Scientists find preserved dinosaur embryo preparing to hatch like a bird(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Scientists find preserved dinosaur embryo preparing to hatch like a bird
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/dec/21/scientists-find-perfectly-preserved-dinosaur-embryo-preparing-to-hatch-like-a-bird
158 comments
High levels of preservation of just about anything 60--80 million years old is rare and unexpected.
Tyrannosaurus Rex is amongst the most iconic of all dinosaurs. All knowledge we have of them comes from 18 known specimens. Of those, only 8 are 50% or more complete. "Sue", one of the best preserved examples, discovered in 1990, is 85% complete. The "dueling dinosaur" specimen (found locked in battle with a Tricerotops) is 98% complete, the most perfect yet found, discovered in 2006.
These finds are rare, they're often very partial, they're often distorted by geological processes. For example, Sue's skill is deformed due to movement of the substrates it was entombed in, a fabricated replica correcting this distortion is used on the mounted display at the Chicago Field Museum, the original is displayed separately.
A "perfectly preserved" specimen is one that is intact, in its original arrangement, not damaged, and not distorted or scattered over the landscape (or more accurately, across the strata in which it was buried).
Some respect for the time, processes, and good fortune involved here would be appropriate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specimens_of_Tyrannosaurus
Tyrannosaurus Rex is amongst the most iconic of all dinosaurs. All knowledge we have of them comes from 18 known specimens. Of those, only 8 are 50% or more complete. "Sue", one of the best preserved examples, discovered in 1990, is 85% complete. The "dueling dinosaur" specimen (found locked in battle with a Tricerotops) is 98% complete, the most perfect yet found, discovered in 2006.
These finds are rare, they're often very partial, they're often distorted by geological processes. For example, Sue's skill is deformed due to movement of the substrates it was entombed in, a fabricated replica correcting this distortion is used on the mounted display at the Chicago Field Museum, the original is displayed separately.
A "perfectly preserved" specimen is one that is intact, in its original arrangement, not damaged, and not distorted or scattered over the landscape (or more accurately, across the strata in which it was buried).
Some respect for the time, processes, and good fortune involved here would be appropriate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specimens_of_Tyrannosaurus
I don't think that's a comprehensive list, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Resurgent_intere... mentions that 42 skeletons have been found in western North America. I don't have the page number, but I also remember reading in Steve Brusatte's "The Rise and Fall of Dinosaurs" that there are some areas where T. rex's were so common that you can find teeth relatively easily.
Agreed that findings this well preserved are incredibly rare and fortunate.
Agreed that findings this well preserved are incredibly rare and fortunate.
Fair point on comprehensiveness. I think I'd meant to write "Wikipedia lists 18...", but lost that compiling the comment.
Point remains, though, that for a species (or possibly family) that existed on Earth for a few million years (Wikipedia gives 68--66 mya, so only 2 million years, same article you cite) ... has turned up probably fewer than 100 surviving specimens, out of an estimated total 2.5 billions which had ever existed. That's literally a one-in-amillion chance of fossilisation, preservation, and discovery, so far.
Point remains, though, that for a species (or possibly family) that existed on Earth for a few million years (Wikipedia gives 68--66 mya, so only 2 million years, same article you cite) ... has turned up probably fewer than 100 surviving specimens, out of an estimated total 2.5 billions which had ever existed. That's literally a one-in-amillion chance of fossilisation, preservation, and discovery, so far.
You nerd sniped me. Reading about the various famous fossils, their discovery, and restoration was really interesting!
I nerd-sniped myself ;-)
I don’t understand what you find clickbaity about the title. For reference now when I’m reading the article the title is: “Scientists find perfectly preserved dinosaur embryo preparing to hatch like a bird”.
It is a clear and concise description of what the article is about.
It is a clear and concise description of what the article is about.
The title sound like they have found an embryo in some sort of permafrost with DNA and everything else.
It sounds like you have an objection with the term “perfectly preserved”?
Words can have different meanings in different contexts.
In the context of dinosaurs “perfectly preserved” means that even fine details can be discerned in the fossils. And yes fossils are rocks. Someone who knows the minimal amount about dinos will know this, and even if it’s the first time you encounter the concept the article explains it nicely.
Titles are titles. They are short and thus they can’t provide a treatrise on the sum of all human knowledge. You need common sense to parse them.
Words can have different meanings in different contexts.
In the context of dinosaurs “perfectly preserved” means that even fine details can be discerned in the fossils. And yes fossils are rocks. Someone who knows the minimal amount about dinos will know this, and even if it’s the first time you encounter the concept the article explains it nicely.
Titles are titles. They are short and thus they can’t provide a treatrise on the sum of all human knowledge. You need common sense to parse them.
I think the title is fine but they are right I will be seeing this article shared on Facebook in a day or so and people will assume they mean it was preserved as an organism not turned into a rock. I knew what they meant from the title and I’m sure so will most intellectually inclined individuals but there is a huge market of people who eat up pop sci (or their titles at least) articles and it perpetuates fake science even if the article isn’t actually doing that.
It’s basically like those articles that say “scientist proves existence of higher dimensions” where everyone who tends to read scientific literature figures they mean “has solved some physics equation using 4 dimensions instead of 3” but the majority who see it only through popsci articles and groups think the scientist has found physical evidence of another universe.
It’s basically like those articles that say “scientist proves existence of higher dimensions” where everyone who tends to read scientific literature figures they mean “has solved some physics equation using 4 dimensions instead of 3” but the majority who see it only through popsci articles and groups think the scientist has found physical evidence of another universe.
>Words can have different meanings in different contexts.
Sure. It would be much better to put it as "perfectly preserved fossil" or something like that.
I understand that for people who read articles about “perfectly preserved” dinosaurs often this instantly means "fine details can be discerned in the fossils", but for the majority of people who saw the title while scrolling the news feed - this means much more.
