16 ms·

How China is rewriting the book on human origins

97 points by Osiris30 10y ago

Noseshine 10y ago
So... okay, the picture is fuzzy, and Asia is much more important as thought. What I don't understand is, the article also says the genetical picture still points to the established ("old") theories centering on Africa? As someone only reading about the subject on the side whenever something interesting comes up I'm slightly confused by this aspect of the article. I'm not confused about there not being a linear but a convoluted story - I never thought there was (except when I was fresh out of an East German school quite some time ago and everything being a linear progress story eventually leading to communism was quite clear :) ).
- summarite 10y ago
  The fixed factor is that 97℅ of our DNA matches with that of fossils in Africa. So our ancestors must have come from there, but that doesn't mean there were a few intermediate stops. Also always worth remembering that the classification as eg sapiens, heidelbergensis or erectus is not one checklist that always ticks the same boxes. In each of these groups defined by us on the basis of some common features but there is much variation. And of course there are regional or temporal differences within eg sapiens. Then you have parallel evolutions, interbreeding, fakes, unclear dating, and you never know if a particular specimen that you find really has 'typical ' features and genes for that time and space, eg it could have been that one lady/guy that happened to have wandered far from where the rest of its group remained, or could have been somewhat different. Eg imagine the only specimen that remains from our era is an inbred Egyptian pharaoh or someone with down syndrome. Those are bad examples as you could probably figure such things somewhat from the DNA, but it's not so clear for every condition, eg if epigenetics* had some bigger effect. * = A layer on your genes that De/activates or strengthens/weakens their effects and that we barely understand. The famous example is that data on Danish military recruits, which were measured upon entry into service, showed that if a man suffers starvation/malnutrition in his childhood his sons (!) will on average be less tall than others of their generation. One generation is not enough for genetic selection, so it must be a change in epigenetics.
  - summarite 10y ago
    Forgot to add this second main piece of evidence that modern humans are 'out of Africa': modern African populations have more genetic diversity. When populations migrate it's not a representative sample of all genes, but rather just limited groups, so you can find most diversity at/near the place where it evolved.
  - ww520 10y ago
    > The fixed factor is that 97℅ of our DNA matches with that of fossils in Africa. Chimpanzee and human DNA are 96 to 99% identical. Does the 97% DNA match between human and the African fossil have any significance at all?
    - mhuffman 10y ago
      I believe that this is being brushed over. Cats have 90% DNA matches with modern humans as well as the overlap with chimps you mentioned. It is clear that just a couple of percent different is a HUGE difference in animals (I am including humans as animals). So, while it is clear that there is some relationship, the percentage of DNA matches does not seem like strong evidence of "this follows from that" and seems more like "this and that share common previous DNA". And of course there is a political and social-responsibility component to this, even though people pretend like scientist are immune to politics or social trends.
HenryTheHorse 10y ago
Wish we had a "house paleontologist" here to explain the story better. My takeaway is that there is new fossil evidence, which I think should excite researchers everywhere. Instead, the article ends on a researcher expressing cautionary restraint. What am I missing? Is fossil evidence not reliable? Does this new evidence challenge conventional wisdom about human evolution?
- jonnybgood 10y ago
  It comes down to this: > Some Western researchers suggest that there is a hint of nationalism in Chinese palaeontologists' support for continuity. “The Chinese — they do not accept the idea that H. sapiens evolved in Africa,” says one researcher. “They want everything to come from China.”
  - moogleii 10y ago
    In other words, opinion vs opinion. Maybe that's why the posted story is so murky. The following sentences: > Chinese researchers reject such allegations. “This has nothing to do with nationalism,” says Wu. It's all about the evidence — the transitional fossils and archaeological artefacts, he says. “Everything points to continuous evolution in China from H. erectus to modern human.” > But the continuity-with-hybridization model is countered by overwhelming genetic data that point to Africa as the wellspring of modern humans. Studies of Chinese populations show that 97.4% of their genetic make-up is from ancestral modern humans from Africa [...] > “If there had been significant contributions from Chinese H. erectus, they would show up in the genetic data,” says Li Hui, a population geneticist at Fudan University in Shanghai.
    - dak1 10y ago
      Simply saying "opinion vs opinion" is a false equivalency. It's basically the equivalent of climate deniers vs climate change, with the deniers' funding basically coming from a single government. There's intense nationalism (and racism) at play here, and the Chinese government isn't funding pure science so much as it is funding science with the intent of finding a specific result. I'm not a paleontologist, but I've lived and studied International Relations in China (at Tsinghua University, where many of China's leaders studied), and I saw first hand how research was corrupted and self-regulated to draw certain conclusions that agreed with the Government's known or perceived position. This was often felt to be necessary to protect funding and academic positions (one professor of mine in private confessed to me that "80% of what I say is true, and the rest I say for reasons we all know"). I know there is strong nationalistic beliefs around human origins in China as well, and suspect strongly the same forces that affect IR academic research are at play here. Fake fossils are also extremely common in China[1][2], and widespread racism, especially toward black people, is difficult to overstate[3] (which leaves many Chinese refusing to believe they may have originated in Africa). There's a good reason many paleontologists outside of China are taking many of these studies and theories with a China-sized grain of salt. That isn't to say that there isn't good science being done in China as well. But sometimes it can be difficult to separate the 20% from the 80%, and when findings seem to draw conclusions that the Government wanted to see all along, they're rightly viewed highly suspiciously. [1] https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forgery-from-china/ https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forg... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-p... [3] http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese-characteristics-the-laundry-detergent-ad-and-han-privilege/ http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese-character...
