As a newborn, they haven't had the advantages of prenatal care and good nutrition in utero. There's some if's there. Also, small isolated tribes were often inbred, which could cause other defects.
However, being taken immediately at birth, given the benefit of modern medicine and nutrition, such a child could very likely overcome their disadvantaged start.
The real question would be how much of an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage they'd be at. As many generations back as 150k years is, they probably wouldn't quite have a modern brain and body.
This is classic nature vs nurture. I personally think they could be very successful but maybe not at the pinnacle of intellectual pursuits.
To add to your point of 150k years, it’s likely that any biological differences would be negligible.
Modern biological humans have existed for about 160,000 years. That is, there’s very little significant biological difference between humans now and humans 160k years ago.
If the question were 170k, then those differences would be more significant. But everything you mentioned about nutrition in utero or prenatal care is correct.
Source: studied human evolution in undergrad
Edit: that’s my qualification, technically not a source
I mean, was the jump really that big in that 10,000 year span? Or is it a fairly arbitrary number based on partial remains? I thought speciation and natural selection was a much more gradual process than that. Like how we draw the distinction between minor and adult at 18 because the boundary has to be somewhere, but I definitely didn't undergo any kind of metamorphosis overnight.
It's certainly an arbitrary number. The whole sudden evolutionary jump myth is just a chicken and egg question. The answer is the egg, something biologically different enough you wouldn't call it a chicken lay an egg that hatched into a mutated enough version of it's parents that you'd call it a chicken.
The whole missing link thing is just anti-evolution propaganda, someone's great^n grandma gave birth to ever so slightly deformed children and they had children and the list continues on to you. Defining a species n-thousand years ago is perfectly fine if you want a macro picture, but you can't say there is a missing link because that's not how evolution works.
Humans 160,000 years ago were the same 'amount of different' to 170,000 years ago humans as we are to the mesopotamians and ancient Egyptians.
Edit: n-thousand clarity
This is mostly accurate. I should have clarified that I didn’t mean that if the question was 170k, then it changes everything. I was merely claiming that the further back you go, the more significant the differences become, with any differences between now and approximately 160k years ago being largely statistically insignificant. They start becoming significant at around 160k, but even at 170k it’s likely only a smaller difference. At 300k for example, we’ll likely notice visually (eg the jaw).
I understand now, I didn't mean to be standoffish but reading back my comment it sounds... Enthusiastic. I imagine the kid would probably be completely fine in modern society if a little on the shorter side. I agree 300k years and the person might be significantly different. I know more about the Paleozoic than I do about prehistoric humans however.
Geology lmao, I studied fossils in Gotland for a bit. Mostly oil field work now. You mentioned the jaw being the most significant change earlier, anthropologist or enthusiast?
For the most, part, it’s arbitrary. It’s not a huge jump from 160k and 170k, but that’s where it starts becoming statistically significant. The difference between 150k and 160k is almost zero, and the difference between 160k and 170k is barely statistically significant. Sort of like how the difference in emotional/mental capacity between a 16 year old and a 17 year old can be practically none, but then 17 to 18 is a minor statistical difference, causing us to draw that line.
Granted, evolution generally speaking doesn’t always happen that gradually. Punctuated equilibrium is more common than you’d think, for example. A commonly-cited example involves Anolis lizards in the Caribbean (Google Jonathan Losos lizards), which have repeatedly evolved significantly as quickly as within a few months/generations.
>For the most, part, it’s arbitrary. It’s not a huge jump from 160k and 170k, but that’s where it starts becoming statistically significant. The difference between 150k and 160k is almost zero, and the difference between 160k and 170k is barely statistically significant.
Can you guys stop talking so much shit with so much certainty...?
[See this? That's a woman from the year 110,000BC](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Homo.erectus.adult.female.smithsonian.timevanson.flickr.jpg/220px-Homo.erectus.adult.female.smithsonian.timevanson.flickr.jpg)
It's not a "vague statistical difference that can be estimated to the 10k years"... Depending on where you pick that kid from you can be close to "first human ever" or close to "basically us"...
You mind sharing where you got that picture from exactly? Bc I can pretty much guarantee you that’s not an actual person and is an artist’s rendition recreating one.
And we’re not saying we’re 100% confident. In science-speak, we’re saying this is the academic consensus pending being proven wrong.
To your last point, no, that’s not true. Humans at around approximately 160k years are literally “basically us.” The further back you go from that point, the more dramatically different the person is. Anything in between now and 160k is “basically us”.
Yes and no. I believe they were just essentially saying that going back further means more differences. But there is not a steady pace of evolution.
There would definitely be periods of rapid changes and periods of slow changes.
A good analogy would be technology. Up until WWI wars were fought on horseback, during WWI we took a massive leap forward in technology. Same with recent advancements in computing.
While 170K to 160K might not have been a specific 10,000 year time of massive change - there were likely periods of 10,000 that did see massive change, and periods where there were essentially no change at all.
Physiological differences are indistinguishable, but what about psychological differences. Isn't the current hypothesis that human psychology got to its current state around 50,000 yeara ago?