Sure. It would be much better to put it as "perfectly preserved fossil" or something like that.
I understand that for people who read articles about “perfectly preserved” dinosaurs often this instantly means "fine details can be discerned in the fossils", but for the majority of people who saw the title while scrolling the news feed - this means much more.
I agree with you on "perfectly preserved".
> fossils are rocks
Not always, especially in paleontology. Any kind of preservation counts, e.g. amber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
> fossils are rocks
Not always, especially in paleontology. Any kind of preservation counts, e.g. amber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
Strictly speaking, "fossil" means "dug up".
That meaning's become confounded with the sense of "fossilised" as in "mineralised", but the original etymology referred to anything dug from the ground, hence coal as a fossil (that is, dug-from-the-Earth) fuel, a nomenclature later passed on to petroleum and natural gas.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/fossil
(I'd only discovered this myself recently.)
That meaning's become confounded with the sense of "fossilised" as in "mineralised", but the original etymology referred to anything dug from the ground, hence coal as a fossil (that is, dug-from-the-Earth) fuel, a nomenclature later passed on to petroleum and natural gas.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/fossil
(I'd only discovered this myself recently.)
Oh, and "mineral" is ... stuff that comes from mines.
(Etymology is fun.)
(Etymology is fun.)
Oh you are right. I totally forgot about amber. Thank you.
As a counterpoint, on first read I also thought it was ready to hatch now.
I think the bigger problem is "preparing to hatch." Rocks don't hatch. It would have to still be alive to hatch.
> You need common sense to parse them.
The problem is that common sense also depends on context. In this case the target audience is not paleontologists, so the headline should be adjusted.
The problem is that common sense also depends on context. In this case the target audience is not paleontologists, so the headline should be adjusted.
The picture is directly below it. The picture gives you the context.
You can't see the picture unless you click the link though. My point in that the title should be give better information even without the article itself.
That's only true for places like HN. For many places the article is distributed, a picture is common to be included.
I have seen another commenter say that the articles shared on social media often include an artist rendition. Those would definitely be clickbait.
I have seen another commenter say that the articles shared on social media often include an artist rendition. Those would definitely be clickbait.
I've seen this news shared through various forums at least 5-6 times and not once did I think it's an actual dinosaur embryo! Sure, science reporting, especially the headlines in mainstream media, can be much better but I'm not sure that's the case here
You didn’t, but millions of people when they see the headline on social media. Still don’t think it’s a bad title though, just would be nice if we could guarantee people read the actual articles when we know most don’t.
> You didn't, but millions of people when they see the headline on social media.
Then we have a much bigger problem than the headline.
Then we have a much bigger problem than the headline.
Many clickbait articles include both a clickbait title and a clickbait picture. The picture included in the article gives context to the meaning of perfectly preserved.
Many social media platforms allow the picture to be included in post. This article wouldn't be clickbait on one of those. This is only a problem on platforms like HN.
Many social media platforms allow the picture to be included in post. This article wouldn't be clickbait on one of those. This is only a problem on platforms like HN.
[deleted]
It does seem that a creationist argument is that the presence of organic matter in fossils suggests their youth.
Because "preserved" implies keeping something in it's pristine or natural state. This is a fossil. My immediate thought was it was "preserved" in amber.
In any case, the sub-title declares it as a fossil, which is more accurate.
In any case, the sub-title declares it as a fossil, which is more accurate.
> Because "preserved" implies keeping something in it's pristine or natural state.
No, it doesn't. It means something protected from decay, or kept intact, or protected.
It's common to preserve food in vinegar, sugar or salt, often after cooking it.
It's common to preserve plant and animals for study by drying them or pickling them (e.g. alcohol/formaldehyde).
No, it doesn't. It means something protected from decay, or kept intact, or protected.
It's common to preserve food in vinegar, sugar or salt, often after cooking it.
It's common to preserve plant and animals for study by drying them or pickling them (e.g. alcohol/formaldehyde).
Would you like to challenge the British Geological Survey on their definition of a fossil?
"Fossils are the preserved remains of plants and animals whose bodies were buried in sediments, such as sand and mud, under ancient seas, lakes and rivers."[0]
Or the Natural History Museum:
"A fossil is physical evidence of a prehistoric plant or animal. This may be their preserved remains or other traces, such as marks they made in the ground while they were alive."[1]
[0]: https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/fossils-and-geolog...
[1]: A fossil is physical evidence of a prehistoric plant or animal. This may be their preserved remains or other traces, such as marks they made in the ground while they were alive.
"Fossils are the preserved remains of plants and animals whose bodies were buried in sediments, such as sand and mud, under ancient seas, lakes and rivers."[0]
Or the Natural History Museum:
"A fossil is physical evidence of a prehistoric plant or animal. This may be their preserved remains or other traces, such as marks they made in the ground while they were alive."[1]
[0]: https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/fossils-and-geolog...
[1]: A fossil is physical evidence of a prehistoric plant or animal. This may be their preserved remains or other traces, such as marks they made in the ground while they were alive.
"Fossil" is more general than rock. It would still be a fossil if it was preserved in amber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
> The specimen was one of several egg fossils that were forgotten in storage for decades.
Found in storage. Doesn't make it clickbaity, but...
> The research team suspected they may contain unborn dinosaurs, and scraped off part of Baby Yingliang’s eggshell to uncover the embryo hidden within.
...makes me wonder about their paleontology practices.
Found in storage. Doesn't make it clickbaity, but...
> The research team suspected they may contain unborn dinosaurs, and scraped off part of Baby Yingliang’s eggshell to uncover the embryo hidden within.
...makes me wonder about their paleontology practices.
The title is like an InGen press release
Also written purposefully ambiguously to entice readers to click in.
And now the top thread is a pointless pedantic bun fight about precise use of perfectly acceptable terminology in the headline. Again. To no good purpose whatsoever.
