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

171–180 of 186 posts

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

#171

Post by jjk166 »

Arwill wrote: post #83
jjk166 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intelligence was evolved millions of years after the most recent common ancestor. Harnessing fire, clothing, etc. came later still. The lineage that would ultimately give rise to humans split from the chimp/bonobo lineage as the human ancestors adapted to savanna life, likely due to aridification brought on by the formation of the Himalayas. It's possible that selective pressure towards intelligence was greater for t…

Substitute orangutans for Australopithecus. That is (one of) the branches that did evolve more intelligence, but didn't survive. I suppose there were lots of such branches, that either merged back into humanity (like the Neanderthals), or died out.

Australopithecus is essentially on the human branch, and likely was still several million years before the development of advanced intelligence. Our common ancestor with Australopithecus was not any more intelligent than a typical Australopithecus, as far as we can tell.

As far as we can tell, no branch developed significantly increased intelligence after splitting off from our own lineage. That's not to say it definitely didn't happen or that our lineage was always the smartest, just that there isn't any evidence demonstrating a qualitative difference which has survived to the present. But it's weird that no such evidence exists.

Conversely different primate groups did independently evolve similar levels of intelligence, like Capuchin monkeys (which are new world primates) developed their intelligence after splitting off from the old world primates some 40 million years ago. Baboons and Macaques likewise each evolved intelligence independent of the great apes. Likewise similar levels (if different specializations) of intelligence have evolved independently outside the primates, such as cetaceans, elephants, and corvids. For cephalopods, which likewise are highly intelligent, their common ancestor with us didn't even have a brain.

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

#172

Post by jjk166 »

_AzMoo wrote: post #20
jjk166 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intelligence was evolved millions of years after the most recent common ancestor. Harnessing fire, clothing, etc. came later still. The lineage that would ultimately give rise to humans split from the chimp/bonobo lineage as the human ancestors adapted to savanna life, likely due to aridification brought on by the formation of the Himalayas. It's possible that selective pressure towards intelligence was greater for t…

Is there a specific definition for intelligence?

What definition are you using to say chimps don't have human level intelligence?

By any useful definition, the intelligence of human ancestors very closely resembled that of chimps for about 4 million years after the human and chimp lineages diverged. While it's impossible to say for certain, that's around the time that endocranial volumes started growing consistently beyond the range seen in chimps. That is also around the time of the first evidence of stone tool making.

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

#173

Post by WalterBright »

dyauspitr wrote: post #44
WalterBright wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intelligence must surely be a cluster of evolved changes, let's say A-Z. Each of those letters must have appeared, and been advantageous on their own (or they wouldn't have persisted). So why didn't chimps get some of them? For example, chimps have hands, but do not exhibit anywhere near the dexterity and agility of human hands.

It’s more like A appeared and there was a split off. Then B appeared and another split off from the A group and so on until you get to modern day Z.

So why didn't other lines evolve X and Q?

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

#174

Post by WalterBright »

mouse_8b wrote: post #167
WalterBright wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple lines of mammals have independently evolved back into being marine life. Whales, seals and manatees do not have a common ancestor, for example.

They do have a common ancestor, it's just not a marine mammal.

> not a marine mammal

which is the point. They were not evolved from the same species of land animal.

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

#175

Post by ViktorRay »

Agraillo wrote: post #111
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 r…

This may not be entirely accurate. Feral children are those that do not have interaction with other humans.

If you had a bunch of human children together and provided them sustenance and all that without adult interaction they might still develop normally and form their own language and means of communication with each other.

We don’t know for sure because such an experiment would be horrible and extremely immoral. However I do remember reading a while back that a similar situation happened where a bunch of deaf children in a an environment without much adult interaction did manage to create their own sign language to communicate with each other.

So it seems the feral child phenomena might be due to the fact that the child is alone rather than simply due to the child not having adult interaction.

