Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New human-like species discovered

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 218 posts

Re: New human-like species discovered

#71

Post by ceejayoz »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #63
mootothemax wrote: post #35

The Guardian's coverage of this contains a fair amount of scepticism: Christoph Zollikofer, an anthropologist at the University of Zurich, said that many of the bone characteristics used to claim the creature as a new species are seen in more primitive animals, and by definition cannot be used to define a new species. “The few ‘unique’ features that potentially define the new species need further scrutiny, as they ma…

Do we still depend on bone structure to define species? DNA analysis is indisputable. Its all speculation until that is done.

DNA's half-life is 521 years.

http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11...

Re: New human-like species discovered

#72

Post by BorgHunter »

lev_k wrote: post #62
kyberias wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder whether they'd like to be called "girl scientists".

Maybe "scientists who are girls" would be more befitting? I suppose that the phrasing "girl scientists" first emphasizes the fact they are girls before they fact that they are scientists (clearly the more relevant of the two traits).

I think the point is that the word "girl" infantilizes the women who put in a lot of work and effort to the project.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#73

Post by ceejayoz »

elros wrote: post #56
gregwtmtno wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is the "species" construction itself. Remember, it's completely made up by people and has no obligation to reflect the sometimes messy reality on the ground. I'm more interested in what we can learn about these people (using the term for convenience) than what they are called. When did they live? How much genetic distance is there between us and them? Do modern humans carry some of their genes? Co…

I do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring". Apparently, though, it's not that simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

> I do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring".

Which is problematic for extinct animals. We have no way of knowing if modern humans would be able to produce offspring with Neanderthals, for example.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#74

Post by stefantalpalaru »

kfk wrote: post #65
javert wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider that "spanish" and "italian" are officially separate languages, while the US and Scotland both officially speak "english". The terminology won't help you predict which pair has an easier time communicating. I'm not certain, but that doesn't sound right to me. I'm pretty sure Americans and Scots have a far easier time communicating than someone who only speaks Italian and someone who only speaks Spanish. (A…

Correct. Italian and Spanish can understand each other, but with a lot of effort and keeping communication at a very basic level. This thing that we can speak to each other easily is a myth. That said, we can learn each other languages in a matter of weeks.

> we can learn each other languages in a matter of weeks

Not so fast. Even if you limit yourself to a vocabulary made of the most common 10000 words, you still need a lot more practice to differentiate between nouns that have a gender in Italian and another in Spanish, irregular verbs, idioms, etc.

Understanding a language is one thing. Speaking and writing it is a whole new level.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#75

Post by JulianMorrison »

gregwtmtno wrote: post #44
njharman wrote: post #26

Something I've never understood (since highschool some 30 years ago) is; when getting partial skeletons perhaps from only a single individual, how can they claim new species? I mean what's diff with that and some hypothetical future anthropoligist looking at siberian with roundish skull thicker brow ridges and that of six foot tall masai with long face and then a sub 5 foot native peruvian and declaring them all diff…

I think the problem is the "species" construction itself. Remember, it's completely made up by people and has no obligation to reflect the sometimes messy reality on the ground. I'm more interested in what we can learn about these people (using the term for convenience) than what they are called. When did they live? How much genetic distance is there between us and them? Do modern humans carry some of their genes? Co…

Species is really a misapplied concept when you look at one current lifeform's ancestry. Everything is a "ring species" with some sufficiently old ancestor.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#76

Post by JulianMorrison »

ceejayoz wrote: post #73
elros wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring". Apparently, though, it's not that simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

> I do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring". Which is problematic for extinct animals. We have no way of knowing if modern humans would be able to produce offspring with Neanderthals, for example.

Actually, I think we do, DNA, and the answer is yes.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#77

Post by mklim »

ceejayoz wrote: post #73
elros wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring". Apparently, though, it's not that simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

> I do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring". Which is problematic for extinct animals. We have no way of knowing if modern humans would be able to produce offspring with Neanderthals, for example.

The current body of evidence suggests that we could and did, since Neanderthal DNA is present in some modern humans [1].

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33226416

Re: New human-like species discovered

#78

Post by osazuwa »

"What we are seeing is more and more species of creatures that suggests that nature was experimenting with how to evolve humans, thus giving rise to several different types of human-like creatures originating in parallel in different parts of Africa. Only one line eventually survived to give rise to us," Far out. What if they could make a Jurassic Park, but instead of dinosaurs, extinct human-like species?

Re: New human-like species discovered

#79

Post by RogtamBar »

ceejayoz wrote: post #73
elros wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring". Apparently, though, it's not that simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

> I do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring". Which is problematic for extinct animals. We have no way of knowing if modern humans would be able to produce offspring with Neanderthals, for example.

No, we know humans have produced viable offspring with neanderthals in very recent evolutionary past (30,000 years).

While the human species has changed during that time, no doubt we are still interfertile with neanderthals.

Re: New human-like species discovered

#80

Post by Lawtonfogle »

njharman wrote: post #26

Something I've never understood (since highschool some 30 years ago) is; when getting partial skeletons perhaps from only a single individual, how can they claim new species? I mean what's diff with that and some hypothetical future anthropoligist looking at siberian with roundish skull thicker brow ridges and that of six foot tall masai with long face and then a sub 5 foot native peruvian and declaring them all diff…

If species were based on bone structure, how many species of dogs would there be?
Post reply on HN