They should really add an HN guideline that title pedantry is discouraged. This is the fourth article I’ve jumped in the comments just today to find the top thread is about debating some word or other in the title.
You may have a point, but giving the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they were just targeting the headline to people who understand what "perfectly preserved" realistically means in the context of dinosaur fossils. I certainly didn't consider upon reading it that they'd discovered a viable dinosaur embryo.
If you read ever so slightly past the headline it says:
"At least 66m-year-old fossil discovered in southern China reveals posture previously unseen in dinosaurs"
Most people know what a fossil is and that it's rock (though other materials such as amber can do the same thing).
"At least 66m-year-old fossil discovered in southern China reveals posture previously unseen in dinosaurs"
Most people know what a fossil is and that it's rock (though other materials such as amber can do the same thing).
Thank you for clarifying on "Young Earth" Creationists and not just globbing all Creationists together.
is that where rocks come from? now I am sad looking at the ground
It doesn't matter. YECs would say god created it to test them or the devil created it to trick them, it doesn't matter how precisely or imprecisely you word headlines about dinosaurs they still won't believe it. Stop worrying so much about whatever stupid things they think, you're not going to bring them to sanity around by being super pedantic.
My first thoughts on seeing the rendering of the embryo was that 1) it looks like an embryo bird (all the more with feathers depicted), 2) that an infant or juvenile dinosaur might look and act quite birdlike, including feathers (possibly for warmth / thermal regulation, and as camouflage) and hopping, perhaps even some winglike structures and functions of arms, and if that's the case, that 3) birds evolving from dinosaurs might well be a case of neoteny --- not the evolution of new body forms and functions, but the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood.
And it seems I'm not the first to think so.
"How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds" (2015)
Not only are birds much smaller than their dinosaur ancestors, they closely resemble dinosaur embryos. Adaptations such as these may have paved the way for modern birds’ distinguishing features, namely their ability to fly and their remarkably agile beaks. The work demonstrates how huge evolutionary changes can result from a series of small evolutionary steps.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shr...
And as Steve Brusatte is quoted in TFA:
“This little prenatal dinosaur looks just like a baby bird curled in its egg, which is yet more evidence that many features characteristic of today’s birds first evolved in their dinosaur ancestors.”
https://newatlas.com/biology/fossilized-embryo-dinosaurs-bir...
If that's the case, then it's not so much that birds evolved from dinosaurs as that birds are juvenilised dinosaurs, exhibiting characteristics which were once typical of (at least some) dinosaur species.
And it seems I'm not the first to think so.
"How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds" (2015)
Not only are birds much smaller than their dinosaur ancestors, they closely resemble dinosaur embryos. Adaptations such as these may have paved the way for modern birds’ distinguishing features, namely their ability to fly and their remarkably agile beaks. The work demonstrates how huge evolutionary changes can result from a series of small evolutionary steps.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shr...
And as Steve Brusatte is quoted in TFA:
“This little prenatal dinosaur looks just like a baby bird curled in its egg, which is yet more evidence that many features characteristic of today’s birds first evolved in their dinosaur ancestors.”
https://newatlas.com/biology/fossilized-embryo-dinosaurs-bir...
If that's the case, then it's not so much that birds evolved from dinosaurs as that birds are juvenilised dinosaurs, exhibiting characteristics which were once typical of (at least some) dinosaur species.
thanks for giving us a 600px image
here's the study source, with beautiful high res version of the pictures https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(21)01487-5
here's the study source, with beautiful high res version of the pictures https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(21)01487-5
Here's direct link to pictures of actual egg in link shared above, for those curious: https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/cms/attachme...
Thanks for sharing this - the imagery that's seemed to have gone viral the other places I surf seems to be an artist's beautiful interpretation /illustration of what the living egg/bird would have potentially looked like - and in vibrant, full colour!
Thanks for sharing this - the imagery that's seemed to have gone viral the other places I surf seems to be an artist's beautiful interpretation /illustration of what the living egg/bird would have potentially looked like - and in vibrant, full colour!
Here's a larger resolution image: https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/cms/attachme...
[deleted]
Since birds are dinosaurs, don’t you mean “preparing to hatch like a dinosaur”?
Obviously a dinosaur will hatch like a dinosaur. Thats tautological.
The new finding is that that individual dino appeared to be hatching in the same way present day birds do. (As opposed to for example how crocodiles do.)
The article states that this behaviour was not previously observed in dinosaur fosils therefore it was not known which way they hatched exactly.
The new finding is that that individual dino appeared to be hatching in the same way present day birds do. (As opposed to for example how crocodiles do.)
The article states that this behaviour was not previously observed in dinosaur fosils therefore it was not known which way they hatched exactly.
[deleted]
No, it says in the article that what is surprising, is that the embryo was lying in the egg like a bird, _not_ like previously found dinosaur embryos, which lied like crocodiles/reptiles.
So, it was preparing to hatch like a bird, unlike other dinosaur embryos found before.
So, it was preparing to hatch like a bird, unlike other dinosaur embryos found before.
Parent was making a pedantic comment; birds are a subset of dinosaurs. https://www.livescience.com/are-birds-dinosaurs.html
Birds are dinosaurs, but dinosaurs are not birds. If the article were about a fossilized mammalian embryo being born like a dog, you wouldn't say "since dogs are mammals, don't you mean born like a mammal?".
Dinosaurs are reptiles of the Dinosauria clade. Just because birds have an ancestry that stems from dinosaurs doesn't mean they are dinosaurs.
> Dinosaurs are reptiles of the Dinosauria clade. Just because birds have an ancestry that stems from dinosaurs doesn't mean they are dinosaurs.
In phylogenetic taxonomy: (1) that's exactly what it means, and (2) that's why Aves is within Dinosauria.
