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

Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 100 posts

Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors

#11

Post by carabiner »

adenozine wrote: post #2

Man, I've always actually kinda wondered about this. I know it's macabre, but I think about human migratory routines and when different groups clashed back when life was so primitive and brutish, they're must've been those tendencies to rape and sexually conquer the opposition. Surely that is reflected in the genetic ledger of time. What a crazy insight. Genetics is such an interesting field. It's bonkers there's jus…

All mammals rape. And murder, and steal. Dolphins torture each other. You don't think it's all sunshine and rainbows in the wilderness, do you?

Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors

#12

Post by dragonwriter »

carabiner wrote: post #11
adenozine wrote: post #2

Man, I've always actually kinda wondered about this. I know it's macabre, but I think about human migratory routines and when different groups clashed back when life was so primitive and brutish, they're must've been those tendencies to rape and sexually conquer the opposition. Surely that is reflected in the genetic ledger of time. What a crazy insight. Genetics is such an interesting field. It's bonkers there's jus…

All mammals rape. And murder, and steal. Dolphins torture each other. You don't think it's all sunshine and rainbows in the wilderness, do you?

> All mammals rape

2. John does not rape.

3. Therefore, John is not a mammal.

Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors

#13

Post by shard »

dragonwriter wrote: post #12
carabiner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All mammals rape. And murder, and steal. Dolphins torture each other. You don't think it's all sunshine and rainbows in the wilderness, do you?

> All mammals rape 2. John does not rape. 3. Therefore, John is not a mammal.

1. ∀ Species ∈ Mammal, ∃ at least 1 member of Species that rapes

2. John does not rape

3. ∴ John is not the raping member of a Species of Mammals

Pardon any misuse of symbols, it's been a while.

Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors

#14

Post by holoduke »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #8
chmod775 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sentence doesn't make any sense: "H. sapiens doesn’t have the possibility of quickly grabbing a load of diversity by mating with another group". It would make sense if she specifically referred to Homo sapiens sapiens, but for Homo sapiens that "other group" would be of a different species and we thus we shouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with them. Also Homo sapiens sapiens have plenty of genetic di…

Species is a much more fluid term than I think you realize. Also, we don't know that most people are more or less unaffected by covid-19. We're only beginning to understand long term affects of even mild cases. Please don't spread misinformation.

Covid is comparable to flu with a higher mortality rate. Don't make it bigger than it is. 99.95% of the people are doing perfectly fine. Genetics are thus pretty effective

Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors

#15

Post by dragonwriter »

shard wrote: post #13
dragonwriter wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All mammals rape 2. John does not rape. 3. Therefore, John is not a mammal.

1. ∀ Species ∈ Mammal, ∃ at least 1 member of Species that rapes 2. John does not rape 3. ∴ John is not the raping member of a Species of Mammals Pardon any misuse of symbols, it's been a while.

So, the first member of any mammal species must, ipso facto, be a rapist?

Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors

#16

Post by dragonwriter »

holoduke wrote: post #14
jimktrains2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Species is a much more fluid term than I think you realize. Also, we don't know that most people are more or less unaffected by covid-19. We're only beginning to understand long term affects of even mild cases. Please don't spread misinformation.

Covid is comparable to flu with a higher mortality rate. Don't make it bigger than it is. 99.95% of the people are doing perfectly fine. Genetics are thus pretty effective

> Covid is comparable to flu with a higher mortality rate.

So, like 1918 pandemic flu?

Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors

#17

Post by chmod775 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #9
chmod775 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sentence doesn't make any sense: "H. sapiens doesn’t have the possibility of quickly grabbing a load of diversity by mating with another group". It would make sense if she specifically referred to Homo sapiens sapiens, but for Homo sapiens that "other group" would be of a different species and we thus we shouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with them. Also Homo sapiens sapiens have plenty of genetic di…

> but for Homo sapiens that "other group" would be of a different species and we thus we shouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with them. That's one definition of "species" (specifically, it's "the biological species concept"), but like all the other definitions, it doesn't work and does not correspond to most usage of the term. You can read modern genetic work discussing how homo sapiens interbred with homi…

>You can also observe how easily different species interbreed today, like wolves (canis lupus, obligatory pack animals) and coyotes (canis latrans, solitary).

Their taxonomy predates the more modern biological classification systems though. Things have been reclassified before and I expect they will be again.

[A bit of a rant:] Any classification system that can't tell you something about the objects it classifies is objectively useless for anything but naming things. You might as well use a random name generator, draw lines in the sand in geometrically pleasing ways, and pretend it's a "system".

Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors

#18

Post by Teever »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #8
chmod775 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sentence doesn't make any sense: "H. sapiens doesn’t have the possibility of quickly grabbing a load of diversity by mating with another group". It would make sense if she specifically referred to Homo sapiens sapiens, but for Homo sapiens that "other group" would be of a different species and we thus we shouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with them. Also Homo sapiens sapiens have plenty of genetic di…

Species is a much more fluid term than I think you realize. Also, we don't know that most people are more or less unaffected by covid-19. We're only beginning to understand long term affects of even mild cases. Please don't spread misinformation.

Ring species[1] are a particularly fascinating example of the fluidity of the concept of species.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors

#19

Post by thaumasiotes »

chmod775 wrote: post #17
thaumasiotes wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but for Homo sapiens that "other group" would be of a different species and we thus we shouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with them. That's one definition of "species" (specifically, it's "the biological species concept"), but like all the other definitions, it doesn't work and does not correspond to most usage of the term. You can read modern genetic work discussing how homo sapiens interbred with homi…

>You can also observe how easily different species interbreed today, like wolves (canis lupus, obligatory pack animals) and coyotes (canis latrans, solitary). Their taxonomy predates the more modern biological classification systems though. Things have been reclassified before and I expect they will be again. [A bit of a rant:] Any classification system that can't tell you something about the objects it classifies is…

> Any classification system that can't tell you something about the objects it classifies is objectively useless for anything but naming things

They are both canis, you know. The difference in species designation tells you very little because that's not a problem that can be solved. It's not an issue of misclassification. The specific designations latrans and lupus tell you a lot.

Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors

#20

Post by chmod775 »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #8
chmod775 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sentence doesn't make any sense: "H. sapiens doesn’t have the possibility of quickly grabbing a load of diversity by mating with another group". It would make sense if she specifically referred to Homo sapiens sapiens, but for Homo sapiens that "other group" would be of a different species and we thus we shouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with them. Also Homo sapiens sapiens have plenty of genetic di…

Species is a much more fluid term than I think you realize. Also, we don't know that most people are more or less unaffected by covid-19. We're only beginning to understand long term affects of even mild cases. Please don't spread misinformation.

> Species is a much more fluid term than I think you realize.

I am aware it sometimes tells you nothing at all.

> We're only beginning to understand long term affects of even mild cases. Please don't spread misinformation.

Asymptomatic cases are not the same as mild cases.

Besides, always assuming the worst-case scenario, especially when all previous experience tells us to be optimistic, is not a workable strategy.

Post reply on HN