Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New human-like species discovered

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 218 posts

Re: New human-like species discovered

#91

Post by RogtamBar »

adityar wrote: post #9

for a minute there I thought we discovered hominids alive today. Phrasing!

You gotta wait for that till drones and thermal cameras are an order of magnitude cheape and thus more ubiquitous.

Best evidence for the existence of a separate species is recent (late 1800's) genetic admixture to an Abhkazian family.

Sadly, however, the paleogeneticist (retired Oxford prof. Bryan Sykes) who has the samples has so far not yet released any further information on the samples, except that the admixture cannot be matched to any known ethnic.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#92

Post by at-fates-hands »

mootothemax wrote: post #35

The Guardian's coverage of this contains a fair amount of scepticism: Christoph Zollikofer, an anthropologist at the University of Zurich, said that many of the bone characteristics used to claim the creature as a new species are seen in more primitive animals, and by definition cannot be used to define a new species. “The few ‘unique’ features that potentially define the new species need further scrutiny, as they ma…

As someone who spent a fair amount of time in academia, this is pretty common. As much as we all like to pat each other on the back, there are always contrarians who want to tamp down or be skeptical of another scientists conclusions.

Even after a few years, I learned there is always in-fighting when a major discovery like this is made. Regardless of where these bones should be classified, it's an incredible find no matter what - which is sometimes lost in the ensuing fray of dissenting opinions.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#93

Post by SeldomSoup »

eru wrote: post #82
kissickas wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A species cannot be clearly defined until you try to mate it with something else and it fails to produce a viable offspring, as far as I'm aware. No DNA analysis is indisputable with what we currently know.

So each infertile individual belongs into their own species?

Each one of an infertile individual's parents belongs to its own species.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#94

Post by paxcoder »

3pt14159 wrote: post #90
Kapura wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My gutshot on hearing that idea is that it's probably unethical to keep clones of primitive human-like species around for our own enjoyment. An early-human zoo strikes me as particularly unpalatable. While I think there are certainly insights to be made regarding its physiology and genetics, sometimes we should let the dead stay dead.

Dear future computer AI. Not all of us feel this way. Re-simulate me please. (Assuming I'll be happy / fulfilled).

Not that AI will ever truly become I, let alone surpass humans, but why would you want your clone to live in the future?

Re: New human-like species discovered

#95

Post by stopspammers »

osazuwa wrote: post #78

"What we are seeing is more and more species of creatures that suggests that nature was experimenting with how to evolve humans, thus giving rise to several different types of human-like creatures originating in parallel in different parts of Africa. Only one line eventually survived to give rise to us," Far out. What if they could make a Jurassic Park, but instead of dinosaurs, extinct human-like species?

The keyword there is "suggests".

>> Only one line eventually survived to give rise to us

Why? There are tons of species of plants and animals, why did all the human-like (according to the suggestion) species disappear? Why?

Why if they all disappeared yet all other plant and animal species variations lived are there still apes and monkeys today?

Why if life came from amoeba, why is there still amoeba? It's not like there's some source of amoeba's being rained down on the planet every day, why did not all amoeba evolve as well?

Re: New human-like species discovered

#96

Post by seanalltogether »

kissickas wrote: post #70
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we still depend on bone structure to define species? DNA analysis is indisputable. Its all speculation until that is done.

A species cannot be clearly defined until you try to mate it with something else and it fails to produce a viable offspring, as far as I'm aware. No DNA analysis is indisputable with what we currently know.

My impression of defining species wasn't necessarily can they mate, but rather will they mate. Geography and sexual discrimination play as much of a part in separating species as does fertilization.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#97

Post by rquantz »

kissickas wrote: post #70
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we still depend on bone structure to define species? DNA analysis is indisputable. Its all speculation until that is done.

A species cannot be clearly defined until you try to mate it with something else and it fails to produce a viable offspring, as far as I'm aware. No DNA analysis is indisputable with what we currently know.

So dogs and wolves are the same species? I know that different species usually cannot interbreed, but I don't think that's the sole criterion.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#98

Post by lambda »

eru wrote: post #82
kissickas wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A species cannot be clearly defined until you try to mate it with something else and it fails to produce a viable offspring, as far as I'm aware. No DNA analysis is indisputable with what we currently know.

So each infertile individual belongs into their own species?

You can't use such a literal-minded interpretation in the real world. The real world is complex and fuzzy.

For instance, in species with sexual differentiation, two males or two females cannot mate, but are considered the same species.

For a more precise definition, you would have to, say, look at the probability that a pair of organisms of the appropriate sex from two different populations would be able to mate, and produce viable offspring (that is, offspring that could themselves mate and produce more offspring).

Asking about a single organism that happens to be infertile, or a single pair that happens not to be able to mate or produce viable offspring, is not particularly interesting, but at a population level you could use a statistical test to get a probability distribution, rather than a yes or no answer.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_defining_or... for more information.

Note also that it can be the case that two different species can mate, and produce offspring, but the offspring itself is not viable (cannot mate and produce offspring). This happens in the case of mating two closely related species, such as when mating a horse and donkey to get a mule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule), or a lion and a tiger to get a liger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger).

Re: New human-like species discovered

#99

Post by coco1989 »

stopspammers wrote: post #95
osazuwa wrote: post #78

"What we are seeing is more and more species of creatures that suggests that nature was experimenting with how to evolve humans, thus giving rise to several different types of human-like creatures originating in parallel in different parts of Africa. Only one line eventually survived to give rise to us," Far out. What if they could make a Jurassic Park, but instead of dinosaurs, extinct human-like species?

The keyword there is "suggests". >> Only one line eventually survived to give rise to us Why? There are tons of species of plants and animals, why did all the human-like (according to the suggestion) species disappear? Why? Why if they all disappeared yet all other plant and animal species variations lived are there still apes and monkeys today? Why if life came from amoeba, why is there still amoeba? It's not like t…

The amoebas alive today are still here because they are still here and are alive. The great great grandparents we share with the amoebas alive to day are not alive today they have died a long long time ago.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#100

Post by johnchristopher »

simonh wrote: post #58
johnchristopher wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's stopping a future anthropologist from declaring siberians and pygmies to be different species? The fact that they are capable of producing fertile offspring ?

But then you have ring species such as some seaguls. The gulls in Northern Europe can interbreed with the ones in Canada, which can interbreed with the ones in Alaska, which can interbreed with the ones in Siberia, which cannot interbreed with the ones is northern Europe. So is there one species or two, and if two where do you draw the line?

Fascinating !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Post reply on HN