In phylogenetic taxonomy: (1) that's exactly what it means, and (2) that's why Aves is within Dinosauria.
Except they're not within Dinosauria. Aves is within Sauropsida.
EDIT: I guess they're within a clade Avialae that is nested under Dinosauria. So yes, it looks like you are right.
EDIT: I guess they're within a clade Avialae that is nested under Dinosauria. So yes, it looks like you are right.
You seem to be getting confused by Wikipedia’s treatment of lists of taxonomic categories, where it randomly excludes levels (particularly in sequences of clades) in the middle. If you read the actual description of taxonomic categories, or follow the chain, or use a source which doesn't randomly omit levels in lists, or consider why Dinosauria and one particular branch at every level below it is not marked extinct, you would see that you are wrong.
“Like an avian dinosaur” would be the modern terminology, I believe
(Edited:) Yes, but that’s just a long-winded way saying ”like a bird”. This dinosaur was not itself a bird because birds evolved only after the K–Pg event.
>the dinosaurs that survived K–Pg were not avian
Doesn't the term "avian dinosaur" in some sense mean "survived K-Pg"?
Doesn't the term "avian dinosaur" in some sense mean "survived K-Pg"?
Yeah, but not the other way around. But there’s semantic ambiguity with the term “avian” – I used it to mean “capable of flight” but it can also mean “member of the clade Aves”. The dinos that survived were not flying at that time , and not all survivors were in Aves; flight evolved in Aves only after K–Pg and other dinos that survived went extinct later.
(I edited my original comment to be more precise)
(I edited my original comment to be more precise)
That does not jibe with my reading. Which is that there were certainly flightless birds that survived K-Pg (Palaeognathae, ostrich ancestors) and the dominant flying dinosaurs (Enantiornithes) died off, but Neognathae survived and was flight-capable.
Penguins, ostriches, and emus are definitely birds, definitely avian, and definitely not capable of flight (under their own power).
But not exclusively. There were pre-K-Pg avians, too.
“Avian” or “Avian dinosaur” just means a particular branch of dinosaur that gave rise to modern birds. As opposed to “non-avian dinosaurs”.
“Avian” or “Avian dinosaur” just means a particular branch of dinosaur that gave rise to modern birds. As opposed to “non-avian dinosaurs”.
Sure, there would necessarily have to be pre-K-Pg avians for them to have been the only ones that survived. I just don't see how one could characterize surviving dinosaurs as non-avian in any way, but they apparently meant non-flying.
Perhaps, yes. My answer was intended as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek response :)
Is it possible to actually get DNA material from such preserved embryos and create dinosaurs again like the jurassic park movies?
No.
Chemically speaking, it's a rock. None of the original organic matter is left, it has all been permineralized.
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossilsarchive/permin.html
Chemically speaking, it's a rock. None of the original organic matter is left, it has all been permineralized.
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossilsarchive/permin.html
DNA completely decays after at most 1k years
You're off by at least an order of magnitude there; we have DNA samples from well further back than that, such as from Neanderthals and from mammoths.
But no, it doesn't last long enough to get DNA samples from dinosaurs. I don't know the area well enough to give a good figure, but 1 million years seems to be an upper bound from what I can find quickly.
But no, it doesn't last long enough to get DNA samples from dinosaurs. I don't know the area well enough to give a good figure, but 1 million years seems to be an upper bound from what I can find quickly.
A classic counterexample is
"Scientists took 166 bone samples from 151 mummies, dating from approximately 1400 B.C. to A.D. 400, extracting DNA from 90 individuals and mapping the full genome in three cases." as reported (for instance) on https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/22/health/ancient-egypt-mumm...
"Scientists took 166 bone samples from 151 mummies, dating from approximately 1400 B.C. to A.D. 400, extracting DNA from 90 individuals and mapping the full genome in three cases." as reported (for instance) on https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/22/health/ancient-egypt-mumm...
DNA's half life has been estimated at 521 years [1] in moderate temperatures, so after 1k years a quarter of it would still be left. That must depend on the conditions though. DNA 500,000 years old has been found in ice cores (presumably a higher half life there, since of e.g. the 3 billion base pair human genome, 3e9/2**(500e3/521) ≈ 3.8e-280 would be left after that time with that half life).
[1] https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/whats-half-li...
[1] https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/whats-half-li...
A DNA molecule is very long, it has of the order of 1 billion nucleotides. You don’t need entire molecules to do the sequencing, just segments. Even if you had the entire molecules, you would start by splitting them up [1].
If you can retrieve enough segments, you might try some sort of Bayesian inference. You start with the DNA of the common ancestor of reptiles and dinosaurs (and therefore birds). You don’t know what it was, but you know that it evolved into the current reptiles and birds via random mutations followed by adaptive selections. You get a posterior for it, then you use it as a prior for the DNA of the dino for which you have sequenced a number of segments.
[1] https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/gene-expressi...
If you can retrieve enough segments, you might try some sort of Bayesian inference. You start with the DNA of the common ancestor of reptiles and dinosaurs (and therefore birds). You don’t know what it was, but you know that it evolved into the current reptiles and birds via random mutations followed by adaptive selections. You get a posterior for it, then you use it as a prior for the DNA of the dino for which you have sequenced a number of segments.
[1] https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/gene-expressi...
Is that true if it was frozen for the entire time?
Where would something have stayed frozen for ~65M years?
Not a rhetorical question so much as a follow up. I don’t know the answer to your question.
Not a rhetorical question so much as a follow up. I don’t know the answer to your question.
Mostly asking a hypothetical question really. Like there have been Giant camel fossil found in Arctic:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21673940
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21673940
I wonder if the dinosaurs would have developed intelligence and civilization by now, had it not been for the Chicxulub asteroid?
It only took our species a few hundred thousand years at most, while it's been hundreds of times longer than that since the dinosaurs went extinct.
