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.
While we don't really know how many biological processes work, we have a pretty good idea how the basic mechanics of life work. The discovery of "something akin to DNA fingerprinting that lets people discover ancestry" would be the type of major discovery that would completely upset our understanding of things. Such a discovery would have to be consistent with all the evidence we already have (and is explained by our current understanding) while simultaneously introducing entire new concepts.
Not strictly impossible of course, but very few things are impossible in the strictest sense. For all practical purposes, given our understanding of the world, "there is no imaginable technology that could do this" is correct.
The marks could be scouring marks from the wind, I think. From the description in the article, these fossils have basically been sandblasted out of their sandstone matrix over time, so if there's a dominant wind direction small irregularities in the fossil could probably quite easily develop into this kind of parallel markings.
> "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.
> I'm disgusted by the convention that findings are controlled by self-interested glory-seeking finders
The basic idea makes sense; you spend a lot of time, effort, money, and sometimes personal risk to excavate these things. You should be given a chance to actually benefit from all this work.
But within reason, and obviously here someone abused a common-sense convention in a way that is hard to distinguish from outright bad faith behaviour.
In my opinion, the major failing here is from the university in not stepping in a bit more forcefully to deal with this.
Totally agree about findings. In fact, oppositional researchers should be given the opportunity -- by law -- to refute claims. They should be given 100% access to all the evidence for a period of time.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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/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.
While we don't really know how many biological processes work, we have a pretty good idea how the basic mechanics of life work. The discovery of "something akin to DNA fingerprinting that lets people discover ancestry" would be the type of major discovery that would completely upset our understanding of things. Such a discovery would have to be consistent with all the evidence we already have (and is explained by our current understanding) while simultaneously introducing entire new concepts.
Not strictly impossible of course, but very few things are impossible in the strictest sense. For all practical purposes, given our understanding of the world, "there is no imaginable technology that could do this" is correct.
"major discovery that would completely upset our understanding of things"
- such things happen regularly.
'"there is no imaginable technology that could do this" is correct.'
- i'm so glad i don't have this mindset.
> such things happen regularly
They do not. The type of foundational discovery that would be required is quite rare. It would equal to the discovery of germs, or DNA.
> They do not.
They do.
The marks could be scouring marks from the wind, I think. From the description in the article, these fossils have basically been sandblasted out of their sandstone matrix over time, so if there's a dominant wind direction small irregularities in the fossil could probably quite easily develop into this kind of parallel markings.
> "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.
> I'm disgusted by the convention that findings are controlled by self-interested glory-seeking finders
The basic idea makes sense; you spend a lot of time, effort, money, and sometimes personal risk to excavate these things. You should be given a chance to actually benefit from all this work.
But within reason, and obviously here someone abused a common-sense convention in a way that is hard to distinguish from outright bad faith behaviour.
In my opinion, the major failing here is from the university in not stepping in a bit more forcefully to deal with this.
Totally agree about findings. In fact, oppositional researchers should be given the opportunity -- by law -- to refute claims. They should be given 100% access to all the evidence for a period of time.
“It belongs in a museum!” -Indy
... the Graverobber
Look like teeth marks.
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
If they can't admit when they're wrong and start sabotaging people's careers over it, it's not advancing science.
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.
> 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.
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.
I love the passion and bitchiness of the researchers.
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.
Max Planck's "Science advances one funeral at a time" could be applied here.
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...
https://www.amazon.com/Shoulders-Giants-Shandean-Postscript/...
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.
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.
[flagged]
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.
[flagged]
All modern humans are descended from archaic humans. That's how evolution works.
archaic human is a broad umbrella...
[flagged]
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....
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.