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

#176

Post by luxuryballs »

onraglanroad wrote: post #154
luxuryballs wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they call this the appeal to authority fallacy, it’s the people without expertise in a field that often see the holes in something first, then the holes start glowing after they get hand waved away by smug narrow-minded experts.

> the people without expertise in a field that often see the holes in something first No they don't. That never happens. Would you expect someone who knows nothing about programming to identify flaws in a computer language? Of course not. You expect it will be people who actually understand the field that can identify issues.

it can even happen in software engineering but takes different forms, someone outside sees the problem first because they are looking from a different perspective or due to familiarity with some external factor or edge case of their environment

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

#177

Post by Jensson »

kalaksi wrote: post #126
luxuryballs wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they call this the appeal to authority fallacy, it’s the people without expertise in a field that often see the holes in something first, then the holes start glowing after they get hand waved away by smug narrow-minded experts.

> it’s the people without expertise in a field that often see the holes in something first While it's obvious that everybody makes mistakes and has blind spots, I'd wager that, in general, being more knowledgeable gives you better tools to spot actual holes. And sure, experts too can be narrow-minded and smug. Just like everybody else.

> And sure, experts too can be narrow-minded and smug. Just like everybody else.

Being an expert always adds a big weakness: You get paid to do this so you are biased.

So no, they are not "just like everybody else", they have spent more time on it so they know some things better, but you can't get away from biases that comes from being paid to do something and that makes experts worse at some other things.

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

Mitochondriac wrote: post #88
Rediscover wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... vocal cord development ... I've read, from a few separate sources that were not research papers, something similar that claimed the development was a result of existing in semi-aquatic environments such as home on land but swimming for food/safety. I neither agree or disagree (not my field, I don't possess appropriate background/information), but I do think of it when evolution of vocal cords is mentioned. I do…

Semi-aquatic environments make sense if you look at our brains dependency on DHA (seafood is a rich source) and the hypothesis that our fingers get wrinkly in water after a while to improve grip.

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by nvlled »

nvlled wrote: post #149
WalterBright wrote: post #5

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

A semi-serious tinfoiled answer: Humans are a protected species, carefully raised and nurtured by higher organisms that are hundred thousand times larger than us (in terms of space and time). The earth and solar system is just a vivarium of galactic scale. Several "glass wall" mechanisms were placed to ensure we are separated from the rest of the universe, like the oort cloud. Somewhere out there in the universe are…

Playing with this outlandish thought further, the idea that earth is an enclosure for research or preservation explains why the solar system is configured the way it is and why tiny adjustments could render it an inhabitable wasteland.

As time goes on, the glass walls tend to age and occasionally the "cracks" allows external lifeforms (aliens) to slip past the protection layer, much like how insects or parasites would occasionally slip past any opening.

With this in mind, there would be two types of aliens/visitors to our enclosure: (1) lifeforms that are similar to humans in terms of size and biological complexity but more technologically advanced and (2) our protectors who are incomprehensibly larger and more complex than any life on earth. This isn't as outlandish as it seems to be considering there are stars that are million times larger than our own sun.

This sheer difference in scale might as well make the protectors exist in a different dimension. This explains why people would say that aliens were here all this time, but from another dimension. Technically they are here, but more accurately to say the protectors surround us.

Occasionally protectors would step in to prevent mankind from destroying their own enclosure, much like a terrarium owner would reach into the enclosure to remove unwanted organisms. Frequent unidentified sightings on nuclear sites is the protectors' way of peeking and reaching a "hand".

It remains to be seen if humanity would one day evolve to outgrow the enclosure.

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

#180

Post by andsoitis »

luxuryballs wrote: post #176
onraglanroad wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the people without expertise in a field that often see the holes in something first No they don't. That never happens. Would you expect someone who knows nothing about programming to identify flaws in a computer language? Of course not. You expect it will be people who actually understand the field that can identify issues.

it can even happen in software engineering but takes different forms, someone outside sees the problem first because they are looking from a different perspective or due to familiarity with some external factor or edge case of their environment

Example?
Post reply on HN