolute brain mass is).

"Modern humans are comparatively scrawny when compared to homo erecti and Neanderthals, but since an ectomorph with a spear is more powerful than an unarmed beefcake, the advantage of being muscular is comparatively minor."

Correct, and this is especially the case when the ectomorph is taller than the beefcake and thus can reach the spear further. Also, ectomorphs (especially tall ones with long legs) can run away when they lose a fight. Short stumpy beefcakes can not run which would have put neanderthals at an additional disadvantage.

"If you judged intelligence by absolute brain mass, elephants would be smarter than people. It's only when you adjust for body size do humans have the biggest brains on Earth."

I did not know this.

"Correct, and this is especially the case when the ectomorph is taller than the beefcake and thus can reach the spear further. Also, ectomorphs (especially tall ones with long legs) can run away when they lose a fight. Short stumpy beefcakes can not run which would have put neanderthals at an additional disadvantage."

Actually, having massive, powerful musculature in the hips and thighs is far more important for sprinting than being tall and ectomorphic. In fact, Usain Bolt aside (who in fact only ran a 10.03 (a time that white and Asian sprinters can beat) before adding 40lbs. of muscle in one off-season - what does this imply?), most elite sprinters are not particularly tall. For instance, former world record holder Maurice Greene is listed at 5'9" and, having stood next to him once, I'd peg him at 5'8" tops. He is massive, however. The same goes for NFL running backs, who are very fast and shifty over short distances - they average 5'10", 220 lbs. I once looked at the combine stats for the top 10 NFL rushers and they were even shorter - only 5'9.25" on average. A tall, long limbed ectomorph would have a biomechanical advantage in long distance running, but in your scenario of running away after losing a fight, he'd probably have been run down comparatively easily before he got 40 yards. Also, neither Neanderthals nor CroMagnons were huge by the standards of modern athletes (Neanderthals averaged about 1.67m and 75-80kg, CroMagnons 1.79m and 70kg).

As for Spears and reach, the beauty of pole arms (as opposed to hand to hand or swords, etc.) is that they largely nullify reach advantages. In wielding a longer polearm, strength is more important that stature. The main weaponry advantage of HSS seems to have been the atlatl.

These are good points by HS. It could very well be that the genes boosting g in homo sapiens evolved from the Neanderthal admixture to White and Asian DNA. But I disagree with speculation that the Neanderthals got out-competed by modern man. It could just be that the Neanderthals interbred with a much larger population of humans. Even to this day, thin small framed women prefer tall bulky masculine males and vice versus. It could be that the Neanderthal men had a thing for human chicks, just as white males in the Bay Area have a thing for petite Asian women.

I think there were lots of things that Neanderthals had that didn't work and I doubt they were particularly intelligent relative any modern group, even modern Africans, let alone Europeans and East Asians. As to the intelligence relative to the Out-of-Africa populations, it's difficult to tell.

I think why Neanderthals were replaced by African Moderns was that they obviously were at a disadvantage. I think the main reason behind this is that mutational rate was a function of population size and they thus were limited in their evolutionary potential by their low population size and their likely frequent population crashes, when compared to contemporary African populations.

Neanderthals were moving in the same directions of smaller midface size and higher skulls as the Africans, even if we just look at things cranially, but not as fast as the Africans were.

The really weird features they have, that set them apart from Homo Erectus and Heidelbergensis and modern humans tend to be a result of the constraint of trying to get really large brainsize (roughly the same as H Sap) while being stuck with an fairly Erectus like set of genes controlling facial size and skull shape. When they got the new mutations from the African Sapiens, they stopped doing this (to the extent they survived within the Sapiens populations) because this was clearly costly in terms of fitness and a disadvantage (large Erectus type braincases are just less efficient at packing those brains than modern Sapiens skull shapes). I think the same is true for most of Neanderthal's features.

We know that there are very few differences between Neanderthals and us (check out John Hawks blog or Razib Khan's GNXP for good overviews of what we now know with this sequenced genome), so what differences there were must have been vital and came to arise first in the African populations due to their greater mutational rate.

I think the next step for us is to try and find a contemporary African modern sample, and sequence it, so we can directly verify the idea that Hawks, Cochran and Harpending are putting forward - that there are massive changes in all humans over the last 10,000 years and that Neanderthals in many cases are closer to the Out-of-African populations, than any current populations are. Before you say that this is unlikely, think of diet and disease alone!

"If you judged intelligence by absolute brain mass, elephants would be smarter than people. It's only when you adjust for body size do humans have the biggest brains on Earth."

Bear in mind that there are studies that say that encephalization is not predictive at all for between human variance within population (for pretty much any value of population).

Even claims that encephalization is connected with intelligence within humans have to acknowledge the general species trend that brain size tends to increase sub-linearly with body size for an equal value of intelligence (or put another way, larger animals with a slightly lower proportion of their body weight as head size are more intelligent than you would expect by comparing their encephalization with smaller animals animal - comparing wolves to cats, for instance is a good example of this phenomenon).

