https://phys.org/news/2022-08-human-brain-years.html

Did the 12th century B.C.E.—a time when humans were forging great
empires and developing new forms of written text—coincide with an evolutionary reduction in brain size? Think again, says a UNLV-led team
of researchers who refute a hypothesis that's growing increasingly
popular among the science community.

Last year, a group of scientists made headlines when they concluded that
the human brain shrank during the transition to modern urban societies
about 3,000 years ago because, they said, our ancestors' ability to store information externally in social groups decreased our need to maintain
large brains. Their hypothesis, which explored decades-old ideas on the evolutionary reduction of modern human brain size, was based on a
comparison to evolutionary patterns seen in ant colonies.

Not so fast, said UNLV anthropologist Brian Villmoare and Liverpool John
Moores University scientist Mark Grabowski.

In a new paper published last week in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution,
the UNLV-led team analyzed the dataset that the research group from last
year's study used and dismissed their findings.

"We were struck by the implications of a substantial reduction in modern
human brain size at roughly 3,000 years ago, during an era of many
important innovations and historical events—the appearance of Egypt's
New Kingdom, the development of Chinese script, the Trojan War, and
the emergence of the Olmec civilization, among many others," Villmoare
said.

"We re-examined the dataset from DeSilva et al. and found that human
brain size has not changed in 30,000 years, and probably not in 300,000
years," Villmoare said. "In fact, based on this dataset, we can identify no reduction in brain size in modern humans over any time-period since the
origins of our species."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-4, Primum Sapienti wrote:

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-human-brain-years.html

Did the 12th century B.C.E.—a time when humans were forging great
empires and developing new forms of written text—coincide with an evolutionary reduction in brain size? Think again, says a UNLV-led team
of researchers who refute a hypothesis that's growing increasingly
popular among the science community.

Last year, a group of scientists made headlines when they concluded that
the human brain shrank during the transition to modern urban societies
about 3,000 years ago because, they said, our ancestors' ability to store information externally in social groups decreased our need to maintain
large brains. Their hypothesis, which explored decades-old ideas on the evolutionary reduction of modern human brain size, was based on a
comparison to evolutionary patterns seen in ant colonies.

Not so fast, said UNLV anthropologist Brian Villmoare and Liverpool John Moores University scientist Mark Grabowski.

In a new paper published last week in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, the UNLV-led team analyzed the dataset that the research group from last year's study used and dismissed their findings.

"We were struck by the implications of a substantial reduction in modern human brain size at roughly 3,000 years ago, during an era of many
important innovations and historical events—the appearance of Egypt's
New Kingdom, the development of Chinese script, the Trojan War, and
the emergence of the Olmec civilization, among many others," Villmoare
said.

"We re-examined the dataset from DeSilva et al. and found that human
brain size has not changed in 30,000 years, and probably not in 300,000 years," Villmoare said. "In fact, based on this dataset, we can identify no reduction in brain size in modern humans over any time-period since the origins of our species."

Thanks!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-human-brain-years.html

Did the 12th century B.C.E.—a time when humans were forging great
empires and developing new forms of written text—coincide with an evolutionary reduction in brain size? Think again, says a UNLV-led team
of researchers who refute a hypothesis that's growing increasingly
popular among the science community.

Not that you're bright, or literate, but the study they pretend to debunk didn't say that brain size shrunk. Many other studies did. No, that the
study they pretend to debunk said is that this shrinkage was do to social changes and not a change in diet.

"Group Decision Making."

Last year, a group of scientists made headlines when they concluded that
the human brain shrank during the transition to modern urban societies
about 3,000 years ago because, they said, our ancestors' ability to store information externally in social groups decreased our need to maintain
large brains.

It's that last part. THAT is what the study was all about, what it was concluding. It didn't claim to find human brains had shrunk -- MANY studies
had done that -- the study was all about determining a cause.

THEY LINK TO THE STUDY!

You could have just clicked on it, this study they pretended to debunk, and
saw that the story was bullshit. You could've. At least in theory you could have.

In a new paper published last week in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, the UNLV-led team analyzed the dataset that the research group from last year's study used and dismissed their findings.

But then...

"We re-examined the dataset from DeSilva et al. and found that human
brain size has not changed in 30,000 years, and probably not in 300,000 years," Villmoare said. "In fact, based on this dataset, we can identify no reduction in brain size in modern humans over any time-period since the origins of our species."

Here's the study, YOUR OWN CITE! Well, it's linked within your own cite:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.742639/full

Nope. They never determined that brain size had shrunk.

THEY CITE 11 STUDIES THAT DID FIND A DECREASE IN BRAIN SIZE!

But your idiocy doesn't claim to have debunked any of these 11, now does
it.

Check out THIS red flag that only a mouth breather would miss:

: The dataset is heavily skewed because more than half of the 987 skulls
: examined represent only the last 100 years of a 9.8-million-year span
: of time

So the 9.8 million year old Homo?

It's garbage. It's idiocy. It's "Debunking" a finding that a study never even claimed to make, by making garbage up... and it fooled you!

Tell me about this 9.8 million year old Homo. By all means, LAVISH me
with details.

Thanks in advance, for not having the decency to admit your errors here.

You were fooled. Get mad at them. They made you look stupid, not us.

Get mad at the people who did this to you, not we who noticed.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/691966152530903040

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

Thanks!

Yes, the gift of the 9.8 million year old Homo skulls... thanks, indeed.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/691966152530903040

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)