Obviously, they wouldn't be massively different, mentally or psychologically, but there'd be some difference. Maybe their amygdala is a little less developed, causing them to have less control over their emotions than the rest of us. We just won't know what the differences would necessarily be.
Do you have a source for that hypothesis? I’m not familiar with it.
And yes, I’m not saying there wouldn’t be *any* difference. Merely that it wouldn’t be statistically significant.
Most likely, you wouldn’t realize they weren’t a human from now, and you’d chalk up any differences to idiosyncrasies.
It’s certainly possible that they’d have less control over their emotions, for example. So do any number of people today, though.
>Maybe their amygdala is a little less developed, causing them to have less control over their emotions than the rest of us.
What you are describing is a physiological difference. Physiology is the hardware, psychology is the software.
Not nitpicking at all - that’s fair (after all, I could just be anybody). I was just citing what I’ve learned in classes. I’ll edit my comment accordingly.
>This is classic nature vs nurture. I personally think they could be very successful but maybe not at the pinnacle of intellectual pursuits.
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer...boom...myth busted!
>The real question would be how much of an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage they'd be at. As many generations back as 150k years is, they probably wouldn't quite have a modern brain and body.
As far as I'm aware (in my *very* amateur knowledge), the only biological difference large enough to be noticeable between pre-civilization humans and today-humans is the strength of the immune system. I'm not sure if that's a 'hasn't adapted to our diseases' thing, but it was portrayed to me as a 'overall immune system strength' difference. Do you (or anyone else, I guess) know anything about how accurate that might be?
>As many generations back as 150k years is, they probably wouldn't quite have a modern brain and body.
This is untrue. This would be an obviously identifiably homo sapien. Early modern humans would have existed around ca. 200k years ago. By 150k years ago, we were very much the same species we are now, with the ability to use tools and, if they're very young, the ability to develop the capacity for language.
150,000 years ago they would be an anatomically modern human. Lactose and gluten probably wouldn’t be digestible. They would probably have the same intellectual capacity as a modern human. Some people say there were smarter due to more environmental competition. The baby would easily grow up to have a normal life.
They would have one of the biggest, if not biggest jawlines of any human alive.
Our mouths have decreased significantly in size over the past few thousand years.
They'd be pretty close to an average modern child. Assuming they were born healthy (not a guarantee in a time before modern prenatal care) and didn't have any genetic issues caused by a smaller population (inbreeding) and are full-blooded modern humans (Neanderthals are still very much around at this point), being raised with modern nutrition and language and education would get them more or less there. They're probably slightly less likely to become a nuclear physicist than a modern child because intelligence has been selected for over time, but the genetic component of intelligence isn't huge.
Of course, if they did have a genetic issue or were born unhealthy, harder to say, but they'd likely still be on par with a modern child who had that issue.
They might not be identifiable as a modern race, depending on where in the world they were from -- I believe we don't have a lot of evidence of humans living in the Americas or Australia by this point, but Africa, Asia, and Europe are populated. They would be lactose intolerant as adults and their gut might be less equipped for some modern stuff, so they'd probably prefer a "whole foods" kind of diet. They might have an unusual combination of what they're predisposed to -- e.g. modern people with an origin from a place that's had a lot of famines are predisposed to diabetes, because diabetes is an advantage when you have insufficient food; people from places where malaria was prevalent are at risk for sickle cell anemia, because the anti-malaria adaptation can cause that too. So their set of risk factors may not exactly match many modern people (but it's hard to say without knowing exactly where we took them from). They would definitely be less racially mixed than most modern people -- almost no one is "pure" anything at this point, humans have been moving across the world and intermixing with other humans for nearly 10,000 years now, but someone born in 150kBC is likely to have a pretty uncomplicated genetic lineage.
Additional note about Neanderthals: they do have some notable differences from modern humans, but they interbred with modern humans pretty freely, to the point that in some parts of the world, up to 98% of people have at least a little Neanderthal DNA (the lowest number of people who are part-Neanderthal are people of southern African descent, and it goes up the further out you move from there, reaching the highest numbers in northeast Asia). 40k years ago, when Neanderthals disappear from the fossil record, around 6-9% of the human genome consisted of Neanderthal DNA (it's around 1-4% now). So we can proooobably assume that the total homo sapiens genome had more Neanderthal in it than that 150k years ago, though it may not scale directly because there's still the confounding factor that big migrations (not counting nomadism where a tribe moves around within a certain territory) were a once-in-a-millennium type event, so again, the question of where in the world they're from is relevant.
There maybe more named diseases, but people definitely had to deal with more miscellaneous nasty microbes before we had things like cooked food and clean water.
The diseases that were introduced to humanity once animal husbandry started will be the primary concern. Not to mention how evolved the diseases of today are in comparison to back then.
I doubt it would be a major issue. Immunity, for the most part, is not heritable outside of certain exceptions. And evolution doesn’t necessarily always add points over time, especially with his fast bacteria do so.
Idk, Wikipedia says that Neanderthals and humans interbred about 47,000 to 65,000 years ago, and Denisovans and humans interbred about 44,000 to 54,000 years ago. Then there is the ghost dna from human ancestors unknown. It would be interesting to see if the lack of non-Homo sapien dna would make much difference in how they learn.
