5 ms·

The clock is "reset" on these types of things so frequently that I can help wondering why we speak so confidently about the origins of our species, and how long

The clock is "reset" on these types of things so frequently that I can help wondering why we speak so confidently about the origins of our species, and how long we've been here, and ultimately where we came from on this earth.

nether 9y ago
We live in a computer simulation.
- jansho 9y ago
  No we got spaceship-wrecked.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    Any remains found?
    - jansho 9y ago
      Shrugs, it was biodegradable.
- sizzzzlerz 9y ago
  and it shall be called "The Earth"!
- __jal 9y ago
  Then I want my quarter back. The pacing of this game sucks, over a third of the game-clock is mostly grinding, another third is spent on hallucinating nonsense, and the "plot" seems like it is made up as it goes along. And don't get me started on some of the NPCs...
godzillabrennus 9y ago
It's either set the narrative based on evidence available or go off thousands of years of fables. I'm fine with resetting the narrative as we learn vs making bad assumptions.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
b_emery 9y ago
It's another data point, and must be assessed relative to other data points. Some details of the origin of our species are better known than others, and thus some are more or less likely to be 'reset'. The evidence for African origins, for example, are overwhelming and will not likely be 'reset'. The precise dating of the origin of homo sapiens - if that is even possible - is still in flux. This is the scientific process - science as error correction mechanism. Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade is a great book reviewing the recent science on our species from about 100k year ago to about 10k years ago. It provides the overview and context that you dont get from a NYT article such as this.
sizzzzlerz 9y ago
Isn't science marvelous? That fact that it adapts as new evidence is revealed is critical. The confidence you mention is not confidence that a final answer has been reached but rather, based on the current evidence, an answer can be formulated that is consistent with that evidence available at that time.
gnaritas 9y ago
> The clock is "reset" on these types of things so frequently It really isn't; this doesn't change anything, we previously knew we were at least 200k years old, that fact is still true. We now know we're at least 300k years old, that fact will also always remain true. What's at fault is your understanding of what science is saying rather than what it's actually saying. > that I can help wondering why we speak so confidently about the origins of our species Because it's a given that we're always speaking about current best available knowledge. What is proven true remains true, it's just refined over time as new truths are discovered. What we know continually grows, it's not like we're changing what we know to be something else, we're just growing what we know continually.
- djkrudy 9y ago
  But seriously, what the heck makes more current information better? We aren't talking about significant technological advancements in the last 30 years in dating. What about releasing the click bait news story when a date is corroborated by a new piece of evidence, instead of every time some new find is dated we change the scientifically accepted just to the new number. gnaritas, its hilarious how you ask a very legitimate question, and then the responses are all "Isn't it great how the scientific method allows us to blatantly...." Instead of a response like "Oh...why the heck did we say we had so much confidence before" Regardless of what commenters say, the truth is that yes, without corroboration or quantifiable changes in technology, there is NO VALIDITY in saying that the newest number is the best number. It's another data point, and more importantly its another data point to prove that its stupid to so quickly decide that once you find something in 1 hole in 1 location, that artifact MUST be the beginning of an era!
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    It's not about the newest number being the best number, it's simply an older number that changes our idea of the timeline. So yes, it there is validity in it because it's "new" data that differs from our existing data giving us a fuller understanding of the timeline. And I think you're confusing me with the OP, I didn't ask any question at all, nor do I think the OP's question is legitimate. The OP is assuming incorrectly that current science states definitively when homo sapiens began, but it doesn't, it merely says here's the oldest evidence we currently have so we're at least this old; science never said we're not older. As we cannot time travel, we can never definitively say when homo sapiens began, it will always be an estimate based on the oldest fossils found and as such that estimate can be changed anytime new fossils are found that pre-date the existing oldest fossil.
omginternets 9y ago
Not that long ago we thought the sun orbited around the Earth. Do we know better? Probably. Are we correct in our understanding of the natural world? Hell no. "All models are wrong; some models are very useful", as the adage goes. Science isn't so much about being right as it is about being less wrong.