At the same time, sharks never developed civilization, so who's to say?
At the same time, sharks never developed civilization, so who's to say?
That's starting from a point almost at the finish line, with intelligent social dexterous tool-using fire-making apes. Really it took our species about 4 billion years. Every other living species has had just as long, and hasn't developed civilisation. There's every reason to think that the extinct dinosaurs, given 66 million more years, would be like every other non-human species.
That got me wondering how long it took social insects to evolve. Did we have massive colonies 66 million years ago? Appears so. [0]
[0] https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/32/2/406/1054064
[0] https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/32/2/406/1054064
I'd listen to this thread as a podcast
Is it inevitable that given enough time, the dominant life form in a sufficiently hospitable environment will develop higher intelligence and civilization? I'm not sure we know whether that's the case or not.
Life has existed on Earth for at least 4 billion years --- it seems to have emerged within 500 million years of the planet's initial formation.
Complex life --- multicellular life with differentiated structures --- took another 3.4 billion years to form, emerging only about 600 million years ago.
Much of the biological hardware and processes for intelligence seems to have emerged with the first mammals (~200 million years ago), particularly emotional-hormonal systems that seem broadly common. It still took most of the intervening time for clever apes to emerge (about 2 million years ago), with anatomically modern humans showing up 200,000 years ago. When language developed isn't clear, but likely by degrees somewhere between 2 million and 50,000 years ago.
(There's a great presentation on the anthropological evidence of complex thinking in this 2012 presentation by Sander van der Leeuw: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pOyQqPi28ug 69 minutes, most of the meat is in the first 20--30 minutes, high-density information.)
And modern technological society is really about 200 years old, with "peak invention" being variously defined, but the 50 to 100 years beginning about 1875 would be a good choice.
So: over 4.6 billion years, life has existed for over 4 billion, and developed complex and technological intelligence only within the past 1 million years, and quite possibly substantially less. That's 0.02% of the total time.
Earth itself will remain generally habitable for only about another 800 million years. If humans or other intelligent species survive over that period, they'll still account for less than 15% of the history of life on Earth.
Considering intelligence to be inevitable is ... somewhat poorly supported, at least based on that timeline.
(Related, see the Drake Equation, and yes, we're working with a single sample study and numerous unknowns.)
Complex life --- multicellular life with differentiated structures --- took another 3.4 billion years to form, emerging only about 600 million years ago.
Much of the biological hardware and processes for intelligence seems to have emerged with the first mammals (~200 million years ago), particularly emotional-hormonal systems that seem broadly common. It still took most of the intervening time for clever apes to emerge (about 2 million years ago), with anatomically modern humans showing up 200,000 years ago. When language developed isn't clear, but likely by degrees somewhere between 2 million and 50,000 years ago.
(There's a great presentation on the anthropological evidence of complex thinking in this 2012 presentation by Sander van der Leeuw: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pOyQqPi28ug 69 minutes, most of the meat is in the first 20--30 minutes, high-density information.)
And modern technological society is really about 200 years old, with "peak invention" being variously defined, but the 50 to 100 years beginning about 1875 would be a good choice.
So: over 4.6 billion years, life has existed for over 4 billion, and developed complex and technological intelligence only within the past 1 million years, and quite possibly substantially less. That's 0.02% of the total time.
Earth itself will remain generally habitable for only about another 800 million years. If humans or other intelligent species survive over that period, they'll still account for less than 15% of the history of life on Earth.
Considering intelligence to be inevitable is ... somewhat poorly supported, at least based on that timeline.
(Related, see the Drake Equation, and yes, we're working with a single sample study and numerous unknowns.)
Just wanted to say that comments like this are what makes me return to hacker news every once in a while. Thanks!
“Dominant life form” is not really a well defined concept.
I assume you would say humans are the dominant life form of the present day earth, and many would agree with that. Ants are more numerous, cattle and antarctic krill are heavier by biomass so clearly such simple metrics are not what we are after.
And clearly back when humans started developing “higher inteligence” they were just funny monkeys running around the savana harased by jackals left and right. Very much not a “dominant life form” in any sense of the word. One could attribute any special significance to them only in hindsight by what they become, rather than what they were.
I assume you would say humans are the dominant life form of the present day earth, and many would agree with that. Ants are more numerous, cattle and antarctic krill are heavier by biomass so clearly such simple metrics are not what we are after.
And clearly back when humans started developing “higher inteligence” they were just funny monkeys running around the savana harased by jackals left and right. Very much not a “dominant life form” in any sense of the word. One could attribute any special significance to them only in hindsight by what they become, rather than what they were.
True, more a matter of the intelligence resulting in dominance than the reverse. I think you could define dominant as, basically, top of the food chain - able to kill any other animal it wishes to, and able to defend itself from all others. It would certainly be possible to be dominant without high intelligence, but it seems unlikely it would be possible to be dominant over a competitor that has a significant intelligence advantage, assuming the competitor survives long enough to exploit it.
But the question is, does that mean that if such an evolutionary path is possible in a given environment, it will always eventually occur? My guess would be yes, but I'm certainly not 100% confident. ('Eventually' meaning, say, within a hundred million years. Presumably given infinite time, everything possible would occur, so that's not really interesting.)
But the question is, does that mean that if such an evolutionary path is possible in a given environment, it will always eventually occur? My guess would be yes, but I'm certainly not 100% confident. ('Eventually' meaning, say, within a hundred million years. Presumably given infinite time, everything possible would occur, so that's not really interesting.)
This is true. Even though some species excel in certain areas (beavers are good at building, dolphins can communicate), no other species come close to human intelligence.
We don't know if there's some special sauce that makes humans unique.
We don't know if there's some special sauce that makes humans unique.
Dinosaurs were the dominant species (including the sea), unlike sharks.