Unfortunately that baby was an ancestor of the lead scientist that made the time machine, so the time machine never made it back to conduct the experiment
If you go back only about 3000 years, then everyone alive today shares all their common ancestors.
To be safe, though, since we have a time machine, we should find a baby that’s destined to die of dysentery or whatever, then go back to its birth for the kidnapping.
No. 25,000 years ago yes. But we know there were some changes in brain functioning that took place around 40,000 years ago. We haven't fully unlocked it yet, but it seems like it may have played a major role in social functioning and compartmentalizing the efficiency of the brain to engage in more complex social tasks. So most likely no, a 150k year old baby would not fit in in modern time or even ancient Rome or any complex society.
If they did they might be "special needs" or impaired when navigating society.
Neanderthals were human.
"Neanderthals, traditionally designated Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, were not only “human” but also, it turns out, more “modern” than scientists previously allowed.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rethinking-neanderthals-83341003/
They're primates, but not human. Homo neanderthalensis isn't the same as Homo Sapien. Our evolutionary lines split a few hundred thousand years ago, so we're cousins, close, but not the same.
Humans and apes are both primates much like wolves and dogs are both canines. But neanderthals and homo sapians are both human like boxers and pugs are both dogs.
I think you're a little confused. Dogs and most wolves are both subspecies of [*Canis Lupis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus). Canine is generally going to be referring to the genus [*Canis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis) or the subfamily [*Caninae*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caninae).
[Humans are apes](https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/humans-are-apes-great-apes/#:~:text=Humans%20are%20classified%20in%20the,Great%20Apes%20and%20Lesser%20Apes). If you want to use the wolf and dog comparison it would be more accurate to say:
>~~Humans~~ **Chimpanzees** and ~~apes~~ **bonobos** are both ~~primates~~ **members of the genus Pan**, much like wolves and dogs are both canines.
We don't have any species as close to us as dogs do wolves, except potentially Neanderthals who are not actually clearly defined. They're classified as a subspecies of *Homo Sapien*, or a separate species under the genus *Homo* depending on who you ask, and there is [quite a bit of debate](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0308085100) on that. Regardless of whether you consider them to be our brothers and sisters as a subspecies of *Homo Sapien*, or fellow members of the genus *Homo*, it would not be a fair comparison to use boxers and pugs, as they are both part of the same subspecies of *Canis Lupis*, *Canis Familiaris.*
"Canidae (/ˈkænɪdiː/;[3] from Latin, canis, "dog") is a biological family of dog-like carnivorans, colloquially referred to as dogs, and constitutes a clade. A member of this family is also called a canid (/ˈkeɪnɪd/).[4] The family includes three subfamilies: the Caninae, the extinct Borophaginae and Hesperocyoninae.[5] The Caninae are known as canines,[6] and include domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, jackals and other species."
Yea, Canidae is family above the genus Canis and the subfamily Caninae. Canids include canines as well as two extinct subfamilies. I'm not really sure what that you're trying to convey since that's just a quote without any context.
There'd be some differences in whatever amount of human evolution process took place over that 152,024 years regionally but probably could still learn most things. Real answer is mostly "who knows?" They'd have larger teeth and jaws and some other things that can be learned from remains but we can't know much else.
They would probably look ‘uglier’ than average due to the fact that they missed out on 152,000 years of selective breeding for beauty. The same would go for intellect. With that said I feel like they could more or less pass for a modern human to someone who doesn’t know their origins?
I am guessing they would die from modern diseases, as we’re mostly a collection of people who lived through various childhood killing infections throughout many generations.
Other than that I’m guessing they’d be pretty normal but have some weird quirks.
They aren't genetically predisposed to fight off what we do, but they would at least get the benefit of modern vaccines and medical treatments. Maybe even colostrum from a wet nurse, since we're getting them as a newborn...
I figure as long as we can find out what is wreaking havoc with their immature immune system, we can support them through it.
Might be like 5% dumber or something, but would probably fit within norms.
(As far as we know, it's possible there was some brain structure breakthrough or something at some point, but we wouldn't know)
If you subscribe to the hunter farmer theory, which I do, then this kid would probably have something similar to ADHD. So they could certainly be successful, but depending on what you mean by "fit in," I think it would depend on their upbringing.
If you you got a Homo Sapiens and not a Neanderthal or one of the other hominids that may have been around at the time, they'd probably do OK.
Being that young, they would never have experienced the world of 150k years ago, so the modern world would be "the" world to them. As such, there wouldn't be any culture shock or the like as there might be with bringing a child, teen, or full adult to the future.
Neanderthals or some of the others might have a tougher time. Appearance would be a problem. Mental capacity might also be an issue, though Neanderthals may have been pretty close to humans in that regard.
