Researchers in Spain have unearthed a fragmented hominin face, believed to be over 1.4 million years old, at the Sima del Elefante cave site in Atapuerca. This fossil, consisting of a maxilla (upper jawbone) and cheekbone, represents the oldest known hominin fossil found in Europe and potentially pushes back the earliest evidence of human ancestors on the continent by 200,000 years. The discovery provides crucial insight into the early evolution of the human face and the dispersal of hominins across Eurasia, although its specific lineage remains to be determined through further study. The researchers suggest this finding might be related to a hominin jawbone found at the same site in 2007 and dated to 1.2 million years ago, potentially representing a single evolutionary lineage.
The article "The Prehistoric Psychopath" explores the evolutionary puzzle of psychopathy, questioning whether it's a purely maladaptive trait or if it could have offered some advantages in our ancestral past. It proposes that psychopathic traits, such as lack of empathy, manipulativeness, and risk-taking, might have been beneficial in specific prehistoric contexts like intergroup conflict or resource acquisition, allowing individuals to exploit others or seize opportunities without moral constraints. The article emphasizes the complex interplay between genes and environment, suggesting that psychopathy likely arises from a combination of genetic predispositions and environmental triggers, and that its expression and success might have varied across different social structures and ecological niches in prehistory. Ultimately, the article highlights the difficulty in definitively determining the evolutionary origins and historical prevalence of psychopathy, given the limitations of archaeological and anthropological evidence.
HN commenters largely discussed the methodology and conclusions of the linked article. Several questioned the reliability of extrapolating psychopathic traits based on sparse archaeological evidence, arguing that alternative explanations for prehistoric violence exist and that applying modern psychological diagnoses to ancient humans is problematic. Some debated the definition and evolutionary role of psychopathy, with some suggesting it may be a social construct rather than a distinct disorder. Others pointed out that while some individuals might exhibit psychopathic traits, classifying an entire group as psychopathic is misleading. The difficulty in distinguishing between instrumental and reactive violence in archaeological records was also a recurring theme, highlighting the limitations of inferring motivations from prehistoric remains. A few commenters focused on the article's presentation, criticizing its length and suggesting ways to improve readability.
A new genomic study suggests that the human capacity for language originated much earlier than previously thought, at least 135,000 years ago. By analyzing genomic data from diverse human populations, researchers identified specific gene variations linked to language abilities that are shared across these groups. This shared genetic foundation indicates a common ancestor who possessed these language-related genes, pushing back the estimated timeline for language emergence significantly. The study challenges existing theories and offers a deeper understanding of the evolutionary history of human communication.
Hacker News users discussed the study linking genomic changes to language development 135,000 years ago with some skepticism. Several commenters questioned the methodology and conclusions, pointing out the difficulty in definitively connecting genetics to complex behaviors like language. The reliance on correlating genomic changes in modern humans with archaic human genomes was seen as a potential weakness. Some users highlighted the lack of fossil evidence directly supporting language use at that time. Others debated alternative theories of language evolution, including the potential role of FOXP2 variants beyond those mentioned in the study. The overall sentiment was one of cautious interest, with many acknowledging the limitations of current research while appreciating the attempt to explore the origins of language. A few also expressed concern about the potential for misinterpreting or overhyping such preliminary findings.
A shift towards softer foods in ancient human diets, starting around the time of the Neolithic agricultural revolution, inadvertently changed the way our jaws develop. This resulted in a more common occurrence of overbites, where the upper teeth overlap the lower teeth. This change in jaw structure, in turn, facilitated the pronunciation of labiodental sounds like "f" and "v," which were less common in languages spoken by hunter-gatherer populations with edge-to-edge bites. The study used biomechanical modeling and analyzed phonetic data from a variety of languages, concluding that the overbite facilitates these sounds, offering a selective advantage in populations consuming softer foods.
