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

Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 186 posts

Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans

#101

Post by curseofcasandra »

bradley13 wrote: post #85

[flagged]

> I'm not convinced that this is any sort of neutral analysis

Did you actually read the article? Nowhere does it suggest that anyone is claiming that China is the origin of Homo Sapiens. This million old skull discovered in China is not Homo Sapien, but related to Denisoven. It’s scientifically interesting since it suggests two things

1. Homo sapiens have existed longer than we previously thought.

2. Homo Sapiens may have come out of Western Asia, not Africa. But China is not in West Asia…

Please find other articles to fit into your the-Chinese-are-supremacist narrative. This one is not relevant.

Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans

#102

Post by HelloNurse »

_petronius wrote: post #90
KurSix wrote: post #70

Always worth asking how much these reconstructions reflect reality vs the assumptions built into the models

If a thought like this has occurred to you, a dilettante, after reading a headline and/or cursorily glancing over the article, then you should assume that a study conducted by people with substantial academic training and deep expertise in the field have also had this thought and incorporated it into how they perform their analysis. Drive-by anti-intellectualism like this is the death of interesting conversation, tru…

Since the "people with substantial academic training and deep expertise in the field" can be bad at statistics or experts at academic fraud, doubting statements with obvious political motives is a prudent policy.

Distrust is science, deferring to authority without a good reason is anti-intellectualism.

Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans

#104

Post by inavida »

naasking wrote: post #49
WalterBright wrote: post #5

I'm curious why humans evolved intelligence and chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans did not.

All apes are intelligent. Studies have shown that their causal reasoning is almost on par with humans. What they seem to lack is language for communicating sophisticated concepts and persisting them across generations.

Thank you. One person. One person is able to question the narrative of human intelligence and arrive at the essential distinction. Maybe a reflexive habit of mind that seeks to find differences between the human and the other and is incapable of seeing the other in the human.

Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans

#105

Post by HelloNurse »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #14
acchow wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why humans evolved intelligence but orangutans did not". There's a different way to think about this that is closer to how evolution actually works and will make the answer clear. Our common ancestor (common to orangutans and humans) did evolve intelligence (concurrently with harnessing fire, clothing etc.). Not all of them, but some of them. And they broke off from the group. We now call them humans.

I think their question is not about why humans evolved intelligence, but why one and only one single species did.

It's the other way round: we are a species because we are the ones that evolved intelligence, which was certainly an enormous difference between intelligent humans and physically identical unintelligent apes.

Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans

#106

Post by martinclayton »

bradley13 wrote: post #85

[flagged]

I have to admit I thought it might be "like that" before I read the article. But I don't think Chris Stringer would be a co-author on the paper if there was an issue of bias.

While this work is impressive, it is just one skull and, as the article points out, seems statistically anomalous, and therefore interesting.

Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans

#107

Post by actionfromafar »

energy123 wrote: post #61
Gravityloss wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's interesting to think that since humans got established, becoming too intelligent became a disadvantage? Like there's a glass ceiling.

Since the invention of contraception, intelligence seems maladaptive, although we may have already reached technological escape velocity so it's not clear to me that it'll matter.

There are huge reserves of the population where contraception isn't a thing. There are so many people alive today, that evolving out intelligence is really hard to imagine. Perhaps in some kind of far future science fiction "robots spoonfeeding drooling humanoids" scenario.

Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans

#108

Post by ineedaj0b »

I always felt Chinese.

A lot of people here seem remiss to accept this but the claim was made, I think around 2018? And now the international community has gone and doubled checked - and it seems legitimate. 2025: the mainstream belief of descension changes.

What other base beliefs do you hold that will likely be false?

I can think of 5+. Our ancestors thought a lot of things for certain and died never knowing. Technological advancement is so fast nowadays, I hope we get to live through more.

Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans

#109

Post by Razengan »

throwaway173738 wrote: post #58
Razengan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says they didn't? What would "intelligence" look like WHILE it was evolving? A slightly more unsettling thought: How would newly-emerging intelligence FEEL like, internally? Also, how would humans fare if born and raised in the wild, without any language or tools taught to them?

I can extrapolate based on my toddler that a modern human dumped in the wild would invent language. He has made several phonemes that aren’t in the language we speak at home. And he’s clever enough that even though he’s never seen us stand on furniture, he still climbs drawers and chairs if there’s something he wants that’s out of reach. I think that tool use and language are borne of some innate drive that’s acceler…

> He has made several phonemes that aren’t in the language we speak at home.

No I mean absolutely zero contact with or help from modern (say since the last 10,000 years) human civilization.

I mean literally giving birth in a forest and then raising the baby there without ever speaking a word around it or showing it any tools etc.

(this assumes that it will survive to 1-2 years old without any fatal sickness etc. but let's say that the mother/parents will get just enough "outside" help to make sure it does, but the baby itself is not to come in contact with any tech or language)

Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans

#110

Post by Razengan »

shermantanktop wrote: post #82
Razengan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says they didn't? What would "intelligence" look like WHILE it was evolving? A slightly more unsettling thought: How would newly-emerging intelligence FEEL like, internally? Also, how would humans fare if born and raised in the wild, without any language or tools taught to them?

Given that the future human is different than you are today, they could ask you the same questions. How does it FEEL for you to communicate worldwide with an HN post, but not yet have the ability to (insert advanced capability here). Every one of our evolutionary ancestors was the best human yet, just like we are.

> Given that the future human is different than you are today, they could ask you the same questions. How does it FEEL for you to communicate worldwide..

No no no, I don't mean going from already intelligent/sentient/sapient to MORE intelligent….

I mean, going from the levels of intelligence/awareness we see in insects → fish → chickens and cattle → monkeys/apes → what we consider "actual" intelligence as seen in humans.

Evolution of anything is obviously not some simple boolean switch: It's not like one day you're a full fish and the next day you give birth to an amphibian with legs.

But how would the gradual evolution of intelligence look and feel like?

Going from what we consider animals to be, to having awareness and introspective thoughts and future planning?

Is it like, do you have just 1 thought per day at first,

or can only count up to 3 for a few thousand years,

only plan for up to 1 day ahead, and remember that plan for only a few hours…

And when do all the clearly self-destructive things kick in, that we Modern Humans™ do that obviously harm individuals and the species? :)

Post reply on HN