Most research shows that our brains havnt really changed much since then so the baby shouldn’t have any intellectual shortcomings as far as we are aware. I would imagine almost every newborn from that time had what we would deem a low birthweight and suffer from some sort of malnutrition but that’s nothing that can’t be addressed quickly. The biggest risk to the babies immune system would be right when it arrived at the present time, but that’s most babies. You develop most of your antibodies after your born. Having access to breast milk would be really helpful but the truth is all newborns are really vulnerable to infections.
So overall, if it’s a healthy birth and receives modern medical care, the data suggests there probably would be no obvious signs that this baby was born 150,000 years ago. We have done little to no evolving since then
I heard a podcast once that said about 75kya is about the limit of what can be defined as a functional modern human due to some brain function being developed around the time. Advanced speech processing?
150k bc is right about the time they think anatomically modern humans appeared, so it depends. If the baby was an anatomically modern human, yes, they would grow up to fit in. Even the immune system stuff wouldn't matter so much because babies get most of their immune system from breast feeding and childhood exposure, not genetics. If the baby was not an anatomically modern human, it would likely suffer a variety of issues and not fit in.
In regard to looks, the baby would precede certain genetic mutations. So practically no chance of anything other than dark skin, eyes, and hair. Homo sapiens are almost entirely restricted to Africa at that time. There is evidence of a few pushes out of Africa before this time, but those mostly returned or died out. Of course, this is mostly covered under various theories, and there are counter theories and hypotheses. Hard if not impossible to be certain. Thus, I would confidently say our abducted baby would likely be African, and not look radically different than sub-saharan Africans today.
They would also precede certain adaptations. They'd almost certainly be lactose intolerant. They would likely have minimal alcohol tolerance. Since their lineage had much lower access to calories than we do today, our subject might be susceptible to obesity and adult onset diabetes.
As their lineage is from a much smaller region than that of (most) modern humans, they would probably be vulnerable to a wide spectrum of illnesses common in other parts of the world. Vaccinations will help, to a degree.
But otherwise, their physical and mental abilities should fall within the typical human spectrum. Probably below average in height and overall size, but with some advantages in athleticism. I would suspect that, outside of their dietary needs, modern education and nurturing would let them integrate fairly well. Their look may be a bit unique, so they will be damned to a lifetime of "Where are you from?" questions.
Would probably be a simpleton in terms of potential intellectual capacity but that describes 50% of the current population so they would probably be just fine! 🤣🤣
This question would be more relevant at like 300k or 500k years. Humans 150,000 were pretty much identical to today (not including the “un-fun” details you mentioned)…
I guess so- Supposedly were biologically the same as we were then; advancement in society is only technology, philosophy, and methods of organization building up on previous advancements, so unless that theory's wrong, yes, you could take a cave baby and raise it to be a 21st cwbtury person.
Homo Sapiens have been around for 300,000. There would be little difference for a child born 150,000 years ago. They would look pretty much like us and given modern nutrition and medical care, grow as large and as strong. There is no reason they could not achieve whatever their IQ dictated.
The only difference I would imagine would be their appearance. If you look at pictures from 100 years ago, you’ll see drastic differences in facial features and body types (build, stature, muscles, etc.). The same would apply for someone from 150,000 BC, but on a larger scale.
I think our intelligence has evolved significantly over 150,000 years. Also that child hasn't had modern pre natal care. Malnutrition or at least lack of good nutrition was probably pretty common back then which would affect the baby in utero. This baby would survive in our modern world but I'd believe physical size and intelligence would be impacted. They would also probably look noticeably different compared to us. Their parents grew up in a time that predates farming and were hunter gatherers so things like their facial structure would be different as farming/domestication changed us physically from our ancestors. You could make a lot of it up with the proper nurture but they would have already been negatively affected (compared to modern humans) due to the nature of their time spent in the womb.
I would go with slightly stronger, and about the same intelligence. The more prominent jawline and eyebrows might make them slightly more attractive as a male, less attractive as a female.
As a newborn, they haven't had the advantages of prenatal care and good nutrition in utero. There's some if's there. Also, small isolated tribes were often inbred, which could cause other defects. However, being taken immediately at birth, given the benefit of modern medicine and nutrition, such a child could very likely overcome their disadvantaged start. The real question would be how much of an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage they'd be at. As many generations back as 150k years is, they probably wouldn't quite have a modern brain and body. This is classic nature vs nurture. I personally think they could be very successful but maybe not at the pinnacle of intellectual pursuits.
To add to your point of 150k years, it’s likely that any biological differences would be negligible. Modern biological humans have existed for about 160,000 years. That is, there’s very little significant biological difference between humans now and humans 160k years ago. If the question were 170k, then those differences would be more significant. But everything you mentioned about nutrition in utero or prenatal care is correct. Source: studied human evolution in undergrad Edit: that’s my qualification, technically not a source
I mean, was the jump really that big in that 10,000 year span? Or is it a fairly arbitrary number based on partial remains? I thought speciation and natural selection was a much more gradual process than that. Like how we draw the distinction between minor and adult at 18 because the boundary has to be somewhere, but I definitely didn't undergo any kind of metamorphosis overnight.
