MarAzul
LongShip
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 21,370
- Likes
- 7,281
- Points
- 113
I have always enjoyed reading the latest on early man or of other species. But it often appears they assume a tad too much. Anyone else see something that may not be factual in these assumptions;
"This suggests that while Neanderthals may have had a similar brain size to ours, it may have been the way our brains developed over our lifetimes that was key to our success.
We don't know what benefits these genetic changes had. But others have suggested that it is our hyper-social, cooperative brain that sets us apart. From language and culture to war and love, our most distinctively human behaviours all have a social element."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150929-why-are-we-the-only-human-species-still-alive
"This suggests that while Neanderthals may have had a similar brain size to ours, it may have been the way our brains developed over our lifetimes that was key to our success.
We don't know what benefits these genetic changes had. But others have suggested that it is our hyper-social, cooperative brain that sets us apart. From language and culture to war and love, our most distinctively human behaviours all have a social element."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150929-why-are-we-the-only-human-species-still-alive
