3 ms·

We actually have real DNA from not only Neanderthals but also Denisovans. There's no conjecture here - they were different.

by Tor3 3y ago

Anotheroneagain 3y ago
It is a conjecture, the difference just isn't big enough: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21819/ The most striking example is from the Taï forest, where the 19 haplotypes show greater diversity than the entire human clade, even though they occur in a single breeding group.
- Tor3 3y ago
  I don't see any support in that paper for the idea that Neanderthal DNA doesn't show that it's a different species. On the contrary. What the paper describes is the very well known theory that (modern) humans went through a near-fatal population bottleneck in the not too distant past, which means that the human genetic diversity is so low that two people from different sides of the earth have less genetic variation between them than two chimpanzees from different sides of the river in a single forest have between them.
  - Anotheroneagain 3y ago
    Exactly, and that was what made the "Neanderthal" mtDNA seem way too different, but this paper shows that it's well within what would be expected for a single species.
verisimi 3y ago
You have to wonder what value the evidence is, when you can also read this sort of thing: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/feb/19/science.sciencenews https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/feb/19/science.scie... "He had simply made things up", for 30 years, about 'Neanderthals', and no one noticed...
- Tor3 3y ago
  So, you compare (now famous) hoaxes with what the Max Planck Institute did with their Neandertal Genome Project, and Svante Pääbo's work? Not exactly fringe, not easily overlooked.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    I'm saying all sorts of people say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. What they say might, or might not, relate to what happened. We should be aware however that it's just people saying stuff, and take care not to treat other people's pronouncements, or the output from the academic process, as truth. It's not truth, it's just a talking shop, informed guesswork. What I'm advocating is a personal application of the scientific process. Do not tell yourself (or others) 'I know the truth' when all you have is a half-baked hypothesis that you have not personally verified. This seems like good mental hygiene to me.
    - Tor3 3y ago
      Where is the half-baked hypothesis here? Are we still talking about the Max Planck Institute and the DNA science they're basing their work on? Why should we pay equal weight to arm-chair pondering and scientific work?
verisimi 3y ago
Also re, DNA. You have to wonder how valuable DNA is. There are many examples of it failing - here's a good one with twin sisters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isa5c1p6aC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isa5c1p6aC0 So no, given we don't have any living samples of 'Neanderthals' or 'Denisovans', I'm not 100% confident that we can distinguish the different types of 'hominoids', when identical twin sisters can get such differing DNA results.
- simonh 3y ago
  That's because consumer DNA profiling outfits are trash, not because there's anything wrong with properly conducted DNA analysis. That's like saying the Large Hadron Collider results must be wrong because the image on your old electron gun TV tube is blurry. The way out of this is to follow proper protocols for well conducted science. Peer review, multiple verification from different sites and by different labs. Unfortunately a bad result occasionally slips through, but it is possible to have high confidence in most well attested results. So the answer to how we know these things is that we have multiple samples including large sections of skulls and other major bones, from multiple sites, many of them analysed and verified by multiple different labs.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    This is new to me. What bit of the science do DNA profiling outfits get wrong? How can one tell who is following protocols for well conducted science? What should one do in order to get good DNA results? How do I know that historians are not using the same outfits - or at least the same laboratories? You need to show that 'this section of DNA profiling is BAD because of such-and-such reason' but that 'this section of DNA profiling is GOOD because of such-and-such reason'.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

We actually have real DNA from not only Neanderthals but also Denisovans. There's no conjecture here - they were different.

by Tor3 3y ago

We actually have real DNA from not only Neanderthals but also Denisovans. There's no conjecture here - they were different.

Anotheroneagain 3y ago

It is a conjecture, the difference just isn't big enough: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21819/ The most striking example is from the Taï forest, where the 19 haplotypes show greater diversity than the entire human clade, even though they occur in a single breeding group.

Tor3 3y ago
I don't see any support in that paper for the idea that Neanderthal DNA doesn't show that it's a different species. On the contrary. What the paper describes is the very well known theory that (modern) humans went through a near-fatal population bottleneck in the not too distant past, which means that the human genetic diversity is so low that two people from different sides of the earth have less genetic variation between them than two chimpanzees from different sides of the river in a single forest have between them.
- Anotheroneagain 3y ago
  Exactly, and that was what made the "Neanderthal" mtDNA seem way too different, but this paper shows that it's well within what would be expected for a single species.

verisimi 3y ago

You have to wonder what value the evidence is, when you can also read this sort of thing: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/feb/19/science.sciencenews https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/feb/19/science.scie... "He had simply made things up", for 30 years, about 'Neanderthals', and no one noticed...

Tor3 3y ago
So, you compare (now famous) hoaxes with what the Max Planck Institute did with their Neandertal Genome Project, and Svante Pääbo's work? Not exactly fringe, not easily overlooked.
- verisimi 3y ago
  I'm saying all sorts of people say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. What they say might, or might not, relate to what happened. We should be aware however that it's just people saying stuff, and take care not to treat other people's pronouncements, or the output from the academic process, as truth. It's not truth, it's just a talking shop, informed guesswork. What I'm advocating is a personal application of the scientific process. Do not tell yourself (or others) 'I know the truth' when all you have is a half-baked hypothesis that you have not personally verified. This seems like good mental hygiene to me.
  - Tor3 3y ago
    Where is the half-baked hypothesis here? Are we still talking about the Max Planck Institute and the DNA science they're basing their work on? Why should we pay equal weight to arm-chair pondering and scientific work?

verisimi 3y ago

Also re, DNA. You have to wonder how valuable DNA is. There are many examples of it failing - here's a good one with twin sisters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isa5c1p6aC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isa5c1p6aC0 So no, given we don't have any living samples of 'Neanderthals' or 'Denisovans', I'm not 100% confident that we can distinguish the different types of 'hominoids', when identical twin sisters can get such differing DNA results.

simonh 3y ago
That's because consumer DNA profiling outfits are trash, not because there's anything wrong with properly conducted DNA analysis. That's like saying the Large Hadron Collider results must be wrong because the image on your old electron gun TV tube is blurry. The way out of this is to follow proper protocols for well conducted science. Peer review, multiple verification from different sites and by different labs. Unfortunately a bad result occasionally slips through, but it is possible to have high confidence in most well attested results. So the answer to how we know these things is that we have multiple samples including large sections of skulls and other major bones, from multiple sites, many of them analysed and verified by multiple different labs.
- verisimi 3y ago
  This is new to me. What bit of the science do DNA profiling outfits get wrong? How can one tell who is following protocols for well conducted science? What should one do in order to get good DNA results? How do I know that historians are not using the same outfits - or at least the same laboratories? You need to show that 'this section of DNA profiling is BAD because of such-and-such reason' but that 'this section of DNA profiling is GOOD because of such-and-such reason'.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]