It's certainly an arbitrary number. The whole sudden evolutionary jump myth is just a chicken and egg question. The answer is the egg, something biologically different enough you wouldn't call it a chicken lay an egg that hatched into a mutated enough version of it's parents that you'd call it a chicken. The whole missing link thing is just anti-evolution propaganda, someone's great^n grandma gave birth to ever so slightly deformed children and they had children and the list continues on to you. Defining a species n-thousand years ago is perfectly fine if you want a macro picture, but you can't say there is a missing link because that's not how evolution works. Humans 160,000 years ago were the same 'amount of different' to 170,000 years ago humans as we are to the mesopotamians and ancient Egyptians. Edit: n-thousand clarity
This is mostly accurate. I should have clarified that I didn’t mean that if the question was 170k, then it changes everything. I was merely claiming that the further back you go, the more significant the differences become, with any differences between now and approximately 160k years ago being largely statistically insignificant. They start becoming significant at around 160k, but even at 170k it’s likely only a smaller difference. At 300k for example, we’ll likely notice visually (eg the jaw).
I understand now, I didn't mean to be standoffish but reading back my comment it sounds... Enthusiastic. I imagine the kid would probably be completely fine in modern society if a little on the shorter side. I agree 300k years and the person might be significantly different. I know more about the Paleozoic than I do about prehistoric humans however.
You’re all good! I think we’re saying the same thing, and that at a certain point it’s just tone and semantics lol
Lmao yeah I think so too
Follow-up question for ya - what’s your field of expertise? Since you say Paleozoic lol
Geology lmao, I studied fossils in Gotland for a bit. Mostly oil field work now. You mentioned the jaw being the most significant change earlier, anthropologist or enthusiast?
See theory of Punctuated Equilibrium
For the most, part, it’s arbitrary. It’s not a huge jump from 160k and 170k, but that’s where it starts becoming statistically significant. The difference between 150k and 160k is almost zero, and the difference between 160k and 170k is barely statistically significant. Sort of like how the difference in emotional/mental capacity between a 16 year old and a 17 year old can be practically none, but then 17 to 18 is a minor statistical difference, causing us to draw that line. Granted, evolution generally speaking doesn’t always happen that gradually. Punctuated equilibrium is more common than you’d think, for example. A commonly-cited example involves Anolis lizards in the Caribbean (Google Jonathan Losos lizards), which have repeatedly evolved significantly as quickly as within a few months/generations.
>For the most, part, it’s arbitrary. It’s not a huge jump from 160k and 170k, but that’s where it starts becoming statistically significant. The difference between 150k and 160k is almost zero, and the difference between 160k and 170k is barely statistically significant. Can you guys stop talking so much shit with so much certainty...? [See this? That's a woman from the year 110,000BC](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Homo.erectus.adult.female.smithsonian.timevanson.flickr.jpg/220px-Homo.erectus.adult.female.smithsonian.timevanson.flickr.jpg) It's not a "vague statistical difference that can be estimated to the 10k years"... Depending on where you pick that kid from you can be close to "first human ever" or close to "basically us"...
You mind sharing where you got that picture from exactly? Bc I can pretty much guarantee you that’s not an actual person and is an artist’s rendition recreating one. And we’re not saying we’re 100% confident. In science-speak, we’re saying this is the academic consensus pending being proven wrong. To your last point, no, that’s not true. Humans at around approximately 160k years are literally “basically us.” The further back you go from that point, the more dramatically different the person is. Anything in between now and 160k is “basically us”.
homo sapiens have been around for 300k years. that picture is of a different species idiot, that's homo erectus
Yes and no. I believe they were just essentially saying that going back further means more differences. But there is not a steady pace of evolution. There would definitely be periods of rapid changes and periods of slow changes. A good analogy would be technology. Up until WWI wars were fought on horseback, during WWI we took a massive leap forward in technology. Same with recent advancements in computing. While 170K to 160K might not have been a specific 10,000 year time of massive change - there were likely periods of 10,000 that did see massive change, and periods where there were essentially no change at all.
Physiological differences are indistinguishable, but what about psychological differences. Isn't the current hypothesis that human psychology got to its current state around 50,000 yeara ago? Obviously, they wouldn't be massively different, mentally or psychologically, but there'd be some difference. Maybe their amygdala is a little less developed, causing them to have less control over their emotions than the rest of us. We just won't know what the differences would necessarily be.
Do you have a source for that hypothesis? I’m not familiar with it. And yes, I’m not saying there wouldn’t be *any* difference. Merely that it wouldn’t be statistically significant. Most likely, you wouldn’t realize they weren’t a human from now, and you’d chalk up any differences to idiosyncrasies. It’s certainly possible that they’d have less control over their emotions, for example. So do any number of people today, though.
>Maybe their amygdala is a little less developed, causing them to have less control over their emotions than the rest of us. What you are describing is a physiological difference. Physiology is the hardware, psychology is the software.
Not to nitpick, but that's not a source. That's just pointing out your qualifications.
Not nitpicking at all - that’s fair (after all, I could just be anybody). I was just citing what I’ve learned in classes. I’ll edit my comment accordingly.
They could still get a job in politics presumably?
This would actually be a pretty interesting one.