BurningFrog 9y ago
My impression is that the experts don't speak with a ton of confidence. Popularized versions tend to present the latest "this seems kinda likely, but who knows..." as fact.
skookumchuck 9y ago
Fossils can only give a bound on the latest that a species appeared. The earliest bound is open to speculation and inference.
Mbioguy 9y ago
This is more a problem with science reporting than with the science itself. Saying 'modern humans' or 'homo sapiens' are X years old is a misleading statement. Evolution isn't some binary where all of a sudden you have modern humans. It's genetic change over time. Better reporting would be to compare this find with relatively modern features in Morocco at 300,00 years ago, to Homo Naledi with archaic features in South Africa at 335,000 to 236,000 years ago. As other users put it, compare this data point to other data points. This find implies that relatively modern humans had spread to multiple parts of Africa by 300,000 ya, while at the same time evolutionary cousins like H. naledi persisted in other parts. "And if that is true, Dr. Gunz and his colleagues argue, then our species may have been evolving as a network of groups spread across the continent." This IMO is the best sentence summarizing the impact of this find, and makes the most sense evolutionarily. Instead of having one group evolve all modern traits, and then 70,000 years ago explode across Africa and then the globe, you have several groups with limited interbreeding evolving 'modern' traits. The interbreeding allows the traits to cross into other groups, and modern humans are the result of a particularly successful combination of traits where some traits arose in one group or location and some in others. So sure, in evolutionary deep time (1-2 million years) East Africa remains the cradle of humanity. But this find updates the story that by 300,000 years ago, the groups that became human had left the cradle. That's a big story, and is a much better summation than the misleading "Humans are X years old, older than Y that we previously thought".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Clubber 9y ago
I believe the process goes something like this: 1. We find human remains we can date back 100,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 100,000 years old. 2. We find human remains we can date back 150,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 150,000 years old. We were wrong about #1 (sort of). 3. We find human remains we can date back 200,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 200,000 years old. We were wrong about #1 & #2 (sort of). This particular skull is apparently slightly elongated compared to than of modern humans, so that is spawning some debate, which is good. I don't know if some would consider this a parent species because of this, but probably. An interesting paragraph I read in one of these articles on this recent discovery is that fossils this old are difficult to find because it requires an dry, arid area to survive. Assuming that humanity started in Africa will probably never be disproven because we would need to find a fossil older than 300,000 years that's not in Africa. I assume we think this based on the only evidence we have: we've only found the oldest fossils in Africa.
- tarsinge 9y ago
  > This particular skull is apparently slightly elongated compared to than of modern humans, so that is spawning some debate, which is good. I don't know if some would consider this a parent species because of this, but probably. Naive question, how do we draw the line between new species and variance of actual homo sapiens? I can imagine some interesting "specimens" of underlying skulls in some people I've encountered that could even fall in another extinct homo species from the images I've seen (sounds funny but it's real question).
  - Clubber 9y ago
    I would guess that's up to each researcher. When I was familiarizing myself about some of this on Wikipedia, I noticed that by the time homo erectus came around our predecessors already knew how to control fire and make clothing.
Razengan 9y ago
> and ultimately where we came from on this earth. I will always hope that we find some clue which suggests humans came from somewhere other than Earth. That would probably be the second best thing, after proof of extraterrestrial intelligence, to spur deep-space exploration. I'd love some good science fiction based on that idea at least. Mars seems like a plausible candidate; We ruined it/were forced to leave, fled to Earth, culled the dinosaurs, and made here home.
- puranjay 9y ago
  I know there are probably some very good evolutionary explanations for human beings, but to a complete layman like me, the difference between human and ape intelligence are way too much to attribute to an accident of natural selection. Plus, I think an extraterrestrial source for human life just makes me think of all sorts of geeky fantasies.
  - qarioz 9y ago
    What about hybridization? There's a hypothesis that once a primate mate with a pig and the resulting hybrid become humanity ancestor. It can explain a leap in evolution and explain things like lack of hair.

