Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

Manga Girls Beware: Extra Large Eyes Caused Neanderthal's Demise 290

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the four-eyes-stays-alive dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports on a new study of prehistoric skulls which suggests that Neanderthals became extinct because they had larger eyes than our species. As a consequence of having extra sized eyes, an average 6 millimeters larger in radius, more of their backside brain volume was devoted to seeing, at the expense of frontal lobe high-level processing of information and emotions. This difference affected their ability to innovate and socialize the way we, modern people (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) do. When the last Ice Age set on 28,000 years ago, Neanderthals had no sewn clothes and no large organized groups to rely on each other, hastening their fall. Yet, they were not stupid, brutish creatures as portrayed in Hollywood films, they were very, very smart, but not quite in the same league as the Homo Sapiens of Cromagnon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Manga Girls Beware: Extra Large Eyes Caused Neanderthal's Demise

Comments Filter:
  • This just in (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:36AM (#43158707)

    And from the departement of wild speculations we have the following gem...

    • Re:This just in (Score:4, Interesting)

      by PoliTech (998983) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @10:48AM (#43159417) Homepage Journal
      Now that cloning may have been perfected [techhive.com], we just need an “extremely adventurous female human” to carry a cloned Neanderthal baby [nydailynews.com].

      Wild enough?

      • I hope that a woman will do that. It would be interesting to see what comes of that.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @11:03AM (#43159583)

          Don't go there. [photobucket.com]

          • by Bucc5062 (856482)

            My eyes did NOT need to see that image. I did not click away in time and now it will be floating around for a while. Spot on though.

          • by tedgyz (515156)

            Thanks a LOT! Now I have to gouge out my small eyes in a vain attempt to forget that image.

        • My guess is a Neanderthal baby.
          • My guess is that it will not be delivered live. That DNA is far too old.
            • But, if it's not viable, they can patch it with frog DNA.

      • Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gma i l . com> on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @12:24PM (#43160489) Journal

        Other than playing Frankenstein....why would you want to? This isn't some alien here, its just a failed branch of our own tree, its not like these Neanderthals would be all that different from us which is why cloning them (unlike say dinosaurs) wouldn't be THAT difficult if you sunk enough money into it.

        I mean seriously what WAS the Neanderthal? It was a little more compact than us, with a body designed to take more punishment at the cost of speed and agility (some unscrupulous military might find them attractive...if it weren't for the fact that giving troops armor is way cheaper), had a little smaller brain but not by a huge amount, we're not talking Lucy or early Java man here folks, and they had a brow ridge although again not as bad as many of the earlier offshoots.

        At the end of the day what you'd probably have was a slightly squatter human that would probably fit into the low average end of the bell curve and honestly probably wouldn't have THAT hard of a time fitting into our modern society once they learned the ways of those around him/her. Hell I've known guys uglier than Neanderthal that had no problem getting GFs so most likely they'd just breed themselves right back out of existence in a few generations if you didn't stick 'em on an island somewhere and make 'em a protected species.

        So I honestly don't get what the appeal of bringing one of these back would be for, other than just to say we did it and maybe morbid curiosity? If you were talking Lucy or early Java man or even those little hobbit people? THEN I could see the point, they were so different from us it would be like having an alien species brought to life, but with Neanderthals there is debate even to this day whether they just died out or we fucked them out of existence, so what would be the point of making more? So you could point and go "Ha ha, your brow ridge makes you look funny"? Hell 50k in plastic surgery and they wouldn't look any weirder than some of the guys I've run into over the years.

        • Neanderthal brains were larger than modern humans, not smaller.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy [wikipedia.org]

          • by msauve (701917)
            Besides which, I thought phrenology [wikipedia.org] was a disreputable pseudoscience.
          • by hairyfeet (841228)

            But, and I may be wrong, this is just how someone at a museum of science explained it to me so grain of salt and all that, but the way I was told it wasn't the SIZE that gave them a worse outlook it was the SHAPE in that they had small frontal lobs and really large rear brains which meant they'd have kick ass senses, probably several times better than ours, but their ability to put long term plans into motion would have been hurt by the smaller frontal lobs. The way she put it "We were planners, could think

        • As the part of their brain that's larger should make them more empathic w.r.t. emotions, well we could be breeding our new overlords: the super-politician.

