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

161–170 of 218 posts

Re: New human-like species discovered

#161

Post by beambot »

SEJeff wrote: post #105
at-fates-hands wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Peer reviewed results are hard to be sceptical about.

With rampant forging of data and results, you better be skeptical of peer-reviewed results too. Reproducibility is an important, oft-overlooked, and under-appreciated part of science.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#162

Post by folli »

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.

So me and Taylor Swift are two seperate species?

In all seriousness, species definition is a case of trying to define a black/white classification in a gradient. It might sort of work in higher animals, such as mammals. But it certainly breaks down in bacteria, which is clearly seen since it's possible to compare genomes on population level.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#163

Post by [deleted] »

bpicolo wrote: post #126
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If species were based on bone structure, how many species of dogs would there be?

I still think it's super weird that they don't count as different species. There's the suggestion that breeding + fertile offspring is the main concern, but couldn't early humans and neanderthals reproduce, for example? But we definitely consider them separate species. Dividing lines are hard here I guess.

[deleted]

Re: New human-like species discovered

#164

Post by yellowapple »

ig1 wrote: post #50
HerpDerpLerp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably you don't work in a biological field!

If they're in the same genus presumably the same CRISPR approach that's being used to inject Wooly Mammoth genes into Elephants can apply ?

Please let me know when we actually have resurrected the Wooly Mammoth; I can't wait to try a mammoth steak.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#165

Post by eropple »

bpicolo wrote: post #126
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If species were based on bone structure, how many species of dogs would there be?

I still think it's super weird that they don't count as different species. There's the suggestion that breeding + fertile offspring is the main concern, but couldn't early humans and neanderthals reproduce, for example? But we definitely consider them separate species. Dividing lines are hard here I guess.

> couldn't early humans and neanderthals reproduce, for example?

Common misconception, but no, they couldn't.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#166

Post by yellowapple »

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…

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

Because we didn't descend from apes and monkeys (at least in the modern sense); we descended from some common ancestor that we happen to share with apes and monkeys.

> why did not all amoeba evolve as well?

Because not all amoeba were subjected to the same conditions or experienced the same mutations. Evolution by natural selection is very much a random process; there's no guarantee of any particular outcome.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#167

Post by 3pt14159 »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #159
3pt14159 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This a very long discussion, but essentially if you think Star Trek teleportation preserves identity, then I would get into the future.

It might preserve identity from the perspective of the created copy, but the original still dies a death of disintegration the way I see it. And since it's their own subjective experience they want to preserve, and not just that experience being had by someone , I'd say their own having of that experience ends, and that's that. It's not that they die painlessly and wake up again, they die painlessly and something els…

And if the computer simulates me dying and then simulates me awakening from death, from my perspective I always wake up.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#168

Post by colordrops »

jessriedel wrote: post #128
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet we have Neanderthal dna? Oh, right, that's only 40,000 years. Not 1-3 million.

Yea, I wonder how that's reconciled. The Neanderthal DNA comes from a 38k year-old specimen: > The researchers recovered ancient DNA of Neanderthals by extracting the DNA from the femur bones of three 38,000-year-old female Neanderthal specimens from Vindija Cave, Croatia, and other bones found in Spain, Russia, and Germany.[8] Only about half a gram of the bone samples (or 21 samples each 50–100 mg[1]) was required…

Isn't half-life dependent on temperature? Perhaps 521 is at higher temps. Also, half-life does not imply full destruction. By definition, it's destruction of half of the molecules. With enough copies, and a low temperature, it could last much longer than 521 years.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#169

Post by nevi-me »

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…

I live 15 minutes away from The Cradle/Maropeng. definitely going to the exhibition one of these days, very interesting discovery indeed!

Re: New human-like species discovered

#170

Post by mongol »

eropple wrote: post #165
bpicolo wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still think it's super weird that they don't count as different species. There's the suggestion that breeding + fertile offspring is the main concern, but couldn't early humans and neanderthals reproduce, for example? But we definitely consider them separate species. Dividing lines are hard here I guess.

> couldn't early humans and neanderthals reproduce, for example? Common misconception, but no, they couldn't.

I have the impression that current research by Svante Pääbo shows they likely did.
Post reply on HN