New type of ancient human discovered in Israel(bbc.com)
bbc.com
New type of ancient human discovered in Israel
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57586315
110 comments
How is it possible to indentify a new species from just a skull fragment and jawbone? Would there need to be multiple similar bones to rule out the possiblity of a genetic outlier? And even then it's not like there isn't fairly significant variance in bone structure between different populations of human today. Can we really say from two bits of bone that it's a different species?
I have no knowledge of anthropology but it just seems a bit crazy to me that from few bits of bone we can declare we found a new species.
I have no knowledge of anthropology but it just seems a bit crazy to me that from few bits of bone we can declare we found a new species.
The teeth and jaw are actually one of the most distinctive parts of a skeleton - so it's not totally crazy. The shape of the teeth and size of the jaw muscles could easily identify something as being not modern human. But the article gave 0 evidence for why they believe it to be a new species, so I'm not convinced either.
The research was published in Science. If you want their evidence, look at where they actually published it.
This isn't a criminal trial, with failsafe rules about doubt.
There are very few generic outliers. They do exist, but at the same time, the chance that the next person you meet will be <1.20m or >2.40m tall is insignificant.
The argument is stronger for the past, because generic outliers tend to have worse health than the average and have worse chances of reaching adulthood, so if you find a part of the skeleton of a single adult, the chance that it's someone who's half/twice as tall as the rest of the population is even smaller than for today.
https://www.mindprod.com/image/math/livinghistogram.jpg shows an entire class. They could have had a generic outlier among the pupils, but most people are near the average, see?
There are very few generic outliers. They do exist, but at the same time, the chance that the next person you meet will be <1.20m or >2.40m tall is insignificant.
The argument is stronger for the past, because generic outliers tend to have worse health than the average and have worse chances of reaching adulthood, so if you find a part of the skeleton of a single adult, the chance that it's someone who's half/twice as tall as the rest of the population is even smaller than for today.
https://www.mindprod.com/image/math/livinghistogram.jpg shows an entire class. They could have had a generic outlier among the pupils, but most people are near the average, see?
But the same logic applies. Instead of innocent until proven guilty it's "not a new species" until there's sufficient evidence to establish that.
I'm dubious that they have that evidence, especially given their further unsubstantiated claims that they're ancestors of the neanderthals. The linked article discussed 0 evidence for why it's a new species. Presumably there's a published paper that goes into details.
I'm dubious that they have that evidence, especially given their further unsubstantiated claims that they're ancestors of the neanderthals. The linked article discussed 0 evidence for why it's a new species. Presumably there's a published paper that goes into details.
OK, so what's sufficient evidence?
You're "dubious that they have that evidence". What evidence is required, in your opinion, then?
Speaking as a layman, my first guess at a suitable threshold would be: finding a large-enough, different-enough part of a skeleton/whatever that in the past such parts have seldom turned out to be an existing species.
You're "dubious that they have that evidence". What evidence is required, in your opinion, then?
Speaking as a layman, my first guess at a suitable threshold would be: finding a large-enough, different-enough part of a skeleton/whatever that in the past such parts have seldom turned out to be an existing species.
It's a new discovery in science, which means it will be about 10 years before we know if it's 90% correct or not. Probably need to wait a year to rule out simple measurement errors.
To some degree if a scientific discovery is news, it isn't firmly established, because if the entire field hasn't heard about it, it hasn't been properly vetted.
To some degree if a scientific discovery is news, it isn't firmly established, because if the entire field hasn't heard about it, it hasn't been properly vetted.
Indeed, the worst place to learn about scientific breakthroughs is in the news media, as there is an inherent interest to emphasize the newsworthiness of the result rather than letting the scientific community digest, reproduce, and integrate the finding into the overall state of the art, which is a slow process that doesn't show up in headlines.
Stature or size of teeth is really not a good measurement, especially to declare a new species!
Humans come in various shapes and sizes. In fact, given that the remains were found in a sinkhole, small stature might have something to do with their inability to escape.
For example, "little people" have adult teeth:
https://www.lpaonline.org/
Also, there are several types of common, modern humans that then to have very short statures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples
On the other end of the scale,
https://stillunfold.com/people/10-real-life-giants-known-for...
Humans come in various shapes and sizes. In fact, given that the remains were found in a sinkhole, small stature might have something to do with their inability to escape.