          "It's sooooooooo easy to lie convincingly to them..."

    • Adds a whole new meaning to Earth Girls are Easy :)
    • Re:This just in (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill (739463) * on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @01:17PM (#43161183)

      And from the departement of wild speculations we have the following gem...

      There is a way to test this hypothesis. There is a variation in eyeballs size among modern humans. If this hypothesis is correct, people with bigger eyeballs should be dumber. So get a random sample of people, measure their eyeballs, give them an IQ test, and see if there is any correlation.

      • by MobyDisk (75490)

        True, but first you would need to confirm that the people with larger eyes have larger visual cortexes.

  • Idle speculation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by O('_')O_Bush (1162487) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:37AM (#43158721)
    Personally, I'm more partial to the theory that we *are* Neanderthals (hybrids) and that they didn't 'die out', but were simply bred away.

    There has been little hard evidence that Neanderthals were any less intelligent than Sapiens, just less evidence found for their intelligence, likely because there were far fewer of them. Studies of their flint knapping abilities show they were at least as skilled at toolmaking as Sapiens.

    Anyhow, the article reads ore like a daydream than a piece on science, as evidence for the most important part (percent usage of the brain for eyesight, and the retardation effects of this difference)are omitted.
    • by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:39AM (#43158733) Homepage

      Homo Sapiens seems quite "stupid and brutish" most of the time. Just saying.

      • Re:Idle speculation (Score:5, Informative)

        by theVarangian (1948970) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @10:06AM (#43158993)

        Homo Sapiens seems quite "stupid and brutish" most of the time. Just saying.

        Actually, even when compared to our closest relatives the great apes, humans get along remarkably well. The frequency of violence in human communities is remarkably low compared to many other species. Chimpls for example have have rates of aggression between two and three orders of magnitude higher than humans. [springer.com].

        • Forgetting something (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Human society is organized through violence -- just as in the animal kingdom. It's just that human beings are better at sweeping it under the carpet, or pretending it doesn't exist ("government by the people"). If government was by and for the people, then logically, government wouldn't need guns.

          Remember the objective definition of government: it is the organization holding a monopoly on the "right" to employ violence as a means. Everthing government does is founded on either violence or the threat of viol

          • There's more to life than competition through violence. Societies organized to solve various problems, only one of which was the problem of how to improve at meting out violence. Ancient societies created irrigation systems, built cities and monuments, kept records, did exploration and research, appeased the gods, and made decisions.

            Possibly the ancient society closest to your thinking was the Assyrian Empire. They subjugated all their neighbors through violence. Consequently, they were despised. Whe

          • by Maritz (1829006)

            OK so government - bad, justice system - bad. Got it. The right to use violence should be universal.

            Removing tongue from cheek for a sec so as to make sure I'm not stabbing a straw man - are you merely saying "it's a shame we need government and a justice system"? If so I guess I agree.

            If you're saying that removing people's "right" to violence is somehow tyrannical I'd have to say you were a nut case. ;)

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        We can be, we can be.

        We've also got Medicine sans Frontier, Engineers without Borders, Save the Children, and footprints on the moon.

        So we can also be pretty fucking rad when we want to be.

        • There may be a homo sapiens fork that produces homo sapiens has-guilt and homo sapiens sociopath-narcissist-psychopath as well.

          Some with autistic tendencies (in the spectrum, as it were) want to say that neurotypical people are a different sub-species, too.

          Vonnegut said, through his character Bokonon: nice nice very nice, so many people in the same device.

        • Refer to this [youtu.be] for supporting evidence.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:48AM (#43158815)

      I say BS! Neanderthals died out because the females preferred the larger penis of the Homo Sapiens.

