4 ms·

The curse of Toumaï: an ancient skull and a bitter feud over humanity's origins

83 points by benbreen 1y ago

ldjkfkdsjnv 1y ago
[flagged]
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  Probably not. What I think you mean here is something called the "multiregional human origin" hypothesis, which isn't well supported. The current model is that the vast majority of human ancestry, including what makes us identifiably human, originated in Africa. When anatomically modern humans left Africa, they incorporated and replaced archaic humans in other parts of the world. Those archaic ancestors are largely invisible in modern populations and only become visible with genetic tools. If you actually mean within Africa, we currently don't have a great model for archaic human population structure. However, I've never read a reputable paper drawing a line between archaic population structure and differences in modern populations. I suspect none exist.
  - ldjkfkdsjnv 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - AlotOfReading 1y ago
      All modern humans are descended from archaic humans. That's how evolution works.
      - ldjkfkdsjnv 1y ago
        archaic human is a broad umbrella...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
dd_xplore 1y ago
When humanity (including all the homo species) gained intelligence over 2-300000 years ago, I'm genuinely surprised that they were able to live so long together! Although 'species' is term is bit extreme, which is why they reproduced with each other a lot! I also wonder what kind of history they might have! It's interesting to think about. Most of the history that we have is already opinionated....
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mr_toad 1y ago
  Do you mean why didn’t they fight? Probably they did. Chimpanzee tribes are highly aggressive, early hominid tribes probably were as well. Human level intelligence didn’t suddenly evolve, it was a gradual transition.
profsummergig 1y ago
This image of the femur, can anyone shed light on why there are notches carved on the side? https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b6b6509049556deef91d0459df8649a9fe7d53b7/384_0_3937_3150/master/3937.jpg?width=980&dpr=2&s=none&crop=none https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b6b6509049556deef91d0459df864... Also, regarding "There is no technology, extant or imaginable, that could extract that marvellous secret from her bones", I put those under the "famous last words" category. We cannot predict today what we may discover about bones in the future. There could be something akin to DNA fingerprinting that lets people discover ancestry. Just because we've not discovered it yet, doesn't mean we will never discover it. Not saying we will, but I prefer to keep an open mind about science and human creativity.
- w10-1 1y ago
  > "There is no technology, extant or imaginable, that could extract that marvellous secret from her bones" It's because the inference depends on having data from a very large sample of other finds. It wouldn't matter if there were a single Eve and we found her entire skeleton and extracted the DNA perfectly. We couldn't prove it was Eve without all the other samples, and it's beyond unlikely they'll just show up. I'm disgusted by the convention that findings are controlled by self-interested glory-seeking finders. These belong to the entirety of humanity and should be treated as such, with utmost care and complete openness and humility. We shouldn't tolerate grave robbers any more than bank robbers. Like banks, archeaologists are fiduciaries of the highest order, and should be selected and managed as such, not like salespeople on commission. If you want to seek abandoned treasure, go elsewhere.
  - theoreticalmal 1y ago
    “It belongs in a museum!” -Indy
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      ... the Graverobber
  - profsummergig 1y ago
anonymousDan 1y ago
I love the passion and bitchiness of the researchers.
- ggm 1y ago
  As a story arc for a forthcoming film? Sure. But I'm reminded of the comp sci aphorism: physics advanced by standing on the shoulders of giants.. CS by standing on each other's toes.
  - defrost 1y ago
    Albeit that standing on the shoulders of giants was a primo bitchy jab that likened Robert Hooke to a dwarf who rode on the shoulders of true giants. https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/02/16/newton-standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants/ https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/02/16/newton-standing-on... https://www.amazon.com/Shoulders-Giants-Shandean-Postscript/dp/0226520862 https://www.amazon.com/Shoulders-Giants-Shandean-Postscript/...
  - throwaway422432 1y ago
    Max Planck's "Science advances one funeral at a time" could be applied here.
- bell-cot 1y ago
  In a way, yes. OTOH, they seem like the sort of odious, dysfunctional elites who the French claim to have purged back in the 1790's.
tangus 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
renewiltord 1y ago
Heartwarming in that it’s just scientific misconduct for that age old desire: fame. Much better than the case of the Australian fossils whose knowledge will be lost because of politics. If only because the eventual movie will be entertaining.
sashank_1509 1y ago
One of the best recent articles I’ve read, a vivid picture of paleontology research. Science needs more big personalities and disputes, in its mysterious way it actually advances science
- bell-cot 1y ago
  > Science needs more ... From my read of the article, those big personalities were lording over a pretty dysfunctional and toxic workplace. At least from the expendable juniors' PoV.
  - shellfishgene 1y ago
    Indeed, I've come across enough of those kinds of researchers, scientific knowledge comes a distant second on the list of priorities to bolstering their own ego.
- andrewflnr 1y ago
  If they can't admit when they're wrong and start sabotaging people's careers over it, it's not advancing science.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  I know someone who worked for the archaeologist who uncovered the then-oldest human tools in the Americas (the first pre-Clovis finds, IIRC). He was ... unusual. My friend once spent an entire day hiding in their car at the worksite, because he was onsite that day, and they forgot to bring duct tape to cover their shoes. Shoes had to be fresh-wrapped in duct tape to prevent anything modern from dropping out of the treads onto the excavation floor. You can ask lots of logical questions... "Why didn't they just...?" Answer: because the famous archaeologist was a nutbag, and controlled the worksite as his own personal absolute fiefdom. OTOH, if someone ever found a miniscule piece of glass at the 15,000YA level in that dig (as an example), his reputation would strengthen the dating. That being said... his success was undeniable. Could he have done it, AND been less of a nutbag? Probably. But we don't live in Dr. Strange's multiverse.

