Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution • Hacker News Board

Re: Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution

#111

Post by bilbo0s » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 2:44 PM UTC

masfuerte wrote: post #110

ralfd wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The average european person and the average east asian person are a little bit different genetically, but way less different than any two real europeans or two east-asians are to one another. This is always touted as an “racism-is-not-only-immoral-it-is-scientifically-wrong” argument, but it is a fallacy. Example: The average height (a trait with very high heritability) of Dutch men is 6’0 feet (183 cm) and the ave…

A few hundred years ago Europeans were very much shorter too. The Chinese have increased in height within just the last couple of generations. In both cases this isn't because their genes changed, it's because their diets changed. Diet also explains the difference between the Netherlands and the Philippines.

The height thing is a bad example. Generally in genetics you like to focus on things without so many confounding factors. That's why the article focuses on attributes like baldness, MS, and lactose intolerance.

Re: Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution

#112

Post by usrnm » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

lukan wrote: post #102

bluebarbet wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thought experiment. Three populations, A, B, and C, divided geographically along a line. Individuals from group A can breed successfully with those from B but not with those from C. Individuals from group C can breed successfully with those from B but not A. How many species are there? This is why the term "species" can never be entirely objective. I remember the eureka moment I had when I finally understood this (ad…

Is that based on a real example or hypothetical?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Re: Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution

#113

Post by pfdietz » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 3:11 PM UTC

samsartor wrote: post #65

like_any_other wrote: post #7

Is there any species, other than humans, that is found all across the globe (i.e. geographically separated), and has not differentiated into subspecies? Wolves, elephants, tigers, bears, and foxes have all been categorized into multiple subspecies each, distinct but able to interbreed.

My understanding is that humans have very limited genetic diversity compared to most other animals, because of the population bottlenecks we've been through. And further, that diversity is mostly between individuals, not between groups. The distinction is easy to see in cats vs dogs: they both have similar overall genetic diversity but two Chihuahuas have virtually all the same genes (the small angry ones) while two…

However, with a population of 8 billion and a genome of 3.1 billion base pairs, the entire space of single nucleotide mutations is produced in just a few generations. So any such useful single nucleotide mutation is going to become available regardless of past bottlenecks.

Re: Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution

#114

Post by Vaphell » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 3:12 PM UTC

stainablesteel wrote: post #107

greazy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of what constitutes a species is a human construct. Two bird populations living in the same locale but divided by a mountain range therefore not naturally breeding with each other would classify as a different species, even if they could breed with each other. So your question is hard to answer.

my understanding of what classifies something as being a part of the same species is the fact that they can make children that are viable to have children themselves horses and donkeys can breed to make mules, but the mules usually cant reproduce, this is the same with tigons and ligers but sometimes the females are viable so if they can produce children that can produce children, they're the same species. where this…

> my understanding of what classifies something as being a part of the same species is the fact that they can make children that are viable to have children themselves

things are a bit more complicated than that, because having fertile offspring is not a transitive property. Ring species: population A can mate with B, B with C, C with D, and D with E, but A and E cannot mate, even though they are part of the same continuous chain.

Ensatina eschscholtzii salamanders in California exhibit this non-transitive behavior. Populations at the ends of the coastal ranges can interbreed with their neighboring populations, but where they meet in the south, the "ends" of the ring do not interbreed.

Re: Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution

#115

Post by pfdietz » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 3:14 PM UTC

daveguy wrote: post #108

ralfd wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The average european person and the average east asian person are a little bit different genetically, but way less different than any two real europeans or two east-asians are to one another. This is always touted as an “racism-is-not-only-immoral-it-is-scientifically-wrong” argument, but it is a fallacy. Example: The average height (a trait with very high heritability) of Dutch men is 6’0 feet (183 cm) and the ave…

None of what you said refutes the fact that genetic diversity is just as different within two people of the same ethnicity as it is between different ethnicities. You listed a handful of traits from a handful of genes. And from that you make an argument about relative distributions of entire genomes of entire populations. Do you realize the fact that brothers are genetically similar compared to a stranger in no way i…

> None of what you said refutes the fact that genetic diversity is just as different within two people of the same ethnicity as it is between different ethnicities.

Note, however, that this does not imply there are not significant genetic differences between different ethnicities. Differences that are selected for will be cloaked in a sea of non-significant differences.

Re: Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution

#116

Post by usrnm » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 3:15 PM UTC

throwup238 wrote: post #98

like_any_other wrote: post #7

Is there any species, other than humans, that is found all across the globe (i.e. geographically separated), and has not differentiated into subspecies? Wolves, elephants, tigers, bears, and foxes have all been categorized into multiple subspecies each, distinct but able to interbreed.

Many researchers now refer to neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis , a subspecies of modern humans. It doesn’t get talked about much because it’s a sideshow without an easy resolution, but the question of modern and archaic human speciation is far from a settled problem and many of the species formerly considered to be separate are now often lumped in as subspecies.