    • Re:Idle speculation (Score:5, Informative)

      by glebovitz (202712) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @10:12AM (#43159047) Journal

      There are some theories that the Neanderthals were actually quite smart, compassionate, and had a sophisticated social system. This is based on burial sites that indicated that they took care of the elderly. Some evidence points to a myth that Neanderthals were hunched over and ape like. It is also interesting that, except for some groups in Africa, most people have traces of Neanderthal DNA indicating that Neanderthals didn't die out, but were interbred with and absorbed into other populations.

      I found this story on NPR that talks about one interesting speculation on how this may have happened.

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/03/08/173813194/what-happened-when-humans-met-an-alien-intelligence-sex-happened [npr.org]

      • Burial sites were typically small things, typically limited to familial units. IIRC if there were burial sites with many Neanderthals, they were 'reused' in series rather than simultaneously used by a larger clan.

        In otherwords, they had cooperation, but not complex organization. The closest analog in the animal kingdom would probably be something like the matrilinial grouping of Elephants. Tight knit groups who stay together their entire lives, but with a few exceptions, they don't really join up to form

    • Re:Idle speculation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CAIMLAS (41445) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @10:16AM (#43159079) Homepage

      Yeah, no kidding. My first response was, "what the fuck?" This is (seemingly typical) bad science.

      I'm sorry, there's more than 10mm variability in eye size in existing populations. That variability is kind of how you get stereotypes and things like manga in the first place. Not only that, but extrapolating "they didn't have mental capacity because they had larger eyes" doesn't even begin to follow, logically. Maybe their visual cortex was the same size? Maybe it was actually smaller and significantly more efficient, allowing them to actually process more of what they saw (unlike us, who ignore most of it)? Maybe, just maybe, they used more of their brains - which were actually bigger, despite the "they were stupid by modern standards" stereotypes.

      Pretty tiring. It's pretty irritating to see the "science" out of these types.

      • Re:Idle speculation (Score:5, Informative)

        by SternisheFan (2529412) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @10:39AM (#43159341)
        Wikipedia disagrees with you on (adult) eyes varying so much in size...

        Dimensions See also: mammalian eye The dimensions differ among adults by only one or two millimeters. The vertical measure, generally less than the horizontal distance, is about 24 mm among adults, at birth about 16–17 millimeters (about 0.65 inch). The eyeball grows rapidly, increasing to 22.5–23 mm (approx. 0.89 in) by three years of age. By age 13, the eye attains its full size. The typical adult eye has an anterior to posterior diameter of 24 millimeters, a volume of six cubic centimeters (0.4 cu. in.),[3] and a mass of 7.5 grams (weight of 0.25 oz.).[citation needed]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye [wikipedia.org]

        • Re:Idle speculation (Score:5, Informative)

          by tibit (1762298) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @12:08PM (#43160317)

          There are good reasons for that. The eye's diameter's square affects the eye's surface area. The surface area pretty much determines how fast our eyes can move -- our eye's performance is limited by the drag of the tear film. There's no room to grow larger eye muscles to compensate for it. One must remember that in the fast (saccadic) motions of the eyes, the viscous drag is "the" term that matters. The inertia can be ignored. Our eyes would move the same even if they were made of a material 10x as dense as water.

          Remember: we're blind during a saccade - as the image blurs on the retina, it is suppressed. Fast saccades are a useful thing to have :)

        • by CAIMLAS (41445)

          OK, an interesting statistic. I have to laugh at it, and you for quoting it, though: citation needed, after all.

          Reason still bellies these supposed 'findings': if the eye grows rapidly to 22.5-23mm, and grows no further past age 13, why is it that while the eyes are their largest in proportion to the human's skull the human undergoes the most extensive emotional and intellectual development of their lives?

      • by Trails (629752)

        Eye size here refers to eyeball size, not size of the opening around the eye. A white adult and an east-asian adult have the same (or nearly) eye size, even if the size of the eye opening is different.