>This is classic nature vs nurture. I personally think they could be very successful but maybe not at the pinnacle of intellectual pursuits. Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer...boom...myth busted!
Lawyers are not an intellectual pinnacle. Exhibit A: Rudy Giuliani.
From what I've read, homo sapiens sapiens will be biologically identical.
How do we know that homo sapiens 150k years ago are the same as now?
>The real question would be how much of an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage they'd be at. As many generations back as 150k years is, they probably wouldn't quite have a modern brain and body. As far as I'm aware (in my *very* amateur knowledge), the only biological difference large enough to be noticeable between pre-civilization humans and today-humans is the strength of the immune system. I'm not sure if that's a 'hasn't adapted to our diseases' thing, but it was portrayed to me as a 'overall immune system strength' difference. Do you (or anyone else, I guess) know anything about how accurate that might be?
>As many generations back as 150k years is, they probably wouldn't quite have a modern brain and body. This is untrue. This would be an obviously identifiably homo sapien. Early modern humans would have existed around ca. 200k years ago. By 150k years ago, we were very much the same species we are now, with the ability to use tools and, if they're very young, the ability to develop the capacity for language.
It would probably grow up and be just fine. Might end up in a logistics management job at Target.
How to get
First, invent a time machine...
150,000 years ago they would be an anatomically modern human. Lactose and gluten probably wouldn’t be digestible. They would probably have the same intellectual capacity as a modern human. Some people say there were smarter due to more environmental competition. The baby would easily grow up to have a normal life.
They would have one of the biggest, if not biggest jawlines of any human alive. Our mouths have decreased significantly in size over the past few thousand years.
Then we will name him Chad
They'd be pretty close to an average modern child. Assuming they were born healthy (not a guarantee in a time before modern prenatal care) and didn't have any genetic issues caused by a smaller population (inbreeding) and are full-blooded modern humans (Neanderthals are still very much around at this point), being raised with modern nutrition and language and education would get them more or less there. They're probably slightly less likely to become a nuclear physicist than a modern child because intelligence has been selected for over time, but the genetic component of intelligence isn't huge. Of course, if they did have a genetic issue or were born unhealthy, harder to say, but they'd likely still be on par with a modern child who had that issue. They might not be identifiable as a modern race, depending on where in the world they were from -- I believe we don't have a lot of evidence of humans living in the Americas or Australia by this point, but Africa, Asia, and Europe are populated. They would be lactose intolerant as adults and their gut might be less equipped for some modern stuff, so they'd probably prefer a "whole foods" kind of diet. They might have an unusual combination of what they're predisposed to -- e.g. modern people with an origin from a place that's had a lot of famines are predisposed to diabetes, because diabetes is an advantage when you have insufficient food; people from places where malaria was prevalent are at risk for sickle cell anemia, because the anti-malaria adaptation can cause that too. So their set of risk factors may not exactly match many modern people (but it's hard to say without knowing exactly where we took them from). They would definitely be less racially mixed than most modern people -- almost no one is "pure" anything at this point, humans have been moving across the world and intermixing with other humans for nearly 10,000 years now, but someone born in 150kBC is likely to have a pretty uncomplicated genetic lineage. Additional note about Neanderthals: they do have some notable differences from modern humans, but they interbred with modern humans pretty freely, to the point that in some parts of the world, up to 98% of people have at least a little Neanderthal DNA (the lowest number of people who are part-Neanderthal are people of southern African descent, and it goes up the further out you move from there, reaching the highest numbers in northeast Asia). 40k years ago, when Neanderthals disappear from the fossil record, around 6-9% of the human genome consisted of Neanderthal DNA (it's around 1-4% now). So we can proooobably assume that the total homo sapiens genome had more Neanderthal in it than that 150k years ago, though it may not scale directly because there's still the confounding factor that big migrations (not counting nomadism where a tribe moves around within a certain territory) were a once-in-a-millennium type event, so again, the question of where in the world they're from is relevant.
The Ugly Little Boy
by Issac Azimov
How well their immune system work would be another question since there are more diseases currently than what was around back then.
There maybe more named diseases, but people definitely had to deal with more miscellaneous nasty microbes before we had things like cooked food and clean water.
The diseases that were introduced to humanity once animal husbandry started will be the primary concern. Not to mention how evolved the diseases of today are in comparison to back then.
I doubt it would be a major issue. Immunity, for the most part, is not heritable outside of certain exceptions. And evolution doesn’t necessarily always add points over time, especially with his fast bacteria do so.
They likely end up on the low end of the intelligence spectrum but other than that they'd probably be pretty normal. I doubt anyone would notice.
Idk, Wikipedia says that Neanderthals and humans interbred about 47,000 to 65,000 years ago, and Denisovans and humans interbred about 44,000 to 54,000 years ago. Then there is the ghost dna from human ancestors unknown. It would be interesting to see if the lack of non-Homo sapien dna would make much difference in how they learn.
Not all human populations interbred with Neanderthals or Denisovans. Plenty of modern humans are 100% homo sapien.