tiatia 10y ago
It is a (possible THE) major journal in science but call me skeptical. I tell you three things about the Chinese: 1. They have had a highly developed culture since at least 5000 years (but please don't tell them that their bone carvings can't compete with what the Egyptians had) 2. Their culture developed totally independent and without exchange with other cultures and civilizations in the West. (Don't mention for example the Tarim mummies, this is insulting for Chinese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies ) 3. Chinese always hated and rejected the idea that they developed from African/black ancestors. So this is really a question that is asked in China with a very strong bias.
- roywiggins 10y ago
  > Chinese always hated and rejected the idea that they developed from African/black ancestors They're not very far behind the West in that regard. Piltdown man was only discredited in 1953...
ilamont 10y ago
This field has generated a lot of questionable research and discoveries over the last 100 years. Piltdown Man is the most famous example, but there was also a big hoax perpetuated by Fujimura Shinichi in Japan about 15 years ago (1): Prominent Japanese archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura has been caught red-handed burying artifacts at a site, prompting demands for a review of the nation's Palaeolithic record. Nicknamed "God's Hands" by colleagues who marveled at his luck in locating ancient sites, Fujimura was senior director at the Tohoku Paleolithic Institute. His discovery of artifacts dated to the early Palaeolithic period (600,000-120,000 years ago) at the Kamitakamori ruins in Miyagi Prefecture in 1994 established the site as Japan's oldest. Fujimura's team recently made headlines again following discovery of postholes that provided evidence for early Palaeolithic dwellings at Kamitakamori. Fujimura's hoax, occurring less than a month after his team's headline-making posthole discovery, was exposed by Japan's Mainichi Shimbun newspaper, which published three photographs on its front page of him deliberately burying 61 artifacts on the Kamitakamori site. The artifacts were taken by Fujimura from earlier excavations. He has also confessed to deliberately burying artifacts at the Palaeolithic site of Soshinfudozaka, but insists his other discoveries were authentic. A lot of questionable finds and outright hoaxes tie into ethnic, nationalist, or local pride. (2) China has a record of attempting to use historical/archeological artifacts to establish modern-day territorial claims (3): China’s archaeological work in disputed islands also extends to the Spratly Island chain, which it disputes with the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. China has identified roughly 200 different underwater “cultural heritage sites” between the Spratlys and the Paracels, and has been conducting archaeological explorations in the Spratlys since at least 2013. Maritime archaeology seems like an innocuous enough field. Yet Kaogu-01’s deployment close to the site of a battle between China and Vietnam in an island chain still claimed by the latter, as well as ongoing archaeological work in the disputed Spratly Island chain, indicate that China may see a secondary, political purpose in expanding its maritime archaeological industry, namely strengthening China’s claims to disputed areas in the South China Sea. 1. http://archive.archaeology.org/0101/newsbriefs/godshands.html http://archive.archaeology.org/0101/newsbriefs/godshands.htm... 2. http://www.anonymousswisscollector.com/2014/10/faking-the-past-when-archaeologists-manufacture-illicit-antiquities.html http://www.anonymousswisscollector.com/2014/10/faking-the-pa... 3. http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/archaeology-and-the-south-china-sea/ http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/archaeology-and-the-south-chi...
williesleg 10y ago
I'm always amazed that they talk evolution but they're looking for human or human like remains. Where are the other remains? The ones with fish fins? How did we go from the primordial soup to land based? I'm sure those must exist, right?
lnanek2 10y ago
China is paying researchers to claim humankind evolved in China, basically. It doesn't match the genetic evidence which shows we evolved in Africa.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  I don't think that's an accurate summary. If you were right than it would be a clear case, which according to the article it is not. I think you selected just one thing out of the long article. Just read the last few paragraphs, they contradict your summary: > Despite the different interpretations of the Chinese fossil record, everybody agrees that the evolutionary tale in Asia is much more interesting than people appreciated before. But the details remain fuzzy, because so few researchers have excavated in Asia. > When they have, the results have been startling. > ... > But all agree that Asia — the largest continent on Earth — has a lot more to offer in terms of unravelling the human story. “The centre of gravity,” says Petraglia[0], “is shifting eastward.” Note that the person cited last telling you about a shift to the East is not Chinese. [0] Prof. Michael Petraglia: An archaeologist at the University of Oxford, UK. - http://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/MP1.html http://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/MP1.html and http://www.shh.mpg.de/178394/petraglia http://www.shh.mpg.de/178394/petraglia
- summarite 10y ago
  That's not at all what's in the article.
- muddyrivers 10y ago
  Please read the article.
- dang 10y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12159012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12159012 and marked it off-topic.
Cacti 10y ago
I thought multiregionalism was discredited by genetic studies in the past decade?
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
> It is utterly disrespectful to dozens of scientists devoting their careers to the research. China is a one party state with dictatorial control over pretty much everything. Do you really think those guys have any check against CCP thugs telling them what to publish? Being a good scientist takes a back seat to your survival and the survival of your family. Most people aren't willing to be tortured or killed for their views.
- muddyrivers 10y ago