83 points by benbreen 1y ago

ldjkfkdsjnv 1y ago

[flagged]

AlotOfReading 1y ago
Probably not. What I think you mean here is something called the "multiregional human origin" hypothesis, which isn't well supported. The current model is that the vast majority of human ancestry, including what makes us identifiably human, originated in Africa. When anatomically modern humans left Africa, they incorporated and replaced archaic humans in other parts of the world. Those archaic ancestors are largely invisible in modern populations and only become visible with genetic tools. If you actually mean within Africa, we currently don't have a great model for archaic human population structure. However, I've never read a reputable paper drawing a line between archaic population structure and differences in modern populations. I suspect none exist.
- ldjkfkdsjnv 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    All modern humans are descended from archaic humans. That's how evolution works.
    - ldjkfkdsjnv 1y ago
      archaic human is a broad umbrella...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

dd_xplore 1y ago

When humanity (including all the homo species) gained intelligence over 2-300000 years ago, I'm genuinely surprised that they were able to live so long together! Although 'species' is term is bit extreme, which is why they reproduced with each other a lot! I also wonder what kind of history they might have! It's interesting to think about. Most of the history that we have is already opinionated....

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mr_toad 1y ago
Do you mean why didn’t they fight? Probably they did. Chimpanzee tribes are highly aggressive, early hominid tribes probably were as well. Human level intelligence didn’t suddenly evolve, it was a gradual transition.

profsummergig 1y ago

This image of the femur, can anyone shed light on why there are notches carved on the side? https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b6b6509049556deef91d0459df8649a9fe7d53b7/384_0_3937_3150/master/3937.jpg?width=980&dpr=2&s=none&crop=none https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b6b6509049556deef91d0459df864... Also, regarding "There is no technology, extant or imaginable, that could extract that marvellous secret from her bones", I put those under the "famous last words" category. We cannot predict today what we may discover about bones in the future. There could be something akin to DNA fingerprinting that lets people discover ancestry. Just because we've not discovered it yet, doesn't mean we will never discover it. Not saying we will, but I prefer to keep an open mind about science and human creativity.

w10-1 1y ago
> "There is no technology, extant or imaginable, that could extract that marvellous secret from her bones" It's because the inference depends on having data from a very large sample of other finds. It wouldn't matter if there were a single Eve and we found her entire skeleton and extracted the DNA perfectly. We couldn't prove it was Eve without all the other samples, and it's beyond unlikely they'll just show up. I'm disgusted by the convention that findings are controlled by self-interested glory-seeking finders. These belong to the entirety of humanity and should be treated as such, with utmost care and complete openness and humility. We shouldn't tolerate grave robbers any more than bank robbers. Like banks, archeaologists are fiduciaries of the highest order, and should be selected and managed as such, not like salespeople on commission. If you want to seek abandoned treasure, go elsewhere.
- theoreticalmal 1y ago
  “It belongs in a museum!” -Indy
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    ... the Graverobber
- profsummergig 1y ago

anonymousDan 1y ago

I love the passion and bitchiness of the researchers.

ggm 1y ago
As a story arc for a forthcoming film? Sure. But I'm reminded of the comp sci aphorism: physics advanced by standing on the shoulders of giants.. CS by standing on each other's toes.
- defrost 1y ago
  Albeit that standing on the shoulders of giants was a primo bitchy jab that likened Robert Hooke to a dwarf who rode on the shoulders of true giants. https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/02/16/newton-standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants/ https://www.themarginalian.org/2016/02/16/newton-standing-on... https://www.amazon.com/Shoulders-Giants-Shandean-Postscript/dp/0226520862 https://www.amazon.com/Shoulders-Giants-Shandean-Postscript/...
- throwaway422432 1y ago
  Max Planck's "Science advances one funeral at a time" could be applied here.
bell-cot 1y ago
In a way, yes. OTOH, they seem like the sort of odious, dysfunctional elites who the French claim to have purged back in the 1790's.

tangus 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

renewiltord 1y ago

Heartwarming in that it’s just scientific misconduct for that age old desire: fame. Much better than the case of the Australian fossils whose knowledge will be lost because of politics. If only because the eventual movie will be entertaining.

sashank_1509 1y ago

One of the best recent articles I’ve read, a vivid picture of paleontology research. Science needs more big personalities and disputes, in its mysterious way it actually advances science

bell-cot 1y ago
> Science needs more ... From my read of the article, those big personalities were lording over a pretty dysfunctional and toxic workplace. At least from the expendable juniors' PoV.
- shellfishgene 1y ago
  Indeed, I've come across enough of those kinds of researchers, scientific knowledge comes a distant second on the list of priorities to bolstering their own ego.
andrewflnr 1y ago
If they can't admit when they're wrong and start sabotaging people's careers over it, it's not advancing science.
IAmBroom 1y ago
I know someone who worked for the archaeologist who uncovered the then-oldest human tools in the Americas (the first pre-Clovis finds, IIRC). He was ... unusual. My friend once spent an entire day hiding in their car at the worksite, because he was onsite that day, and they forgot to bring duct tape to cover their shoes. Shoes had to be fresh-wrapped in duct tape to prevent anything modern from dropping out of the treads onto the excavation floor. You can ask lots of logical questions... "Why didn't they just...?" Answer: because the famous archaeologist was a nutbag, and controlled the worksite as his own personal absolute fiefdom. OTOH, if someone ever found a miniscule piece of glass at the 15,000YA level in that dig (as an example), his reputation would strengthen the dating. That being said... his success was undeniable. Could he have done it, AND been less of a nutbag? Probably. But we don't live in Dr. Strange's multiverse.