
3.8M-year-old skull of an early ape-like human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia - iamben
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49486980
======
dalbasal
>The reason for this likely elevated status is because we can now say that
anamensis and afarensis actually overlapped in time.

This seems to be the rule, rather than the other exception, at least in human
evolution. Erectus overlapped with more modern archaics, for example. Habilis
overlapped with afarensis.

A lot of these are more about the semantics than the substance. Words like
"species" get tricky, when you're dealing with chronspecies, introgression and
such.

In any case, our evolution since speciating from chimps is extremely bushy.
There are lots of species, and several families. The process involved lots of
innovation/speciation and extinctions. Ie, The australopithecine family that
this species may have founded produced many species, including at least two
that formed their own families with multiple species of their own
(paranthropous & homo).

I think this is characteristic of fast evolutionary processes.

~~~
olooney
My impression is that we just don't have enough _data_ to draw an accurate
timeline, much less a tree, and are an order of magnitude away from being able
to study second-order phenomenon like introgression. I think fewer than 10,000
early hominid individuals have been found, most with very partial skeletons.
And they aren't distributed uniformly across time and space; you might find a
dozen in one cave, then nothing for thousands of years, or nothing on an
entire continent.

"You could fit it all into the back of a pickup truck if you didn't mind how
much you jumbled everything up." \- Ian Tattersall

[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6578939-since-the-dawn-
of-t...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6578939-since-the-dawn-of-time-
several-billion-human-or-humanlike)

It also seems like every time they find a new fossil, they change their mind
about how everything fits together. I am not an expert in this field, but if I
had a small dataset and I fit a very complex model to it with literally
hundreds of free parameters and I found that the model completely changed
every time I added a few new data points and re-fit, then I would conclude I
was dealing with a high-variance model that was overfitting the data and
either use a simpler model or wait until I had collected much more data before
trying to fit such a complex model.

~~~
not_a_cop75
Is it wrong to believe at this point that instead of macro evolution, we could
be looking at several differing extinction points?

~~~
BurningFrog
I think the point is that we know so little that we might look at a huge
number of wildly different scenarios.

So... keep digging!

~~~
subsaharancoder
Or..that we need more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in
creation

~~~
bigbluedots
Maybe, but creation has zero evidence in its favor

------
TBurette
Regarding the multiple human ancestors aspect, here is an diagram of human
species or groups if you want to avoid the "what is a species discussion" :
[https://imgur.com/a/AfrYjqF](https://imgur.com/a/AfrYjqF) It is from a recent
symposium [1] on human evolution The vertical axis is the age. The horizontal
axis represent the geographical spread and the color represents the continent.

We can see multiples things:

\- Disregard the 2010, it is indeed up-to-date. These past few years new bars
have been added regularly.

\- A single homo species is a new development and is an exception and not the
rule

\- Not only did different species live at the same time they sometimes lived
in the same places

\- There is no edges between the groups to represent ancestors as a simple
"single ancestor" link is not easy to establish.

[1] [https://www.college-de-france.fr/media/jean-jacques-
hublin/U...](https://www.college-de-france.fr/media/jean-jacques-
hublin/UPL4439769573810557760_Jean_Jacques_HUBLIN___colloque_juin_2019.pdf)

~~~
mirimir
Wow, that is an amazing chart!

------
vanderZwan
The impression I got from a recent PBS Eons video on the non-existing missing
link[0] is that interbreeding happened all the time and that a very realistic
possibility for the answer is _" most, possibly all of them"_.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwW40Dj5Sro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwW40Dj5Sro)

~~~
dalbasal
At >4mybp, this species may have been genetically close enough to interbreed
with chimp ancestors. If it overlapped with afarensis and other
australopithecines, hybridisation almost certainly would have been possible.
These guys were as closely related (at least in the earliest periods) to
eachother as we were to Neanderthals, denisovans and the other undiscovered
species who we know our ancestors mixed with.

Homo habilis started its career as an australapithicine, and could probably
reproduce with "non-homo" species.

A lot of the classification only makes sense after the fact. If habilis hadn't
produced the homo genus, it would just be an australapithicine, and we
wouldn't consider it separate from them.

