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.
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.
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.
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.)
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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...)
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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'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
"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
- 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.
Now I understand your comment might be referring to that third point. If so, it would be excellent if your comment made some sort of reference to your reasoning. Simply saying "this isn't accurate" aren't the kinds of comments that make Hacker News the site it is. Instead let's make comments that further discussion and increase learning of the topics at hand.
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.
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.
I don't believe the US went in for a systematic renaming/demolition of places as Israel did. Balad Al-Sheikh has a history going back to the 16th century, Nesher to only 1924.
I realize discussing politics here is pointless, but this is just so comically ignorant I have to reply.
1. Israel won its independence after barely managing to fend off the joint armies of seven Arab nations who invaded the Jewish area following UN partition decision, openly declaring they intend to wipe all Jewish presence. Almost all nations, US included, predicted Arabs will succeed and decided to sit it out. Comparing this to the history of Europeans and Native Americans is simply ridiculous.
2. The name Nesher comes from a cement factory on whose grounds the cave was found. The name Ramle comes from the city founded by the Umayyad dynasty shortly after Islam conquered the land from the Roman Byzantine empire, which conquered it from the Hashmonites, who conquered it from the Hellenic Seleucids, who took it from the Persians, who beat the Babylonians, who took it from the Judeans, who conquered it from the Cannanites etc. After the Umayyad, Ramle was controlled by the Crusaders, then the Mamluks, then the Ottomans, then the British and now Israel. So declaring a specific 18-19th century village in the area as the original "Native" of the place rather than all others who lived there is - simply ridiculous as well.
As an Israeli, I have no animosity towards Arabs. But I really can't stand Western idiots who don't have a slight clue about the Mideast, or anything really outside their incredibly sheltered existance, and see the whole thing as some stupid Hollywood good vs bad conflict.
You don't think it's plausible that a foreigner F and local L can be found, such that F is better versed in L's country's history than L?
I believe that if I were to read a pamphlet on US history, and then go to the USA and quiz random people on it in the street, within fifteen minutes I would find someone born there who knows jack shit.
I think it's plausible, but not in this scenario. In the west, this is a politically charged situation. There, it's a matter of life and death.
If this was an actual simple border dispute, I'd be more inclined to listen to anyone who didn't have direct knowledge, but since this conflict hearkens back to literal Old Testament days, I'm more inclined to believe a native.
They made a plea (which you support), that simply because they are from there, that they therefore know the history better than someone from outside.
That does not follow.
I wouldn't say I know history of this area better than all Europeans, but definitely better than the vast majority. I wouldn't confuse Nesher the town with Nesher the factory, for instance, since having lived not far from the latter I know it's not anywhere near Ramle.
every time I think about walking into these kinds of conversations ... I realize that I would much rather not have mud on my shoes
There's a concept in anthropology called the paradox of the periphery, where people who are farther from their origin / homeland tend to get statistically more religious or extreme in their relation to that homeland....
I feel like that applies to people who are farther from the issue in the whole israel situation. everyone living or from there tends to mention nuance and complexity and everyone farther away just calls it an "obvious" issue with simple solutions.
What I assume the poster meant - I might of course be wrong - is that the in the US discoveries are named after the location names of white settlers, not by the names of the locations that the people called them, that the white settlers killed to take the land. e.g. someone says "Discovered in New York" instead of how the land was named by the Native Americans who lived there and were killed.
I think the reply is meant to be a critique of the above comment.
They assumed that the first commentator was American, so said that given America entirely consists of land inhabited by displaced peoples (American Indians) that it's hypocritical to criticise Israel, which partially consists of that kind of land, for the same injustice.
I don't know how it is misleading.
In 1947, the Jews were 33% of the population and owned just 6% of the land of Palestine, yet a UN of only 46 countries and dominated by the great powers granted them 55% of the land for a Jewish state which zionist offensives quickly expanded to 80% of the land while ethnically cleansing the population.
The zionists were the direct cause of the exodus of the worlds' oldest Jewish communities in the other Arab lands both by their treatment of the Palestinians but also by sowing panic in Jews in Iraq and elsewhere by planting bombs in synagogues.
Israel, a European colony largely, now needed Mizrahi Jews since the European Jews had been subjected to genocide.
Of course some Jews in places like Yemen were zionists also and emigrated for that reason.
Anything non-factual in that?
You had a point until you brought up the Yemeni Jews who had been oppressed for generations treated as second class citizens, charged a "protection tax," banned from wearing the traditional Sudra as a form of humiliation, and more recently persecuted by the Houthis. The plight of the Palestinians is very real, but refrain from rewriting the history of Yemeni Jews. Educate yourself.
Nearly all of it (either non factual or so tilted as to be non factual)?
> owned just 6% of the land of Palestine
Absurd criteria - what does wealth have to do with it?
Splitting America by 'ownership' would give 100% to rich WASP. By the way, Most local land was owned by families not living in the country or was unowned desert.
>55% of the land for a Jewish state
The big difference being the Negev desert, because it was thought the new state would need somewhere to settle WW2 refugees. The Jewish state got much less of the useful fertile areas.
>The zionists were the direct cause of the exodus of the worlds' oldest Jewish communities in the other Arab lands both by their treatment of the Palestinians
Displacement was caused by the local states and its beginning predated the UN partition (1941 farhud, 1945 Tripolitania massacre, etc.).
> zionist offensives quickly expanded to 80% of the land while ethnically cleansing the population
You mean 'directly caused by the constant attacks by 7 states and the local Arab population', right? Just applying the same standards you apply, but without inverting chronology this time.
>by sowing panic in Jews in Iraq and elsewhere by planting bombs in synagogues
Based on 'confessions' accomplished by torture. The actual actions of the Iraqi government are oddly ignored.
Modern Iraqi history is littered with letting inconvenient populations be displaced (from Assyrians, to Iraqi Persians to Marsh Arabs to Kurds to Yazidis and yes, Jews) and always blaming it on someone else.
> and dominated by the great powers granted them 55% of the land for a Jewish stat
70% of the area that was proposed for the Jewish state was used to create what is today Jordan.
The rest is creative interpretations and framings to make one of the worlds smallest countries - and the only land where Jews can feel safe - to seem like a giant agressor.
Not if the humor is as strongly political charged as the original "joke". There are plenty of other places to debate about israel and palestine. Can we here focus on ancient history?
Only that they are the same people who popularized the Paleolithic era name, while those who oppose it being called Israelolithic appropriated the older term
Eh given it's a current issue there's no surprise that someone might connect the two. It's not gonna be productive of course, but at this point it's just about expected in a area with free speech
I’m sorry are you saying her claim that Neanderthals’ ancestors originated in Israel has something to do with a religion that started hundreds of thousands of years later? Because I just don’t see the connection.
Me neither. What I’m saying is they will certainly use this to label Israelis as the “original race” supporting their superiority feelings. The claims are bold and already being disputed.
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)