Also worth considering that humans became the dominant species after developing civilization or maybe by developing civilization.
Even pre-civilisation humans were having substantial impacts on local landscapes and ecosystems, particularly in terms of out-competing other top predators.
"Civilisation" defined as "having established cities". Arguably much of North America and Australia would be pre-civilisation by this definition. There are some exceptions among Native Americans in North America, but most cultures seem to have been tribal and reasonably nomadic or based in small villages lacking the complex social and economic structures, as well as trade and diplomatic relations associated with cities. Pueblo culture would be the obvious exception, possibly also mound culture (Illinois / Mississippi Valley). This is not an area of expertise for me.
And my point remains that even without signifificant cities or intensive capital, these cultures had profound iimpacts on their landscapes and were clearly an apex species.
"Civilisation" defined as "having established cities". Arguably much of North America and Australia would be pre-civilisation by this definition. There are some exceptions among Native Americans in North America, but most cultures seem to have been tribal and reasonably nomadic or based in small villages lacking the complex social and economic structures, as well as trade and diplomatic relations associated with cities. Pueblo culture would be the obvious exception, possibly also mound culture (Illinois / Mississippi Valley). This is not an area of expertise for me.
And my point remains that even without signifificant cities or intensive capital, these cultures had profound iimpacts on their landscapes and were clearly an apex species.
I thought dinosaurs were not adapted to aquatic environments? Marine reptiles like mosasaurs, plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs were not dinosaurs. Spinosaurus, though, was semiaquatic.
I mean, Dinosaurs weren't a species.
This is a pedantic dismissal of the comment above. We all understood what he meant.
If your intent is to educate HN on the difference between species, genus, family, order, ..., perhaps do so more constructively?
If your intent is to educate HN on the difference between species, genus, family, order, ..., perhaps do so more constructively?
I guess I just felt that there was quite a large number of dinosaur species for civilization to arise in, not to mention they were on land, so it might be weird to say sharks didn't develop civilization over a long period of time given the differences compared.
But I suppose you didn't understand what I meant.
But I suppose you didn't understand what I meant.
I don't think any of that was conveyed by the phrase "Dinosaurs weren't a species" :)
I guess I do have a tendency to not specify everything but to just leave some things as implied, that said I think the amount of dinosaur species vs. the amount of shark species is strongly implied when saying dinosaurs is not a species in context.
The land thing was not as strongly implied but again one might consider it when thinking yeah dinosaurs aren't a species, neither are sharks but the numbers don't align...hmm,hmm oh yeah and also the dinosaur species covered many more possible environments.
The land thing was not as strongly implied but again one might consider it when thinking yeah dinosaurs aren't a species, neither are sharks but the numbers don't align...hmm,hmm oh yeah and also the dinosaur species covered many more possible environments.
Haha I do that too sometimes. But for perspective, it's quite a leap for me (and it seems most others reading this too), and not at all "strongly implied" by your statement, even in context. I'm sure that chain of inference might be natural and automatic with your style of thinking, but my mind naturally goes down a completely different path when confronted with your initial statement, so it's probably best to elaborate what you're actually implying to avoid miscommunication :)
To be entirely fair, neither is "shark" a single species...
But yes -- my point was that no shark species formed a civilization over that vast period, so it's hard to say whether any dinosaur species would have.
But yes -- my point was that no shark species formed a civilization over that vast period, so it's hard to say whether any dinosaur species would have.
ok, fair enough.
But the plural of "species" is "species". When you are talking about one species, you say "species". When you are talking about multiple species, like all the species of dinosaurs, you say "species". "Dinosaurs were the dominant species" is correct, talking about multiple species. "Humans are the dominant species" is correct, talking about one species.
ok well I had to upvote that, despite it pointing out I'm an idiot.
Intelligence and civilisation is not the goal of life or evolution. As long as the species is able to reproduce and is not cornered into a situation that requires adaption (as our predecessors once were) they can stay unchanged or without developing higher intelligence. Intelligence is just another tool that can be used to preserve life.
Intelligence is indeed just one tool. But as we see, maybe one of the best tools after a critical point. So it could be expected that after a while, evolution does converge to create intelligent beings who are able to control the environment and other species and even themselves, and with it, be the most successful of them all.
Your notion of success is a human one. Evolution doesn't care. When you reproduce before you die, you're successful.
Intelligence is in no way the best tool to guarantee reproduction, there's absolutely no inevitability to it. Grass reproduces just fine without intelligence. There's species practically unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
There is no evolutionary plan or roadmap, it's random mutations.
Intelligence is in no way the best tool to guarantee reproduction, there's absolutely no inevitability to it. Grass reproduces just fine without intelligence. There's species practically unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
There is no evolutionary plan or roadmap, it's random mutations.
Basically every other species reproduces only because we allow them to and it benefits us. If we were ever existentially threatened by a competitor, we would eradicate it from existence before it even became a legitimate threat. Single-cell organisms and viruses are the only things we struggle with totally eliminating for our benefit, but we're working on it.
Trying to eradicate would change the environment and conditions and would favour species that are resistant to our eradication attempts.
I agree that there's no plan or roadmap, so maybe I was not clear in my wording. What I mean is that given infinite time, a smart species will tend to emerge, and when it does, it will be the most successful one. So evolution (by random chance) converges to higher intelligence.
I remember reading an article (probably linked from here), that said that, in a few million years, the only sign of our own civilization would be marbles.
It’s not impossible that they did have a civilization, of sorts, and all traces have been wiped.
It’s not impossible that they did have a civilization, of sorts, and all traces have been wiped.
Dinosaurs lived on Earth for about 170 millions years. Homo appeared on earth ~3 millions years ago, it doesnt say that they wouldnt but probably not.
Intelligence and civilization is not the pinnacle of evolution considering all the species that lived, live and will live without developing it. It's rather an oddity in the story of life.