> now refer to neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

What do you mean "now", they definitely were called that 30 years ago, when I first learned about them

Re: Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution

#117

Post by krapp » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #96

krapp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do humans not fit the standards for being broken into multiple subspecies? No. Multiple human subspecies did once exist (examples being Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Erectus, and Homo Floresiensis) but only our species, Homo Sapiens, remains (with traces of Neanderthal DNA so there was some interbreeding.) However race is a cultural and social construct. Different human races are not different human subspecies. A P…

> However race is a cultural and social construct. [...] The superficial variations in average height, skin color, etc. do not vary enough to constitute species differentiation Species is also a social construct. Calling race a social construct isn't the persuasive argument people seem to assume. > the vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations (in other words, within "races") and not between them.…

It's the established scientific consensus. Obviously it isn't convincing to racists, but no argument would be given that racists don't approach the subject in good faith to begin with.

I think you're being too pedantic, though, because the statement "the average Norwegian and the average Pygmy are more alike than any individual Norwegian is to any other Norwegian" is perfectly sensible within the context of this thread and relative to the supposition that genetic variability between human populations is a valid basis to justify a biological definition of race and further classifying human races as subspecies. That species is also a social construct is true, and you seem to think that it disproves the premise, but it really doesn't because species is a social construct in the sense that all scientific classification is a social construct. But when people say that race is a social construct, they mean it was created to justify white supremacy, slavery and colonialism, and that (unlike species) it serves no useful scientific purpose. You're intentionally omitting necessary context to create a false equivalence between race and species.

Here are some actual scientifically credentialed papers and statements supporting the thesis that race has no biological basis. I doubt anyone will bother reading them but here they are just for the record. Further reading is easy to find.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8604262/

https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-s...

https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/

Re: Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution

#118

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 3:47 PM UTC

daveguy wrote: post #108

ralfd wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The average european person and the average east asian person are a little bit different genetically, but way less different than any two real europeans or two east-asians are to one another. This is always touted as an “racism-is-not-only-immoral-it-is-scientifically-wrong” argument, but it is a fallacy. Example: The average height (a trait with very high heritability) of Dutch men is 6’0 feet (183 cm) and the ave…

None of what you said refutes the fact that genetic diversity is just as different within two people of the same ethnicity as it is between different ethnicities. You listed a handful of traits from a handful of genes. And from that you make an argument about relative distributions of entire genomes of entire populations. Do you realize the fact that brothers are genetically similar compared to a stranger in no way i…

[deleted]

Re: Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution

#119

Post by zozbot234 » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 3:48 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #117

naasking wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However race is a cultural and social construct. [...] The superficial variations in average height, skin color, etc. do not vary enough to constitute species differentiation Species is also a social construct. Calling race a social construct isn't the persuasive argument people seem to assume. > the vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations (in other words, within "races") and not between them.…

It's the established scientific consensus. Obviously it isn't convincing to racists, but no argument would be given that racists don't approach the subject in good faith to begin with. I think you're being too pedantic, though, because the statement "the average Norwegian and the average Pygmy are more alike than any individual Norwegian is to any other Norwegian" is perfectly sensible within the context of this thre…

> But when people say that race is a social construct, they mean it was created to justify white supremacy, slavery and colonialism

Yes, the modern context of what we call race today is inherently linked to notions like limpieza de sangre and casta in post-conquest Latin America - the true prototypical example of structural racism, where for several centuries and over several generations a "white" appearance was conflated with a socially elite status and a "racialized" appearance with poverty and marginalization. The Moors in Medieval, Renaissance and early modern Europe were of African origin, and sometimes even had what we would now call a Sub-Saharan appearance, but they were not considered "Black" in racial terms because that was not a notion that existed in that specific milieu.

Re: Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution

#120

Post by matt-attack » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 3:55 PM UTC

greazy wrote: post #20

like_any_other wrote: post #7

Is there any species, other than humans, that is found all across the globe (i.e. geographically separated), and has not differentiated into subspecies? Wolves, elephants, tigers, bears, and foxes have all been categorized into multiple subspecies each, distinct but able to interbreed.

The definition of what constitutes a species is a human construct. Two bird populations living in the same locale but divided by a mountain range therefore not naturally breeding with each other would classify as a different species, even if they could breed with each other. So your question is hard to answer.

Seems to me, that we divide other animals based on some of the most minor of phenotypic expressions. The slight coloration of a bird’s crest, shape of some lizard’s nose.

Yet with Homo sapiens we seem to be allergic to the idea that our drastic swings in physical attributes could possibly qualify as a different species (we obviously call them “races”). But they plainly diverged from each other due to geographic and reproductive isolation and adaptation to environments. Which is precisely what causes species to diverge into new ones.

Are we supposed to pretend that Africans DONT have black skin due an adaptation to their environment?

Do other animals get divided into races? I know dogs have “breeds” and we don’t consider those species. But I don’t hear about “races” in other animals.