Live data from Hacker News

210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

latimes.com

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#41

To have a feel of long period of time, I always use one metric: my grand father. He's lived 93 years, so almost 100. 2000 years ago was then 20 grandad away. Not so long ago after all. 200K ago is 2000 grandad away. Quite some time but nothing astronomical yet.

Life expectancy grew in time, and also the age when having kids. The grandfather from 2000 years ago probably had kids around 20 and lived to 60.

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#42

To have a feel of long period of time, I always use one metric: my grand father. He's lived 93 years, so almost 100. 2000 years ago was then 20 grandad away. Not so long ago after all. 200K ago is 2000 grandad away. Quite some time but nothing astronomical yet.

Life expectancy grew in time, and also the age when having kids. The grandfather from 2000 years ago probably had kids around 20 and lived to 60.

Average life expectancy grew, but mostly as a function of increased survival of childhood.

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#43

To have a feel of long period of time, I always use one metric: my grand father. He's lived 93 years, so almost 100. 2000 years ago was then 20 grandad away. Not so long ago after all. 200K ago is 2000 grandad away. Quite some time but nothing astronomical yet.

If I recall correctly this is one measure used in one of "the science of discworld" books.

...except that a "grandfather" was taken to be 50 years, since what matters is not the length of an individual life, but the time between generations (and the transmission of extelligence). James Burke used it as well in his Connections 2, noting that when his grandfather would tell him about his grandfather telling him about how things were when he was a lad, we were already back to the heart of the industrial revolution.

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#44

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the two skulls found practically "nose-to-nose" are 40,000 years apart in age? How do two humanoid skulls coincidentally end up right next to each other with 40,000 years gap between them?

It was an ancient museum.

You probably mean this as a joke, but we often underestimate our ancestors who were as smart and curious as we are (and surely as dopey and uncurious as well).

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#45

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the two skulls found practically "nose-to-nose" are 40,000 years apart in age? How do two humanoid skulls coincidentally end up right next to each other with 40,000 years gap between them?

Sea mines placed miles apart during the second world war sometimes end up settling right next to each other, several miles away. Sometimes tens of miles away. Sometimes next to a leftover mine from the first world war that arrived the same way. The environment in which they exist subjects them to varying pressures and forces, making them move. When do they stop moving? When they reach a point at which those pressures…

The sea has streams, land not so much

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#47
post #3

Can someone link to a kind of summary of the current best understanding of human evolution and dispersal? It's really fascinating to me. Until recently, I had naively understood "Out of Africa" to mean that homo sapiens evolved in Africa from some sort of ape like thing and then went out and conquered the world. But the idea that homo sapiens is just one of many kinds of human species, and that other ones like Neande…

https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/what-happened-to...

Doesn't exactly hit your question but gives a good overview.

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#48
post #3

Can someone link to a kind of summary of the current best understanding of human evolution and dispersal? It's really fascinating to me. Until recently, I had naively understood "Out of Africa" to mean that homo sapiens evolved in Africa from some sort of ape like thing and then went out and conquered the world. But the idea that homo sapiens is just one of many kinds of human species, and that other ones like Neande…

The general consensus up until now is, roughly: Homo Erectus: 1 million B.C. to about 500,000 B.C. Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens split off from common ancestor: 500,000 B.C. Homo Sapiens dominate Africa until about 70,000 B.C. when they spread into Europe, Middle East, and Asia. Neanderthals dominate Europe, Middle East, and Asia, until 70,000 B.C. when Homo Sapiens return out of Africa. There are a few othe…

Sort of a tangent, but I've wondered before if the "Nephilim" mentioned in Genesis could have been some distant memory of when Humans coexisted with Neanderthals.

From Wikipedia:

    When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.
    — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version

Basically says that there were people like humans, but different and larger and stronger. And that at some point they died out.

Sounds a lot like what we know about Neanderthals.

Also Genesis is sort of the "deep memory" of humanity. Especially the first few chapters.

Re: 210k-year-old skull in Greece is earliest sign of modern humans in Europe, Asia

#50
post #3

Can someone link to a kind of summary of the current best understanding of human evolution and dispersal? It's really fascinating to me. Until recently, I had naively understood "Out of Africa" to mean that homo sapiens evolved in Africa from some sort of ape like thing and then went out and conquered the world. But the idea that homo sapiens is just one of many kinds of human species, and that other ones like Neande…

On a darker note, one could almost see it as a form of mercy that none of the other species survived into the era of civilizations. Given our willingness to enslave other humans, I can only imagine what would have been done with "lesser" humans.
Post reply on HN