4 ms·

It's a big claim. To estimate "1280 individuals" is... very precise.

by nawgz 3y ago

spiderice 3y ago
Yeah.. how can they possibly be so precise in that number? Anyone know?
- sho_hn 3y ago
  They aren't, it's an estimate (with error bars).
psychphysic 3y ago
The estimate is the estimate (1280 with SEM of 131). It's be foolish of them to mask it intentionally. Once independent estimates are made then you might synthesize an reasonable estimate. Both the editor summary I'm science and the headline here don't place much emphasis on the precise number.
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  The actual linked article isn't the paper, and doesn't even name the paper as far I can tell, it's just given as "Hu, W. et al. Science 381, 979–984 (2023)." in a footnote. This is the actual paper, which (presumably, I cannot access) is specifically about how they made the estimate: Genomic inference of a severe human bottleneck during the Early to Middle Pleistocene transition: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487
br1 3y ago
It is a somewhat 'round' number, the width of 720p resolution.
RoyalHenOil 3y ago
This is the number supported by DNA evidence. There will be a margin of error. The bigger issue, for me, is that I'm not sure how they can rule out the possibility that there were lots of other people around at that time whose lineages gradually died out. Modern genetic lineages may trace back to 1280 people (+/- the margin of error), but it seems pretty dubious to assume that those were the only people living at that time. It seems highly likely to me that there were infertile people, people who died young, people whose only living children were infertile or died young, etc. (I did not read the original paper, so maybe they accounted for this, or maybe they that specify that this was a genetic bottle neck for modern humans, but not necessarily the actual size of the population.)
- sidfthec 3y ago
  > I did not read the original paper, so maybe they accounted for this Then why say it's an issue?
  - fooker 3y ago
    They haven't.
  - RoyalHenOil 3y ago
    I'm not saying it's an issue with the research. It's very likely the researchers thought of this. It IS an issue with the article linked here, since it does not explain the research and causes readers to walk away believing there were only 1280 people.
- svnt 3y ago
  There is a minimum in the fossil record at that time. There may be other explanations for it, but one very reasonable one is that there just weren't very many skeletons to potentially fossilize.
  - RoyalHenOil 3y ago
    Certainly. However, I am still highly doubtful that there were only 1280 people alive at that time. I'm not sure that this is what the article is claiming; however, it is written in a way that makes it very easy to come away with that message (as evidenced in this comment section). What are the chances that every person alive today, for example, will still have living descendants in 400,000 years? If people 400,000 years in the future do a genetic study on themselves to determine how many of their ancestors were alive in the year 2023, what percentage of the 2023 population will they be able to account for? My guess is a fair bit lower than 100%.
- Roboprog 3y ago
  Exactly: it's really hard to tell if "the environment" took out the other hominids, or if the descendants of the 1280 took them out. "Hmm, this monkey looking thing isn't as tasty as a wooly mammoth, but it'll do." (it's not like chimps don't catch and eat other primates)
vic-traill 3y ago
It's obviously the result of Roll Call: SMITH Here! JOHNSON Here! WILLIAMS Here! BROWN Here! JONES Here! GARCIA Here! MILLER Here! DAVIS Here! RODRIGUEZ Here! MARTINEZ Here! HERNANDEZ Here! LOPEZ Here! GONZALEZ Here! WILSON Here! ANDERSON Here! THOMAS Here! TAYLOR Here! MOORE Here! JACKSON Here! MARTIN Here! LEE Here! PEREZ Here! THOMPSON Here! WHITE Here! HARRIS Here! SANCHEZ Here! CLARK Here! RAMIREZ Here! LEWIS Here! ROBINSON Here! WALKER Here! YOUNG Here! ALLEN Here! KING Here! WRIGHT Here! SCOTT Here! TORRES Here! NGUYEN Here! HILL Here! FLORES Here! GREEN Here! ADAMS Here! NELSON Here! BAKER Here! HALL Here! [ ... ] ROSADO [ ... Crickets ... ]
- latchkey 3y ago
  I upvoted you on the amount of work you put into that comment. Even threw in a nguyen there too.
  - vic-traill 3y ago
    I was shooting for 1280 surnames, but the comment length limit fixed that. Which I am grateful for in general :-) Anyway, I surmised I would give away just about all my karma on the comment, but, hell, I just couldn't resist!
    - latchkey 3y ago
      It is always worth risking a few karma points for a well crafted comment.
hulitu 3y ago
They have very good meters those days. /s The fact that there is no comma (as in 1280,3333) is puzzling.