Intelligence and civilization is not the pinnacle of evolution considering all the species that lived, live and will live without developing it. It's rather an oddity in the story of life.
Simplicity always wins.
I'd argue that it's requisite complexity, with a constraint against excessive complexity.
Complexity affords efficiency advantages, though usually with a resilience cost. Over the period in which that advantage exists, it's beneficial. A sufficient shock could (and frequently has) greatly negated the benefits of complexity.
Complexity affords efficiency advantages, though usually with a resilience cost. Over the period in which that advantage exists, it's beneficial. A sufficient shock could (and frequently has) greatly negated the benefits of complexity.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Einstein.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/
A fave. Several others of similar spirit:
Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Ashby's "Requisite variety" (I'm not aware of a concise or elegant formulation) is another.
"This law (of which Shannon's theorem 10 relating to the suppression of noise is a special case) says that if a certain quantity of disturbance is prevented by a regulator from reaching some essential variables, then that regulator must be capable of exerting at least that quantity of selection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics)
It's been adapted as well to a "law of requisite complexity", which effectively states that only complexity can manage complexity, or alternatively, that the complexity of a control system should correspond to the controlled system. See "Complexity and Organization–Environment Relations: Revisiting Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety" by Max Boisot and Bill McKelvey.
There's also the phenomenon of vestigal functions in biology, e.g., sightless insects, fish, and animals found in cave environments, and even of eukaryotic organisms in which mitochondria once existed (a near-universal characteristic of eukaryotic life), but have since disappeared. (Their earlier presence can be inferred by relic genetic traces.) These are cases in which a previously evolved capability no longer provides a fitness advantage, and revert, typically through a process of genetic drift.
In at least some cases, the mechanism for this appears to be that not having the capability actually affords a fitness benefit. The optical system in animals consumes a substantial fraction of neurological power, and in food-scarce environments in which sight conveys no advantage, the lack of a functioning visual system reduces overall caloric requirements. That is, there is a metabolic energy constraint on fitness and complexity. I'm not aware of a named principle that captures this.
And I've suggested a possible heuristic for distinguishing between rare, false (misinnterpreted), and faked (intentionally misleading) phenomena that seems somewhat related, though it's based on perception thresholds:
https://joindiaspora.com/posts/874e7c10d09c0139a7e5002590d8e...
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/
A fave. Several others of similar spirit:
Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Ashby's "Requisite variety" (I'm not aware of a concise or elegant formulation) is another.
"This law (of which Shannon's theorem 10 relating to the suppression of noise is a special case) says that if a certain quantity of disturbance is prevented by a regulator from reaching some essential variables, then that regulator must be capable of exerting at least that quantity of selection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics)
It's been adapted as well to a "law of requisite complexity", which effectively states that only complexity can manage complexity, or alternatively, that the complexity of a control system should correspond to the controlled system. See "Complexity and Organization–Environment Relations: Revisiting Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety" by Max Boisot and Bill McKelvey.
There's also the phenomenon of vestigal functions in biology, e.g., sightless insects, fish, and animals found in cave environments, and even of eukaryotic organisms in which mitochondria once existed (a near-universal characteristic of eukaryotic life), but have since disappeared. (Their earlier presence can be inferred by relic genetic traces.) These are cases in which a previously evolved capability no longer provides a fitness advantage, and revert, typically through a process of genetic drift.
In at least some cases, the mechanism for this appears to be that not having the capability actually affords a fitness benefit. The optical system in animals consumes a substantial fraction of neurological power, and in food-scarce environments in which sight conveys no advantage, the lack of a functioning visual system reduces overall caloric requirements. That is, there is a metabolic energy constraint on fitness and complexity. I'm not aware of a named principle that captures this.
And I've suggested a possible heuristic for distinguishing between rare, false (misinnterpreted), and faked (intentionally misleading) phenomena that seems somewhat related, though it's based on perception thresholds:
https://joindiaspora.com/posts/874e7c10d09c0139a7e5002590d8e...
For us, as intelligent species which have a civilisation, we have:
1. Ability to predict future
2. Language. This enables sharing group knowledge.
3. Abstract ideas. This has overlap to language.
4. Use of tools.
The use of tools is relevant to building a civilisation after developing intelligence. To give an example why it matters, reflect how many tools are relevant to us today or centuries ago. For example, which a more efficient transport - an eagle gliding is more efficient than a human walking. But a human using a wheel (bicycle) is more efficient. The use of wheels, controlled fire, stakes, controlled microclimate through clothes derives from the use of tools.
Given the above list, we can see that sharks and dolphins do not use tools. They have some use of language and share knowledge. They do not use tools as they are not suited for it in the water. Humans have hands which enable them to operate on multiple surfaces. Perhaps an octopus can developer higher intelligence and a civilisation? Note civilisation requires an intelligence, but it is a superset of intelligence.
Note that for any species developing intelligence and civilisation is a very energy consuming process. In a human the brain is a very power-hungry organ. Its purpose is to enable a better survival for the species it operates in. On an evolutionary scale, for humans and mammals, the brain structure we see today developed over multiple millennia - it was not a one-shot change, but going from a local minima to another local minima, if we are using optimisation language.
Going back to the octopus - perhaps it’s brain does the job done; now and then an evolutionary change might occur to develop an even more organised brain. If it works for the species, the change propagates. But if the change lowers the survival rate of the octopus due to the higher energy usage or complexity of operating a high brain - then the change will not propagate to next generation.
There is a last question, back to the dinosaurs - perhaps there was a civilisation at one of the multiple dinosaur die-offs - but most of its artefacts are wiped out? What evidence do we really have that there was not a civilisation before ours?