For example, "little people" have adult teeth:
https://www.lpaonline.org/
Also, there are several types of common, modern humans that then to have very short statures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples
On the other end of the scale,
https://stillunfold.com/people/10-real-life-giants-known-for...
Humans being less than 1.2m tall is extremely common, and I will bet there was a significant period of your own life in which that criterion applied to you.
(edit: and you should not be surprised at the number of "new species" which are just juveniles of a known species.)
(edit: and you should not be surprised at the number of "new species" which are just juveniles of a known species.)
>> Humans being less than 1.2m tall is extremely common, and I will bet there was a significant period of your own life in which that criterion applied to you.
And how where their teeth at the time?
And how where their teeth at the time?
[deleted]
When I was in school, one of our midterms for wildlife biology was to take a tooth or some bone fragments and describe as much as we could about the animal's habitat, food sources, overall health before death, roughly how old the animal was and a bunch of other things.
It's actually surprising how much information a single tooth or piece of bone can actually give you.
It's actually surprising how much information a single tooth or piece of bone can actually give you.
How would you know if you were correct?
The teachers who marked us knew where the specimens came from...
> How is it possible to indentify a new species...
I'd love that ELI5.
If it's just morphology and traits, given the amazing variety of people alive today, I wonder how many different species future archaeologists would identify.
I've seen the array of skulls at the natural history museum. Clear progression, sure. But when does one thing become another thing.
I know, I know, dividing lines are arbitrary. But I'd still like the ELI5 for how a professional knows homo sapiens vs neanderthal. Maybe a visual diff tool.
I'd love that ELI5.
If it's just morphology and traits, given the amazing variety of people alive today, I wonder how many different species future archaeologists would identify.
I've seen the array of skulls at the natural history museum. Clear progression, sure. But when does one thing become another thing.
I know, I know, dividing lines are arbitrary. But I'd still like the ELI5 for how a professional knows homo sapiens vs neanderthal. Maybe a visual diff tool.
Some scientists also like to generate buzz because that's sometimes the only way to get financing. But having this apparently unique piece of evidence and calling it "one of the last survivors" of the new species (as opposed to one of the first, or squarely in the middle) gives away that for now it's just a flashy assumption.
Not to mention that the word "survivor" is completely meaningless for this dead ancient humanoid
I thought a big part of that was that birds have big variation between juveniles and adults, something that mammalians have less of... (let alone primates)
Looking at a time when multiple hominid groups lived in relative isolation over large spans of time, admittedly without expert knowledge, it seems to make sense to me that there would be quite a bit of variation of "species" (though I also suspect the various species are more alike than most breeds of dogs...)
Looking at a time when multiple hominid groups lived in relative isolation over large spans of time, admittedly without expert knowledge, it seems to make sense to me that there would be quite a bit of variation of "species" (though I also suspect the various species are more alike than most breeds of dogs...)
> I thought a big part of that was that birds have big variation between juveniles and adults, something that mammalians have less of...
You should see what insects do. It just isn't possible, using fossil records alone, to identify whether two insects belong to the same or different species.
You should see what insects do. It just isn't possible, using fossil records alone, to identify whether two insects belong to the same or different species.
yeah and that's what is behind the idea that some "different" dinosaur species (aka birds) are actually juvanile / adult versions of the same species
totally amazing that insects basically rearrange themselves on near celular level though at certain points in their lifespan
totally amazing that insects basically rearrange themselves on near celular level though at certain points in their lifespan
> totally amazing that insects basically rearrange themselves on near celular level though at certain points in their lifespan
What I find more amazing is that, in the popular culture, this is usually presented as something unusual that butterflies do. When in reality all insects do it and the metamorphosis of butterflies is notable only for its extreme typicality.
What I find more amazing is that, in the popular culture, this is usually presented as something unusual that butterflies do. When in reality all insects do it and the metamorphosis of butterflies is notable only for its extreme typicality.
Interesting point. In the process of adopting a pure-bred Slovakian-line GSD, I've learned that German Shepherd Dogs didn't exist at all until the early 1900's, and the modern Slovakian line (which is related to the DDR line, which is when the two lines became rapidly and visibly diversified when the Iron Curtain divided Germany from the late 40's to the late 80's) is in danger of fading away altogether.
