7 ms·

The Guardian's coverage of this contains a fair amount of scepticism: Christoph Zollikofer, an anthropologist at the University of Zurich, said that many of th

The Guardian's coverage of this contains a fair amount of scepticism: Christoph Zollikofer, an anthropologist at the University of Zurich, said that many of the bone characteristics used to claim the creature as a new species are seen in more primitive animals, and by definition cannot be used to define a new species. “The few ‘unique’ features that potentially define the new species need further scrutiny, as they may represent individual variation, or variation at the population level,” he said. Tim White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley, goes further. “From what is presented here, they belong to a primitive Homo erectus, a species named in the 1800s.” -- “Intentional disposal of rotting corpses by fellow pinheads makes a nice headline, but seems like a stretch to me,” said Jungers. Zollikofer agrees. “The ‘new species’ and ‘dump-the-dead’ claims are clearly for the media. None of them is substantiated by the data presented in the publications,” he said. Hawks is open to other explanations, but said that disposal made sense. “The evidence really tends to exclude the idea that they entered the chamber one at a time, alive, over some time, because we have infants, small children, and very old adults who would almost certainly not have managed to get into this chamber without being deposited there.” http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/10/new-species-of-ancient-human-discovered-claim-scientists http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/10/new-species-o...

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Do we still depend on bone structure to define species? DNA analysis is indisputable. Its all speculation until that is done.
- wbhart 11y ago
  Is there any chance of doing DNA analysis on 3 million year old (presumably fossilised) bones? If in fact that is how old they are.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    No. There is basically 0 chance without some sort of extraordinary preservative (like ethanol).
- kissickas 11y ago
  A species cannot be clearly defined until you try to mate it with something else and it fails to produce a viable offspring, as far as I'm aware. No DNA analysis is indisputable with what we currently know.
  - eru 11y ago
    So each infertile individual belongs into their own species?
    - SeldomSoup 11y ago
      Each one of an infertile individual's parents belongs to its own species.
      - mcv 11y ago
        Until they get another child that does turn out to be fertile.
    - lambda 11y ago
      You can't use such a literal-minded interpretation in the real world. The real world is complex and fuzzy. For instance, in species with sexual differentiation, two males or two females cannot mate, but are considered the same species. For a more precise definition, you would have to, say, look at the probability that a pair of organisms of the appropriate sex from two different populations would be able to mate, and produce viable offspring (that is, offspring that could themselves mate and produce more offspring). Asking about a single organism that happens to be infertile, or a single pair that happens not to be able to mate or produce viable offspring, is not particularly interesting, but at a population level you could use a statistical test to get a probability distribution, rather than a yes or no answer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_defining_or_identifying_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_defining_or... for more information. Note also that it can be the case that two different species can mate, and produce offspring, but the offspring itself is not viable (cannot mate and produce offspring). This happens in the case of mating two closely related species, such as when mating a horse and donkey to get a mule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule), or a lion and a tiger to get a liger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger).
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  DNA's half-life is 521 years. http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555 http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11...
  - lighthawk 11y ago
    521 not 512, according to the article you mention.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      Typing too fast, thanks! The difference probably won't help bridge the millions of years gap though. :-)
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Yet we have Neanderthal dna? Oh, right, that's only 40,000 years. Not 1-3 million.
        bjelkeman-again 11y ago
        Yes. The Neanderthal species supposedly died out about 40k years ago. [1] In this article they talk about a species that may be millions of years older. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
        jessriedel 11y ago
        Yea, I wonder how that's reconciled. The Neanderthal DNA comes from a 38k year-old specimen: > The researchers recovered ancient DNA of Neanderthals by extracting the DNA from the femur bones of three 38,000-year-old female Neanderthal specimens from Vindija Cave, Croatia, and other bones found in Spain, Russia, and Germany.[8] Only about half a gram of the bone samples (or 21 samples each 50–100 mg[1]) was required for the sequencing, but the project faced many difficulties, including the contamination of the samples by the bacteria that had colonized the Neanderthal's body and humans who handled the bones at the excavation site and at the laboratory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project 2^(38000/521)=10^22, so there must be other effects. That Nature article says > The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information. which I don't know how to square with the 521 year figure. I think maybe 521 years is at the high temp?
at-fates-hands 11y ago
As someone who spent a fair amount of time in academia, this is pretty common. As much as we all like to pat each other on the back, there are always contrarians who want to tamp down or be skeptical of another scientists conclusions. Even after a few years, I learned there is always in-fighting when a major discovery like this is made. Regardless of where these bones should be classified, it's an incredible find no matter what - which is sometimes lost in the ensuing fray of dissenting opinions.
- SEJeff 11y ago
  But isn't a healthy dose of scepticism simply good Science? Peer reviewed results are hard to be sceptical about. My favorite thing about science is that you often have strongly opposing sides both with super intelligent scientists. When everything has been fleshed out, the best and brightest tends to come to the top (not always, but as a generalism it is true). Virtually everyone was sceptical of the guy claiming to have developed a form of propulsion powered more or less only by light, but then NASA tested the "EmDrive" and sure enough, it seems like the fundamental idea works. (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futu...)
  - gus_massa 11y ago
    The supposed thrust of the EmDrive is very small. But the device has a lot of wires with current that can be equivalent to an electromagnet, and very hot parts that can create air currents, and ... If you have not done few physics labs, it's easy to underestimate the measurement problems and the level of noise in experiments. Most of the Physics community thinks that this is an experimental error. One symptom is that at lunch in a Physics department nobody talks about this. If this were real it would be a groundbreaking result because it breaks some of the most fundamental Physics laws.
    - SEJeff 11y ago
      I don't think the scientists at NASA are bogus. They managed to calculate when a probe would reach pluto that was only off by a few seconds. There is still a lot of research that needs to be done on that, but there are those that say it isn't breaking the laws of physics. We shall see I guess, but it has been replicated in 3 places now taht I'm aware of, two of which are serious science outfits.
guelo 11y ago
I was kind of surprised that they haven't aged the finding yet. The 3 million years number is being thrown around with zero evidence.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  You need organic material to date which in many cases might not exist with the find. Other than that you can perform rough estimates based on the soil it was found in, but those in many cases might be off by quite a bit.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