@ BBart: "I've done some SCA fighting and can assure you that hand weapons are not some sort of equalizer between hominids of differing strength."

I'm curious as to whether hand weapons (which can artificially extend your reach) are an equalizer between people with different reach.

If a guy has long arms for genetic reasons and thus long reach, can weapons equalize for this, or does he still maintain his advantage in reach (because however long a weapon his opponent uses, he still has better reach when using the same)?

"But neanderthals were genetically more muscular and needed more brain mass to cordinate the extra bulk. Similarly, much of the brain size difference between men and women vanishes when you account for differences in fat free body mass."

That must be why dwarves and midgets are geniuses.

"Actually, having massive, powerful musculature in the hips and thighs is far more important for sprinting than being tall and ectomorphic."

Perhaps, but neanderthals were barrel chested and broad shouldered and I would expect that being top heavy would slow them down. I'm also inclined to think that short legs are a disadvantage in running.

Leftists see it as evidence against eurasians having any advantages.

"Descendant Of Smith
10 May 2010 at 9:31 pm

Be interested how those that play the genetically superior white race card feel about this recent development:

Humans trace their origins out of Africa into the Middle East and then on to other parts of the world. The genetic relationship with Neanderthals was found in people from Europe, China and Papua-New Guinea, but not people from Africa.

Seems us white people are descended from unwashed hairy beasts not our African brethren. No pun intended in any way shape or form."

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/public-money-funding-to-keep-children-ignorant/#comment-213325

"I think agriculture was much more the product of increased intelligence than the cause of it, and I believe Lynn noted that humans did not have the intelligence to master agriculture until mostly the brightest had suvived an ice age."

I agree that the superior intelligence of Caucasoids and Mongoloids led them to develop agriculture before blacks did, but it is worth noting that the Bantus of Africa actually did develop agriculture independently. Agriculture was developed by the Bantus sometime around 1500 BC, millenia after Middle Easterners pioneered it, but nevertheless it was developed.

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/resources/clarifications/BantuExpansion.html

"That must be why dwarves and midgets are geniuses."

Midgets and dwarves have large brain size/body size ratio, but that's not the relevant statistic. The smaller you are, the higher your brain size/body size ratio is, and once scientists discovered this they found a better way to adjust for body size than looking at the ratio. Instead of looking at the ratio, they compare a creature only to other organisms of the exact same body size, and the further above average one is for one's body size, the larger is one's adjust brain size. Humans have the largest ajusted brain mass, but we do not have the largest absolute brain mass, nor do we have the largest brain size/body size ratio. It's adjusted brain mass (i.e. how much you deviate to other creatures your exact size) that seems to predict intelligence better than other methods, at least at the interspecies level.

"Seems us white people are descended from unwashed hairy beasts not our African brethren. No pun intended in any way shape or form"

Again, some strange Leftists amusingly really don't understand evolution. We are all descended from unwashed beasts and we are all descended from hairy beasts. Whomsoever we are descended from, however recently, we are who we are and the only evidence of who, presently, has any advantages or not is to be found by comparing present day populations.

Similarly, it's kind of breathtaking to see them actually ignoring the evidence about what the Neanderthals actually were when its actually the most interesting thing about the Neanderthal genome in favor of playing their silly little PC games (hairy beasts lol and as if it were likely that African sapiens hunter gatherers had particularly advanced bodily hygiene).

(Also, whether the "superior White race" does or does not presently exist (I personally think trying to put all humans on a scale of superiority is so lossy in terms of information that it's pointless and ridiculous, if you have any other choice whatsoever) is a purely empirical question for which only present day characteristics need apply.)

whites are not smarter than blacks because while for hundreds of years while whites were going to school and not have to work we (blacks) were being raped,slaughtered,sold and seporated from our families under the orders of your anglo saxon empire england.And you test against a terrorized people that have been brutalized for hundreds of years and call that a fair analysis.We black are seriously traumatized a people that have never had any treatment!!I tell you what let me enslave you family and have them brutalized,raped ,whipped ,most murdered then I hand them a test !

"I agree that the superior intelligence of Caucasoids and Mongoloids led them to develop agriculture before blacks did, but it is worth noting that the Bantus of Africa actually did develop agriculture independently."

On page 139 of Michael H. Hart's "Understanding Human History" he writes that knowledge of agriculture started in the Fertile Cresent and spread to Africa via Egypt. I don't think Africans developed it independently.

“I'm curious as to whether hand weapons (which can artificially extend your reach) are an equalizer between people with different reach.

If a guy has long arms for genetic reasons and thus long reach, can weapons equalize for this, or does he still maintain his advantage in reach (because however long a weapon his opponent uses, he still has better reach when using the same)?”

I’ve done some ARMA training and for weapons like swords (even longsword – i.e., 2 handed weapon weighing 2.75-3.5 lbs. with a 34” to 40” blade), having longer limbs helps. The most important thing is actually footwork as the key is to place yourself in a position where you can hit your opponent and your opponent can’t hit you. Height and reach help in this, but can’t make up for better footwork and superior coordination and quickness. Polearms (e.g. quarter staff, spear, halberds, bills, etc.) are another story. Again, footwork is everything and the weapons are so long (6’+) that the wielder’s height doesn’t seem to matter very much.

