Q) Which species, neanderthls or homosapiens is better adaptied to the cold. explain your answer
my answer) Our knowledge of the past tells us that sapiens outcompeted neanderthals and the temperature was not a significant factor in either of hte species overall survival. Their adaptation to the cold is thus equally good and equal in that they were suitably adapted to cold conditions such that it did not hinder their species's survival and both species overcame this selection factot
the examiner: neanderthals are better adapted to the cold since they hae a smaller surgface to volume ratio being short and stocky
---
is the author of the STAV exam retarded?
furthermore, I doubt I would get this mark even if it was a VCAA exam
fucking stupid vce - i feel so arrogant in thinking that i'm just too smart for it and that is the reason for how badly i'm doing in it
well, you shouldn't have to know something like this, but the writer was correct, neanderthals were also more hairy and had a greater proportion of fat, which would have helped retain heat.
Yes, while I can understand why you might believe that (you're wrong), the question asked for 'better adapted'. If neanderthals were still alive we could SPECULATE that this, which theoretical would benefit them, might be a 'better adaptation', but the fact of the matter is that adaptations are so successful as they help an species to surive. Because of fossil evidence and such, we do not have to make such meaningless speculations because we know for a fact that sapiens survived over neanderthals. hence, we can't draw the examiners conclusion (or yours)
Because of fossil evidence and such, we do not have to make such meaningless speculations because we know for a fact that sapiens survived over neanderthals.
And the temperature was the only factor that contributed to their relative fitnesses? A surviving species is not better adapted in all respects when compared to an extinct species. Hell, a surviving species may be worse adapted than an extinct species depending on the specific circumstances. The answer provided is perfectly reasonable. A smaller body has a lower surface area to volume ratio (also, probably a lower metabolism) which aids thermoregulation.
The entire question is speculation, the fact that one species is extinct is irrelevant to the specific, hypothetical situation. If it had asked about the general fitness of the two species, then your conclusion would be correct. But it's entirely possible for a fitter organism to lack certain adaptations that are beneficial in less fit organisms (eg bacterial cell walls).
No you have misunderstood my answer, please re-read it.
I'm not saying sapiens are better adapted. I'm saying you cannot conclude either way, consistent with what you're rhetorically implying.
Also: "urviving species may be worse adapted than an extinct species depending on the specific circumstances." Only when chance comes into play (genetic drift, etc).Which, as I said earlier. is not what our fossil record and the evidence at hand suggests.
And just as a side note: "The entire question is speculation, the fact that one species is extinct is irrelevant to the specific, hypothetical situation. If it had asked about the general fitness of the two species, then your conclusion would be correct. But it's entirely possible for a fitter organism to lack certain adaptations that are beneficial in less fit organisms (eg bacterial cell walls)."
Do you even know what science is? This paragraph is an embarrassment to your intelligence.
well, some people argue that neanderthals became extinct because of the changing environmental conditions (for example end of an ice age), or from competition with homo sapiens.
If that is so then I am wrong and you are right. My understand is, however, that the broad scientific concensus is that outcompetition was the primary factor behind neanderthal extinction rather than changing environmental conditions. If I am wrong (I doubt it, since I've researched this), then your conjecture is correct. In summary, no you're wrong.