    • This is my Theory also, we were bred away, there was even a report about breeding between the two. I still feel that we are missing important parts of this puzzle because we don't all look the same, I think there is a lot more that has to be discovered and some of it may even offend people.

      There was also a story here that suggested we have stopped evolving. I disagree, I think people in warmer climates will eventually evolve to be completely hairless. Just imagine the potential market for Wig makers.

    • Since the visual region of a species' brain will tend to grow to be exactly as large as it needs to be, I do not see how this would lead to cannibalization of other organs. What is important is whether or not the other organs of the brain exist in the first place. Once they do exist, natural selection will tend to expand them appropriately. The notion that birth canal places a limit on the size of the human brain, implying a competition for space in the skull, does not appear to be correct. There is nothing

      • There is nothing limiting the width of the birth canal

        Wait what? I don't believe that. It is estimated that historically 1/100 childbirths resulted in the death of the mother (not even counting death of the child). Granted not all of those deaths are the result of a narrow birth canal, but even if only a fraction of them were, that would be a HUGE evolutionary pressure.

        If there were no limits, then we would not be seeing so many deaths as a result of narrow birth canals. So there MUST be something limi

    • by aralin (107264)

      Well, at least we finally know why the Chinese kids are so good in school.

    • by careysub (976506)

      Personally, I'm more partial to the theory that we *are* Neanderthals (hybrids) and that they didn't 'die out', but were simply bred away...

      This is an outdated theory (I used to like it myself though). There is evidence of gene flow between H. s. sapiens and H. s. neanderthalensis, but not very much. Theories that modern humans simply outbred them and replaced them are viable, but not ones that propose that the two species interbred to form a new single hybrid.

      Consider this recent article: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002947 [plosgenetics.org] .

      A key quote: "Although mitochondrial DNA from multiple Neandertals has shown that

  • But...... (Score:5, Funny)

    by wbr1 (2538558) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:38AM (#43158723)
    We all know those big-eyed anime little neanderthal girls were killed of by tentacle monster rapists, thus preventing procreation!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:53AM (#43158857)
      Oh sure, they always blame us tentacle monsters. We're always the villains if we show up in movies at all. Have you ever stopped to think that we have feelings too?

      And feelers. Lots and lots of feelers.
  • Tabloid headlines (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojoNO@SPAMworld3.net> on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:39AM (#43158735) Homepage

    Can you please stop the tabloid headlines. "Extra Large Eyes Caused Neanderthal's Demise" would have been just fine, thanks. No need to try and sex it up with some manga girls. BTW, manga boys have big eyes too.

    • by dabadab (126782)

      Actually, "Extra Large Eyes Caused Neanderthal's Demise" is terribly tabloid in itself. It's not about the size of the eyes (eyeballs) but the percentage of the brain used for visual processing.

      • by Junta (36770)

        Basically, it all boils down to a wild ass guess. They are guessing about allocation of brain for visual processing based on measurements of eye sockets in skulls and conjecture about evolutionary response to the environment.

  • by BenSchuarmer (922752) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:43AM (#43158771)
    my mom always warned me about that
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:45AM (#43158791) Homepage

    This difference affected their ability to innovate and socialize the way we, modern people (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) do.

    It amazes me that comments like this, with so little data to make such a conjecture, can be taken seriously by people who scoff at religion. We know slightly more about these other branches of humanity (their biology aside) than we do about the historicity and culture of Atlantis. Yet we are supposed to take for granted that we can just know, with virtually nothing known about neanderthal society, what caused them to go extinct.

    Unbelievable.

    • by Type44Q (1233630)

      It amazes me that comments like this, with so little data to make such a conjecture, can be taken seriously by people who scoff at religion.

      We can't scoff at both?? :)

      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Younger), ca. 4 BC - 65 AD

      • by dcw3 (649211)

        Ah, Seneca said it. Must be correct. How did he determine who the wise were, those who agreed with him?

