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

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

#61

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 4:49 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #47

IncreasePosts wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do humans not fit the standards for being broken into multiple subspecies? I assumed that they would but "the science community" is too scared of the implications when idiots learn about it. I look at a sumatran tiger and a Siberian tiger and I see a lot less variance than I see when I look at a pygmy, a Norwegian, an sentinel islander, and a han Chinese person

>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…

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by Archelaos » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 4:59 AM UTC

John7878781 wrote: post #58

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.

> 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. Really? I thought the requirements for species classification were: (1) must be able to reproduce and (2) offspring must be fertile. Is it less objective than that?

Polar bears can have furtile offspring with grizzly/brown bears. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hyb...

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

#63

Post by verisimi » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 5:05 AM UTC

SloppyDrive wrote: post #39

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.

We dont categorize humans that way; not because humans are different but because of cultural norms. The generous idea is that "subspecies" does not provide an anthropologist a useful lens to look at humanity, therefore we do not classify. The alternative is that "subspecies" is too close to "race" for scientists, publishers, and funding bodies to touch, so its deliberately ignored.

I agree - cultural educating trumps scientific definitions.

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

#64

Post by beloch » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 5:13 AM UTC

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #60

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…

But the DNA of the sumatran tiger and a Siberian tiger is also over 99% identical?

The DNA of humans and chimps is 98.8% identical.

The percent difference between genomes of species is one of those tricky measures that doesn't really give good intuition. I find it much more useful to think in terms of the time since two species shared a common ancestor.

e.g. For humans and chimps, that's several million years. For Sumatran and Siberian tigers, it's around a hundred thousand years.

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

#65

Post by samsartor » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 5:15 AM UTC

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 tabby cats are more distinct. The two cats have different combinations of big/small nice/mean smart/dumb, but the genes average out to the same "typical" kind of cat in both cases.

Because humans get around so much, and because we think interesting-looking people are hot, the diversity is spread pretty broadly across the whole population. 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.

In short, the distributions of individuals overlap so much that the trendlines are pretty close to useless. And historically speaking, the people who tried to make a hard distinction out of those trendlines had awful motives.

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

#66

Post by whycombinetor » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 5:20 AM UTC

John7878781 wrote: post #58

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.

> 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. Really? I thought the requirements for species classification were: (1) must be able to reproduce and (2) offspring must be fertile. Is it less objective than that?

Interfertility is not an equivalence relation, does not form equivalence classes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

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

#67

Post by red75prime » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 5:27 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #47

IncreasePosts wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do humans not fit the standards for being broken into multiple subspecies? I assumed that they would but "the science community" is too scared of the implications when idiots learn about it. I look at a sumatran tiger and a Siberian tiger and I see a lot less variance than I see when I look at a pygmy, a Norwegian, an sentinel islander, and a han Chinese person

>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…

> the vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations

This particular argument (I am not talking about anything else) always looked to me as "inkblot defense" (Cephalopods muddy water to defend themselves).

Genome is discrete. A single nucleotide polymorphism can have far-reaching consequences. So it's a bit like arguing that this collection of pentagons is not statistically different from this collection of hexagons because radius variation within collections is greater than between collections.

One day I've got into trouble by pointing to another genetic adaptation (EPAS1 SNPs) rather than the poster child of genetic differences: an SNP in the 6th codon of the β-globin gene. But that's another story.

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

#68

Post by IncreasePosts » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 6:11 AM UTC

beloch wrote: post #64

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the DNA of the sumatran tiger and a Siberian tiger is also over 99% identical?

The DNA of humans and chimps is 98.8% identical. The percent difference between genomes of species is one of those tricky measures that doesn't really give good intuition. I find it much more useful to think in terms of the time since two species shared a common ancestor. e.g. For humans and chimps, that's several million years. For Sumatran and Siberian tigers, it's around a hundred thousand years.

What's the most recent common ancestor between an North Sentinel islander and a Norwegian? Mitochondrial Eve is 150kya

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

#69

Post by redsocksfan45 » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 8:55 AM UTC

chrisweekly wrote: post #46

showerst wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about Taraxacum officinale, the common dandelion? It’s not quite all across the globe but pretty close, and is so adapted that it is not considered invasive any more in most places.

Or, it's equally invasive everywhere.

[dead]

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

#70

Post by rcxdude » Sat, Apr 18, 2026, 9:09 AM UTC

John7878781 wrote: post #58

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.

> 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. Really? I thought the requirements for species classification were: (1) must be able to reproduce and (2) offspring must be fertile. Is it less objective than that?

There are a lot of subtleties. Ring species are a particularly fun one: you can have a population that live around some natural obstacle (like a large body of water) where individuals can breed successfully with individuals near to them but not with ones further way (like directly across the barrier), in a continuum of variation.