~~~
Robotbeat
To what extent does number of chromosomes matter, here? I'm still confused
about how species with different number of chromosomes can successfully
interbreed without major problems in their offspring and thus I am still
confused about the process of how a species can change its number of
chromosomes (since the genetic problems that might occur with such
crossbreeding would not likely be terribly helpful in survival). Is there any
really good explanation for this that someone can point me to?

~~~
dalbasal
Having a different number of chromosomes is a hurdle, but not an absolute
barrier to offspring reproductive viability. It's not necessarily an issue for
animal health.

Horses & donkeys have a different number of chromosomes. They're also
separated by an estimated 4m years of evolution, which is around the rule of
thumb limit for large mammal hybridization so it makes sense that they're
borderline hybridizable. They have shorter generations than us apes.

Anyway, mules are healthy. No survival issues. They _are_ mostly infertile,
but not 100% of the time.

------
throw0101a
How do {archaeologists?, paleoanthropologists?} even know where to look for
these things?

"There's a whole bunch of land, let's dig... [throws dart at map] here."

~~~
GuiA
The corollary of this is pretty awe inspiring - we find only a fraction of a
percent of the fossil record that exists, and the fossil record that exists is
only a fraction of a percent of everything that happened, all the species that
existed, etc.

The fact that we can still derive meaningful knowledge out of that compounded
fraction of fraction of a percent is amazing; and the quantity of mind blowing
things that happened that we will never get to know because they weren't
"recorded" is humbling.

~~~
aptwebapps
It also seems to imply that as discoveries on the surface dry up, we could
make many more with deeper excavations.

------
vfc1
Why does it have to be only one ancestor ape, and not several that evolved
human-like features simultaneously in the same environment?

We have Neanderthal DNA, that we inherited through interbreeding.

Why can't both we and the Neanderthals be descendent from a varied group of
very similar apes that interbred as well? Isn't this the most likely scenario?

Sometimes I think scientists fall for the same simplistic patterns of thinking
that the men on the street fall for every day.

Like, there is only one solution, there is only one cause, there is only one
reason, when in fact reality is much more complex than that.

~~~
CathedralBorrow
HN is such an amazing community. Where else could you find commenters that
know better than the scientists authoring the Nature article in question, and
can then identify exactly why their own thinking is so much deeper than of
most other people?

~~~
bnegreve
> Where else could you find commenters that know better than the scientists
> authoring the Nature article in question,

They don't _know_ better, they try to _understand_ better. Why not?

~~~
coldtea
Does the comment strike you as "understanding" or even "trying to understand"?

It paints a blanket picture, with no qualifications (read a few articles at
best), and belittles what the scientists in general "do".

~~~
Scriptor
Also the point the commenter thinks they're original in making is the main
point of the actual article.

------
dahves
Prof Haile-Selassie? Is Haile-Selassie a common last name or has he anything
to do with the other Haile Selassie?

~~~
sampleinajar
The naming conventions in Ethiopia are different than the western world. My
Ethiopian friend explained it to me that the first name is their name, second
is father's name, third grandfather's. I'm not sure about the hyphen though.
See also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conventions_in_Ethiopia...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conventions_in_Ethiopia_and_Eritrea)

------
ojosilva
> The truth is far more complex and far more interesting. It tells a story of
> evolution "trying out" different "prototype" human ancestors in different
> places until some of them were resilient and clever enough to withstand the
> pressures wrought by changes in climate, habitat and food scarcity - and
> evolve into us.

To me this is the gist of the article as well of the stream of recent
discoveries and papers released. It's also a pattern that permeates computer
science nowadays, applying to different realms, from system design to DevOps
to team collaboration.

------
EL_Loco
Is there any type of ultrasound-like equipment used by archaeologists that
scans below ground and allows some crude-resolution view of whats below?

~~~
ryanmarsh
Yes, but it's "crude", and therefore not very high resolution. I've never seen
anything high enough resolution to discover bone fragments. The same
technology is used for oil and gas exploration.

See:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-
penetrating_radar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_seismology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_seismology)

[https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/energy-and-
environment/tool...](https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/energy-and-
environment/tools-and-processes/exploration-technology/discovering-hidden-
hydrocarbons-using-seismic-imaging-technology-to-map-formations)

[https://www.pgs.com/imaging/](https://www.pgs.com/imaging/)

------
kavalg
I wonder if it is possible to extract some DNA from the artifact and use it
for cloning?

