5 ms·

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 researcher

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...
    - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
      >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 When China was promoting the idea of it controlling the South China Sea, suddenly my feed was full of bullshit academic articles about finding Chinese culture artifacts on those not-really islands. As well as a fabled 600 year old book that no longer exists. Its clear this was done by the CCP to help their claim of those islands. Back in the old days China made propagandist attacks on western medicine and cooked the books on its traditional medicine, which was administered at the time and still today in many/some cases. It was almost all fraud. They weren't claiming a little bit of zing from Ginseng or a bit of pain relief from massage or acupuncture but cancer cures and such using roots and stews.
    - moogleii 10y ago
      > Simply saying "opinion vs opinion" is a false equivalency. No, it's not. That "one researcher" made an opinion that he thinks nationalism is at play. “They want everything to come from China.” is literally an opinion. > 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. That's anecdotal. The snippet I included, directly after the nationalist's opinion, is a Chinese guy (part of the "they" I assume) at a Chinese university, disagreeing with him. Do you have actual numbers of how widespread the nationalist agenda on this particular issue is? Or is this just more opinion? Also, that sounds similar to lots of PhD's lives trying to get funding from their government. >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). I could replace "China" with "Japan", who aren't exactly strangers to a similar agenda, heck even the NYT commented on it. But I don't claim to assume the whole country thinks that way because I doubt there are numbers on it.
- muddyrivers 10y ago
  There is always nationalism embedded in this field. It is naive to think it is free of it. On the other hand, it is moronic to think it "comes down" to nationalism. It is utterly disrespectful to dozens of scientists devoting their careers to the research. As the article says itself, it is a 'fuzzy picture', as many fields still are, like evolutionary biology. Darwin's theory of natural selection is regarded as mostly correct. That doesn't mean Lamarck's theory is completely wrong. If you have studied epigenetics, you would have re-considered all you had learned on evolutionary biology. That is how science progresses.
wavefunction 10y ago
The Piltdown man is one example of why cautious restraint is prudent when new fossil discoveries are made which seem to contradict established science.
ucaetano 10y ago
“Everything points to continuous evolution in China from H. erectus to modern human.” Quote from the Chinese researcher. Essentially they're saying that the modern human evolved in China, even though: "Studies of Chinese populations show that 97.4% of their genetic make-up is from ancestral modern humans from Africa, with the rest coming from extinct forms such as Neanderthals and Denisovans"
- Noseshine 10y ago
  > Essentially they're saying that the modern human evolved in China I think they mean Asians, not all humans? Which looking at a few points on this interactive map may have a point - IF I interpret that map correctly (which may not be the case, I don't completely understand it): https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0214/14022014-interactive-map-human-genetic-history https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0214/14022014-inter...
  - ucaetano 10y ago
    They said: “Everything points to continuous evolution in China from H. erectus to modern human.” Unless you're saying that two identical homo sapiens groups evolved in parallel in Africa and Asia, they're saying homo sapiens came from Asia.
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      This is the graphics they show: http://www.nature.com/news/535218a-i2-jpg-7.37680?article=1.20231 http://www.nature.com/news/535218a-i2-jpg-7.37680?article=1.... So its about Asians being on their own branch (also out of Africa, earlier) according to this, not Asia as the original origin. From the text: > Stringer even suggests that H. heidelbergensis might have originated in Asia and then spread to other continents. > But many researchers, including most Chinese palaeontologists, contend that the materials from China are different from European and African H. heidelbergensis fossils, despite some apparent similarities. So I read this that the Chinese opinion is explicitly not that they are the origin for all, only that they are on their own branch. And this is quite clear: > Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. It says "of modern Asian people". > In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu.

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...
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    >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 When China was promoting the idea of it controlling the South China Sea, suddenly my feed was full of bullshit academic articles about finding Chinese culture artifacts on those not-really islands. As well as a fabled 600 year old book that no longer exists. Its clear this was done by the CCP to help their claim of those islands. Back in the old days China made propagandist attacks on western medicine and cooked the books on its traditional medicine, which was administered at the time and still today in many/some cases. It was almost all fraud. They weren't claiming a little bit of zing from Ginseng or a bit of pain relief from massage or acupuncture but cancer cures and such using roots and stews.
  - moogleii 10y ago
    > Simply saying "opinion vs opinion" is a false equivalency. No, it's not. That "one researcher" made an opinion that he thinks nationalism is at play. “They want everything to come from China.” is literally an opinion. > 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. That's anecdotal. The snippet I included, directly after the nationalist's opinion, is a Chinese guy (part of the "they" I assume) at a Chinese university, disagreeing with him. Do you have actual numbers of how widespread the nationalist agenda on this particular issue is? Or is this just more opinion? Also, that sounds similar to lots of PhD's lives trying to get funding from their government. >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). I could replace "China" with "Japan", who aren't exactly strangers to a similar agenda, heck even the NYT commented on it. But I don't claim to assume the whole country thinks that way because I doubt there are numbers on it.
muddyrivers 10y ago
There is always nationalism embedded in this field. It is naive to think it is free of it. On the other hand, it is moronic to think it "comes down" to nationalism. It is utterly disrespectful to dozens of scientists devoting their careers to the research. As the article says itself, it is a 'fuzzy picture', as many fields still are, like evolutionary biology. Darwin's theory of natural selection is regarded as mostly correct. That doesn't mean Lamarck's theory is completely wrong. If you have studied epigenetics, you would have re-considered all you had learned on evolutionary biology. That is how science progresses.

wavefunction 10y ago

The Piltdown man is one example of why cautious restraint is prudent when new fossil discoveries are made which seem to contradict established science.

ucaetano 10y ago

“Everything points to continuous evolution in China from H. erectus to modern human.” Quote from the Chinese researcher. Essentially they're saying that the modern human evolved in China, even though: "Studies of Chinese populations show that 97.4% of their genetic make-up is from ancestral modern humans from Africa, with the rest coming from extinct forms such as Neanderthals and Denisovans"

Noseshine 10y ago
> Essentially they're saying that the modern human evolved in China I think they mean Asians, not all humans? Which looking at a few points on this interactive map may have a point - IF I interpret that map correctly (which may not be the case, I don't completely understand it): https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0214/14022014-interactive-map-human-genetic-history https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0214/14022014-inter...
- ucaetano 10y ago
  They said: “Everything points to continuous evolution in China from H. erectus to modern human.” Unless you're saying that two identical homo sapiens groups evolved in parallel in Africa and Asia, they're saying homo sapiens came from Asia.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    This is the graphics they show: http://www.nature.com/news/535218a-i2-jpg-7.37680?article=1.20231 http://www.nature.com/news/535218a-i2-jpg-7.37680?article=1.... So its about Asians being on their own branch (also out of Africa, earlier) according to this, not Asia as the original origin. From the text: > Stringer even suggests that H. heidelbergensis might have originated in Asia and then spread to other continents. > But many researchers, including most Chinese palaeontologists, contend that the materials from China are different from European and African H. heidelbergensis fossils, despite some apparent similarities. So I read this that the Chinese opinion is explicitly not that they are the origin for all, only that they are on their own branch. And this is quite clear: > Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. It says "of modern Asian people". > In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu.