
How China is rewriting the book on human origins - Osiris30
http://www.nature.com/news/how-china-is-rewriting-the-book-on-human-origins-1.20231
======
dang
Those of you who turned this discussion into a circle of hell with your
incivility, ideology, and attacks make me ashamed to be associated with this
site.

We're soon going to release a much stronger version of the site guidelines and
start making it a lot clearer how unacceptable such behavior is on HN. If you
want to abuse each other or blast your views at enemies, please go elsewhere.
There's no intellectual curiosity in any of this, and the vast majority of us
are here to avoid it.

------
themgt
I've been trying to follow the developing human origin story (as a layman) for
while now. It's hard to overstate the importance of the elephant in the room
here, which is race and variation within the human species. There was a huge
movement, especially post-WW2, to scientifically "want" to find that all
humans were the same and therefore "equal"

The Out-of-Africa narrative has to be understood in this context, that it is a
very positive narrative, that humans-as-humans developed just once in this
tiny spot in Africa and then spread out around the world very recently, never
interbred with other hominid species so they're all gone, and therefore we're
all pretty much exactly the same.

What has been emerging especially now that genetic sequencing is becoming
rapidly cheaper and more advanced at picking human genomes out of the genetic
diaspora found in old fossils, is a much more complicated picture. The Chinese
obviously have little need to adhere to US political correctness, so they're
beginning to push the evidence that Asian hominid genes contributed to the
emergence of modern humans/civilization.

The emerging picture to me is one of multiple waves of hominin advances
spreading in a varied way and admixing with existing local populations. So
there's pretty clearly an ancient Out-of-Africa wave of homo erectus(who were
far more advanced than previously acknowledged), a possible evolution of "homo
erectus+" and wave out of Asia, and likely an "Out of Arabia" mix of
neanderthals and AMHs in the Levant, all of which intermixed imperfectly. The
Neanderthals themselves look plausibly responsible for some advances in human
civilization (Mousterians)

What you wind up with is a far more complex picture of human evolution and far
more significant and long-standing difference between human populations, which
I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means
and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic
similarity.

~~~
zasz
"Obviously"? Have you ever met any older Chinese people, or folks fresh from
the mainland? They're racist as hell. My dad was fond of telling me that the
one black physics professor he knew at UC Berkeley was a very nice guy, but
clearly a charity case, and that blacks were just lazy in general. It's much
more safe to say that it's 'obvious' that the Chinese could have a political
agenda in pushing the notion that there are special Asian hominid genes.
They're as susceptible to racism and patriotism as anyone else.

No man, or woman, on this planet, is free from ideological bias.

~~~
justicezyx
I am not sure. Calling people lazy seems a logical conclusion for older
generation Chines people. My parents call me lazy very often, because I cannot
keep my apartment tidy...

They led a life with prevalent poverty and lack of food, and almost any kind
of living supplies. They all need to work hard. I am not surprised that an
older generation Chinese call most US people lazy.

As for whether there is a racism judgement, I dont know. You are most close to
your dad. :)

~~~
euyyn
There's all the difference between calling you, his son, lazy, and saying
"blacks are just lazy in general". Can you easily see your dad telling you:
"you're lazy, like all yellows"?

~~~
justicezyx
No kidding, my dad actually says "your generations are too lazy"...

------
Noseshine
So... okay, the picture is fuzzy, and Asia is much more important as thought.

What I don't understand is, the article also says the genetical picture still
points to the established ("old") theories centering on Africa? As someone
only reading about the subject on the side whenever something interesting
comes up I'm slightly confused by this aspect of the article.