  • Breeding (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:53AM (#43158863)

    They were bred out - this has been shown by DNA analysis. Early homo sapiens bred with them, and the homo sapiens traits were more effective.

  • Demise? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by theVarangian (1948970) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:53AM (#43158869)
    The last time I checked Neanderthals/Denisovans did not suffer a demise. It seems that at least some of them were absorbed by modern human populations [slashdot.org] so in a way Neanderthals/Denisovans are still around. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to eat a dinosaur [wikipedia.org].
  • by mbone (558574) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:54AM (#43158879)

    Really, these are "just so stories," not much better than fairy tales. If further research revealed that the neanderthals actually had smaller eyes, then you can be sure that someone (maybe the same people) would come out with a theory that neanderthals went extinct because they couldn't see as well as humans.

    • That is what it is stated to be though, a theory. If it wasn't a theory then it would be a scientific fact, and there would be (hopefully) no need for argument. It seems a reasonable theory to explore, for instance it's known that in dogs the portion of their brain dedicated to their olfactory sense is substantially larger than that of humans and that leaves less of their brain for other purposes. I really don't understand why there is so much vitriol towards these stories about theories on /. Make a counte
  • by fph il quozientatore (971015) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:55AM (#43158883) Homepage
    I first read that as "they were not stupid, british creatures".
  • Manga guys usually have big eyes too.

    • Manga guys usually have big eyes too.

      Yeah, but from what I've seen (I'm not a manga/anime fanatic), I've noticed that when they do go too far with the "big eyes == cute" anime thing, (especially with overly "cutesy" and/or soft-porn oriented pictures), it's with the pictures of girls and woman.

      It's true that larger eyes -> protectiveness-inducing attractiveness up to a point. But aside from the fact that overdoing this can have a "too much" saccharin effect, some of those pictures go beyond that, and (to me) the eyes are so large they sta

  • Hrm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by papasui (567265) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @09:58AM (#43158919) Homepage
    I thought it was already proven that Europeans are the ancestors of Neanderthals through DNA sequencing? And it's this very DNA responsible for a strong immune system in people with large amounts of Neanderthal DNA.
    • by niado (1650369)

      I thought it was already proven that Europeans are the ancestors of Neanderthals through DNA sequencing?

      Eh, not exactly. There is evidence to indicate that after leaving Africa, modern humans bred with Neanderthals and at least 1 other archaic species, [wikipedia.org] but to call Neanderthals "the ancestors" of Europeans is somewhat inappropriate, as we share no mitochondrial DNA and the quantity of admixture is ~%4 at most.

      And it's this very DNA responsible for a strong immune system in people with large amounts of Neanderthal DNA.

      You're thinking of this story [slashdot.org]. There is evidence to indicate that some immune-system-related genes were passed from Neanderthal's etc., which gave those receiving the genes an advantage in their new env

      • by hAckz0r (989977)

        as we share no mitochondrial DNA and the quantity of admixture is ~%4 at most.

        That would only indicate that Homo Sapien women were either promiscuous or raped by Neanderthal males, and then the women raised the offspring as their own. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down directly from the mother to the child, so it basically says that Neanderthal men were not welcome in the Homo Sapien society in general, but that cross breading still happened. Whether or not Homo Sapien male DNA was shared with Neanderthal women is yet to be determined, as far as I know. It probably worked both ways but

        • by niado (1650369)

          as we share no mitochondrial DNA and the quantity of admixture is ~%4 at most.

          That would only indicate that Homo Sapien women were either promiscuous or raped by Neanderthal males, and then the women raised the offspring as their own. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down directly from the mother to the child, so it basically says that Neanderthal men were not welcome in the Homo Sapien society in general, but that cross breading still happened.

          That's a possible theory, and cultural factors surely had an impact on hybridization between the two groups. However, it is also likely that only male Neanderthal's mating with modern human females were able to produce fertile offspring. [hypothesisjournal.com] The absence of Neanderthal Mitochondrial DNA seems unlikely to have been due to cultural factors alone.