  What you described is true in 1950's until early 1980's. The government had dictatorial control over everything in academia. (Let's restrict our discussion in academia. Otherwise, it would be a very large topic.) The scenarios in natural science research have been gradually opened up. The scientists doesn't enjoy as much academia freedom as in USA, but it is not as restrictive as the news media said. (That doesn't mean the government has no influence or control, either.) For example, in the article, Dr. Li Hui apparently disagrees with the continuity-with-hybridization model. Dr. Li Hui works in Fudan University, Shanghai. I did biology research in Beijing for two years in 1990's. My advisor openly challenged the research of a "government-sponsored" professor in department meetings. Many professors supported her, my advisor. I don't think she got any "special" treatments from the government. The last time I heard from her, she was enjoying her time after retirement.
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    Sorry pal, China is still like this: Authorities also tightened press restrictions. The State Administration of Press Publication, Radio, Film, and Television issued a directive in July requiring that Chinese journalists sign an agreement stating that they will not release unpublished information without prior approval from their employers and requiring that they pass political ideology exams before they can be issued official press cards. In July, the CCP’s disciplinary commission announced that researchers at the central Chinese Academic of Social Sciences had been “infiltrated by foreign forces” and participated in “illegal collusion” during politically sensitive periods. The party subsequently issued a rule that would make ideological evaluation a top requirement for assessing CASS researchers; those who fail are to be expelled. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china-and-tibet#eaa21f https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china... Academic Fraud in China: http://www.chinesemedicalnews.com/2015/03/academic-fraud-in-china-43-medical.html http://www.chinesemedicalnews.com/2015/03/academic-fraud-in-... The open access publisher BioMedCentral has this week announced the retraction of 43 medical journal publications by Chinese researchers after it discovered widespread peer review fraud. Most of the articles were submitted by medical researchers at universities in China, including China Medical University, Sichuan University, Shandong University and Jiaotong University Medical School.
auggierose 10y ago
You can argue that fossil findings are not really science. After all, how does a fossil finding represent a repeatable scientific experiment? So, it's a magicians trick: Make people think you are doing A (Science), but you really are doing B (pushing your own agenda).
- unchocked 10y ago
  It's a lame argument to make, as next you'd have to argue that astronomy isn't science, nor geology, etc...
- omginternets 10y ago
  "Science" is the practice of empiricism. Empiricism (in a nutshell) says that knowledge comes from sensory experience, so science is interested in what is observable. Repeatable, controlled experiments are certainly the gold-standard of observation, but but they're not the only form of scientific observation. Your notion of science is confused.
  - auggierose 10y ago
    I don't think it is confused, it is just more precise than your notion. If there is no way that I can actually verify a scientific claim if I really really want to, then it isn't a scientific claim. Then it is just gospel that I may or may not believe in. Then it is like the bibel.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      You certainly are confused, but now it's apparent whence this confusion stems: the notion of verification. Non-experimental studies can still be verified and often repeated. Take a cor relational study for instance: you can perform the same measure on a totally new sample and see if the effect is still exhibited. With regards to fossils, these are available for cross-examination, so in principle, you can replicate the carbon 14 dating sequence or examine morphological features in light of new paleontological findings. I repeat: experiments are not the only verifiable/replicable forms of empirical study. You are confused (and that's quite alright!)
themgt 10y ago
I've been trying to follow the developing human origin story (as a layman) for while now. It's hard to overstate the importance of the elephant in the room here, which is race and variation within the human species. There was a huge movement, especially post-WW2, to scientifically "want" to find that all humans were the same and therefore "equal" The Out-of-Africa narrative has to be understood in this context, that it is a very positive narrative, that humans-as-humans developed just once in this tiny spot in Africa and then spread out around the world very recently, never interbred with other hominid species so they're all gone, and therefore we're all pretty much exactly the same. What has been emerging especially now that genetic sequencing is becoming rapidly cheaper and more advanced at picking human genomes out of the genetic diaspora found in old fossils, is a much more complicated picture. The Chinese obviously have little need to adhere to US political correctness, so they're beginning to push the evidence that Asian hominid genes contributed to the emergence of modern humans/civilization. The emerging picture to me is one of multiple waves of hominin advances spreading in a varied way and admixing with existing local populations. So there's pretty clearly an ancient Out-of-Africa wave of homo erectus(who were far more advanced than previously acknowledged), a possible evolution of "homo erectus+" and wave out of Asia, and likely an "Out of Arabia" mix of neanderthals and AMHs in the Levant, all of which intermixed imperfectly. The Neanderthals themselves look plausibly responsible for some advances in human civilization (Mousterians) What you wind up with is a far more complex picture of human evolution and far more significant and long-standing difference between human populations, which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity. As with so many sociological effects caused by technology and knowledge, there's a tradition of science fiction that deals with this concept. Is a human level AI intelligence human, or something else? If it's something else, does it deserve the same rights as a human? If we uplift a species, do we expand the classification of "human" to cover that as well? What does it mean to be human? We can inch along and slowly change our laws based on the understandings we have right now, or we can attempt to leap-frog that thinking and provide a framework for protecting intelligent species (to whatever degree) and try to take a more holistic approach to this before it becomes a mess. This is a problem we will have to deal with eventually, should we be so lucky to survive that long. Here's a less extreme (but still wild) scenario: A tribe of neanderthals is discovered. Do they deserve human rights? I could see some not very good things happening in the short time before consensus formed around that answer, but what, really makes neanderthals more deserving than Gorillas, dolphins, cows, or cats and dogs? We, as a species and as nations (mostly, there are exceptions) have been able to punt on this question because it may upset the way we currently function, but we owe it to ourselves to answer why we should care more about a neanderthal than a cow (if we should).