References: 1. Antonion Damasio. Descartes Error. 2. Adam Frank. Was There a Civilization on Earth Before Humans? https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/557180/
3. A book on Aikido, which I cannot find.
The use of tools is relevant to building a civilisation after developing intelligence. To give an example why it matters, reflect how many tools are relevant to us today or centuries ago. For example, which a more efficient transport - an eagle gliding is more efficient than a human walking. But a human using a wheel (bicycle) is more efficient. The use of wheels, controlled fire, stakes, controlled microclimate through clothes derives from the use of tools.
Given the above list, we can see that sharks and dolphins do not use tools. They have some use of language and share knowledge. They do not use tools as they are not suited for it in the water. Humans have hands which enable them to operate on multiple surfaces. Perhaps an octopus can developer higher intelligence and a civilisation? Note civilisation requires an intelligence, but it is a superset of intelligence.
Note that for any species developing intelligence and civilisation is a very energy consuming process. In a human the brain is a very power-hungry organ. Its purpose is to enable a better survival for the species it operates in. On an evolutionary scale, for humans and mammals, the brain structure we see today developed over multiple millennia - it was not a one-shot change, but going from a local minima to another local minima, if we are using optimisation language.
Going back to the octopus - perhaps it’s brain does the job done; now and then an evolutionary change might occur to develop an even more organised brain. If it works for the species, the change propagates. But if the change lowers the survival rate of the octopus due to the higher energy usage or complexity of operating a high brain - then the change will not propagate to next generation.
There is a last question, back to the dinosaurs - perhaps there was a civilisation at one of the multiple dinosaur die-offs - but most of its artefacts are wiped out? What evidence do we really have that there was not a civilisation before ours?
References: 1. Antonion Damasio. Descartes Error. 2. Adam Frank. Was There a Civilization on Earth Before Humans? https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/557180/
3. A book on Aikido, which I cannot find.
Some dolphins use tools.
"In Shark Bay, Western Australia, bottlenose dolphins Tursiops sp. carry conical sponges Echinodictyum mesenterinum on their rostra in the only documented cetacean foraging behaviour using a tool" - https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v444/p143-153/
Also, octopuses: "The use of tools has become a benchmark for cognitive sophistication. Originally regarded as a defining feature of our species, tool-use behaviours have subsequently been revealed in other primates and a growing spectrum of mammals and birds [1]. Among invertebrates, however, the acquisition of items that are deployed later has not previously been reported. We repeatedly observed soft-sediment dwelling octopuses carrying around coconut shell halves, assembling them as a shelter only when needed." - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098220...
Lastly, your terrestrial experience might limit your understanding of what a 'tool' might be: "tool users in water often use other animals (and their products) and water itself as a tool ... Octopodes, as well as squids and cuttlefishes, also use water as a tool for protection by using jets of water to aid in burrowing for camouflage ... Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) singly and collectively expel bubbles to create nets that encircle, contain and concentrate schooling prey for easy gulping " - https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.201...
"In Shark Bay, Western Australia, bottlenose dolphins Tursiops sp. carry conical sponges Echinodictyum mesenterinum on their rostra in the only documented cetacean foraging behaviour using a tool" - https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v444/p143-153/
Also, octopuses: "The use of tools has become a benchmark for cognitive sophistication. Originally regarded as a defining feature of our species, tool-use behaviours have subsequently been revealed in other primates and a growing spectrum of mammals and birds [1]. Among invertebrates, however, the acquisition of items that are deployed later has not previously been reported. We repeatedly observed soft-sediment dwelling octopuses carrying around coconut shell halves, assembling them as a shelter only when needed." - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098220...
Lastly, your terrestrial experience might limit your understanding of what a 'tool' might be: "tool users in water often use other animals (and their products) and water itself as a tool ... Octopodes, as well as squids and cuttlefishes, also use water as a tool for protection by using jets of water to aid in burrowing for camouflage ... Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) singly and collectively expel bubbles to create nets that encircle, contain and concentrate schooling prey for easy gulping " - https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.201...
If you like SciFi this is a good take on that question. The Doors of Eden
by Adrian Tchaikovsky https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/48643567-the-doors-of...
I think you might have confused it with "West of Eden" by Harry Harrison?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_of_Eden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_of_Eden
also "Evolution" by Steven Baxter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(Baxter_novel)
Dinosaurs survived and are still with us as birds. They didn't evolve "civilization" but some have some intelligence, as we can see with ravens and crows which have complex problem and puzzle solving abilities and complex social structures.
Dinosaur brain to body ratios never approached those of even early mammals AFAIK. Human brains are our specialized trait (like a rhino horn or snake venom). Like asking why fish haven’t developed civilization.
Ants developed civilization. You don't need brains for that.
Look at crows, maybe.
https://www.thoughtco.com/crows-are-more-intelligent-than-yo...
https://www.thoughtco.com/crows-are-more-intelligent-than-yo...
“This little prenatal dinosaur looks just like a baby bird curled in its egg, which is yet more evidence that many features characteristic of today’s birds first evolved in their dinosaur ancestors.”
This gives a strange feeling about having ... a dinosaur on a Thanksgiving table. Well, could be a table topic at least.
This gives a strange feeling about having ... a dinosaur on a Thanksgiving table. Well, could be a table topic at least.
As depicted by this wonderful comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-11-08
'hatch like a bird' - when millions of years are at play causation vs correlation goes out the window...
The goal of simile is to afford similarity, not causality.
To the point that that's the etymology: https://www.etymonline.com/word/simile
To the point that that's the etymology: https://www.etymonline.com/word/simile
I'm sure the feathers fell off after the things hatch. All dinosaurs are feather-less.
Looks like the bird ride from Golden Axe ("chicken leg").
verisimi(3)
It's in the perfectly preserved shape of a dinosaur embryo, but chemically, it's a rock. Generally speaking, that's what fossils are.
I bet Young Earth Creationists will be quoting this article for decades now. Thanks, Guardian, for the clickbait-y headline. Cheeses.