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

81–90 of 186 posts

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

#81

Post by acchow »

WalterBright wrote: post #43
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.

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.

> So why didn't chimps get some of them?

The chimps that did get them we now call humans.

There were no chimps back then. We had a shared common ancestor, and subgroups gradually emerged and gradually became different enough that they stopped interbreeding (or were physically separated).

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

#82

Post by shermantanktop »

Razengan wrote: post #26
WalterBright wrote: post #5

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

Who says they didn't? What would "intelligence" look like WHILE it was evolving? A slightly more unsettling thought: How would newly-emerging intelligence FEEL like, internally? Also, how would humans fare if born and raised in the wild, without any language or tools taught to them?

Given that the future human is different than you are today, they could ask you the same questions. How does it FEEL for you to communicate worldwide with an HN post, but not yet have the ability to (insert advanced capability here).

Every one of our evolutionary ancestors was the best human yet, just like we are.

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

#83

Post by Arwill »

jjk166 wrote: post #15
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.

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.

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

#84

Post by rishav_sharan »

yongjik wrote: post #42
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.

From what I've heard, language is unambiguously unique to humans, if you consider grammar an integral part of languages. You can teach chimpanzees hand signs, but they could never make the leap to stringing them together under a coherent rule: something like the difference between "Mom give me cookies" vs "I give mom cookies." (I'm no expert, so take that with a grain of salt.)

Don't think so. Whales and dolphins seem to have a fairly sophisticated language with regional dialects and accents.

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

#86

Post by anal_reactor »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #16
WalterBright wrote: post #5

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

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…

I'm a huge fan of the hypothesis that:

1. Survival is easier in groups

2. In order to survive in groups, we need to communicate

3. We communicate using language

4. Language is directly linked with intelligence

See how computers started displaying intelligence when we taught them our language

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

#87

Post by ChrisGreenHeur »

anal_reactor wrote: post #86
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…

I'm a huge fan of the hypothesis that: 1. Survival is easier in groups 2. In order to survive in groups, we need to communicate 3. We communicate using language 4. Language is directly linked with intelligence See how computers started displaying intelligence when we taught them our language

all of this applies to monkeys

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

#88

Post by Mitochondriac »

Rediscover wrote: post #60
strogonoff wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering human intelligence is very social, I wonder if bias to focus on individual humans leads us to a wrong way of understanding why it arose… One of my pet theories is that it may be related to vocal cord development[0], where losing certain physiology that allows apes to be louder allowed humans to be more specific , if quieter, with enhanced pitch control and stability offering higher information density com…

> ... 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.

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

#90

Post by _petronius »

KurSix wrote: post #70

Always worth asking how much these reconstructions reflect reality vs the assumptions built into the models

If a thought like this has occurred to you, a dilettante, after reading a headline and/or cursorily glancing over the article, then you should assume that a study conducted by people with substantial academic training and deep expertise in the field have also had this thought and incorporated it into how they perform their analysis.

Drive-by anti-intellectualism like this is the death of interesting conversation, truly.

Post reply on HN