We’ve had this discussion before here: Neanderthals were, in all likelihood, smarter than Homo sapiens
When we had that discussion, I asked for the evidence they were smarter, and you said all you really knew was that they had bigger brains. This is becoming a circular argument here…
Beyond that, even if these boskops did have big brains, that only means that had potential intelligence, not actual intelligence.
Take humans for example: our intelligence crucially depends on language and culture—a child literally raised by wolves won’t be intelligent. Our language has a biological basis: chimps can’t learn it, and we have genes which if knocked out preclude language skills from developing.
But that doesn’t explain how language first evolved in the first human community to evolve all the necessary genes. It’s theoretically possible that “boskops”, or other completely unremarkable hominid lineages, had had “intelligence potential” that was never actualized because the right culture didn’t develop to take advantage of it.
When we had that discussion, I asked for the evidence they were smarter, and you said all you really knew was that they had bigger brains. This is becoming a circular argument here...
No, I also knew of the predominant theory in the field, that Neanderthals were likely more intelligent, based on brain size plus paleoanthropological evidence found in their remains. However, I am not versed in the intricacies of the case for this position, so I can only defer to experts on this.
I really only posted to make others aware of the non-trivial probability that a species in contact with humans and more intelligent went extinct, and you seem to want me to keep offering more. But I don’t have a dog in that race: if you are skeptical, great—find the holes in the case. Why is this a failing on my part? What does this have to do with me?
But that doesn’t explain how language first evolved in the first human community to evolve all the necessary genes. It’s theoretically possible that “boskops”, or other completely unremarkable hominid lineages, had had “intelligence potential” that was never actualized because the right culture didn’t develop to take advantage of it.
Right, basically what I suspect (based on the prevaling theories) happened with the Neanderthals as well.
But I don’t have a dog in that race: if you are skeptical, great—find the holes in the case. Why is this a failing on my part? What does this have to do with me?
I’m not out after holes. I’m interested and I want to learn more about this. But I haven’t found anyone arguing for this theory that you say exists. I keep asking for evidence because I haven’t seen any. All the paleoanthropological evidence that I’ve heard of shows that Neanderthals may well have had customs, abilities, or understanding comparable to those of humans, so they weren’t any less intelligent. I haven’t been able to find any suggestions that they were more intelligent than humans.
When we had that discussion, I asked for the evidence they were smarter, and you said all you really knew was that they had bigger brains. This is becoming a circular argument here…
Beyond that, even if these boskops did have big brains, that only means that had potential intelligence, not actual intelligence.
Take humans for example: our intelligence crucially depends on language and culture—a child literally raised by wolves won’t be intelligent. Our language has a biological basis: chimps can’t learn it, and we have genes which if knocked out preclude language skills from developing.
But that doesn’t explain how language first evolved in the first human community to evolve all the necessary genes. It’s theoretically possible that “boskops”, or other completely unremarkable hominid lineages, had had “intelligence potential” that was never actualized because the right culture didn’t develop to take advantage of it.
No, I also knew of the predominant theory in the field, that Neanderthals were likely more intelligent, based on brain size plus paleoanthropological evidence found in their remains. However, I am not versed in the intricacies of the case for this position, so I can only defer to experts on this.
I really only posted to make others aware of the non-trivial probability that a species in contact with humans and more intelligent went extinct, and you seem to want me to keep offering more. But I don’t have a dog in that race: if you are skeptical, great—find the holes in the case. Why is this a failing on my part? What does this have to do with me?
Right, basically what I suspect (based on the prevaling theories) happened with the Neanderthals as well.
I’m not out after holes. I’m interested and I want to learn more about this. But I haven’t found anyone arguing for this theory that you say exists. I keep asking for evidence because I haven’t seen any. All the paleoanthropological evidence that I’ve heard of shows that Neanderthals may well have had customs, abilities, or understanding comparable to those of humans, so they weren’t any less intelligent. I haven’t been able to find any suggestions that they were more intelligent than humans.