“Perhaps, but neanderthals were barrel chested and broad shouldered and I would expect that being top heavy would slow them down. I'm also inclined to think that short legs are a disadvantage in running.”

Linda, look at photos of Emmit Smith, Maurice Jones-Drew, Barry Sanders, Brian Westbrook, and Darren Sproles. All these great NFL running backs are short men with massive upper bodies as well as thick, short legs. They don’t have the build of a 100m or 200m sprinter, but they could outrun 99.999+% of men over 40m. Short legs are actually good for accelerating (which is what RBs need), though you are correct that they aren’t great for top speed. However, muscular power can overcome this. Here’s a photo of Maurice Jones Drew, who according to the combine is 5’6.75”, 207lbs, and runs a 4.39s 40:

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/xo9URCz4tKS/Green+Bay+Packers+v+Jacksonville+Jaguars/-3ZemT5qGf2/Maurice+Jones-Drew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o_eRjGi1bc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9MmDs_8GRA

Also, as for throwing, even though HSS had about a 12cm height advantage over Neanderthals, if a Neanderthal really was capable of generating 2 times or more the muscular force of a HSS, he definitely would have been able to out-throw a HSS as well despite his leverage disadvantage. (Look at baseball closer Billy Wagner, who at 5’10” is built like a fireplug (listed height, he’s probably actually more like 5’8” or 9”) and could throw at over 100mph. As I’ve said before, in a fight, the atlatl of HSS was probably key.

RT you keep using NFL players as examples of muscular quick guys but this is a biased sample, because you have to be bulky to play football.

"RT you keep using NFL players as examples of muscular quick guys but this is a biased sample, because you have to be bulky to play football."

Actually, not in all positions, but moving on to my point: You seem to be implying that Neanderthals would have been slow and plodding because of their physique. This is plainly not true. You can be compact and muscular (including having a large, muscular upper body) and still be quick (as the running backs I pointed to demonstrate). Many non-athletes have a misconception that fast people tend to be lithe and slender. This is not true. Look at elite sprinters (or NFL WRs or CBs). Even though they're not as massive as NFL running backs, they are generally quite heavy compared to normal, fit people for their height and, when you just look at muscle and bone and exclude fat and viscera, they are much bigger than normal people. Power plays a huge role in sprinting speed. You cannot be a fast sprinter without a greater than average muscle mass. Even take a 5'10" 180 lb. sprinter and a 5'10" 180lb. average college student. The one has about 3% body fat, the other around 18%. This leaves a fat free mass of 174.6 vs. 147.6 lbs. This is a significant difference. From what we know of Neanderthals and early HSS, the Neanderthals muscle attachments appear to have been twice as large and they tended to be attached further down the bone (giving more leverage). We also know that they had prodigious thigh and hip musculature and proportionately more muscle generally. They clearly would have been able to produce a much higher power to weight ratio and been quite fast over short distances. Now, as to endurance running, the HSS physique would have had a great advantage. It is unlikely a band of Neanderthal hunters could have tracked and run down a HSS one. But, as in your scenario, once they came to close quarters, the Neanderthals would probably been able to run the HSS before they got too far.

The fact of it is Afrikans from Afrika are the smartest people in the universities and do your research!We africans are the wealthiest people on the planet .WHY! you may ask well it is because we are the only true (pure) humans on the planet.Humanity begins and ends with us Afrikans!!Europeans and asians destroying the planet earth is not high i.q. instead it is stupid and you'r to stupid to understand that concept!!

The greatest Jewish super hero of all is Super Man, his Kryptonian name is Hebrew, black hair, blue eyes...lol

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/bilderberg.jpg

Krugman's is black but what religion are his children?

The long arm vs. short arm Conan images are great and all, but the discussion seems almost willfully ignorant to the fact that success in battle is almost entirely non-physical. Things like: alliances, logistics, massing, strategy, timing, preparation, exposure, committing, technology, reconnaissance, development of resources, destruction of enemies resources, jujitsu (using one's opponent's strength against him), adaptation, communications, etc. etc. – and also include (significantly) notions of reputation and ruthlessness, instilling fear, pack tendencies, acceptable losses for survivability (flexibility vs. immutability) – etc. etc. are all to bear more than any notion of brain or body size/strength relative to inter-species survival – IMHO.

And it’s surely a false dichotomy anyway that the species were in direct either-or competition [my best Scottish accent] "There can be only one!"

But besides all that, the point I would make is that the whole notion that, at the inter-species level, (strong, smart = superior) is correlative. People have this misconception that evolution is categorically, by definition [of survival] growing "up" or "better", and that humans "must have been superior" is just false. "Design space" is in all directions, in multiple dimensions.

The band Devo told me that (oh yeah, and Daniel Dennett.)

Just look at the movies Idiocracy, The Thirteenth Warrior, or Planet of the Apes. It’s all right there for you. "Cornelius - don’t let the humans loose!"

The comments to this entry are closed.