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

wbhart 11y ago
Is there any chance of doing DNA analysis on 3 million year old (presumably fossilised) bones? If in fact that is how old they are.
- duaneb 11y ago
  No. There is basically 0 chance without some sort of extraordinary preservative (like ethanol).
kissickas 11y ago
A species cannot be clearly defined until you try to mate it with something else and it fails to produce a viable offspring, as far as I'm aware. No DNA analysis is indisputable with what we currently know.
- eru 11y ago
  So each infertile individual belongs into their own species?
  - SeldomSoup 11y ago
    Each one of an infertile individual's parents belongs to its own species.
    - mcv 11y ago
      Until they get another child that does turn out to be fertile.
  - lambda 11y ago
    You can't use such a literal-minded interpretation in the real world. The real world is complex and fuzzy. For instance, in species with sexual differentiation, two males or two females cannot mate, but are considered the same species. For a more precise definition, you would have to, say, look at the probability that a pair of organisms of the appropriate sex from two different populations would be able to mate, and produce viable offspring (that is, offspring that could themselves mate and produce more offspring). Asking about a single organism that happens to be infertile, or a single pair that happens not to be able to mate or produce viable offspring, is not particularly interesting, but at a population level you could use a statistical test to get a probability distribution, rather than a yes or no answer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_defining_or_identifying_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_defining_or... for more information. Note also that it can be the case that two different species can mate, and produce offspring, but the offspring itself is not viable (cannot mate and produce offspring). This happens in the case of mating two closely related species, such as when mating a horse and donkey to get a mule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule), or a lion and a tiger to get a liger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger).
ceejayoz 11y ago
DNA's half-life is 521 years. http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555 http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11...
- lighthawk 11y ago
  521 not 512, according to the article you mention.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    Typing too fast, thanks! The difference probably won't help bridge the millions of years gap though. :-)
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Yet we have Neanderthal dna? Oh, right, that's only 40,000 years. Not 1-3 million.
      - bjelkeman-again 11y ago
        Yes. The Neanderthal species supposedly died out about 40k years ago. [1] In this article they talk about a species that may be millions of years older. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
      - jessriedel 11y ago
        Yea, I wonder how that's reconciled. The Neanderthal DNA comes from a 38k year-old specimen: > The researchers recovered ancient DNA of Neanderthals by extracting the DNA from the femur bones of three 38,000-year-old female Neanderthal specimens from Vindija Cave, Croatia, and other bones found in Spain, Russia, and Germany.[8] Only about half a gram of the bone samples (or 21 samples each 50–100 mg[1]) was required for the sequencing, but the project faced many difficulties, including the contamination of the samples by the bacteria that had colonized the Neanderthal's body and humans who handled the bones at the excavation site and at the laboratory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_genome_project 2^(38000/521)=10^22, so there must be other effects. That Nature article says > The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information. which I don't know how to square with the 521 year figure. I think maybe 521 years is at the high temp?

at-fates-hands 11y ago

As someone who spent a fair amount of time in academia, this is pretty common. As much as we all like to pat each other on the back, there are always contrarians who want to tamp down or be skeptical of another scientists conclusions. Even after a few years, I learned there is always in-fighting when a major discovery like this is made. Regardless of where these bones should be classified, it's an incredible find no matter what - which is sometimes lost in the ensuing fray of dissenting opinions.

SEJeff 11y ago
But isn't a healthy dose of scepticism simply good Science? Peer reviewed results are hard to be sceptical about. My favorite thing about science is that you often have strongly opposing sides both with super intelligent scientists. When everything has been fleshed out, the best and brightest tends to come to the top (not always, but as a generalism it is true). Virtually everyone was sceptical of the guy claiming to have developed a form of propulsion powered more or less only by light, but then NASA tested the "EmDrive" and sure enough, it seems like the fundamental idea works. (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/ http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futu...)
- gus_massa 11y ago
  The supposed thrust of the EmDrive is very small. But the device has a lot of wires with current that can be equivalent to an electromagnet, and very hot parts that can create air currents, and ... If you have not done few physics labs, it's easy to underestimate the measurement problems and the level of noise in experiments. Most of the Physics community thinks that this is an experimental error. One symptom is that at lunch in a Physics department nobody talks about this. If this were real it would be a groundbreaking result because it breaks some of the most fundamental Physics laws.
  - SEJeff 11y ago
    I don't think the scientists at NASA are bogus. They managed to calculate when a probe would reach pluto that was only off by a few seconds. There is still a lot of research that needs to be done on that, but there are those that say it isn't breaking the laws of physics. We shall see I guess, but it has been replicated in 3 places now taht I'm aware of, two of which are serious science outfits.

guelo 11y ago

I was kind of surprised that they haven't aged the finding yet. The 3 million years number is being thrown around with zero evidence.

dogma1138 11y ago
You need organic material to date which in many cases might not exist with the find. Other than that you can perform rough estimates based on the soil it was found in, but those in many cases might be off by quite a bit.