Neandertal babies were a lot like ours  but didn't stay that way 4%

By Tom Metcalfe6%

7/9/2026, 12:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Overconfidence Bias, and Framing Effect, with Representativeness Heuristic as the most egregious example at 13% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 342 faulty-reasoning hits from 422 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 18.8% and a BS Rank of 4% (19,595 of 20,378 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.20% of the article peer group.

Neandertal babies seem to have started life much the same as modern humans, then grew a lot faster. 
Two studies, published June 17 in *Royal Society Open Science*, looked at the remains of a very young Neandertal child  a late-term fetus, stillborn or newborn  from a rock shelter in southern Germany. 
The 12 tiny bones, unearthed decades ago, came from sediment dated to about 55,000 years ago. 
Using X-ray imaging to examine the tiny remains, archaeologist and geoscientist Alvise Barbieri and colleagues created digital reconstructions of the bones as they were at death. 
The team found that the bones of the child would have been about the same size as those of modern human newborns. 
But they also saw signs of advanced development in the ancient arm and leg bones  they were thicker and denser than in *H. sapiens* babies. 
The study “highlights both similarities and differences in [Neandertal] growth and development compared to *Homo sapiens*,” says Barbieri, of the University of Algarve in Faro, Portugal. 
The other study, published April 15 in *Current Biology*, examined the remains of a six-month-old Neandertal from a cave in northern Israel. 
That study also used X-rays to scan and digitally reconstruct several bones and teeth. 
Scientists don’t know exactly when the infant died, but dating of sediment layers in the cave indicates it was roughly between 51,000 and 56,000 years ago. 
While the Neandertal infant’s teeth were like those of a modern human of the same age, its arm and leg bones resembled those of a modern human about twice as old, paleobiologist Ella Been and colleagues report. 
Clearly, Neandertal growth trajectories were different from those of *H. sapiens*, says Been, of Ono Academic College in Kiryat Ono, Israel. 
“Their [physical] growth in infancy and early childhood is more rapid than that of modern humans.” 
Barbieri agrees: “These findings suggest that this faster bone development probably began towards the very end of pregnancy and became more evident during the first years of life.” 
Paleoanthropologist Michael Petraglia of Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, who wasn’t involved in either study, notes that growth rates among Neandertals may have varied at different times during their evolution, as well as in different regions. 
But the two studies imply that Neandertal and *H. sapiens* development did not follow the same rate after birth. 
Neandertal development was certainly like that of modern humans, he says, but with differences in the timing and pace of growth. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.6%Tom Metcalfe: 3.7%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.6%Science News: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.3%Science News: 2.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 13.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.6%Science News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic13.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.1%Science News: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Tom Metcalfe: 9.0%Science News: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias10.0%This article: 7.6%Tom Metcalfe: 3.2%Science News: 4.3%Framing Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.1%Science News: 4.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.6%Science News: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Tom Metcalfe: 1.8%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.4%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.5%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.0%Science News: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.3%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.3%Science News: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.5%Science News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.1%Tom Metcalfe: 6.1%Science News: 4.6%Appeal to Authority11.1%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.7%Science News: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.3%Tom Metcalfe: 4.5%Science News: 4.0%Hasty Generalization4.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.2%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.5%Science News: 2.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.4%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.6%Tom Metcalfe: 2.8%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.5%Tom Metcalfe: 1.2%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.5%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.2%Science News: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.7%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.0%Tom Metcalfe: 2.5%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.4%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.2%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.2%Tom Metcalfe: 0.4%Science News: 0.8%Unattributed Quote6.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 2.3%Science News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 1.2%Science News: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.1%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Metcalfe: 0.2%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

422 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers50%attributed speech211writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAlvise Barbieri • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAlvise Barbieri • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageElla Been • 37 words • 0.0% coverageElla Been • 21 words • 0.0% coverageElla Been • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAlvise Barbieri • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Petraglia • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Petraglia • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Alvise Barbieri

68%flagged-word coverage
80 attributed words38% of attributed speech36% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote+32.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Alvise Barbieri: 32.5%32.5%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.