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

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

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 91 posts

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

#61

Post by Taniwha »

f2f wrote: post #58
Taniwha wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well they sort of did - modern Europeans are now acknowledged to carry some Neanderthal DNA (estimates go somewhere between 1.5-20% depending on how you count) People who think that Neanderthals/etc were "lesser" humans (for whatever bogus reasons) probably also need to conclude (for the same reasons) that Europeans are also lesser humans

adding australian aborigines, who some consider to be the oldest human civilization, dna-wise https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-aust...

You forget about Africa which seems to have the largest genetic diversity of Homo Sapiens (the prehistoric dispora seems to have been a genetic narrowing point) - that means wider tails on bell curves - it's why they have the tallest and shortest populations, the fastest (and probably slowest), etc etc

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

#62

Post by mc32 »

subdane wrote: post #60
NeoBasilisk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given our propensity for war and genocide, I wonder if humans just killed off all the other near species?

Either we outcompeted them or they were more docile and we took advantage of that, or they kept retreating till they could retreat no more (if they feared interaction).

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

#63

Post by abathur »

zaat wrote: post #55
war1025 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The writers of Genesis are our contemporaries, but my understanding is that the first few chapters is a recording of oral traditions that stretch back way further than that.

Most probably, but couple of thousands of years? more then 30,000?

Why not, though?

Would how often, in 100, 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000 years would the complete chain of human intellectual lineage be broken, and a generation of people be raised with absolutely no input from the preceding generation?

Look through Wikipedia's page on Indo-European vocabulary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_vocabulary#Kinsh...), and see how recognizable some of the fundamental building blocks of communication are, despite the passage of time, movement of people, and rise and fall of societies.

If word forms can so readily be passed down multiple inheritance trees over thousands of miles and years and still be somewhat recognizable, how improbable is it that we inherited living stories that co-evolved with us through thousands of generations?

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

#64

Post by ummonk »

f2f wrote: post #58
Taniwha wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well they sort of did - modern Europeans are now acknowledged to carry some Neanderthal DNA (estimates go somewhere between 1.5-20% depending on how you count) People who think that Neanderthals/etc were "lesser" humans (for whatever bogus reasons) probably also need to conclude (for the same reasons) that Europeans are also lesser humans

adding australian aborigines, who some consider to be the oldest human civilization, dna-wise https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-aust...

There is no such thing as oldest, dna-wise. Not like dna is frozen in time for some people but not others.

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

#65

Post by kevml »

Razengan wrote: post #53
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Homo Erectus: 1 million B.C. to about 500,000 B.C. Can you imagine the period of sheer.. uneventfulness? It's an indescribable unease for me, imagining a planet where nothing really happens, just animals doing their thing... Even worse if you're a semi-sapient species, with just enough awareness to know that things could be better, but not seeing any improvement in your entire life.. I mean, imagine us staying basi…

If someone traveled from 1200 AD to 1700 AD their lives would not be much different. The biggest change would be the New World.

If someone traveled from 1919 to 2019 their mind would be blown.

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

#66

Post by zaat »

abathur wrote: post #63
zaat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most probably, but couple of thousands of years? more then 30,000?

Why not, though? Would how often, in 100, 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000 years would the complete chain of human intellectual lineage be broken, and a generation of people be raised with absolutely no input from the preceding generation? Look through Wikipedia's page on Indo-European vocabulary ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_vocabulary#Kinsh... ), and see how recognizable some of the fundamental building bl…

I see the link you provided as evidence to the improbability of GP's premise.

Consider that common daily used words can change to a degree that they at best resemble their origin, and that in just a single or two millenniums. Do you believe any oral tradition can survive and preserve anything from it's original meaning after 20k years?

Do you know any story about your family from 300 years ago? Do you know anyone who knows (leaving aside kings and the like, where the stories are again only known from canonical origins)? Do you know the name of any of your ancestors from 4,000 years ago? The name of the place they lived in?

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

#67

Post by blisterpeanuts »

Razengan wrote: post #53
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Homo Erectus: 1 million B.C. to about 500,000 B.C. Can you imagine the period of sheer.. uneventfulness? It's an indescribable unease for me, imagining a planet where nothing really happens, just animals doing their thing... Even worse if you're a semi-sapient species, with just enough awareness to know that things could be better, but not seeing any improvement in your entire life.. I mean, imagine us staying basi…

Absolutely, things moved at a glacial pace back then... literally... since the Pleistocene (2.5 million BC to 11,700 BC) encompassed several ice age pulses -- freezes and thaws, over tens of thousands of years. We're currently in the thawing period of the latest ice age, by the way.

The ice ages, by the way, would have been quite intense. Over 1/3 of the Earth was covered by frozen ice caps, extending down past Britain to central Germany in Europe, and the Kansas region in the U.S. Imagine if the Arctic were that large. The habitable zones were commensurately smaller, the warm seasons were shorter, and oppressive winters were the norm. People anywhere near the ice caps would have had to adapt to the intense cold, both physiologically and technologically. If you didn't have fire and the means to hunt and take down large fur coated mammals on a regular basis, you died.

It's amazing to think that Homo Erectus, the dominant hominid circa 1 million BC, had fire and tools. They were far less advanced than H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis, had smaller brains and smaller physical stature, but would have been fearsomely strong and fast nonetheless.

After half a million years, Erectus gave rise to more advanced species so some kind of change and adaptation was occurring, albeit slowly.

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

#68

Post by blisterpeanuts »

kevml wrote: post #65
Razengan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Homo Erectus: 1 million B.C. to about 500,000 B.C. Can you imagine the period of sheer.. uneventfulness? It's an indescribable unease for me, imagining a planet where nothing really happens, just animals doing their thing... Even worse if you're a semi-sapient species, with just enough awareness to know that things could be better, but not seeing any improvement in your entire life.. I mean, imagine us staying basi…

If someone traveled from 1200 AD to 1700 AD their lives would not be much different. The biggest change would be the New World. If someone traveled from 1919 to 2019 their mind would be blown.

and imagine traveling from 2019 to 2119. It will probably be almost unrecognizable to us.

My daughter was born in 2004; she might live to 2119. Almost certainly, barring accidents, will live to see the 22nd Century. I only hope that she'll like it. There are so many dystopian predictions -- nanotech killers, evil AI, war.... I just pray that the world she and future generations inherit will be worth living in.

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

#69

Post by yellowapple »

astrodust wrote: post #56
sneak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extinction?

Yeah, there's basically a zero percent chance of surviving that long intact. If we do survive it will be by changing and adapting to the point of not being human any more.

I wonder if humans/hominids from 210,000 years ago had similar speculations?

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

#70

Post by gsich »

kevml wrote: post #65
Razengan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Homo Erectus: 1 million B.C. to about 500,000 B.C. Can you imagine the period of sheer.. uneventfulness? It's an indescribable unease for me, imagining a planet where nothing really happens, just animals doing their thing... Even worse if you're a semi-sapient species, with just enough awareness to know that things could be better, but not seeing any improvement in your entire life.. I mean, imagine us staying basi…

If someone traveled from 1200 AD to 1700 AD their lives would not be much different. The biggest change would be the New World. If someone traveled from 1919 to 2019 their mind would be blown.

>If someone traveled from 1919 to 2019 their mind would be blown.

Yes, but not for long.

Post reply on HN