It's a big claim. To estimate "1280 individuals" is... very precise.

by nawgz 3y ago

It's a big claim. To estimate "1280 individuals" is... very precise.

spiderice 3y ago

Yeah.. how can they possibly be so precise in that number? Anyone know?

sho_hn 3y ago
They aren't, it's an estimate (with error bars).

psychphysic 3y ago

The estimate is the estimate (1280 with SEM of 131). It's be foolish of them to mask it intentionally. Once independent estimates are made then you might synthesize an reasonable estimate. Both the editor summary I'm science and the headline here don't place much emphasis on the precise number.

adhesive_wombat 3y ago
The actual linked article isn't the paper, and doesn't even name the paper as far I can tell, it's just given as "Hu, W. et al. Science 381, 979–984 (2023)." in a footnote. This is the actual paper, which (presumably, I cannot access) is specifically about how they made the estimate: Genomic inference of a severe human bottleneck during the Early to Middle Pleistocene transition: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487

br1 3y ago

It is a somewhat 'round' number, the width of 720p resolution.

RoyalHenOil 3y ago

This is the number supported by DNA evidence. There will be a margin of error. The bigger issue, for me, is that I'm not sure how they can rule out the possibility that there were lots of other people around at that time whose lineages gradually died out. Modern genetic lineages may trace back to 1280 people (+/- the margin of error), but it seems pretty dubious to assume that those were the only people living at that time. It seems highly likely to me that there were infertile people, people who died young, people whose only living children were infertile or died young, etc. (I did not read the original paper, so maybe they accounted for this, or maybe they that specify that this was a genetic bottle neck for modern humans, but not necessarily the actual size of the population.)

sidfthec 3y ago
> I did not read the original paper, so maybe they accounted for this Then why say it's an issue?
- fooker 3y ago
  They haven't.
- RoyalHenOil 3y ago
  I'm not saying it's an issue with the research. It's very likely the researchers thought of this. It IS an issue with the article linked here, since it does not explain the research and causes readers to walk away believing there were only 1280 people.
svnt 3y ago
There is a minimum in the fossil record at that time. There may be other explanations for it, but one very reasonable one is that there just weren't very many skeletons to potentially fossilize.
- RoyalHenOil 3y ago
  Certainly. However, I am still highly doubtful that there were only 1280 people alive at that time. I'm not sure that this is what the article is claiming; however, it is written in a way that makes it very easy to come away with that message (as evidenced in this comment section). What are the chances that every person alive today, for example, will still have living descendants in 400,000 years? If people 400,000 years in the future do a genetic study on themselves to determine how many of their ancestors were alive in the year 2023, what percentage of the 2023 population will they be able to account for? My guess is a fair bit lower than 100%.
Roboprog 3y ago
Exactly: it's really hard to tell if "the environment" took out the other hominids, or if the descendants of the 1280 took them out. "Hmm, this monkey looking thing isn't as tasty as a wooly mammoth, but it'll do." (it's not like chimps don't catch and eat other primates)

vic-traill 3y ago

It's obviously the result of Roll Call: SMITH Here! JOHNSON Here! WILLIAMS Here! BROWN Here! JONES Here! GARCIA Here! MILLER Here! DAVIS Here! RODRIGUEZ Here! MARTINEZ Here! HERNANDEZ Here! LOPEZ Here! GONZALEZ Here! WILSON Here! ANDERSON Here! THOMAS Here! TAYLOR Here! MOORE Here! JACKSON Here! MARTIN Here! LEE Here! PEREZ Here! THOMPSON Here! WHITE Here! HARRIS Here! SANCHEZ Here! CLARK Here! RAMIREZ Here! LEWIS Here! ROBINSON Here! WALKER Here! YOUNG Here! ALLEN Here! KING Here! WRIGHT Here! SCOTT Here! TORRES Here! NGUYEN Here! HILL Here! FLORES Here! GREEN Here! ADAMS Here! NELSON Here! BAKER Here! HALL Here! [ ... ] ROSADO [ ... Crickets ... ]

latchkey 3y ago
I upvoted you on the amount of work you put into that comment. Even threw in a nguyen there too.
- vic-traill 3y ago
  I was shooting for 1280 surnames, but the comment length limit fixed that. Which I am grateful for in general :-) Anyway, I surmised I would give away just about all my karma on the comment, but, hell, I just couldn't resist!
  - latchkey 3y ago
    It is always worth risking a few karma points for a well crafted comment.

hulitu 3y ago

They have very good meters those days. /s The fact that there is no comma (as in 1280,3333) is puzzling.