New human-like species discovered • Hacker News Board

Re: New human-like species discovered

#101

Post by rquantz » Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 2:40 PM UTC

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?

This is a fallacious line of thinking. Nature does not have agency and was not "trying" anything.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#102

Post by ainiriand » Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 2:47 PM UTC

kyberias wrote: post #34

ainiriand wrote: post #27

The last picture of with all the girl scientists makes me stupidly proud.

I wonder whether they'd like to be called "girl scientists".

That's why I said stupidly proud. There should be no distinction but somehow this picture is amazing.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#103

Post by ainiriand » Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 2:49 PM UTC

lev_k wrote: post #61

hippo8 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

I'm assuming that the user above is probably proud because females have been notoriously under-represented in sciences, engineering, and technology. The fact that scientists who are females made such an interesting discovery could potentially inspire others to follow in their footsteps if they are interested in paleontology.

You are right. I said stupidly proud, because there should be no gap in science and somehow this picture is amazing.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#104

Post by 3pt14159 » Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 2:50 PM UTC

paxcoder wrote: post #94

3pt14159 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because I want to live in the future. Assuming the future is something like The Culture it would be very fascinating.

Edit: I don't understand the down votes. If you view conciousness as a mathematical identity what is the difference between being made up as atoms or being made up of bits?

Re: New human-like species discovered

#105

Post by SEJeff » Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 2:52 PM UTC

at-fates-hands wrote: post #92

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…

But isn't a healthy dose of scepticism simply good Science? Peer reviewed results are hard to be sceptical about. My favorite thing about science is that you often have strongly opposing sides both with super intelligent scientists. When everything has been fleshed out, the best and brightest tends to come to the top (not always, but as a generalism it is true).

Virtually everyone was sceptical of the guy claiming to have developed a form of propulsion powered more or less only by light, but then NASA tested the "EmDrive" and sure enough, it seems like the fundamental idea works. (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futu...)

Re: New human-like species discovered

#106

Post by kevlened » Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 2:55 PM UTC

rquantz wrote: post #97

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 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.

Interestingly, yes.

"The domestic dog lost its recognition as a separate species in 1993, and is now considered a subspecies of gray wolf."

http://karmatics.com/docs/evolution-species-confusion.html

Re: New human-like species discovered

#107

Post by jdmichal » Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 2:58 PM UTC

rquantz wrote: post #101

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?

This is a fallacious line of thinking. Nature does not have agency and was not "trying" anything.

I had a nice cringe at that line. I understand that these scientists might like to "simplify" these kinds of statements, but putting stuff like this into peoples' heads is just terrible. I have a hard enough time trying to deal with the belief that natural selection does not select for traits.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#108

Post by derefr » Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 2:59 PM UTC

rquantz wrote: post #97

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 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.

"Species" is very clearly defined by "speciation": the point where something becomes too different to interbreed. Usually when two things can interbreed, but have many differences, they are referred to as separate subspecies of the same species.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#109

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast » Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 3:00 PM UTC

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.

That's a junior high level of explanation tho. 'Species' is ultimately an attempt to impose a quantization of nature, and nature can't always be quantized in a way we'd like.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#110

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast » Thu, Sep 10, 2015, 3:01 PM UTC

Dwolb wrote: post #67

simonh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I would surmise the answer is N-1 where N is the number of separate gull groups. A species would then consist of two gull groups who can mate and this answer assumes there are no mini circles or triangles in the ring. No idea the academic answer though.

By that definition a particular individual could simultaneously be a member of two species.