HN commenters discuss the methodology of the study, questioning the reliance on biomechanical models and expressing skepticism about definitively linking soft food to overbite development over other factors like genetic drift. Several users point out that other primates, like chimpanzees, also exhibit labiodental articulation despite not having undergone the same dietary shift. The oversimplification of the "soft food" category is also addressed, with commenters noting variations in food processing across different ancient cultures. Some doubt the practicality of reconstructing speech sounds based solely on skeletal remains, highlighting the missing piece of soft tissue data. Finally, the connection between overbite and labiodental sounds is challenged, with some arguing that an edge-to-edge bite is sufficient for producing these sounds.
The "cargo cult" metaphor, often used to criticize superficial imitation in software development and other fields, is argued to be inaccurate, harmful, and ultimately racist. The author, David Andersen, contends that the original anthropological accounts of cargo cults were flawed, misrepresenting nuanced responses to colonialism as naive superstition. Using the term perpetuates these mischaracterizations, offensively portraying indigenous peoples as incapable of rational thought. Further, it's often applied incorrectly, failing to consider the genuine effort behind perceived "cargo cult" behaviors. A more accurate and empathetic understanding of adaptation and problem-solving in unfamiliar contexts should replace the dismissive "cargo cult" label.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that the "cargo cult" metaphor is outdated, inaccurate, and often used dismissively. Several point out its inherent racism and colonialist undertones, misrepresenting the practices of indigenous peoples. Some suggest alternative analogies like "streetlight effect" or simply acknowledging "unknown unknowns" are more accurate when describing situations where people imitate actions without understanding the underlying mechanisms. A few dissent, arguing the metaphor remains useful in specific contexts like blindly copying code or rituals without comprehension. However, even those who see some value acknowledge the need for sensitivity and awareness of its problematic history. The most compelling comments highlight the importance of clear communication and avoiding harmful stereotypes when explaining complex technical concepts.
Summary of Comments ( 35 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43455251
Hacker News users discuss the discovery of a million-year-old human facial fragment, expressing excitement about the implications for understanding human evolution. Some question the certainty with which the researchers assign the fossil to Homo erectus, highlighting the fragmented nature of the find and suggesting alternative hominin species as possibilities. Several commenters also discuss the significance of Dmanisi, Georgia, as a key location for paleoanthropological discoveries, and the potential for future finds in the region. Others focus on the methodology, including the use of 3D reconstruction, and the challenges of accurately dating such ancient specimens. A few highlight the persistent difficulty of defining "species" in the context of evolving lineages, and the limitations of relying on morphology alone for classification.
The Hacker News post titled "Fragment of a human face aged over one million years discovered" (linking to a Science Daily article about a hominin facial fragment found in Spain) has several comments discussing the discovery's significance and implications.
Several commenters express excitement and wonder at the find, highlighting the vast timescale involved and the implications for understanding human evolution. One commenter reflects on the sheer length of time represented by a million years, emphasizing the numerous generations and evolutionary changes that have occurred since. Another notes the remarkable preservation of the fossil, considering its age.
A recurring theme in the comments is the ongoing debate and changing understanding of human lineage. Commenters discuss the complexity of the hominin family tree and how this new discovery might fit into it. Some highlight the difficulty of definitively placing such fragments within specific species, acknowledging the ongoing research and revisions within paleoanthropology. One user points out the fragmented nature of the fossil record and how each new discovery adds a piece to the puzzle but also potentially raises new questions.
Several commenters discuss the specific characteristics of the fossil, including its robust features, and speculate about the environment and lifestyle of the hominin it belonged to. There's discussion around the features that distinguish it from other known hominins of the period. Some comments delve into the possible relationship of this find to other hominin species found in the region, suggesting potential ancestral connections.
Some comments also touch on the methodology of paleoanthropology, including dating techniques and the process of reconstructing facial features from fragmented remains. There's a brief exchange about the reliability of such reconstructions and the potential for artistic interpretation.
Finally, a few commenters express hope for future discoveries and further research that could shed more light on this period of human evolution. The overall sentiment in the comments is one of fascination and curiosity about the deep history of humanity and the ongoing quest to understand our origins.