Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds • Hacker News Board

Re: Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

#161

Post by orange8 » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 12:19 AM UTC

1000units wrote: post #148

orange8 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are asking me to prove that humans are smarter than elephants? It makes for an interesting philosophical debate, but that is all it really will be. Kind of like me asking you to prove you are smarter than a rock, or that you are really conscious.

Elephants' computational machinery look almost exactly like ours, except much larger. I can measure the thermodynamic properties of any rock's machinery and conclude with certainty it has no familiar intelligence. The only thing elephants have against them is they don't have technological civilization and just sort of bumble around, but so did Socrates. To me it remains an open question.

What makes you so sure of your measurement machinery? An advanced alien race may laugh at your rock measuring equipment the way we laugh at early mans tools.

See what i mean about pointless philosophical arguments?

Re: Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

#162

Post by keiru » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 12:57 AM UTC

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #54

c3534l wrote: post #3

If we interbred with them, how are they actually species? It seems more to me you're talking more about racial or breed differences akin to breeds of dogs if two species actually successfuly had viable offspring in the wild.

Because "race" is a toxic badthink word. This isn't about science, and what you call this group of hominids is not that important anyways.

Not the reason at all. Even if you left the charge of the word "race" behind, no one ever uses that word to describe such a distant variety of humans as the ones described in the article. I've read they compare to neanderthals and denisovans in their relationship with sapiens, and there's surely a reason why they were classed as Hominins (a two million year old tree) and not some narrower class. I'm still trying to get a better clarification, but the theorized extinct groups seem to require a far stronger word than race by any metric. Maybe subspecies would have preserved the idea of separateness while reconciling the interbreeding, but as you said, what you call this group of hominids is not that important anyways, but race gives the wrong idea in biological terms.

And I'm sad so many people just downvoted the comment without clarification. I thought too it was political correctness at first until I looked into the time-frame more closely. It merited a decent reply.

Re: Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

#163

Post by keiru » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 1:01 AM UTC

snackematician wrote: post #134

I would be very cautious interpreting these results. There are no DNA samples from the putative EH1 and EH2 hominin populations -- these populations are statistical constructs used to explain the data, but not (yet) directly observed. I do think it's likely that H. sapiens intermixed with other hominins besides Neanderthal and Denisovan, but the models used to infer these results make a lot of assumptions and are at…

Goes to show that every field has its own inferred "dark matter" of sorts.

Re: Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

#164

Post by keiru » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 1:10 AM UTC

booleandilemma wrote: post #100

firecall wrote: post #71

I'm curious; can we assume they were similar enough to be attractive or desirable as mates? It's obvious different cultural standards may have applied. Or am I asking a stupid question?

Humans nowadays are attracted to everything from anime characters to people dressed in furry animal costumes. The set of things we’re attracted to knows no bounds.

Perhaps the real evolutionary advantage of Sapiens was abstract thinking put to use in advanced sexualization of different species.

Re: Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

#165

Post by lkrubner » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 2:24 AM UTC

rjf72 wrote: post #152

lkrubner wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bizarre thing to write: " You don't get anatomically modern humans until 30,000-50,000 years ago. " And this is wild speculation without any basis: " And so the only justifiable explanation is that we probably didn't have that much going on upstairs until relatively recently. " Economic development is complex, it depends on a lot more than IQ. As a point of comparison, we could ask why did the Industrial Re…

The period I'm referencing with 30,000-50,000 years ago is known as the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. This is where a very large number of things happened nearly simultaneously. Homo sapien began to interbreed with various other species, and they took on the anatomical form we mostly have today. In specimens prior to this period you generally find substantial anatomical differences such as thicker bones, larger canin…

There is nothing ad hominem about my question. I don’t know you. For all I know you are an 18 year old who is simply repeating alt-right conspiracies that you read on 4chan. I do think it is interesting that you avoided answering my question. You avoided responding to anything I wrote.

Ian Tattersall published a study suggesting that homo sapiens left Africa between 200,000 and 150,000 years ago. Sapiens reached Indonesia 70,000 years ago, and Australia by 50,000 years ago.

I’m not sure if you’ve ever thought about the implications of what you are saying, but if you honestly believe that all of the cultural innovations of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, happening north of the Sahara, in the Levant and across Eurasia, are due to biological change, then you are saying that the the people who were left behind in Sub-Saharan Africa are not fully human. That is a popular argument with racists. I’m not accusing you of being a racist, but I am asking you if that is seriously the argument you are trying to make.