~~~
yaa_minu
I don't think it's possible unless the fossil is well-preserved in a way that
some cells retain intact genetic materials[1].

[1] -
[https://youtu.be/cQR5P_C2ElE?t=2373](https://youtu.be/cQR5P_C2ElE?t=2373)

------
proc0
Interesting to see the intermediate nose shape as it evolved from ape to
human.

------
Yajirobe
How did they determine its age?

~~~
linnaeus
> A fossil hominin cranium was discovered in mid-Pliocene deltaic strata in
> the Godaya Valley of the northwestern Woranso-Mille study area in Ethiopia.
> Here we show that analyses of chemically correlated volcanic layers and the
> palaeomagnetic stratigraphy, combined with Bayesian modelling of dated
> tuffs, yield an age range of 3.804 ± 0.013 to 3.777 ± 0.014 million years
> old (mean ± 1σ) for the deltaic strata and the fossils that they contain.

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1514-7](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1514-7)

~~~
Yajirobe
ELI5

~~~
polymatter
They found the bone in the rock. Scientists look at the rock and can tell the
rocks age. They assume that the bone is about the same age as the rock it was
found inside.

~~~
Yajirobe
And how did they determine the age of the rock?

~~~
ralphhughes
There are many methods of determining rock age. A common one is finding
signature fossils that are known to only exist between certain ages. Putting
the rock in a machine to record its magnetic field and correlating this with
pole reversals on earth. Using isotope ratios (not just radiocarbon dating),
chemical composition, identifying how the sediment was laid down by rivers or
the sea etc.

------
eurasiantiger
Nature be damned, this has hoax written all over it.

------
paraschopra
The concept of species is a construct of language.

~~~
_fizz_buzz_
Members of the same species can procreate fertile offspring. In some edge
cases this definition becomes a little fuzzy, but it is clearly more than just
a linguistic construct. A mouse and an elephant won't be able to procreate
even if the word "species" didn't exist.

~~~
rjf72
It's true the same species implies fertile offspring, but it does not go the
other way as you seem to be implying. In other words fertile offspring does
not imply same species. For some examples, chihuahuas and wolves can produce
fertile offspring, as can lions/tigers, killer whales/dolphins, and many more
peculiar pairings.

It's quite difficult to pin down a precise definition for species. Even
genetic definitions don't work so well. Depending on how it is measured chimps
hit around 99% genetic similarity with humans. Nature isn't so kind as to
provide clean and concrete delineations for us, at least not that we're
currently capable of measuring.

------
cro0o
Sure, this isn’t a popular opinion around here but I find all of these
theories such nonsense. Creationism, to me, is a lot kore logical than a
random big bang - fast fwd apes / fast fwd humans. So many random events with
hardly any logic attached to it. Humans have grown to be so full of
themselves, especially in this tech age, where a lot of us find it hard to
believe there’s a more intelligent being out there that could have placed us
here in the first place. Human arrogance is destroying us from the inside.

------
kwonkicker
What bugs me is the concept of "one point origin". Are we even exploring
different angles? Also, how a 4m year old bone is so prestine? African
ancestory hoaxes are so common that i just read such news for the sake of it.
Doesnt chamge anything even if it were true. But i like the idea that we are
sobriety special, even tho the opposite is also just as amazing.

------
TravisCooper
Evolution is simply not sufficient. Dr. David Gelertner, a CS professor from
Yale, penned an essay in May that lays out the high level argument against
Darwin/Evolution, including references to background material.

[https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-
darwin/](https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/)

~~~
the_af
Ugh, no. Intelligent Design strikes again I see. Almost everything in that
article is wrong (and also, the same tired pseudoscientific arguments),
starting from the fact he claims "Darwinism" is a "credo". Also, Stephen Meyer
is not brilliant and he is a quack.

Also, a Computer Science professor has no business arguing about evolution. Or
rather, his opinion is as informed as yours or mine, i.e. not very.

~~~
barking
Sometimes it's no harm to have eyes from outside a discipline have a look at
things.

