[hippoman]

Wikipedia says they were probably a fantasy and really just above-average skull size humans similar to what we find today. I wonder if they were found in groups which would suggest they were consistently different, or just randomly appearing among normal-skull people as the final paragraph seems to say (but tries not to).

[jonnathanson]

There are any number of possibilities, all of them seemingly more likely than the "Boskop Man" theory. Hydrocephalus. Deformities. Even intentional cranial manipulation to produce specific head shapes.[1]

Cf. the "Starchild" skull that conspiracy theorists still love to speculate about, long after it was shown to be the skull of a hydrocephalic individual.

It's not impossible that this was a lineage of large-brained hominids, distinct from our own. Evolution favors local optima; it does not follow a teleological pattern. If big brains weren't advantageous to the local circumstances, they wouldn't have survived. But the big-brained, distinct-species theory speculates quite a bit on very little evidence.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation

[joe_the_user]

And another possibility is that the large brain size just didn't result in greater intelligence or a larger amount of the right kind of flexible intelligence. One could guess that humans need a properly designed brain to behave as we do, not simply any old larger brain.

[jostmey]

I saw that wikipedia article too. The articles smells like BS. But, who is to say that intelligence is favored by evolution. If humanity is not careful, our ancestors could end up being intellectually inferior. For a more entertaining story that this article read "Galápagos" by Kurt Vonnegut.

[jrs99]

i don't think Einstein back then would have had a higher chance of surviving than some other random person.

Possibly there was very little advantage being a genius would give you back then? Especially if you count the life expectancy.

If everyone had a spear and you were the genius that invented the bow and arrow, then one day later, everyone would copy you.

Also, an older society of average people would have created more technology than a newer society of geniuses. Or even if a society of thousands developed, they would be able to create more advanced weaponry than a village of 40 geniuses. So maybe the group of humanoids with the genetics that made them a super social species with the predilection for massive groups would give them a huge advantage over a genius group without the genetics to seek massive societies.

A city of 10,000 people all with "IQ" of 90 that has been around for 500 years would annihilate technologically a village of 40 all with "IQ" of 150 which has been around for 100 years.

[baddox]

Is there a correlation now between intelligence and having children?

[jrs99]

not being in a city doesn't necessarily mean you'll have fewer children. but it may mean you don't like cities, and your children won't like cities, and you may prefer living in a small tribe.

[marcosdumay]

> But, who is to say that intelligence is favored by evolution.

Well, define "intelligence".

Evolution seems to favor technology very strongly, and our models imply that it would. But more detailed senses for example isn't as strongly favored.

[autokad]

i don't know about that. considering the n=1 on intelligent species on the planet (perhaps ever lived) and every other species (that has ever lived) is not intelligent, it seems like we would be an accident.

evolution seems to favor volume over quality, not to say there aren't exceptions but roaches and rats seem to be doing pretty well.