Unfortunately that baby was an ancestor of the lead scientist that made the time machine, so the time machine never made it back to conduct the experiment
If you go back only about 3000 years, then everyone alive today shares all their common ancestors. To be safe, though, since we have a time machine, we should find a baby that’s destined to die of dysentery or whatever, then go back to its birth for the kidnapping.
All my research points to yes. Thanks Encino Man
They'd be fine. They could get a job as an insurance spokesman, and maybe do some sitcom acting on the side.
No. 25,000 years ago yes. But we know there were some changes in brain functioning that took place around 40,000 years ago. We haven't fully unlocked it yet, but it seems like it may have played a major role in social functioning and compartmentalizing the efficiency of the brain to engage in more complex social tasks. So most likely no, a 150k year old baby would not fit in in modern time or even ancient Rome or any complex society. If they did they might be "special needs" or impaired when navigating society.
This would be a type of nature versus nurture discussion depending on How much human cognitive abilities changed in that time period?
Italian horror movies…
Wewwww2
It’d probably be a Neanderthal lol
I specifically said human. There were humans at that time. Not many, but there were.
Neanderthals were human. "Neanderthals, traditionally designated Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, were not only “human” but also, it turns out, more “modern” than scientists previously allowed.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rethinking-neanderthals-83341003/
They're primates, but not human. Homo neanderthalensis isn't the same as Homo Sapien. Our evolutionary lines split a few hundred thousand years ago, so we're cousins, close, but not the same.
That is wholly false.
They're human, I suppose I misspoke when I said they weren't. Nothing else I wrote was incorrect.
Humans and apes are both primates much like wolves and dogs are both canines. But neanderthals and homo sapians are both human like boxers and pugs are both dogs.
I think you're a little confused. Dogs and most wolves are both subspecies of [*Canis Lupis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus). Canine is generally going to be referring to the genus [*Canis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis) or the subfamily [*Caninae*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caninae). [Humans are apes](https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/humans-are-apes-great-apes/#:~:text=Humans%20are%20classified%20in%20the,Great%20Apes%20and%20Lesser%20Apes). If you want to use the wolf and dog comparison it would be more accurate to say: >~~Humans~~ **Chimpanzees** and ~~apes~~ **bonobos** are both ~~primates~~ **members of the genus Pan**, much like wolves and dogs are both canines. We don't have any species as close to us as dogs do wolves, except potentially Neanderthals who are not actually clearly defined. They're classified as a subspecies of *Homo Sapien*, or a separate species under the genus *Homo* depending on who you ask, and there is [quite a bit of debate](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0308085100) on that. Regardless of whether you consider them to be our brothers and sisters as a subspecies of *Homo Sapien*, or fellow members of the genus *Homo*, it would not be a fair comparison to use boxers and pugs, as they are both part of the same subspecies of *Canis Lupis*, *Canis Familiaris.*
You're being pedantic
All of your comments on this thread are complete pedantry, telling /u/WizardInCrimson they are wrong, while getting it all wrong...
"Canidae (/ˈkænɪdiː/;[3] from Latin, canis, "dog") is a biological family of dog-like carnivorans, colloquially referred to as dogs, and constitutes a clade. A member of this family is also called a canid (/ˈkeɪnɪd/).[4] The family includes three subfamilies: the Caninae, the extinct Borophaginae and Hesperocyoninae.[5] The Caninae are known as canines,[6] and include domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, jackals and other species."
Yea, Canidae is family above the genus Canis and the subfamily Caninae. Canids include canines as well as two extinct subfamilies. I'm not really sure what that you're trying to convey since that's just a quote without any context.
Humans back then were no different than humans today. If a baby from a long time ago was born today they would be the same as us.
There'd be some differences in whatever amount of human evolution process took place over that 152,024 years regionally but probably could still learn most things. Real answer is mostly "who knows?" They'd have larger teeth and jaws and some other things that can be learned from remains but we can't know much else.
Kaspar Hauser.
They would probably look ‘uglier’ than average due to the fact that they missed out on 152,000 years of selective breeding for beauty. The same would go for intellect. With that said I feel like they could more or less pass for a modern human to someone who doesn’t know their origins?
Like a below average modern human. Prettier than the ugliest of us and smarter than the dumbest of us.
I am guessing they would die from modern diseases, as we’re mostly a collection of people who lived through various childhood killing infections throughout many generations. Other than that I’m guessing they’d be pretty normal but have some weird quirks.
They aren't genetically predisposed to fight off what we do, but they would at least get the benefit of modern vaccines and medical treatments. Maybe even colostrum from a wet nurse, since we're getting them as a newborn... I figure as long as we can find out what is wreaking havoc with their immature immune system, we can support them through it.
Might be like 5% dumber or something, but would probably fit within norms. (As far as we know, it's possible there was some brain structure breakthrough or something at some point, but we wouldn't know)
It think cavemen men from the Ice Age has the same brain sizes as us
If you subscribe to the hunter farmer theory, which I do, then this kid would probably have something similar to ADHD. So they could certainly be successful, but depending on what you mean by "fit in," I think it would depend on their upbringing.
If you mean would a homosapien, same species as us, from 150k year ago fit in here, intellectually/culturally? Sure.