~~~
the_af
But this guy mostly took a look at things from widely discredited and
dishonest Intelligent Design and Creationist sources (every single person he
mentions in his article). ID organizations like the Discovery Institute (of
which he quotes people related to) is known to be fundamentally dishonest in
trying to hide religious beliefs and pass them as science.

So it's fundamentally dishonest. If this CS professor said "I'm a conservative
religious guy [as is the case], I fundamentally believe in Creationism and
mainstream science gets in the way of my beliefs" it'd be one thing. We could
safely disregard his beliefs in evolution while acknowledging he was honest
about choosing his religious beliefs over current science.

It should be noted that another lie of Intelligent Design is that it
constantly re-invents itself as the "new thing" but it's as old as the science
of evolution. It's essentially Creationism wrapped in new language, but even
in this guise it's pretty old. It has been discredited again, and again, and
again.

For someone "outside a discipline" to be worth paying attention to, he/she
must:

\- Accurately describe the current state of the art in said discipline, and
explain why they chose to pursue a line of thought at odds with it.

\- Take pains not to misrepresent the field they are talking about, and
accurately address current beliefs and not outdated views. They must not
engage in demolishing strawmen.

\- Explain how their current expertise relate to the field they are talking
about.

\- Be honest about their intentions. If it's about religion, they should say
so upfront, so people interested about science can decide whether they find
religious arguments relevant.

\- Be honest about how they represent the fringe views purportedly backing
their own opinion. For example, he claims "Stephen Meyer demolished
Darwinism", but Meyer did nothing of the sort -- he is widely thought of as a
fringe creationist quack, with no scientific reputation at all within the
field of biology. He could instead have argued "Stephen Meyer, contrary to
mainstream scientific thought, argues that [something]" instead of saying he
"demolished" something (which a cursory search would reveal he didn't). This
is a huge red flag.

~~~
lurquer
Let me get this straight... a noteworthy CS professor points out some obvious
and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He also
points out that is difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this
issue because Darwinism has turned into a dogma where people are viciously
attacked if they point out some fundamental flaws with the idea.

Your response:

"Almost everything in that article is wrong "

"pseudoscientific arguments"

"Stephen Meyer is not brilliant and he is a quack"

" Computer Science professor has no business arguing about evolution"

"widely discredited and dishonest "

"known to be fundamentally dishonest"

"So it's fundamentally dishonest."

"another lie"

"fringe views"

"fringe creationist quack"

In short, you've proved his point. Your comments -- in any other area of
discussion on HN -- would probably get you flagged.

~~~
the_af
> _a noteworthy CS professor points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in
> the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He also points out that is
> difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this issue because
> Darwinism has turned into a dogma where people are viciously attacked if
> they point out some fundamental flaws with the idea._

All of this is wrong.

A noteworthy CS professor has zero relevance in a discussion about evolution
or biology, particularly when he quotes people who aren't notable in the
relevant field and tries to "demolish" strawmen. The word "demolish" is itself
a huge red flag.

The sources he quoted are creationist crackpots linked to the Discovery
Institute, a notoriously dishonest organization who disguises religion as
science.

It is a mistake for the scientific community to engage with crackpots.

> _Your comments -- in any other area of discussion on HN -- would probably
> get you flagged._

No, calling crackpots crackpots -- the mainstream consensus -- won't get me
flagged. A big indicator of quackery is a persecution complex ("everyone is
against me because of dogma", "they want to suppress dissenting views"). I
think it's even in Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit. Sometimes people will
call someone a crackpot because they've heard their arguments again and again,
debunked them, and still that person insists, with a heavy dose of "the world
is conspiring against me". It's ok to call that person a crackpot.

One last thing: in the US the term "Darwinism" (which the article uses) is
almost always used by Creationists, and in a pejorative way. From Wikipedia
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#Other_uses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#Other_uses)):

 _" The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of
creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as
an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of
philosophical naturalism, or atheism. For example, UC Berkeley law professor
and author Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference
to Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism? (1874). However, unlike Johnson,
Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanist Asa Gray who
combined Christian faith with support for Darwin's natural selection theory,
before answering the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is
Atheism." Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply
that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his
followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief."_