michaelbuddy 10y ago
There has been a BIG push in social sciences, which for whatever ridiculous reason has gained pull in universities that basically states "Race is a social construct" that "we're all equal" There's even videos where a guy goes across universities and queries students. He asks them "do you think we need more black students on the hockey team" All the students say "yes we need to do a lot more to get black students on the hockey team" Asking same student body, do you think we need white students on the all black basketball team? The students replied "No, the team is the way it is based on skill and merit." So the climate in universities is pretty ridiculous right now. One state is celebrating being able to racially profile for admissions. One should be able to push back against this double standard in academic climates. The answer of "socio-economic inequality" or "systemic bias" is a non-answer. Seems to just create a victimhood complex in individuals and groups, as their new reasoning as to why their outcome in life may be different from others.
- roywiggins 10y ago
  Race really is a social construct. Why do you think Jewish people are considered "white" nowadays? They didn't used to be. They really do have a shared heritage; Levites really do seem to be descended from a small group; etc. But they're white... unless you ask a neonazi. Meanwhile, there is more genetic diversity in Africa than in most of the rest of the world and yet in America there's one "black" race. In South Africa there's White, Colored and Black. In Brazil it's more complicated. People have been trying to divvy up the world into races "scientifically" and it literally never stands up to scrutiny. It can't be done. Race is a shared fiction. Heritage is real.
  - michaelbuddy 10y ago
    ?? You saying it's a social construct doesn't make the world believe you over it's 'lying eyes' differences in people are real, differences in groups are real. You don't like the term race. So what? So you like the word heritage. BTW of course Africa has more genetic diversity. It's an entire continent, unlike the United States, less landmass, different migration history. Just because there are overlaps doesn't mean a group of people can't have a pattern of genetic and visual and even behavioral traits that can't be divided into a race. Time to grow up.
dionidium 10y ago
> once we start thinking that one is better than the other, we get hierarchy, and we get superiority Words like "better," "hierarchy," and "superiority" do not imply each other or follow from words like "different." I don't think the Irish are any worse (or less deserving of respect) than Kenyans because they're slower in a foot race. I can acknowledge the difference without accepting any of the value judgements you seem to think are inevitable. We're almost certainly going to discover less palatable differences between races -- e.g. around intelligence. And the grandparent is right: you'd better be ready with a philosophy that accepts that reality on its own terms.
- junko 10y ago
  >>And the grandparent is right: you'd better be ready with a philosophy that accepts that reality on its own terms. This makes me despair. How many times must history repeat itself? You may be able to acknowledge just the difference, but I stick to what I said earlier: it's a slippery slope. And I'm not talking about dissimilarities in physical features like Irish vs Kenyan legs, but things like comparing intelligence in different races opens up Pandora's Box. Intelligence is not the only factor that makes up who we are, but it is easily and so often turned into a debate where it seems that it's the only thing that matters.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    The discovery that one group is on average less intelligent than another needn't imply any particular policy anymore than the discovery that you're smarter than me implies that you and I should be afforded differing rights on that basis.
    - dionidium 10y ago
      Also, let's be clear about the type of philosophy I mean. I mean one that affords all people the same basic rights, the position that none of our differences are so large as to justify preferential treatment, the position that our similarities are self-evident and sufficient.
- 10y ago
dang 10y ago
Those of you who turned this discussion into a circle of hell with your incivility, ideology, and attacks make me ashamed to be associated with this site. We're soon going to release a much stronger version of the site guidelines and start making it a lot clearer how unacceptable such behavior is on HN. If you want to abuse each other or blast your views at enemies, please go elsewhere. There's no intellectual curiosity in any of this, and the vast majority of us are here to avoid it.
clevernickname 10y ago
Oy vey how dare they challenge the narrative
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  HN is very China sensitive with a huge Chinese population. Anything critical of China, no matter how well sourced, will lead to stuff like this. Its shameful. HN isn't what it used to be. It is no longer a place to criticize state run media or state run science from corrupt autocratic states. The problem with eternal September is that it quickly devolves into eternal political correctness. What is pc is then determined by the majority, so its a classic case of mob rule. Minority opinions are called offensive as a way to censor others. I can't believe HN has become like this.
  - krapp 10y ago
    Eternal September is usually seen as a devolution from political correctness, not towards it. That the culture established by the consensus is undermined by new users who refuse to respect it and act "correctly" is Eternal September.
- dang 10y ago
  That's a common resort of people who've broken the civility rules here, but the rules have nothing to do with "the narrative". They have to do with protecting civil, substantive discussion. Those things ought to be orthogonal; that they aren't seems to be a side effect of people feeling that they needn't treat others well if their position goes against the mainstream. An odd supposition. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12162795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12162795 and marked it off-topic.

