Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries • Hacker News Board

Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

#41

Post by berntb » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 2:39 AM UTC

trentnix wrote: post #36

cdr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He knows how to sound informed, which is the important part. Large walls of text, big words, selective citation of valid sounding papers.

He's probably also disciplined enough not to sound off on topics that he doesn't know anything about. I was consulting (software) at a client site and one of the employees at the client remarked that I seemed to know everything about everything. I just replied that it was a trick - I only talk about the things I'm informed on, and when a question came up on a topic I didn't know anything about, I just redirected the…

So... when you're not a consultant with a need to impress people, you instead redirect the conversation to subjects other people know, which interests you? :-)

Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

#42

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 2:42 AM UTC

DougWebb wrote: post #25

gizmo686 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to beg the question of what caused agriculture to appear. Although given that it did appear, your explanation seems like a plausible explanation of how it spread and led to the rapid progress we have seen since. A boring answer to this question is that it was simple incremental changes driven by random mutations and natural selection (eg. evolution). For example, we might have started to occasional plant t…

10,000 years ago is the end of the last ice age, before which climates were shifted, sea levels were lower, and most of the land humans tend to like to live on (near sea level) are now deeply submerged. We think agriculture and city-building started around that time, but it's possible we just haven't found older evidence because it was destroyed when the ice age ended and sea levels rose. It seems incredibly arrogant…

I'm not completely convinced that they were genetically identical to ourselves, we used to evolve quite fast, and faster still after we developed agriculture.

Anyway, if you look at tribes native to the America, about all of them knew about agriculture (it's in their culture), but not all established an agricultural society. What we are calling "developing agriculture" probably is a much more complex phenomenon, with several different (near) contemporary developments, and probably none of them was learning that plants grow from seeds.

* Ok recent humans certainly were similar, and agriculture could probably have appeared a few thousand years earlier, I'm not sure we can extend that to hundreds of thousands, or maybe even tens of thousands.

Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

#43

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 2:45 AM UTC

VladRussian2 wrote: post #28

terabytest wrote: post #6

It's so mind boggling to think that the "Homo Erectus" existed as far back as 1.8 million years ago, yet most of our recent (and known history) happened in the last 5000 years, and we see that as a huge evolution. What the heck happened between 1 million years ago and now? The human race changed a lot and matured very much, but it's so incredible that such a big evolution only happened in the last few thousand years…

> the "Homo Erectus" existed as far back as 1.8 million years ago, yet most of our recent (and known history) happened in the last 5000 years, and we see that as a huge evolution. an exponential process (of life complexity in this case) looks the same at any scale. The Earth has existed for 4B years, life is ~3B years, life as a cell with nucleus ~2B (yea, 1B years to develop nucleus :) http://www.caveofthemounds.com…

Yet, do you have any explanation for why that process looks like an exponential? It does not fit the "rate of change is proportional to raw size" template that normally creates exponents in nature.

Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

#44

Post by yetanotherphd » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 3:52 AM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #7

As another comment says, the author of this New York Times article, Carl Zimmer, is a very solid science writer who knows a lot about evolution. I have occasion to discuss human population genetics with psychologists who study behavior genetics, and when population genetics issues come up in those discussions, some of the new discoveries are surprising even to them. It's hard for reporters, us, and even the working r…

How is it that your interpretation of this evidence is so different to not only Zimmer's summary, but also all of the people quoted in the article? I think you would be more convincing if you addressed why these people interpreted the results so differently to you, than simply claiming that Zimmer has overlooked something.

Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

#45

Post by tokenadult » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 4:11 AM UTC

yetanotherphd wrote: post #44

tokenadult wrote: post #7

As another comment says, the author of this New York Times article, Carl Zimmer, is a very solid science writer who knows a lot about evolution. I have occasion to discuss human population genetics with psychologists who study behavior genetics, and when population genetics issues come up in those discussions, some of the new discoveries are surprising even to them. It's hard for reporters, us, and even the working r…

How is it that your interpretation of this evidence is so different to not only Zimmer's summary, but also all of the people quoted in the article? I think you would be more convincing if you addressed why these people interpreted the results so differently to you, than simply claiming that Zimmer has overlooked something.

You're reading into my statement above something I didn't say.

Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

#46

Post by SectioAurea » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 4:15 AM UTC

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #20

leot wrote: post #9

The age of this DNA reinforces just how much of what we value today about "what makes us human" (creativity, intelligence, language, etc.) has lots to do with the knowledge accumulated via our culture, and relatively little to do with genetic differences. Whenever someone talks about how smart we are genetically, ask yourself if this is the kind of smart we were 10,000+ years ago.