And that was only in 40 years -- admittedly with intentional breeding, but it's conceivable that changes in diet, parasites, tumultuous periods of history, seismic changes, or even war/pillaging/violence could rapidly change the makeup of an entire continent within just a few decades. In fact, we've seen that in very recent history.
And that was only in 40 years -- admittedly with intentional breeding, but it's conceivable that changes in diet, parasites, tumultuous periods of history, seismic changes, or even war/pillaging/violence could rapidly change the makeup of an entire continent within just a few decades. In fact, we've seen that in very recent history.
> We'll see if the inflation in ancient human species stands up to scrutiny.
Not in that business, but could it be simply that a new way of measuring taxonomy is needed? From the outside, it appears that the whole business inherits from a Victorian need for orderly tree structures.
Not in that business, but could it be simply that a new way of measuring taxonomy is needed? From the outside, it appears that the whole business inherits from a Victorian need for orderly tree structures.
While not a tree, there is an indisputable orderly structure: the directed acyclic graph of individuals descending from other individuals.
Then we can collapse nodes to obtain species that evolved from one another or more realistic arrangements, respecting some constraints (for example, if A is an ancestor of B and B is an ancestor of C, putting A and C in the same species should imply that B belongs to that species too).
Then we can collapse nodes to obtain species that evolved from one another or more realistic arrangements, respecting some constraints (for example, if A is an ancestor of B and B is an ancestor of C, putting A and C in the same species should imply that B belongs to that species too).
The problem is that grouping individuals -> species is highly nontrivial. Even your constraint fails with bidirectional admixture. Imagine individuals from species A interbreed with people of species B. The admixture survives in B for a couple hundred thousand years and then back-admixture occurs, producing descendants in A who have intermediate ancestors of a different species. This is a common pattern in genus Homo, which is part of why human taxonomy is insanity. Bonus points if you can explain how to decide which species name to give to the immediate descendants of the admixture event from A->B.
There's an older paper by Holliday on this subject that you might find interesting: https://doi.org/10.1086/377663
There's an older paper by Holliday on this subject that you might find interesting: https://doi.org/10.1086/377663
The idea of species is quite meaningless in any case. Boundaries are arbitrary, genetic similarity can arise by chance, interbreeding is situational, reproductive isolation is rarely perfect, populations are vague; of the different definitions of species surveyed in the article, the "cohesion"-based one is the closest to admitting that taxonomy is a rough model of cohesive genealogical and evolutionary patterns.
[deleted]
Similar thing going on with all sorts of living animals.
Sequence DNA, find a population with small, but consistent mutations, declare new species, declare new species endangered because population is so small, declare a 100 mile radius refuge around population, repeat.
Sequence DNA, find a population with small, but consistent mutations, declare new species, declare new species endangered because population is so small, declare a 100 mile radius refuge around population, repeat.
I suspect our overall picture of early human development will have a type of availability bias to control for. The arid middle eastern climate / soil conditions are more conducive to the preservation of remains so that is what you tend to find. How representative these finds of what happened in the huge Eurasia region?
On the other hand the Africa / Asia land bridge would logically always have been an "interesting" area as the conduit for any population migrations.
On the other hand the Africa / Asia land bridge would logically always have been an "interesting" area as the conduit for any population migrations.
Interestingly the BBC Radio News actually led on the "Dragon Man" find mentioned in the OP:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57432104
PR departments competing, I find it difficult to believe two important different ancestors published on the same day for any other reason?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57432104
PR departments competing, I find it difficult to believe two important different ancestors published on the same day for any other reason?
> There are several human fossils from the caves of Qesem, Zuttiyeh and Tabun that date back to that time that we could not attribute to any specific known group of humans.
Are there any geologists or experts who can explain the difference between these caves in Israel and the ones in Europe and North America? They all seem incredibly different.
Are there any geologists or experts who can explain the difference between these caves in Israel and the ones in Europe and North America? They all seem incredibly different.
I'm not a geologist, but at least in terms of the geography Israel is a chokepoint between africa and the landmasses north of it if you are on foot. It's why historically it was such a trade hub in the ancient world(not to mention several mediterranean and a red sea port also within relatively short distance of each other)
I wonder if there was a time when there was an easier land route leading to more northern climates (the theory that at some point in the nearish past the mediterranean was dry makes me wonder what kind of flooded fossils lie at the bottom too)
I wonder if there was a time when there was an easier land route leading to more northern climates (the theory that at some point in the nearish past the mediterranean was dry makes me wonder what kind of flooded fossils lie at the bottom too)
I've read that there are "genetic bottlenecks" in human DNA that imply that one point in time, the population of homo sapiens consisted of only a couple thousand individuals. It stands to reason that there are tons of human subspecies that didn't make it.