97 points by Osiris30 10y ago

So... okay, the picture is fuzzy, and Asia is much more important as thought. What I don't understand is, the article also says the genetical picture still points to the established ("old") theories centering on Africa? As someone only reading about the subject on the side whenever something interesting comes up I'm slightly confused by this aspect of the article. I'm not confused about there not being a linear but a convoluted story - I never thought there was (except when I was fresh out of an East German school quite some time ago and everything being a linear progress story eventually leading to communism was quite clear :) ).

summarite 10y ago
The fixed factor is that 97℅ of our DNA matches with that of fossils in Africa. So our ancestors must have come from there, but that doesn't mean there were a few intermediate stops. Also always worth remembering that the classification as eg sapiens, heidelbergensis or erectus is not one checklist that always ticks the same boxes. In each of these groups defined by us on the basis of some common features but there is much variation. And of course there are regional or temporal differences within eg sapiens. Then you have parallel evolutions, interbreeding, fakes, unclear dating, and you never know if a particular specimen that you find really has 'typical ' features and genes for that time and space, eg it could have been that one lady/guy that happened to have wandered far from where the rest of its group remained, or could have been somewhat different. Eg imagine the only specimen that remains from our era is an inbred Egyptian pharaoh or someone with down syndrome. Those are bad examples as you could probably figure such things somewhat from the DNA, but it's not so clear for every condition, eg if epigenetics* had some bigger effect. * = A layer on your genes that De/activates or strengthens/weakens their effects and that we barely understand. The famous example is that data on Danish military recruits, which were measured upon entry into service, showed that if a man suffers starvation/malnutrition in his childhood his sons (!) will on average be less tall than others of their generation. One generation is not enough for genetic selection, so it must be a change in epigenetics.
- summarite 10y ago
  Forgot to add this second main piece of evidence that modern humans are 'out of Africa': modern African populations have more genetic diversity. When populations migrate it's not a representative sample of all genes, but rather just limited groups, so you can find most diversity at/near the place where it evolved.
- ww520 10y ago
  > The fixed factor is that 97℅ of our DNA matches with that of fossils in Africa. Chimpanzee and human DNA are 96 to 99% identical. Does the 97% DNA match between human and the African fossil have any significance at all?
  - mhuffman 10y ago
    I believe that this is being brushed over. Cats have 90% DNA matches with modern humans as well as the overlap with chimps you mentioned. It is clear that just a couple of percent different is a HUGE difference in animals (I am including humans as animals). So, while it is clear that there is some relationship, the percentage of DNA matches does not seem like strong evidence of "this follows from that" and seems more like "this and that share common previous DNA". And of course there is a political and social-responsibility component to this, even though people pretend like scientist are immune to politics or social trends.

HenryTheHorse 10y ago

Wish we had a "house paleontologist" here to explain the story better. My takeaway is that there is new fossil evidence, which I think should excite researchers everywhere. Instead, the article ends on a researcher expressing cautionary restraint. What am I missing? Is fossil evidence not reliable? Does this new evidence challenge conventional wisdom about human evolution?

jonnybgood 10y ago
It comes down to this: > Some Western researchers suggest that there is a hint of nationalism in Chinese palaeontologists' support for continuity. “The Chinese — they do not accept the idea that H. sapiens evolved in Africa,” says one researcher. “They want everything to come from China.”
- moogleii 10y ago
  In other words, opinion vs opinion. Maybe that's why the posted story is so murky. The following sentences: > Chinese researchers reject such allegations. “This has nothing to do with nationalism,” says Wu. It's all about the evidence — the transitional fossils and archaeological artefacts, he says. “Everything points to continuous evolution in China from H. erectus to modern human.” > But the continuity-with-hybridization model is countered by overwhelming genetic data that point to Africa as the wellspring of modern humans. Studies of Chinese populations show that 97.4% of their genetic make-up is from ancestral modern humans from Africa [...] > “If there had been significant contributions from Chinese H. erectus, they would show up in the genetic data,” says Li Hui, a population geneticist at Fudan University in Shanghai.
  - dak1 10y ago
    Simply saying "opinion vs opinion" is a false equivalency. It's basically the equivalent of climate deniers vs climate change, with the deniers' funding basically coming from a single government. There's intense nationalism (and racism) at play here, and the Chinese government isn't funding pure science so much as it is funding science with the intent of finding a specific result. I'm not a paleontologist, but I've lived and studied International Relations in China (at Tsinghua University, where many of China's leaders studied), and I saw first hand how research was corrupted and self-regulated to draw certain conclusions that agreed with the Government's known or perceived position. This was often felt to be necessary to protect funding and academic positions (one professor of mine in private confessed to me that "80% of what I say is true, and the rest I say for reasons we all know"). I know there is strong nationalistic beliefs around human origins in China as well, and suspect strongly the same forces that affect IR academic research are at play here. Fake fossils are also extremely common in China[1][2], and widespread racism, especially toward black people, is difficult to overstate[3] (which leaves many Chinese refusing to believe they may have originated in Africa). There's a good reason many paleontologists outside of China are taking many of these studies and theories with a China-sized grain of salt. That isn't to say that there isn't good science being done in China as well. But sometimes it can be difficult to separate the 20% from the 80%, and when findings seem to draw conclusions that the Government wanted to see all along, they're rightly viewed highly suspiciously. [1] https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forgery-from-china/ https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forg... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-p... [3] http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese-characteristics-the-laundry-detergent-ad-and-han-privilege/ http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese-character...

