Newly identified species of human may have been more intelligent than us

[UM-Bot]

Palaeontologists have discovered a previously unrecognized species of ancient human that lived 100,000 years ago.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/382836/newly-identified-species-of-human-may-have-been-more-intelligent-than-us

[Buzz_Light_Year]

It has yet to be proved that intelligence has real survival value.

Arthur C. Clark

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

It has yet to be proved that intelligence has real survival value.

Arthur C. Clark

And brain size doesn't mean crap. It's the neuron and neuro pathway count. 

[jethrofloyd]

If they were even more intelligent than us, why did they die out?

[sanchez710]

Maybe they were outnumbered and killed by other early homonins?

[jethrofloyd]

11 minutes ago, sanchez710 said:

Maybe they were outnumbered and killed by other early homonins?

Then they were no more intelligent then homo-sapiens.

Edited December 2, 2024 by jethrofloyd

[Piney]

7 minutes ago, sanchez710 said:

Maybe they were outnumbered and killed by other early homonins?

Maybe we bred them out and they're the "ghost hominid" that gave Asians our shovel incisors. 

[C L Palmer]

I'm not sure what "species" means when it comes to homo populations, considering that they can all interbreed, so I don't really get very excited when someone announces that they found another new species. The differences are generally morphological. It would seem more accurate to me if they described them as races rather than species.

Edited December 2, 2024 by C L Palmer

[Tatetopa]

Smarter or not, big brains require a lot of energy even while resting. Maybe it offered no competitive advantage worth maintaining over generations.

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, jethrofloyd said:

If they were even more intelligent than us, why did they die out?

That is a question chimps might ask about us in a few thousand years.

[C L Palmer]

There is quite a bit of morphological variety between extant human populations. Cranial capacity matters less than the "wrinkliness" of the brain itself. Women have smaller brains on average--that doesn't make them less intelligent. 

Edited December 2, 2024 by C L Palmer

[Ell]

1 hour ago, C L Palmer said:

It would seem more accurate to me if they described them as races rather than species.

In biology races do not exist; that concept went out of fashion.

In biology we recognize species, subspecies and varieties.

[Piney]

1 hour ago, C L Palmer said:

I'm not sure what "species" means when it comes to homo populations, considering that they can all interbreed, so I don't really get very excited when someone announces that they found another new species. The differences are generally morphological. It would seem more accurate to me if they described them as races rather than species.

Going back to the 19th Century?

They are "species" and because we have a common ancestor what we did was "back breed" with some of them.

We bred with Neanderthals, Denisovans and two "ghost hominids" from what we know so far and it was a "introgression" event. Which means it wasn't necessarily a good thing. 

[Piney]

1 hour ago, C L Palmer said:

There is quite a bit of morphological variety between extant human populations. Cranial capacity matters less than the "wrinkliness" of the brain itself. Women have smaller brains on average--that doesn't make them less intelligent. 

Like I said. Neurons and connections.

"Wrinkliness".....🤣

[Robotic Jew]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

That is a question chimps might ask about us in a few thousand years.

And that will make Mark Wahlberg so mad!

[jethrofloyd]

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

That is a question chimps might ask about us in a few thousand years.

And at the end, a bigfoots will rub his hands with satisfaction when they survive alone.

[Hyperionxvii]

"had a significantly larger head and brain size than any other human species - including ourselves"

Claiming they were more intelligent than Homo Sapiens, from just that information, is quite a stretch. I think I remember hearing the same claim about Neanderthals, yet we survived and they didn't. I think they have to show at least some technology they achieved that we did not, to try making a claim like that. Or maybe we were not the most intelligent of all the Hominids, just the most efficient killers. We seem to have wiped out everything that had the misfortune to meet up with us. 

[Tatetopa]

22 minutes ago, Hyperionxvii said:

"had a significantly larger head and brain size than any other human species - including ourselves"

Claiming they were more intelligent than Homo Sapiens, from just that information, is quite a stretch. I think I remember hearing the same claim about Neanderthals, yet we survived and they didn't. I think they have to show at least some technology they achieved that we did not, to try making a claim like that. Or maybe we were not the most intelligent of all the Hominids, just the most efficient killers. We seem to have wiped out everything that had the misfortune to meet up with us. 

Or maybe we were in ancient times like we were in modern times, plague carriers with a certain amount of resistance that those we met didn't have.

[Portre]

21 hours ago, Piney said:

Going back to the 19th Century?

They are "species" and because we have a common ancestor what we did was "back breed" with some of them.

We bred with Neanderthals, Denisovans and two "ghost hominids" from what we know so far and it was a "introgression" event. Which means it wasn't necessarily a good thing. 

I'm sure it was a good time for all involved.

[C L Palmer]

On 12/2/2024 at 2:41 PM, Piney said:

Going back to the 19th Century?

They are "species" and because we have a common ancestor what we did was "back breed" with some of them.

We bred with Neanderthals, Denisovans and two "ghost hominids" from what we know so far and it was a "introgression" event. Which means it wasn't necessarily a good thing. 

Is "species" better or worse than "race?" And how do we know it was "back"-breeding? Sounds racist, to me. A bit 19th-century. History is written by the winner. We think our traits are the most positive ones because we are the extant population and our current lifestyle and culture is adapted to our physical and intellectual needs. 

[C L Palmer]

On 12/2/2024 at 2:13 PM, Ell said:

In biology races do not exist; that concept went out of fashion.

In biology we recognize species, subspecies and varieties.

"That concept went out of fashion..." I get that, for current populations it's a very gray area and frankly, given the amount of overlap, nonsensical. However, I daresay it makes more sense than calling populations that can breed and produce viable offspring different species from each other. The nomenclature just seems to be getting out of hand. It is something of a testament to the ever-changing nature of the classification system, I suppose. Kingdom Monera being divided up as late as 1977, for example, shows not only my age but also the idea that classifications are subject to adaptation.  

[C L Palmer]

On 12/2/2024 at 2:43 PM, Piney said:

Like I said. Neurons and connections.

"Wrinkliness".....🤣

Gyrification would be the academic term. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4879055/ Me, I'm just a normie.

[Ell]

10 minutes ago, C L Palmer said:

The nomenclature just seems to be getting out of hand.

The distinctions are sometimes subtle.

Some populations once thought to be one species, upon more research proved to be two or more distinct species.

Recently in the news were two species of Galapagos finch breeding and producing hybrid offspring that is recognized as a new species of finch.

[C L Palmer]

9 minutes ago, Ell said:

The distinctions are sometimes subtle.

Some populations once thought to be one species, upon more research proved to be two or more distinct species.

Recently in the news were two species of Galapagos finch breeding and producing hybrid offspring that is recognized as a new species of finch.

If they were human, would that be considered a species or just a sub-population? It's interesting how culture and political dynamics play into this when it comes to humans. Not that it should or shouldn't. Just that it does.

[Piney]

39 minutes ago, C L Palmer said:

Is "species" better or worse than "race?" And how do we know it was "back"-breeding? Sounds racist, to me.

Our "Molecular Clock" tells us.

39 minutes ago, C L Palmer said:

A bit 19th-century. History is written by the winner. We think our traits are the most positive ones because we are the extant population and our current lifestyle and culture is adapted to our physical and intellectual needs. 

I have Neanderthal and Denisovan traits. You just Neanderthal.