Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Apr '18 00:29
    https://gizmodo.com/did-neanderthals-go-extinct-because-of-the-size-of-thei-1825562635

    They keep referring to the difference in Cerebellum, saying it is the home of higher cognitive functions but I thought that was the cerebrum.

    Am I wrong? I thought the cerebellum was involved with muscle control and such.
  2. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    27 Apr '18 04:16
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    https://gizmodo.com/did-neanderthals-go-extinct-because-of-the-size-of-thei-1825562635

    They keep referring to the difference in Cerebellum, saying it is the home of higher cognitive functions but I thought that was the cerebrum.

    Am I wrong? I thought the cerebellum was involved with muscle control and such.
    According to Wikipedia you are right.
  3. 27 Apr '18 09:32 / 11 edits
    At first I thought I can only assume the OP link makes the repeated and strange edit error of keep referring to the cerebrum as the "cerebellum". This appears to be confirmed with the statement;

    "...Thus, the differences in neuroanatomical organization of the cerebellum may have resulted in a critical difference in cognitive and social ability between the two species. ..."

    which makes no sense if they actually mean 'cerebellum' and not 'cerebrum' because the 'cerebellum' has nothing to do with 'social ability' while the 'cerebrum' has everything to do with 'social ability'.

    But this is still very confusing because it also states;

    "...Although the authors claim that cerebellar volume correlates with increased executive functions, including attention, inhibition, speech comprehension and production, and working memory, ..."

    "cerebellar volume"? Surely that is supposed to be "cerebral volume" as the "cerebellar volume" would have extremely little if anything to do with "attention, inhibition, speech comprehension and production, and working memory"! Because those things are the function of the cerebrum, NOT the cerebellum. How could they make such an edit error? Seems an unlikely error for them to make to me. Perhaps some of the people involved here are just confused and think "cerebellum" means "cerebrum"? The two words look and sound similar after all but, still, I would be surprised if some brain experts kept confusing the two! Don't they understand their own terminology!?
  4. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    28 Apr '18 14:07
    Originally posted by @humy
    At first I thought I can only assume the OP link makes the repeated and strange edit error of keep referring to the cerebrum as the "cerebellum". This appears to be confirmed with the statement;

    "...Thus, the differences in neuroanatomical organization of the [b]cerebellum
    may have resulted in a critical difference in cognitive and social ability ...[text shortened]... ised if some brain experts kept confusing the two! Don't they understand their own terminology!?[/b]
    Here is another article by a different author saying the same word, Cerebellum.

    https://phys.org/news/2018-04-scientists-eyes-neanderthal-brain.html
  5. 28 Apr '18 17:28
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Here is another article by a different author saying the same word, Cerebellum.

    https://phys.org/news/2018-04-scientists-eyes-neanderthal-brain.html
    and that link appears to use the word 'cerebellum' correctly.
  6. 29 Apr '18 15:39 / 1 edit
    Oh no, not again;

    https://phys.org/news/2018-04-size-ancestors-brains-outlast-neanderthals.html

    Yes, they are showing their cerebrum-cerebellum confusion yet again!
    What is wrong with these people?
  7. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    29 Apr '18 17:56
    Originally posted by @humy
    Oh no, not again;

    https://phys.org/news/2018-04-size-ancestors-brains-outlast-neanderthals.html

    Yes, they are showing their cerebrum-cerebellum confusion yet again!
    What is wrong with these people?
    A Neanderthal would not have made that mistake.
  8. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    29 Apr '18 19:29
    Originally posted by @lemon-lime
    A Neanderthal would not have made that mistake.
    Maybe not but we are still here.....
  9. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    30 Apr '18 05:27
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Maybe not but we are still here.....
    They are still here too... in bits and pieces.
  10. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    30 Apr '18 14:21
    Originally posted by @lemon-lime
    They are still here too... in bits and pieces.
    Yep, about 3%
  11. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    30 Apr '18 14:40
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Yep, about 3%
    Yes, but that's about 3% per person in a very large population of people, not 3% of all the genetic material needed for the reappearance of a Neanderthal... that possibility still exists.
  12. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 May '18 12:26
    Originally posted by @lemon-lime
    Yes, but that's about 3% [b]per person in a very large population of people, not 3% of all the genetic material needed for the reappearance of a Neanderthal... that possibility still exists.[/b]
    I don't think anyone is talking about the resurgence of neandertals, there would have to be closer to 100% reconstruction of their genes. There is work going on to reintroduce wooley mammoths since they have a pretty full set of their DNA. It might be possible to get other species out of extinction that way eventually, but that is a long road to haul.
  13. 01 May '18 15:37
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    I don't think anyone is talking about the resurgence of neandertals, there would have to be closer to 100% reconstruction of their genes. There is work going on to reintroduce wooley mammoths since they have a pretty full set of their DNA. It might be possible to get other species out of extinction that way eventually, but that is a long road to haul.
    This would be highly unethical (and, as you say, probably impossible) to do with neandertals.
  14. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 May '18 17:41 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    This would be highly unethical (and, as you say, probably impossible) to do with neandertals.
    I'm 100% sure if it ever becomes possible, it will be done somewhere, some secret lab in Slovinia or some such and the hell with ethics.

    Let's say it happens. I wonder what life would be like for a Neandertal 50,000 years out of time thrust into the modern human world. If they did it accurately, would he even be able to speak? Don't see how a creature like that could live in our world.
  15. Standard member apathist
    looking for loot
    05 May '18 00:06
    Originally posted by @wildgrass
    This would be highly unethical (and, as you say, probably impossible) to do with neandertals.
    If we use dna to build a mammoth, that's okay but to build a neaderthal it would not be okay? What gauge are you using?