nether 9y ago

We live in a computer simulation.

jansho 9y ago
No we got spaceship-wrecked.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Any remains found?
  - jansho 9y ago
    Shrugs, it was biodegradable.
sizzzzlerz 9y ago
and it shall be called "The Earth"!
__jal 9y ago
Then I want my quarter back. The pacing of this game sucks, over a third of the game-clock is mostly grinding, another third is spent on hallucinating nonsense, and the "plot" seems like it is made up as it goes along. And don't get me started on some of the NPCs...

godzillabrennus 9y ago

It's either set the narrative based on evidence available or go off thousands of years of fables. I'm fine with resetting the narrative as we learn vs making bad assumptions.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

b_emery 9y ago

It's another data point, and must be assessed relative to other data points. Some details of the origin of our species are better known than others, and thus some are more or less likely to be 'reset'. The evidence for African origins, for example, are overwhelming and will not likely be 'reset'. The precise dating of the origin of homo sapiens - if that is even possible - is still in flux. This is the scientific process - science as error correction mechanism. Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade is a great book reviewing the recent science on our species from about 100k year ago to about 10k years ago. It provides the overview and context that you dont get from a NYT article such as this.

sizzzzlerz 9y ago

Isn't science marvelous? That fact that it adapts as new evidence is revealed is critical. The confidence you mention is not confidence that a final answer has been reached but rather, based on the current evidence, an answer can be formulated that is consistent with that evidence available at that time.

gnaritas 9y ago

> The clock is "reset" on these types of things so frequently It really isn't; this doesn't change anything, we previously knew we were at least 200k years old, that fact is still true. We now know we're at least 300k years old, that fact will also always remain true. What's at fault is your understanding of what science is saying rather than what it's actually saying. > that I can help wondering why we speak so confidently about the origins of our species Because it's a given that we're always speaking about current best available knowledge. What is proven true remains true, it's just refined over time as new truths are discovered. What we know continually grows, it's not like we're changing what we know to be something else, we're just growing what we know continually.

djkrudy 9y ago
But seriously, what the heck makes more current information better? We aren't talking about significant technological advancements in the last 30 years in dating. What about releasing the click bait news story when a date is corroborated by a new piece of evidence, instead of every time some new find is dated we change the scientifically accepted just to the new number. gnaritas, its hilarious how you ask a very legitimate question, and then the responses are all "Isn't it great how the scientific method allows us to blatantly...." Instead of a response like "Oh...why the heck did we say we had so much confidence before" Regardless of what commenters say, the truth is that yes, without corroboration or quantifiable changes in technology, there is NO VALIDITY in saying that the newest number is the best number. It's another data point, and more importantly its another data point to prove that its stupid to so quickly decide that once you find something in 1 hole in 1 location, that artifact MUST be the beginning of an era!
- gnaritas 9y ago
  It's not about the newest number being the best number, it's simply an older number that changes our idea of the timeline. So yes, it there is validity in it because it's "new" data that differs from our existing data giving us a fuller understanding of the timeline. And I think you're confusing me with the OP, I didn't ask any question at all, nor do I think the OP's question is legitimate. The OP is assuming incorrectly that current science states definitively when homo sapiens began, but it doesn't, it merely says here's the oldest evidence we currently have so we're at least this old; science never said we're not older. As we cannot time travel, we can never definitively say when homo sapiens began, it will always be an estimate based on the oldest fossils found and as such that estimate can be changed anytime new fossils are found that pre-date the existing oldest fossil.

omginternets 9y ago

Not that long ago we thought the sun orbited around the Earth. Do we know better? Probably. Are we correct in our understanding of the natural world? Hell no. "All models are wrong; some models are very useful", as the adage goes. Science isn't so much about being right as it is about being less wrong.

