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

Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#71

Post by haihaibye »

danans wrote: post #44
haihaibye wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested in comparing your perspective with the people in favor of ethnicity-based political states. I imagine they want a future where their genes carry on while you are interested in "knowledge that lasts" You could say they are gene-centric and you are meme-centric? Of two futures, which would you prefer? 1. Where your descendants/relatives are alive but have little in common with your values (eg compare bro…

> Of two futures, which would you prefer? > 1. Where your descendants/relatives are alive but have little in common with your values (eg compare bronze age to now) > 2. You have no genetic descendants/relatives but whatever exists (robots, aliens, planet of the apes) shares your value system. That's a false choice, based on these flawed assumptions: - That genetic descent somehow diminishes the transmission of cultur…

Good points.

>> many bronze age values today

Most people have adopted the bronze age values of tribes other than their ancestors.

There are 4B Muslims and Christians, but only 15M Jews, so Abraham has over 250x as many carriers of his ideas as carriers of his genes.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#72

Post by smhost »

abiox wrote: post #60
smhost wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you not understand black pride? The story of the Negro that survived the racist horrors of white oppression, the voice of the enslaved person that became La Marseillaise sung at the Haitian revolution, that became jazz, that became hip hop. The impossible resistance against the whitewashing and cultral genocide, the freedom and liberty earned by wielding the spirit of the Enlightenment channeled through the b…

perhaps you were a bit too ready to bask in some romanticism to really speak to what they were saying.

No, that's not what happened here.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#73

Post by haihaibye »

evrydayhustling wrote: post #42
haihaibye wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested in comparing your perspective with the people in favor of ethnicity-based political states. I imagine they want a future where their genes carry on while you are interested in "knowledge that lasts" You could say they are gene-centric and you are meme-centric? Of two futures, which would you prefer? 1. Where your descendants/relatives are alive but have little in common with your values (eg compare bro…

I advocate the same perspective towards both genes 'n memes: stop trying to preserve your current configuration verbatim, and start trying to participate in a process that iteratively adapts and improves. Some examples: - Marry / procreate with an opposite you're attracted to. - End stasis-inducing IP monopolies. - Let other people contribute to your codebase when practical. - Focus on trying to benefit from immigrat…

>> I put zero probability on my creations (kids, code, businesses) resembling me for long. I wouldn't wish them to

I think this is a good attitude (or maybe just acceptance of the inevitable!)

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#74

Post by vivekd »

Okay someone explain this to me because I don't get it - how can we get the sample of a 40 000 year old specimen and tell that it's species had interbred with humans.

I mean - Neanderthals are pretty closely related to us us, couldn't genetic similarities be a result of that common origin rather than interbreeding. How can DNA tell that apart?

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#75

Post by mc32 »

creep wrote: post #53
mc32 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pride can be good and bad. Being proud to succeed as a single parent, or proud of being the first to graduate university in the family. Proud to be black or proud to be white.... Getting iffy depending on context. Of course, the opposite would be troublesome, ashamed to be black, or ashamed to be white.

Pride in heritage is still important. Genes don't necessarily define a person's success (genes are regulated in expression, and so expression can be changed by environmental factors) but they do anchor an individual to history. They ground a person in eons of time. Being proud to be black or white or anything else is part of that.

I think there is a difference in denial --which I don't propose and overtly and outright saying I'm proud to be "...". Be comfortable with being "..." accept being "..." and not wishing to be anything else.

I hope people feel their heritage is "cool" but I'd rather not have people feel their heritage or a different heritage is "better".

On the other hand, I feel that there are some societies that indeed contributed more to civilization than others. I don't think that's deniable. But I mean as a person one should not feel "better" or "worse" than any other person because of heritage.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#76

Post by evrydayhustling »

vivekd wrote: post #74

Okay someone explain this to me because I don't get it - how can we get the sample of a 40 000 year old specimen and tell that it's species had interbred with humans. I mean - Neanderthals are pretty closely related to us us, couldn't genetic similarities be a result of that common origin rather than interbreeding. How can DNA tell that apart?

Genes are never perfectly conserved; they accumulate mutations through generations. The rate of mutations can act as a clock, telling us how far back was the common origin of two genes that are similar today.

When we see modern populations that carry neanderthal genes that are better conserved within the population than some human-specific genes are with other human populations, we can infer that the neanderthal intermixing happened after humans became... human.

At large scale, many such inferences can be combined to form a historical map of population mixing and the migrations implied... That's what the research in the article is about.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#77

Post by kolinko »

mc32 wrote: post #17
ryandvm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not heard that either. According to 23andMe, I'm in the 99th percentile for Neanderthal DNA variants and my ancestry report claims I'm a disappointingly un-diverse 99.9% European.

I don't think I'd ever hear a non white say they are disappointed with being 100% what they are, be they Asian, Black, etc. Maybe there are, I've never home across them, but a few whites have this tendency to wish for having "interesting" ancestry like sen. Warren. It's something odd. As if they are somewhat uncomfortable on their own skin. Shame is the wrong word, but i can't find the right descriptor. On the other…

Perhaps it's a matter of where you come from?

In US, varied ancestry is a norm if I'm not mistaken, so having a "pure" heritage makes you unique. In many countries it's the opposite - the default is "pure" heritage, and having varied background is what makes you stand out.

Also, from the health perspective, varied ancestry is better if I'm not mistaken. Kind of like pure breed animals being less healthy in general, compared to mixtures.

I'm 99.5% European (86% Eastern European), and 0.5% East Asian/Native American. I hoped for more varied ancestry when I received the results.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#78

Post by creep »

mc32 wrote: post #75
creep wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pride in heritage is still important. Genes don't necessarily define a person's success (genes are regulated in expression, and so expression can be changed by environmental factors) but they do anchor an individual to history. They ground a person in eons of time. Being proud to be black or white or anything else is part of that.

I think there is a difference in denial --which I don't propose and overtly and outright saying I'm proud to be "...". Be comfortable with being "..." accept being "..." and not wishing to be anything else. I hope people feel their heritage is "cool" but I'd rather not have people feel their heritage or a different heritage is "better". On the other hand, I feel that there are some societies that indeed contributed m…

I don't think we can say which societies contribute more or less. That's based on the metric of what they are contributing, but overall that discussion is too complex to definitively say who contributes more.

As for feeling "better" I agree with you, only that pride is not necessarily a feeling of superiority. In most cases it is an acknowledgement of something related to the individual that he or she feels is inherently good. Not everyone associates good with better.

Re: Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human and Neanderthal History

#79

Post by danans »

haihaibye wrote: post #71
danans wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of two futures, which would you prefer? > 1. Where your descendants/relatives are alive but have little in common with your values (eg compare bronze age to now) > 2. You have no genetic descendants/relatives but whatever exists (robots, aliens, planet of the apes) shares your value system. That's a false choice, based on these flawed assumptions: - That genetic descent somehow diminishes the transmission of cultur…

Good points. >> many bronze age values today Most people have adopted the bronze age values of tribes other than their ancestors. There are 4B Muslims and Christians, but only 15M Jews, so Abraham has over 250x as many carriers of his ideas as carriers of his genes.

> There are 4B Muslims and Christians, but only 15M Jews, so Abraham has over 250x as many carriers of his ideas as carriers of his genes.

Do we know that Abraham was a specific person whose genes we can trace rather than a mythological character?

Even if you assume he was a real person, how can we be certain that the common ideas in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism originated with him? There's quite a bit of evidence that it was cobbled together over time from many sources (Israel, Egypt, Sumeria, Mesopotamia, etc.)

Post reply on HN