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

111–120 of 186 posts

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

#111

Post by Agraillo »

WalterBright wrote: post #5

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

It's an interesting question, but maybe more complex than it appears. We cannot get rid of the cultural passing of information (non-genetic) in humans. If we do, we get feral children [1] (also known as Mowgli in popular culture). But I doubt anyone would seriously want to compare this "pure" intelligence with that of other primates. There is a possible agreement that socialization is not an option for humans but a requirement. Maybe if by some bad luck feral children were grouped together for some time, this might be an approximation, but I'm not sure. Overall, using computers as an analogy, it's like humans are only functional after the software installation following the first power-on, which is more or less required for normal activity.

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

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

#112

Post by nylonstrung »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #25
gyomu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't a lot of other great apes evolve intelligence similar to ours, but we more or less drove them all to extinction?

The jury is still out on exactly how intelligent other hominins were (and the extent of our involvement in their extinction). Regardless, the term human can apply to all of genus Homo and that's the sense that discussions of "human intelligence" typically use.

The burial sites of Homo Naledi suggest they had developed burial rituals and primitive art which would mean non-Sapiens hominids were likely smarter than previously believed

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

#113

Post by nylonstrung »

yongjik wrote: post #42
nn3 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans evolved intelligence too. They are smarter than most other critters in the jungle. Just all not as much as the lineage that leads to humans. It's actually quite difficult to define human intelligence. Every time we think we find something unique by humans eventually some animal turns up that can do it too. It may be all just a question of degree and how it's used.

From what I've heard, language is unambiguously unique to humans, if you consider grammar an integral part of languages. You can teach chimpanzees hand signs, but they could never make the leap to stringing them together under a coherent rule: something like the difference between "Mom give me cookies" vs "I give mom cookies." (I'm no expert, so take that with a grain of salt.)

Bee "dance" communication is remarkably sophisticated and precise

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waggle_dance?wprov=sfla1

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

#114

Post by atbvu »

WalterBright wrote: post #5

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

I'm just curious. Not all animals can evolve into humans. And many animals today have very high intelligence, we just don't know about it.

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

#115

Post by david-gpu »

nylonstrung wrote: post #112
AlotOfReading wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jury is still out on exactly how intelligent other hominins were (and the extent of our involvement in their extinction). Regardless, the term human can apply to all of genus Homo and that's the sense that discussions of "human intelligence" typically use.

The burial sites of Homo Naledi suggest they had developed burial rituals and primitive art which would mean non-Sapiens hominids were likely smarter than previously believed

The subject of Homo Naledi is very controversial. Take it with a grain of salt.

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

#116

Post by tjs8rj »

WalterBright wrote: post #5

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

Is an individual human raised alone significantly smarter than a chimp?

How much of the intelligence gap is culture and communication that lets us educate ourselves and compound knowledge vs biology? Homo lived for thousands and thousands of years with the same level of development as other apes

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

#117

Post by hollerith »

tjs8rj wrote: post #116
WalterBright wrote: post #5

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

Is an individual human raised alone significantly smarter than a chimp? How much of the intelligence gap is culture and communication that lets us educate ourselves and compound knowledge vs biology? Homo lived for thousands and thousands of years with the same level of development as other apes

Since it is impossible to instill human culture into a chimp (and scientists certainly have tried) there must be some important biological differences between people and chimps.

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

#118

Post by goodmunky »

_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…

Have you not observed that science is very often politicized, filled with fraud or just plain mistaken? The anti-intellectual position is anti-skepticism.

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

#120

Post by andsoitis »

goodmunky wrote: post #118
_petronius wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have you not observed that science is very often politicized, filled with fraud or just plain mistaken? The anti-intellectual position is anti-skepticism.

Then come with proof or some shred of evidence, rather than asking an unsubstantiated question that undermines the scientific process unnecessarily by trying to insert doubt from a place of zero expertise in the field.
Post reply on HN