Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:12 pm
Frankie and Benjy send their regards...chrismb wrote:The observable brain/body mass of the mice is irrelevant as they are pan-dimensional creatures.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Frankie and Benjy send their regards...chrismb wrote:The observable brain/body mass of the mice is irrelevant as they are pan-dimensional creatures.
They had the same FOXP2 "language gene" as modern humans, too, so it's very likely they could talk.MirariNefas wrote:Proven that they had language? What? Because they had the physical ability? Yeah right, that's also a crap statement. This site is horrible.
Google Scholar links for NeanderthalMirariNefas wrote:, I'm already familiar with that stuff. It leads to fun speculation. I was wondering if anyone had any real evidence.
*edit: conjecture is interesting if supported well enough. If you can point me to some peer-reviewed academic articles on the subject, I'd love to take a look at them.
Yep, the brain uses huge amounts of energy.alexjrgreen wrote:Bigger muscles require more nerves to control them, which adds brain mass but not IQ. Whales have much bigger brains than we do, but they're mostly taken up controlling their enormous bodies.Skipjack wrote:Exactly, which is why I think that higher muscle mass does not mean less brain power.increases lung capacity and improves muscle efficiency
The oxygen from the lungs is limited. Big muscles, however efficient, still use lots of oxygen. Which means there's less to go round...
We also know they had the hyoid bone and similar hypoglossal canal., so it does seem very likely.They had the same FOXP2 "language gene" as modern humans, too, so it's very likely they could talk
Great. Only up to 3% now. Great lab technique guys.An earlier analysis of Neanderthal DNA by Dr. Pääbo proved to have had 10 percent human contamination, he said, but in the new draft genome, he has taken pains to measure the degree of human contamination and finds it is below 3 percent, he said.
Thanks, you're really helpful. I see that you know a great deal about this subject, and can only be coaxed into commenting when you have something meaningful to share.alexjrgreen wrote:They had the same FOXP2 "language gene" as modern humans, too, so it's very likely they could talk.MirariNefas wrote:Proven that they had language? What? Because they had the physical ability? Yeah right, that's also a crap statement. This site is horrible.
I offered the site as a place to start. If it left you wanting more, well and good.
Google Scholar links for NeanderthalMirariNefas wrote:, I'm already familiar with that stuff. It leads to fun speculation. I was wondering if anyone had any real evidence.
*edit: conjecture is interesting if supported well enough. If you can point me to some peer-reviewed academic articles on the subject, I'd love to take a look at them.
"Although there are many genes involved in language," Pääbo said, "there's no reason to say that they couldn't articulate the way that we do."
Nothing in the skeletal evidence or the DNA evidence suggests that they couldn't talk. That's not proof that they could talk, but the evidence so far is all one way.MirariNefas wrote:"Although there are many genes involved in language," Pääbo said, "there's no reason to say that they couldn't articulate the way that we do."
So that's what we have from him. Notice he doesn't say, "They could talk."
Professor Zuberbueler said: "Campbell's monkeys and humans separated from a common ancestor about 30 million years ago.
"This set of papers shows that in terms of the call morphology, there seem to be ancestral traits floating around the primate lineage that haven't been known before."