tiatia 10y ago

It is a (possible THE) major journal in science but call me skeptical. I tell you three things about the Chinese: 1. They have had a highly developed culture since at least 5000 years (but please don't tell them that their bone carvings can't compete with what the Egyptians had) 2. Their culture developed totally independent and without exchange with other cultures and civilizations in the West. (Don't mention for example the Tarim mummies, this is insulting for Chinese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies ) 3. Chinese always hated and rejected the idea that they developed from African/black ancestors. So this is really a question that is asked in China with a very strong bias.

roywiggins 10y ago
> Chinese always hated and rejected the idea that they developed from African/black ancestors They're not very far behind the West in that regard. Piltdown man was only discredited in 1953...

ilamont 10y ago

This field has generated a lot of questionable research and discoveries over the last 100 years. Piltdown Man is the most famous example, but there was also a big hoax perpetuated by Fujimura Shinichi in Japan about 15 years ago (1): Prominent Japanese archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura has been caught red-handed burying artifacts at a site, prompting demands for a review of the nation's Palaeolithic record. Nicknamed "God's Hands" by colleagues who marveled at his luck in locating ancient sites, Fujimura was senior director at the Tohoku Paleolithic Institute. His discovery of artifacts dated to the early Palaeolithic period (600,000-120,000 years ago) at the Kamitakamori ruins in Miyagi Prefecture in 1994 established the site as Japan's oldest. Fujimura's team recently made headlines again following discovery of postholes that provided evidence for early Palaeolithic dwellings at Kamitakamori. Fujimura's hoax, occurring less than a month after his team's headline-making posthole discovery, was exposed by Japan's Mainichi Shimbun newspaper, which published three photographs on its front page of him deliberately burying 61 artifacts on the Kamitakamori site. The artifacts were taken by Fujimura from earlier excavations. He has also confessed to deliberately burying artifacts at the Palaeolithic site of Soshinfudozaka, but insists his other discoveries were authentic. A lot of questionable finds and outright hoaxes tie into ethnic, nationalist, or local pride. (2) China has a record of attempting to use historical/archeological artifacts to establish modern-day territorial claims (3): China’s archaeological work in disputed islands also extends to the Spratly Island chain, which it disputes with the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. China has identified roughly 200 different underwater “cultural heritage sites” between the Spratlys and the Paracels, and has been conducting archaeological explorations in the Spratlys since at least 2013. Maritime archaeology seems like an innocuous enough field. Yet Kaogu-01’s deployment close to the site of a battle between China and Vietnam in an island chain still claimed by the latter, as well as ongoing archaeological work in the disputed Spratly Island chain, indicate that China may see a secondary, political purpose in expanding its maritime archaeological industry, namely strengthening China’s claims to disputed areas in the South China Sea. 1. http://archive.archaeology.org/0101/newsbriefs/godshands.html http://archive.archaeology.org/0101/newsbriefs/godshands.htm... 2. http://www.anonymousswisscollector.com/2014/10/faking-the-past-when-archaeologists-manufacture-illicit-antiquities.html http://www.anonymousswisscollector.com/2014/10/faking-the-pa... 3. http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/archaeology-and-the-south-china-sea/ http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/archaeology-and-the-south-chi...

williesleg 10y ago

I'm always amazed that they talk evolution but they're looking for human or human like remains. Where are the other remains? The ones with fish fins? How did we go from the primordial soup to land based? I'm sure those must exist, right?

lnanek2 10y ago

China is paying researchers to claim humankind evolved in China, basically. It doesn't match the genetic evidence which shows we evolved in Africa.

Noseshine 10y ago
I don't think that's an accurate summary. If you were right than it would be a clear case, which according to the article it is not. I think you selected just one thing out of the long article. Just read the last few paragraphs, they contradict your summary: > Despite the different interpretations of the Chinese fossil record, everybody agrees that the evolutionary tale in Asia is much more interesting than people appreciated before. But the details remain fuzzy, because so few researchers have excavated in Asia. > When they have, the results have been startling. > ... > But all agree that Asia — the largest continent on Earth — has a lot more to offer in terms of unravelling the human story. “The centre of gravity,” says Petraglia[0], “is shifting eastward.” Note that the person cited last telling you about a shift to the East is not Chinese. [0] Prof. Michael Petraglia: An archaeologist at the University of Oxford, UK. - http://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/MP1.html http://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/MP1.html and http://www.shh.mpg.de/178394/petraglia http://www.shh.mpg.de/178394/petraglia
summarite 10y ago
That's not at all what's in the article.
muddyrivers 10y ago
Please read the article.
dang 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12159012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12159012 and marked it off-topic.

Cacti 10y ago

I thought multiregionalism was discredited by genetic studies in the past decade?