> Whenever someone talks about how smart we are genetically, ask yourself if this is the kind of smart we were 10,000+ years ago. You want a more shocking thought? Imagine how much knowledge spanning the 400,000 years since this specimen is forever lost to us because it was limited to oral tradition. These people didn't had a wealth knowledge available one click-away to build upon, but I see no reason to believe they…

There's a relevant book from 1715, which I discovered while researching the existence of "ever-burning lamps": The History of Many Memorable Things Lost Which Were In Use Among the Ancients - https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6961227M/The_history_of_many...

I believe it does refer to Damascus steel, as well as many other lost Classical through Dark Ages inventions. It digresses into talking about bygone social customs in places, but many of the descriptions are excellent and illustrative.

Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

#47

Post by yetanotherphd » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 4:15 AM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #45

yetanotherphd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it that your interpretation of this evidence is so different to not only Zimmer's summary, but also all of the people quoted in the article? I think you would be more convincing if you addressed why these people interpreted the results so differently to you, than simply claiming that Zimmer has overlooked something.

You're reading into my statement above something I didn't say.

OK, but you are still claiming that the correct interpretation of this evidence is very different to everyone in the article. Given that the facts you describe are very well known and basic, I doubt the people are unaware of them. They may, for example be using a measure of genetic difference that works better for distinguishing between groups.

Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

#48

Post by VladRussian2 » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 4:40 AM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #43

VladRussian2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the "Homo Erectus" existed as far back as 1.8 million years ago, yet most of our recent (and known history) happened in the last 5000 years, and we see that as a huge evolution. an exponential process (of life complexity in this case) looks the same at any scale. The Earth has existed for 4B years, life is ~3B years, life as a cell with nucleus ~2B (yea, 1B years to develop nucleus :) http://www.caveofthemounds.com…

Yet, do you have any explanation for why that process looks like an exponential? It does not fit the "rate of change is proportional to raw size" template that normally creates exponents in nature.

>It does not fit the "rate of change is proportional to raw size"

i kind of see it here. The evolution speed depends on the speed of generating of changes and on the speed of selection of the generated changes.

Wrt. the speed of generating of changes. The more complex a system (i.e. types and number of actors/components and relationships between them) - the more diverse set of small gradual changes/variations to components/relationships/behaviors can happen while the system will still be functioning. In particular it is applicable to biological systems, ie. single cells, colonies, multicell organisms and various groups/societies of it. For example, in general, 2 different species of cells can produce more diverse set of natural variations than 1 species even if the total number of cells is the same in both cases. An example at different scale - one science - philosophy of Ancient Greeks has become a multitude of sciences through the same process of branching/specialization and the speed of this process is proportional to the number of branching/specializing sciences. Following the same principle - there is no way US tax code (or the law in general :) will become simpler anytime in the future :)

Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

#49

Post by hacker789 » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 4:53 AM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #43

VladRussian2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the "Homo Erectus" existed as far back as 1.8 million years ago, yet most of our recent (and known history) happened in the last 5000 years, and we see that as a huge evolution. an exponential process (of life complexity in this case) looks the same at any scale. The Earth has existed for 4B years, life is ~3B years, life as a cell with nucleus ~2B (yea, 1B years to develop nucleus :) http://www.caveofthemounds.com…

Yet, do you have any explanation for why that process looks like an exponential? It does not fit the "rate of change is proportional to raw size" template that normally creates exponents in nature.

Many changes/advancements drastically increase opportunities for further changes/advancements.

Technological advancement tends to follow that pattern, and I imagine many evolutionary changes do, too.

Re: Oldest Human DNA Yet Found Raises New Mysteries

#50

Post by bumbledraven » Thu, Dec 05, 2013, 4:57 AM UTC

adamors wrote: post #10

terabytest wrote: post #6

It's so mind boggling to think that the "Homo Erectus" existed as far back as 1.8 million years ago, yet most of our recent (and known history) happened in the last 5000 years, and we see that as a huge evolution. What the heck happened between 1 million years ago and now? The human race changed a lot and matured very much, but it's so incredible that such a big evolution only happened in the last few thousand years…

In the Chauvet Cave there are cave paintings that are 32,000 year old[1]. But what's even more interesting, is that some of these paintings are only 27,000 year old. Meaning, that these people knew about the place for almost 5000 years. Can you imagine that kind of continuity? The documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams[2] presents the cave in a breathtaking detail, definitely worth a watch. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/…

[T]hese people knew about the place for almost 5000 years. Can you imagine that kind of continuity?

They must have been members of what David Deutsch calls a "static society". These are societies which actively try to keep things the same, and stamp out any innovation or differences. Things change there so slowly that the change is not noticeable within a single generation. In a 2011 interview with Ken Rose (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/beginning-of-infinity/dr64n4...), Deutsch said that "progress, from the point of view of the human species as a whole, is very recent and very rare. Through most of human history, people would live their entire lives without ever encountering an innovation, whereas now, we take it for granted that iPhone updates come more often than is comfortable."

For more, see his superb book The Beginning of Infinity (2010).