There are some other types of argument, similar to yours, that I've run into online. Some people insist that humans were genetically engineered by aliens. That argument is based on no evidence, though it does have the nice property that is not raced based. Some other people make a religious and/or spiritual argument, arguing that there is a universal consciousness and that it spread across the world 50,000 years ago. That has all the problems of any religious argument -- it could be true, but there is no evidence and no way to prove it.

What I am asking is what type of argument are you making? Are you making a racial argument? Or do you believe in aliens? Or do you think some kind of god is responsible? Or are you willing to consider what I've suggested, that economic and cultural development is complex, and can not be easily mapped back to biological changes?

Re: Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

#166

Post by ethiclub » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 2:36 AM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #73

ethiclub wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any known ring species where (A + B cannot breed OR B + C cannot breed) AND A + B can breed? Assume not possible?

That's logically equivalent to (A + B can breed) AND (B + C cannot breed), not a very exciting question. Did you mean AND (A + C can breed)?

Thanks for fixing. Yes that was the intended question.

Re: Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

#167

Post by ethiclub » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 5:30 AM UTC

ethiclub wrote: post #56

hashberry wrote: post #55

"Homo sapiens" is Latin for "wise man," but there were many Hominin species who possessed comparative culture, art, and intelligence. Neanderthals actually had larger brains compared to modern humans[0]. There are many theories on why Neanderthals became extinct[1]; my favorite is that we simply outbred them because of our sex appeal. What is Latin for "sexy human?" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Anato…

Brain size correlates to intelligence, but not aware of any causation that makes this worthwhile comparing. Any new literature worth reading?

To clarify: Referring to peer reviewed papers on inter-species, rather than intra-species of course.

Re: Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

#168

Post by lkrubner » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 6:55 AM UTC

rjf72 wrote: post #152

lkrubner wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bizarre thing to write: " You don't get anatomically modern humans until 30,000-50,000 years ago. " And this is wild speculation without any basis: " And so the only justifiable explanation is that we probably didn't have that much going on upstairs until relatively recently. " Economic development is complex, it depends on a lot more than IQ. As a point of comparison, we could ask why did the Industrial Re…

The period I'm referencing with 30,000-50,000 years ago is known as the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. This is where a very large number of things happened nearly simultaneously. Homo sapien began to interbreed with various other species, and they took on the anatomical form we mostly have today. In specimens prior to this period you generally find substantial anatomical differences such as thicker bones, larger canin…

Why was my previous response downvoted? What part of it was illegitimate? I tried to summarize some of the different types of arguments that I've heard online, on this particular topic. All of this is true, these are examples from actual conversations that I've had online:

"There are some other types of argument, similar to yours, that I've run into online. Some people insist that humans were genetically engineered by aliens. That argument is based on no evidence, though it does have the nice property that is not raced based. Some other people make a religious and/or spiritual argument, arguing that there is a universal consciousness and that it spread across the world 50,000 years ago. That has all the problems of any religious argument -- it could be true, but there is no evidence and no way to prove it."

There is nothing ad hominem about trying to clarify what sort of argument someone is making. So I am curious why that previous comment was downvoted?

Re: Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

#169

Post by Juliate » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 8:01 AM UTC

orange8 wrote: post #159

Juliate wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never had the chance to meet elephants. Now, from what I've learned/read about their behaviours, I have no doubt on the depth of their lives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition#Elephant_so... And I wouldn't call that "some sort of language". That's language. Species-specific. Not "human" language. Even language that another species can grasp more or less perfectly. You can get that with minimal observ…

I would call it some sort of language, or substitute "sort" with "type" if the word seems too casual for your tastes. I agree that there may be a lot happening in this world we're unable to perceive, and then your whole argument can be summarized as "anything is possible, we don't really know for sure". Which I now see is why scientists insist on sticking to things that can be measured, proven and quantified. Anythin…

"Which I now see is why scientists insist on sticking to things that can be measured, proven and quantified. Anything else is..."

No. Science is a mean to an end, not an end in itself. And intuition, an open mind, imagination help a lot, without drifting into superstition.

Read some history, you'll find out that a lot of scientific (and engineering) discoveries were triggered by imagination servicing some more rational/rigorous practices.

Re: Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

#170

Post by camelNotation » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 2:47 PM UTC

laretluval wrote: post #127

camelNotation wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is understandable why we are eager to find capacities for language and culture in similar species, but the thing that gives homo sapiens the ability to survive is not just language or art, but our ability to organize large numbers of people under trans-familial identities (i.e. advanced political states and culture-defining religion). If they weren't politically (high level behavior control) and religiously (low l…

What is the evidence for this claim?

It's very difficult (read:impossible) to get evidence for something like this because there is essentially zero detail on these ancient societies. However, it's a theory that is consistent with anthropology, sociology, and evolutionary biology. Could be totally wrong, but probably not.