The numbers I've seen are something like as low as a few thousand for European population, but more like 5k for African populations
Of course, these are model populations based on idealized breeding right- I believe the way these estimates work is that they represent the idealized minimum bound for a real population that was likely magnitudes greater but had lots of deaths.
And as others have pointed out I believe there were several bottle neck events in the 'recent' past
Of course, these are model populations based on idealized breeding right- I believe the way these estimates work is that they represent the idealized minimum bound for a real population that was likely magnitudes greater but had lots of deaths.
And as others have pointed out I believe there were several bottle neck events in the 'recent' past
Then there is "Mitochondrial Eve", a single individual from whom entire sections of humanity descend!
From Wikipedia:
"Cann, Stoneking and Wilson did not use the term "Mitochondrial Eve" or even the name "Eve" in their original paper; it appears to originate with a 1987 article in Science by Roger Lewin, headlined "The Unmasking of Mitochondrial Eve."[19] The biblical connotation was very clear from the start. The accompanying research news in Nature had the title "Out of the garden of Eden."[20] Wilson himself preferred the term "Lucky Mother"[21] and thought the use of the name Eve "regrettable"
It is unfortunate, that biblical myths still try to influence research. But it is popular.
"Cann, Stoneking and Wilson did not use the term "Mitochondrial Eve" or even the name "Eve" in their original paper; it appears to originate with a 1987 article in Science by Roger Lewin, headlined "The Unmasking of Mitochondrial Eve."[19] The biblical connotation was very clear from the start. The accompanying research news in Nature had the title "Out of the garden of Eden."[20] Wilson himself preferred the term "Lucky Mother"[21] and thought the use of the name Eve "regrettable"
It is unfortunate, that biblical myths still try to influence research. But it is popular.
Myths are useful cultural references, in being universally understood. I didn't interpret the use of the term Eve here to connote any religious intimations.
Hm, but here even the researchers clearly said, that the use of "Eve" implicates a interpretation ( that there was only one Birthmother, like Eve, so a "proof" hat the bible is partly right) that is not true, but this is what understood by many, because also the news releases are skewed this way.
Bryan Sykesan, An Oxford geneticist claimed all Europeans came from 7 females he called the 7 daughters of Eve, although he wasn't always right in his assumption's
More interestingly, there were several bottlenecks over the course of our evolution and we could have gone extinct at multiple points.
This isn't accurate.
Wiki article on the Toba Catastrophe theory.
Sparks Notes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#:~:tex....
Sparks Notes:
- It is thought that the Toba Super-Volcano eruption is linked to a severe drop in human populations due to it's influence on global climate
- Some genetic evidence supports today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago
- This hypothesis isn't yet solid, and there is some evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless it's discussion is an important topic in the history of mankind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#:~:tex....
A bottleneck implies that there was a single population, which would indeed have narrowed diversity. ...but what is actually seen in that theory is that all populations around the world shrank - only some were entirely exterminated.
This means that diversity was not tremendously impacted.
Taking one person from every village around the world preserves the majority of all diversity, whereas taking 10000 people from a single population, destroys diversity.
This means that diversity was not tremendously impacted.
Taking one person from every village around the world preserves the majority of all diversity, whereas taking 10000 people from a single population, destroys diversity.
He didn’t give a source, you didn’t either, come on I’m curious to know!
Here's a take down -
https://twitter.com/johnhawks/status/1408127932015464450
https://twitter.com/johnhawks/status/1408127932015464450
Can you sequence DNA from something that old?
We've sequenced human DNA that's older, but only from pretty miraculous finds. Once you get past a thousand years, you're well into serious degradation territory and have to start pulling out the aDNA tricks. However, the authors of this paper have stated they looked for DNA and couldn't find any.
stormdennis(3)
nextstep(1)
jiofih(3)
"This is it! This is the big one!" ~ Discovery Channel production executive
Here's a great TED Talk about dinosaur species being mistakenly identified because 'scientists have egos': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQa11RMCeSI&t=102s (well worth a watch, it's a great story)