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

> It is utterly disrespectful to dozens of scientists devoting their careers to the research. China is a one party state with dictatorial control over pretty much everything. Do you really think those guys have any check against CCP thugs telling them what to publish? Being a good scientist takes a back seat to your survival and the survival of your family. Most people aren't willing to be tortured or killed for their views.

muddyrivers 10y ago
What you described is true in 1950's until early 1980's. The government had dictatorial control over everything in academia. (Let's restrict our discussion in academia. Otherwise, it would be a very large topic.) The scenarios in natural science research have been gradually opened up. The scientists doesn't enjoy as much academia freedom as in USA, but it is not as restrictive as the news media said. (That doesn't mean the government has no influence or control, either.) For example, in the article, Dr. Li Hui apparently disagrees with the continuity-with-hybridization model. Dr. Li Hui works in Fudan University, Shanghai. I did biology research in Beijing for two years in 1990's. My advisor openly challenged the research of a "government-sponsored" professor in department meetings. Many professors supported her, my advisor. I don't think she got any "special" treatments from the government. The last time I heard from her, she was enjoying her time after retirement.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  Sorry pal, China is still like this: Authorities also tightened press restrictions. The State Administration of Press Publication, Radio, Film, and Television issued a directive in July requiring that Chinese journalists sign an agreement stating that they will not release unpublished information without prior approval from their employers and requiring that they pass political ideology exams before they can be issued official press cards. In July, the CCP’s disciplinary commission announced that researchers at the central Chinese Academic of Social Sciences had been “infiltrated by foreign forces” and participated in “illegal collusion” during politically sensitive periods. The party subsequently issued a rule that would make ideological evaluation a top requirement for assessing CASS researchers; those who fail are to be expelled. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china-and-tibet#eaa21f https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china... Academic Fraud in China: http://www.chinesemedicalnews.com/2015/03/academic-fraud-in-china-43-medical.html http://www.chinesemedicalnews.com/2015/03/academic-fraud-in-... The open access publisher BioMedCentral has this week announced the retraction of 43 medical journal publications by Chinese researchers after it discovered widespread peer review fraud. Most of the articles were submitted by medical researchers at universities in China, including China Medical University, Sichuan University, Shandong University and Jiaotong University Medical School.

auggierose 10y ago

You can argue that fossil findings are not really science. After all, how does a fossil finding represent a repeatable scientific experiment? So, it's a magicians trick: Make people think you are doing A (Science), but you really are doing B (pushing your own agenda).

unchocked 10y ago
It's a lame argument to make, as next you'd have to argue that astronomy isn't science, nor geology, etc...
omginternets 10y ago
"Science" is the practice of empiricism. Empiricism (in a nutshell) says that knowledge comes from sensory experience, so science is interested in what is observable. Repeatable, controlled experiments are certainly the gold-standard of observation, but but they're not the only form of scientific observation. Your notion of science is confused.
- auggierose 10y ago
  I don't think it is confused, it is just more precise than your notion. If there is no way that I can actually verify a scientific claim if I really really want to, then it isn't a scientific claim. Then it is just gospel that I may or may not believe in. Then it is like the bibel.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    You certainly are confused, but now it's apparent whence this confusion stems: the notion of verification. Non-experimental studies can still be verified and often repeated. Take a cor relational study for instance: you can perform the same measure on a totally new sample and see if the effect is still exhibited. With regards to fossils, these are available for cross-examination, so in principle, you can replicate the carbon 14 dating sequence or examine morphological features in light of new paleontological findings. I repeat: experiments are not the only verifiable/replicable forms of empirical study. You are confused (and that's quite alright!)

themgt 10y ago

I've been trying to follow the developing human origin story (as a layman) for while now. It's hard to overstate the importance of the elephant in the room here, which is race and variation within the human species. There was a huge movement, especially post-WW2, to scientifically "want" to find that all humans were the same and therefore "equal" The Out-of-Africa narrative has to be understood in this context, that it is a very positive narrative, that humans-as-humans developed just once in this tiny spot in Africa and then spread out around the world very recently, never interbred with other hominid species so they're all gone, and therefore we're all pretty much exactly the same. What has been emerging especially now that genetic sequencing is becoming rapidly cheaper and more advanced at picking human genomes out of the genetic diaspora found in old fossils, is a much more complicated picture. The Chinese obviously have little need to adhere to US political correctness, so they're beginning to push the evidence that Asian hominid genes contributed to the emergence of modern humans/civilization. The emerging picture to me is one of multiple waves of hominin advances spreading in a varied way and admixing with existing local populations. So there's pretty clearly an ancient Out-of-Africa wave of homo erectus(who were far more advanced than previously acknowledged), a possible evolution of "homo erectus+" and wave out of Asia, and likely an "Out of Arabia" mix of neanderthals and AMHs in the Levant, all of which intermixed imperfectly. The Neanderthals themselves look plausibly responsible for some advances in human civilization (Mousterians) What you wind up with is a far more complex picture of human evolution and far more significant and long-standing difference between human populations, which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity.

