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

31–40 of 186 posts

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

#31

Post by AlotOfReading »

milesrout wrote: post #4
AlotOfReading wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the evidence we have points to the vast, vast majority (>90%) of non-african human ancestry originating from hominin populations that were in Africa around 60-80k years ago, and were anatomically modern about 300k years ago. This article is about an ancestral clade of archaic hominins that contributed around 2% of modern non-african ancestry globally, that we've known about for years. OOA (with minor admixture) i…

It is also the consensus position for a lot of bad reasons though. There is an assumption that belief in, or even reasonable agnosticism towards, any other theory can only be motivated by racism. There are many people that believe OOA because they want to believe it, because they want to believe we are all more similar than we are different, etc. Multiregional hypotheses are perfectly plausible. We have very limited…

Just to be clear about what the term multiregionalism means, it's an argument that there's anatomical continuity between archaic hominin populations around afroeurasia and modern human populations. That is, anatomical modernity didn't evolve once in Africa, but multiple times all over the world in populations that are still extant today. A multiregional hypothesis might say that modern Chinese people evolved from archaic populations in Asia.

This is completely and unequivocally rejected by the genetic evidence. The evidence is so absolutely overwhelming that even fucking Wolpoff came around and now says:

    It is broadly agreed that all recent/living human populations ultimately descend from Africans.
Now, if you mean something completely different to the commonly understood definition of multiregionalism, I'm willing to hear it.

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

#32

Post by Gravityloss »

gyomu wrote: post #23
AlotOfReading wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know. All of the great apes are incredibly intelligent in comparison to most other animals. The basic roots of our intelligence are probably a common feature to the whole family, but there's no consensus on why it's so advanced in humans. Any paleoanthropologist can rattle off about half a dozen possible explanations, but we honestly don't have enough evidence to really distinguish if, when, and how these we…

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

it's interesting to think that since humans got established, becoming too intelligent became a disadvantage? Like there's a glass ceiling.

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

#33

Post by AlotOfReading »

SamBam wrote: post #29
AlotOfReading wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution doesn't have end goals like building the most powerful computer possible. If caloric excesses are a factor, it's because there was some other selective pressure that made use of the energy to support more neurons. But even then, more hardware isn't the same thing as more intelligence. Elephants and whales have bigger brains than we do. Shrews and birds have a higher brain/body mass ratio. None of them are i…

Sperm whales may have more massive brains, but they have fewer cortical neurons total, and of course a much smaller brain to body mass ratio. But more importantly for this conversation, our brains use up a staggering 20-25% of our resting metabolic needs. A whale brain uses something like 3%. For us to be able to devote 20% of our calories to our brains, we simply needed to have a huge excess in the number of calorie…

The point of my comment is that cooking doesn't explain "why". It explains "how".

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

#34

Post by droopyEyelids »

nn3 wrote: post #17
WalterBright wrote: post #5

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

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.

Are there any other animals that have a system of writing?

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

#35

Post by mikert89 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #30
milesrout wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also the consensus position for a lot of bad reasons though. There is an assumption that belief in, or even reasonable agnosticism towards, any other theory can only be motivated by racism. There are many people that believe OOA because they want to believe it, because they want to believe we are all more similar than we are different, etc. Multiregional hypotheses are perfectly plausible. We have very limited…

There are many people that believe OOA because they want to believe it But, also, There are many people that [do not] believe OOA because they [do not] want to believe it . That's why we look at genetic evidence, to eliminate nonsense. That evidence strongly points to chimps, gorillas, humans etc all coming from the same place. If it makes you feels better, think of it this way: we don't believe OOA because the evide…

theres actually almost zero clarity around the common ancestor between apes and humans, and a lot of speculation that the common ancestor lived 6-8 million years ago.

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

#36

Post by dyauspitr »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #34
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.

Are there any other animals that have a system of writing?

Not even close.

Some great apes can learn to use symbols for communication. Bees can use specific dances to indicate direction and distance.

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

#37

Post by dyauspitr »

WalterBright wrote: post #5

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

That question is analogous to asking why did some fish grow legs and become mammals.

The answer is mutations sometimes specific members of a group will gain a mutation that will overtime cause that group to split off away from the ancestor group. It’s all a matter of chance evolution doesn’t have a direction.

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

#38

Post by nradov »

droopyEyelids wrote: post #34
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.

Are there any other animals that have a system of writing?

Researchers have taught primates to communicate using sequences of simple symbols. It's sort of like a system of writing but very primitive.

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

#39

Post by zmmmmm »

Gravityloss wrote: post #32
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?

it's interesting to think that since humans got established, becoming too intelligent became a disadvantage? Like there's a glass ceiling.

I like that theory although it is depressingly grim ... the top dog species will inherently see any alternative intelligence as a threat and eradicate it. Would definitely make one pause for thought about the wisdom of creating an AGI ...

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

#40

Post by Aachen »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #14
acchow wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why humans evolved intelligence but orangutans did not". There's a different way to think about this that is closer to how evolution actually works and will make the answer clear. Our common ancestor (common to orangutans and humans) did evolve intelligence (concurrently with harnessing fire, clothing etc.). Not all of them, but some of them. And they broke off from the group. We now call them humans.

I think their question is not about why humans evolved intelligence, but why one and only one single species did.

Wouldn't the first ones always wonder that?
Post reply on HN