BurningFrog 9y ago

My impression is that the experts don't speak with a ton of confidence. Popularized versions tend to present the latest "this seems kinda likely, but who knows..." as fact.

skookumchuck 9y ago

Fossils can only give a bound on the latest that a species appeared. The earliest bound is open to speculation and inference.

Mbioguy 9y ago

This is more a problem with science reporting than with the science itself. Saying 'modern humans' or 'homo sapiens' are X years old is a misleading statement. Evolution isn't some binary where all of a sudden you have modern humans. It's genetic change over time. Better reporting would be to compare this find with relatively modern features in Morocco at 300,00 years ago, to Homo Naledi with archaic features in South Africa at 335,000 to 236,000 years ago. As other users put it, compare this data point to other data points. This find implies that relatively modern humans had spread to multiple parts of Africa by 300,000 ya, while at the same time evolutionary cousins like H. naledi persisted in other parts. "And if that is true, Dr. Gunz and his colleagues argue, then our species may have been evolving as a network of groups spread across the continent." This IMO is the best sentence summarizing the impact of this find, and makes the most sense evolutionarily. Instead of having one group evolve all modern traits, and then 70,000 years ago explode across Africa and then the globe, you have several groups with limited interbreeding evolving 'modern' traits. The interbreeding allows the traits to cross into other groups, and modern humans are the result of a particularly successful combination of traits where some traits arose in one group or location and some in others. So sure, in evolutionary deep time (1-2 million years) East Africa remains the cradle of humanity. But this find updates the story that by 300,000 years ago, the groups that became human had left the cradle. That's a big story, and is a much better summation than the misleading "Humans are X years old, older than Y that we previously thought".

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Clubber 9y ago

I believe the process goes something like this: 1. We find human remains we can date back 100,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 100,000 years old. 2. We find human remains we can date back 150,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 150,000 years old. We were wrong about #1 (sort of). 3. We find human remains we can date back 200,000 years. Press release that we know humans are at least 200,000 years old. We were wrong about #1 & #2 (sort of). This particular skull is apparently slightly elongated compared to than of modern humans, so that is spawning some debate, which is good. I don't know if some would consider this a parent species because of this, but probably. An interesting paragraph I read in one of these articles on this recent discovery is that fossils this old are difficult to find because it requires an dry, arid area to survive. Assuming that humanity started in Africa will probably never be disproven because we would need to find a fossil older than 300,000 years that's not in Africa. I assume we think this based on the only evidence we have: we've only found the oldest fossils in Africa.

tarsinge 9y ago
> This particular skull is apparently slightly elongated compared to than of modern humans, so that is spawning some debate, which is good. I don't know if some would consider this a parent species because of this, but probably. Naive question, how do we draw the line between new species and variance of actual homo sapiens? I can imagine some interesting "specimens" of underlying skulls in some people I've encountered that could even fall in another extinct homo species from the images I've seen (sounds funny but it's real question).
- Clubber 9y ago
  I would guess that's up to each researcher. When I was familiarizing myself about some of this on Wikipedia, I noticed that by the time homo erectus came around our predecessors already knew how to control fire and make clothing.

Razengan 9y ago

> and ultimately where we came from on this earth. I will always hope that we find some clue which suggests humans came from somewhere other than Earth. That would probably be the second best thing, after proof of extraterrestrial intelligence, to spur deep-space exploration. I'd love some good science fiction based on that idea at least. Mars seems like a plausible candidate; We ruined it/were forced to leave, fled to Earth, culled the dinosaurs, and made here home.

puranjay 9y ago
I know there are probably some very good evolutionary explanations for human beings, but to a complete layman like me, the difference between human and ape intelligence are way too much to attribute to an accident of natural selection. Plus, I think an extraterrestrial source for human life just makes me think of all sorts of geeky fantasies.
- qarioz 9y ago
  What about hybridization? There's a hypothesis that once a primate mate with a pig and the resulting hybrid become humanity ancestor. It can explain a leap in evolution and explain things like lack of hair.