kbenson 10y ago
> which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity. As with so many sociological effects caused by technology and knowledge, there's a tradition of science fiction that deals with this concept. Is a human level AI intelligence human, or something else? If it's something else, does it deserve the same rights as a human? If we uplift a species, do we expand the classification of "human" to cover that as well? What does it mean to be human? We can inch along and slowly change our laws based on the understandings we have right now, or we can attempt to leap-frog that thinking and provide a framework for protecting intelligent species (to whatever degree) and try to take a more holistic approach to this before it becomes a mess. This is a problem we will have to deal with eventually, should we be so lucky to survive that long. Here's a less extreme (but still wild) scenario: A tribe of neanderthals is discovered. Do they deserve human rights? I could see some not very good things happening in the short time before consensus formed around that answer, but what, really makes neanderthals more deserving than Gorillas, dolphins, cows, or cats and dogs? We, as a species and as nations (mostly, there are exceptions) have been able to punt on this question because it may upset the way we currently function, but we owe it to ourselves to answer why we should care more about a neanderthal than a cow (if we should).

michaelbuddy 10y ago

There has been a BIG push in social sciences, which for whatever ridiculous reason has gained pull in universities that basically states "Race is a social construct" that "we're all equal" There's even videos where a guy goes across universities and queries students. He asks them "do you think we need more black students on the hockey team" All the students say "yes we need to do a lot more to get black students on the hockey team" Asking same student body, do you think we need white students on the all black basketball team? The students replied "No, the team is the way it is based on skill and merit." So the climate in universities is pretty ridiculous right now. One state is celebrating being able to racially profile for admissions. One should be able to push back against this double standard in academic climates. The answer of "socio-economic inequality" or "systemic bias" is a non-answer. Seems to just create a victimhood complex in individuals and groups, as their new reasoning as to why their outcome in life may be different from others.

roywiggins 10y ago
Race really is a social construct. Why do you think Jewish people are considered "white" nowadays? They didn't used to be. They really do have a shared heritage; Levites really do seem to be descended from a small group; etc. But they're white... unless you ask a neonazi. Meanwhile, there is more genetic diversity in Africa than in most of the rest of the world and yet in America there's one "black" race. In South Africa there's White, Colored and Black. In Brazil it's more complicated. People have been trying to divvy up the world into races "scientifically" and it literally never stands up to scrutiny. It can't be done. Race is a shared fiction. Heritage is real.
- michaelbuddy 10y ago
  ?? You saying it's a social construct doesn't make the world believe you over it's 'lying eyes' differences in people are real, differences in groups are real. You don't like the term race. So what? So you like the word heritage. BTW of course Africa has more genetic diversity. It's an entire continent, unlike the United States, less landmass, different migration history. Just because there are overlaps doesn't mean a group of people can't have a pattern of genetic and visual and even behavioral traits that can't be divided into a race. Time to grow up.

dionidium 10y ago

> once we start thinking that one is better than the other, we get hierarchy, and we get superiority Words like "better," "hierarchy," and "superiority" do not imply each other or follow from words like "different." I don't think the Irish are any worse (or less deserving of respect) than Kenyans because they're slower in a foot race. I can acknowledge the difference without accepting any of the value judgements you seem to think are inevitable. We're almost certainly going to discover less palatable differences between races -- e.g. around intelligence. And the grandparent is right: you'd better be ready with a philosophy that accepts that reality on its own terms.

junko 10y ago
>>And the grandparent is right: you'd better be ready with a philosophy that accepts that reality on its own terms. This makes me despair. How many times must history repeat itself? You may be able to acknowledge just the difference, but I stick to what I said earlier: it's a slippery slope. And I'm not talking about dissimilarities in physical features like Irish vs Kenyan legs, but things like comparing intelligence in different races opens up Pandora's Box. Intelligence is not the only factor that makes up who we are, but it is easily and so often turned into a debate where it seems that it's the only thing that matters.
- dionidium 10y ago
  The discovery that one group is on average less intelligent than another needn't imply any particular policy anymore than the discovery that you're smarter than me implies that you and I should be afforded differing rights on that basis.
  - dionidium 10y ago
    Also, let's be clear about the type of philosophy I mean. I mean one that affords all people the same basic rights, the position that none of our differences are so large as to justify preferential treatment, the position that our similarities are self-evident and sufficient.
10y ago

dang 10y ago

Those of you who turned this discussion into a circle of hell with your incivility, ideology, and attacks make me ashamed to be associated with this site. We're soon going to release a much stronger version of the site guidelines and start making it a lot clearer how unacceptable such behavior is on HN. If you want to abuse each other or blast your views at enemies, please go elsewhere. There's no intellectual curiosity in any of this, and the vast majority of us are here to avoid it.

clevernickname 10y ago

Oy vey how dare they challenge the narrative

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
HN is very China sensitive with a huge Chinese population. Anything critical of China, no matter how well sourced, will lead to stuff like this. Its shameful. HN isn't what it used to be. It is no longer a place to criticize state run media or state run science from corrupt autocratic states. The problem with eternal September is that it quickly devolves into eternal political correctness. What is pc is then determined by the majority, so its a classic case of mob rule. Minority opinions are called offensive as a way to censor others. I can't believe HN has become like this.
- krapp 10y ago
  Eternal September is usually seen as a devolution from political correctness, not towards it. That the culture established by the consensus is undermined by new users who refuse to respect it and act "correctly" is Eternal September.
dang 10y ago
That's a common resort of people who've broken the civility rules here, but the rules have nothing to do with "the narrative". They have to do with protecting civil, substantive discussion. Those things ought to be orthogonal; that they aren't seems to be a side effect of people feeling that they needn't treat others well if their position goes against the mainstream. An odd supposition. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12162795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12162795 and marked it off-topic.