I'm not confused about there not being a linear but a convoluted story - I
never thought there was ( _except when I was fresh out of an East German
school quite some time ago and everything being a linear progress story
eventually leading to communism was quite clear :)_ ).

~~~
summarite
The fixed factor is that 97℅ of our DNA matches with that of fossils in
Africa. So our ancestors must have come from there, but that doesn't mean
there were a few intermediate stops.

Also always worth remembering that the classification as eg sapiens,
heidelbergensis or erectus is not one checklist that always ticks the same
boxes. In each of these groups defined by us on the basis of some common
features but there is much variation. And of course there are regional or
temporal differences within eg sapiens.

Then you have parallel evolutions, interbreeding, fakes, unclear dating, and
you never know if a particular specimen that you find really has 'typical '
features and genes for that time and space, eg it could have been that one
lady/guy that happened to have wandered far from where the rest of its group
remained, or could have been somewhat different. Eg imagine the only specimen
that remains from our era is an inbred Egyptian pharaoh or someone with down
syndrome. Those are bad examples as you could probably figure such things
somewhat from the DNA, but it's not so clear for every condition, eg if
epigenetics* had some bigger effect.

* = A layer on your genes that De/activates or strengthens/weakens their effects and that we barely understand. The famous example is that data on Danish military recruits, which were measured upon entry into service, showed that if a man suffers starvation/malnutrition in his childhood his sons (!) will on average be less tall than others of their generation. One generation is not enough for genetic selection, so it must be a change in epigenetics.

~~~
ww520
> The fixed factor is that 97℅ of our DNA matches with that of fossils in
> Africa.

Chimpanzee and human DNA are 96 to 99% identical. Does the 97% DNA match
between human and the African fossil have any significance at all?

~~~
mhuffman
I believe that this is being brushed over. Cats have 90% DNA matches with
modern humans as well as the overlap with chimps you mentioned.

It is clear that just a couple of percent different is a HUGE difference in
animals (I am including humans as animals).

So, while it is clear that there is some relationship, the percentage of DNA
matches does not seem like strong evidence of "this follows from that" and
seems more like "this and that share common previous DNA".

And of course there is a political and social-responsibility component to
this, even though people pretend like scientist are immune to politics or
social trends.

------
HenryTheHorse
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
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
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
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-
forg...](https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forgery-from-
china/)

[2] [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-
fossils-p...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-
pervert-paleontology-excerpt/)

[3] [http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese-
character...](http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese-
characteristics-the-laundry-detergent-ad-and-han-privilege/)

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>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.

------
Cacti
I thought multiregionalism was discredited by genetic studies in the past
decade?

------
ilamont
This field has generated a lot of questionable research and discoveries over
the last 100 years. Piltdown Man is the most famous example, but there was
also a big hoax perpetuated by Fujimura Shinichi in Japan about 15 years ago
(1):

 _Prominent Japanese archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura has been caught red-
handed burying artifacts at a site, prompting demands for a review of the
nation 's Palaeolithic record. Nicknamed "God's Hands" by colleagues who
marveled at his luck in locating ancient sites, Fujimura was senior director
at the Tohoku Paleolithic Institute. His discovery of artifacts dated to the
early Palaeolithic period (600,000-120,000 years ago) at the Kamitakamori
ruins in Miyagi Prefecture in 1994 established the site as Japan's oldest.
Fujimura's team recently made headlines again following discovery of postholes
that provided evidence for early Palaeolithic dwellings at Kamitakamori.

Fujimura's hoax, occurring less than a month after his team's headline-making
posthole discovery, was exposed by Japan's Mainichi Shimbun newspaper, which
published three photographs on its front page of him deliberately burying 61
artifacts on the Kamitakamori site. The artifacts were taken by Fujimura from
earlier excavations. He has also confessed to deliberately burying artifacts
at the Palaeolithic site of Soshinfudozaka, but insists his other discoveries
were authentic._

A lot of questionable finds and outright hoaxes tie into ethnic, nationalist,
or local pride. (2)

China has a record of attempting to use historical/archeological artifacts to
establish modern-day territorial claims (3):

 _China’s archaeological work in disputed islands also extends to the Spratly
Island chain, which it disputes with the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and
Taiwan. China has identified roughly 200 different underwater “cultural
heritage sites” between the Spratlys and the Paracels, and has been conducting
archaeological explorations in the Spratlys since at least 2013.

Maritime archaeology seems like an innocuous enough field. Yet Kaogu-01’s
deployment close to the site of a battle between China and Vietnam in an
island chain still claimed by the latter, as well as ongoing archaeological
work in the disputed Spratly Island chain, indicate that China may see a
secondary, political purpose in expanding its maritime archaeological
industry, namely strengthening China’s claims to disputed areas in the South
China Sea._

1\.
[http://archive.archaeology.org/0101/newsbriefs/godshands.htm...](http://archive.archaeology.org/0101/newsbriefs/godshands.html)

2\. [http://www.anonymousswisscollector.com/2014/10/faking-the-
pa...](http://www.anonymousswisscollector.com/2014/10/faking-the-past-when-
archaeologists-manufacture-illicit-antiquities.html)

3\. [http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/archaeology-and-the-south-
chi...](http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/archaeology-and-the-south-china-sea/)

------
tiatia
It is a (possible THE) major journal in science but call me skeptical. I tell
you three things about the Chinese:

1\. They have had a highly developed culture since at least 5000 years (but
please don't tell them that their bone carvings can't compete with what the
Egyptians had)

2\. Their culture developed totally independent and without exchange with
other cultures and civilizations in the West. (Don't mention for example the
Tarim mummies, this is insulting for Chinese:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies)
)

3\. Chinese always hated and rejected the idea that they developed from
African/black ancestors. So this is really a question that is asked in China
with a very strong bias.