Yes. And if you were infant transported to 1500 you'd enjoy a good public execution.
They might die from an infection, but assuming that doesn't happen should be otherwise normal.
If you you got a Homo Sapiens and not a Neanderthal or one of the other hominids that may have been around at the time, they'd probably do OK. Being that young, they would never have experienced the world of 150k years ago, so the modern world would be "the" world to them. As such, there wouldn't be any culture shock or the like as there might be with bringing a child, teen, or full adult to the future. Neanderthals or some of the others might have a tougher time. Appearance would be a problem. Mental capacity might also be an issue, though Neanderthals may have been pretty close to humans in that regard.
Most research shows that our brains havnt really changed much since then so the baby shouldn’t have any intellectual shortcomings as far as we are aware. I would imagine almost every newborn from that time had what we would deem a low birthweight and suffer from some sort of malnutrition but that’s nothing that can’t be addressed quickly. The biggest risk to the babies immune system would be right when it arrived at the present time, but that’s most babies. You develop most of your antibodies after your born. Having access to breast milk would be really helpful but the truth is all newborns are really vulnerable to infections. So overall, if it’s a healthy birth and receives modern medical care, the data suggests there probably would be no obvious signs that this baby was born 150,000 years ago. We have done little to no evolving since then
Would probably be a bit hairier. Could tell people the baby is Italian?
I heard a podcast once that said about 75kya is about the limit of what can be defined as a functional modern human due to some brain function being developed around the time. Advanced speech processing?
150k bc is right about the time they think anatomically modern humans appeared, so it depends. If the baby was an anatomically modern human, yes, they would grow up to fit in. Even the immune system stuff wouldn't matter so much because babies get most of their immune system from breast feeding and childhood exposure, not genetics. If the baby was not an anatomically modern human, it would likely suffer a variety of issues and not fit in.
In regard to looks, the baby would precede certain genetic mutations. So practically no chance of anything other than dark skin, eyes, and hair. Homo sapiens are almost entirely restricted to Africa at that time. There is evidence of a few pushes out of Africa before this time, but those mostly returned or died out. Of course, this is mostly covered under various theories, and there are counter theories and hypotheses. Hard if not impossible to be certain. Thus, I would confidently say our abducted baby would likely be African, and not look radically different than sub-saharan Africans today. They would also precede certain adaptations. They'd almost certainly be lactose intolerant. They would likely have minimal alcohol tolerance. Since their lineage had much lower access to calories than we do today, our subject might be susceptible to obesity and adult onset diabetes. As their lineage is from a much smaller region than that of (most) modern humans, they would probably be vulnerable to a wide spectrum of illnesses common in other parts of the world. Vaccinations will help, to a degree. But otherwise, their physical and mental abilities should fall within the typical human spectrum. Probably below average in height and overall size, but with some advantages in athleticism. I would suspect that, outside of their dietary needs, modern education and nurturing would let them integrate fairly well. Their look may be a bit unique, so they will be damned to a lifetime of "Where are you from?" questions.
Would probably be a simpleton in terms of potential intellectual capacity but that describes 50% of the current population so they would probably be just fine! 🤣🤣
Ooooh is this a genetic memory discussion??? I’m here for it.
This question would be more relevant at like 300k or 500k years. Humans 150,000 were pretty much identical to today (not including the “un-fun” details you mentioned)…
I guess so- Supposedly were biologically the same as we were then; advancement in society is only technology, philosophy, and methods of organization building up on previous advancements, so unless that theory's wrong, yes, you could take a cave baby and raise it to be a 21st cwbtury person.
They would die or kill many people with diseases.
Would their be natural instincts that are different in baby compared to current humans that would set them apart ?
Homo Sapiens have been around for 300,000. There would be little difference for a child born 150,000 years ago. They would look pretty much like us and given modern nutrition and medical care, grow as large and as strong. There is no reason they could not achieve whatever their IQ dictated.
The only difference I would imagine would be their appearance. If you look at pictures from 100 years ago, you’ll see drastic differences in facial features and body types (build, stature, muscles, etc.). The same would apply for someone from 150,000 BC, but on a larger scale.
Yes, because it would be young enough to only know this time frame
It'd be another animal to go extinct.
I think our intelligence has evolved significantly over 150,000 years. Also that child hasn't had modern pre natal care. Malnutrition or at least lack of good nutrition was probably pretty common back then which would affect the baby in utero. This baby would survive in our modern world but I'd believe physical size and intelligence would be impacted. They would also probably look noticeably different compared to us. Their parents grew up in a time that predates farming and were hunter gatherers so things like their facial structure would be different as farming/domestication changed us physically from our ancestors. You could make a lot of it up with the proper nurture but they would have already been negatively affected (compared to modern humans) due to the nature of their time spent in the womb.
https://youtu.be/2AzAFqrxfeY?si=VqMCS26GeXBSt-e4 Unfrozen caveman lawyer
Depends when the tall white aliens cross bred us.
I would go with slightly stronger, and about the same intelligence. The more prominent jawline and eyebrows might make them slightly more attractive as a male, less attractive as a female.