  • by repetty (260322) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @10:00AM (#43158947) Homepage

    Equating intelligence with brain size has always been both stupid and puzzling to me, particularly since there's no good evidence to support it that can't be countered by contra-evidence that at least as good or better.

  • Grug mom say Grug look cool. Grug may no have fancy sewn clothes, but Grug have feelings.

  • by Dcnjoe60 (682885) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @10:12AM (#43159039)

    While size does matter, larger eye sockets does not automatically mean more of their brain was used for processing visual stimuli. For that to be valid, one would need to know what the size of the pupil and retina was, not the eye socket. It is quite possible that Neanderthals has more muscular eyes, just like they had more muscular bodies, but the actual visual portion of their eyes, the part that actually sees, was not significantly different than homo sapiens. Another explanation could also be that when Neanderthal developed, during the ice age, light levels were lower in the climates that they inhabited and the larger eyes were an adaptation, which again would not indicate more of their brain was used to process visual stimuli, but instead the larger eye was simply to enable more light gathering capability than their ancestors near the equator.

    Without having an actual Neanderthal brains and eyes to examine, one cannot simply make this determination simply based on the size of the eye socket.

    • by hAckz0r (989977)
      Agreed, and there is also the fact that the neural network at the back of the retina does preprocessing of the image information, so that the brain is not taxed with that task. A larger retina also allows for a larger neural net to process the same basic amount of information. Just because the retina is larger does not mean there are more rods and cones thus increasing the amount of data needed to be processed by the brain. A larger image does not equal a higher fidelity image!

      This theory seems very subje

  • This research is pure prejudice and a waste of taxpayer's money. The scientists should have waited a little more and ask the neanderthal [slashdot.org] directly.
  • by thomasw_lrd (1203850) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @10:22AM (#43159157)

    I like Ben Bova's explanations better in his series of Orion's books. Basically, these superevolved humans created a special killer called Orion, and he teleports a bunch of Genghis Khan's men back in time to kill all the dinosaurs and the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were actually smarter than humans, but lacked that killer instinct of the Mongols.

  • "When the last Ice Age set on 28,000 years ago, Neanderthals had no sewn clothes and no large organized groups to rely on each other, hastening their fall. "

    Ha! Take that, Robert J. Sawyer!
  • I read brutish as British.

  • by hemo_jr (1122113)

    More convincing is that the Neanderthal metabolism required more meat. They were not as omnivorous as H Sap. Neanderthals suffered and lost children when H Sap flourished and had many. They were out-competed that way.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday March 13, 2013 @11:31AM (#43159887) Homepage

    That the human brain generally works a particular way is no indication of how the neanderthal brain worked.

    We know, for example (thanks to a slashdot story) that a man with like 1/4th of a brain's normal volume (http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Quarter-Brained-Man-60542.shtml) can lead a pretty normal life. We also know that brains route around damage and adapt. So what is it with this obsessive belief that brain size is equated with X, Y and Z of intelligence and behavior?

    While the article presents an interesting hypothesis which fits in with why humans would have dominated neanderthals (better group behavior/communications), it can't really be said for sure based on the size of the eyes. There's a WHOLE lot of assumption and speculation going on there.

    I find it interesting that the notion of being "really smart" (based on brain size) but without good communication skills. This would imply they were effectively advanced apes... unable to learn from one another, but able to learn on their own and through mimmickry. (No stored knowledge means no building or accumulation of knowledge.)

  • I think the true question is : could they see better than us with those bigger eyes?
    The rest seems to be wild conjectures.

  • OK, smaller eyes and more emotional brains allowed us to socialize and survive, but what explains our recent stupefaction, and how much longer can we last?

  • Anyone who's seen the movie Speed knows Neanderthal DNA is still with us. Google for pics of that bus driver. If he had a club instead of a steering wheel, he could get a job in a museum as a stand-in.

Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. -- Bertrand Russell

Working...