~~~
roywiggins
> Chinese always hated and rejected the idea that they developed from
> African/black ancestors

They're not very far behind the West in that regard. Piltdown man was only
discredited in 1953...

------
lnanek2
China is paying researchers to claim humankind evolved in China, basically. It
doesn't match the genetic evidence which shows we evolved in Africa.

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12159012](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12159012)
and marked it off-topic.

------
drzaiusapelord
> It is utterly disrespectful to dozens of scientists devoting their careers
> to the research.

China is a one party state with dictatorial control over pretty much
everything. Do you really think those guys have any check against CCP thugs
telling them what to publish? Being a good scientist takes a back seat to your
survival and the survival of your family. Most people aren't willing to be
tortured or killed for their views.

~~~
muddyrivers
What you described is true in 1950's until early 1980's. The government had
dictatorial control over everything in academia. (Let's restrict our
discussion in academia. Otherwise, it would be a very large topic.) The
scenarios in natural science research have been gradually opened up. The
scientists doesn't enjoy as much academia freedom as in USA, but it is not as
restrictive as the news media said. (That doesn't mean the government has no
influence or control, either.)

For example, in the article, Dr. Li Hui apparently disagrees with the
continuity-with-hybridization model. Dr. Li Hui works in Fudan University,
Shanghai.

I did biology research in Beijing for two years in 1990's. My advisor openly
challenged the research of a "government-sponsored" professor in department
meetings. Many professors supported her, my advisor. I don't think she got any
"special" treatments from the government. The last time I heard from her, she
was enjoying her time after retirement.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Sorry pal, China is still like this:

Authorities also tightened press restrictions. The State Administration of
Press Publication, Radio, Film, and Television issued a directive in July
requiring that Chinese journalists sign an agreement stating that they will
not release unpublished information without prior approval from their
employers and requiring that they pass political ideology exams before they
can be issued official press cards.

In July, the CCP’s disciplinary commission announced that researchers at the
central Chinese Academic of Social Sciences had been “infiltrated by foreign
forces” and participated in “illegal collusion” during politically sensitive
periods. The party subsequently issued a rule that would make ideological
evaluation a top requirement for assessing CASS researchers; those who fail
are to be expelled.

[https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-
chapters/china...](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-
chapters/china-and-tibet#eaa21f)

Academic Fraud in China:

[http://www.chinesemedicalnews.com/2015/03/academic-fraud-
in-...](http://www.chinesemedicalnews.com/2015/03/academic-fraud-in-
china-43-medical.html)

The open access publisher BioMedCentral has this week announced the retraction
of 43 medical journal publications by Chinese researchers after it discovered
widespread peer review fraud. Most of the articles were submitted by medical
researchers at universities in China, including China Medical University,
Sichuan University, Shandong University and Jiaotong University Medical
School.

~~~
dang
> _Sorry pal,_

Including uncivil swipes like that in your arguments here will eventually get
you banned, so please be scrupulously civil from now on, especially when
commenting on inflammatory topics and/or when you think someone else is wrong.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Are you a native english speaker? I don't think saying "sorry pal" is a
bannable offense here.

~~~
dang
The issue is whether an account has a pattern of incivility, which yours
unfortunately does. Please fix this.

