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

111–120 of 218 posts

Re: New human-like species discovered

#111

Post by txrit »

samfoo wrote: post #23

Awesome to see the Rising Star Expedition on HN! I was working in Johannesburg while the expedition was active and my partner managed, through a serious of very fortunate events to become a caver on the expedition. Here she is carrying up some of the first bones they extracted - https://i.imgur.com/IfT4PQz.jpg . For those of you interested, the expedition was sponsored by National Geographic, and there was/is a fairl…

> Incidentally, though the article says it was scientists who discovered the fossils - they were actually discovered by amateur cavers.

Indeed, some more details here: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Accountant-found-Homo...

Re: New human-like species discovered

#112

Post by codeflo »

seanalltogether wrote: post #96
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.

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.

I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that animals that can interbreed but usually wouldn't are (if at all) divided into subspecies within the same species.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

"A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation or other factors."

Re: New human-like species discovered

#113

Post by mcv »

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 an old and very problematic definition of species. In fact, I believe biologists tend to focus on populations rather than species these days, since those at least can be clearly defined.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#114

Post by jacobwcarlson »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #109
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.

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.

Exactly. Species is more of a descriptive term than it is prescriptive.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#116

Post by mcv »

lev_k wrote: post #62
kyberias wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe "scientists who are girls" would be more befitting? I suppose that the phrasing "girl scientists" first emphasizes the fact they are girls before they fact that they are scientists (clearly the more relevant of the two traits).

As opposed to "scientists who are boys"? How old are scientists these days?

Re: New human-like species discovered

#117

Post by dean »

ceejayoz wrote: post #73
elros wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring". Apparently, though, it's not that simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

> I do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring". Which is problematic for extinct animals. We have no way of knowing if modern humans would be able to produce offspring with Neanderthals, for example.

If you do a genetic test with 23andMe, they will tell you exactly what percentage of Neanderthal DNA you have.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#119

Post by douche »

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #74
kfk wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. Italian and Spanish can understand each other, but with a lot of effort and keeping communication at a very basic level. This thing that we can speak to each other easily is a myth. That said, we can learn each other languages in a matter of weeks.

> we can learn each other languages in a matter of weeks Not so fast. Even if you limit yourself to a vocabulary made of the most common 10000 words, you still need a lot more practice to differentiate between nouns that have a gender in Italian and another in Spanish, irregular verbs, idioms, etc. Understanding a language is one thing. Speaking and writing it is a whole new level.

Gendering nouns that aren't actually gendered is one of the stupidest concepts humanity has inflicted on itself.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#120

Post by duaneb »

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 understanding is that that particular definition is outdated.
Post reply on HN