Million year old human skull?

[Chanakya]

Evidence

Yep. Obvious answer, surely?

But cool that you framed the question as you did, @Vixen . That shows far greater knowledge and involvement in this subject than the average layperson, including me, can claim! Just, surprised that that obvious answer --- that I was going to supply in a one word post, before seeing gabeygoat's done it already --- did not directly occur to you.

(Not that I know what evidence precisely. So there's that. Still, established science works on evidence, and I'm assuming it did here. ...No reason why the nature of that evidence shouldn't be open for informed challenge, though.)

 

[Vixen]

Yep. Obvious answer, surely?

But cool that you framed the question as you did, @Vixen . That shows far greater knowledge and involvement in this subject than the average layperson, including me, can claim! Just, surprised that that obvious answer --- that I was going to supply in a one word post, before seeing gabeygoat's done it already --- did not directly occur to you.

(Not that I know what evidence precisely. So there's that. Still, established science works on evidence, and I'm assuming it did here. ...No reason why the nature of that evidence shouldn't be open for informed challenge, though.)

Well, Chanakya, it was a strict establishment given fact or theory that Home sapiens never bred with Homo neanderthalensis...until 2010, when Nobel Prize winner Svante Pääbo sequenced the genome and proved this was completely not so.

Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Puppycow]

Here's the obviously machine-produced transcript of the segment if you'd like to read rather than listen:

SGU Episode 1056 - SGUTranscripts

Just as an aside, if that is now an automated process, it appears to be pretty darn good (at first glance anyway). Didn't they used to have human volunteers transcribe the episodes a few years ago?

 

[arthwollipot]

Just as an aside, if that is now an automated process, it appears to be pretty darn good (at first glance anyway). Didn't they used to have human volunteers transcribe the episodes a few years ago?

Yes. But those volunteers stopped doing it, probably because manual transcription of a 90+ minute podcast where there is dialogue between five people (pentalogue?) is a monumental task of nightmarish proportions.

 

[Chanakya]

Well, Chanakya, it was a strict establishment given fact or theory that Home sapiens never bred with Homo neanderthalensis...until 2010, when Nobel Prize winner Svante Pääbo sequenced the genome and proved this was completely not so.

Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That was an interesting read, thanks for posting!

While generally interesting, I don't see how that ties in with what we were talking about. New research and new evidence comes in all time, and upends past understanding, usually incrementally and sometimes radically: that's how science works, that's how scientific knowledge progresses. That ...not sure what your point is, that has no bearing at all on whether or not we accept such knowledge as science has so far opened up. Absent expert opinion (including our own, if we have the wherewithal to bring in or to acquire that expertise ourselves) one takes it that accepted science is evidenced, and true. That's straightforward, surely?

 

[gabeygoat]

That was an interesting read, thanks for posting!

While generally interesting, I don't see how that ties in with what we were talking about.
New research and new evidence comes in all time, and upends past understanding, usually incrementally and sometimes radically: that's how science works, that's how scientific knowledge progresses. That ...not sure what your point is, that has no bearing at all on whether or not we accept such knowledge as science has so far opened up. Absent expert opinion (including our own, if we have the wherewithal to bring in or to acquire that expertise ourselves) one takes it that accepted science is evidenced, and true. That's straightforward, surely?

Well, now you beat me to it.

 

[Rolfe]

Just the other day a woman about ten years older than me told me that she was taught at school that the continents were in some sort of constant equilibrium, and then had to relearn it all because tectonic plates and continental drift were discovered.

 

[Vixen]

That was an interesting read, thanks for posting!

While generally interesting, I don't see how that ties in with what we were talking about. New research and new evidence comes in all time, and upends past understanding, usually incrementally and sometimes radically: that's how science works, that's how scientific knowledge progresses. That ...not sure what your point is, that has no bearing at all on whether or not we accept such knowledge as science has so far opened up. Absent expert opinion (including our own, if we have the wherewithal to bring in or to acquire that expertise ourselves) one takes it that accepted science is evidenced, and true. That's straightforward, surely?

Remarking on Prof Chris Stringer giving it his approval.

That was an interesting read, thanks for posting!

While generally interesting, I don't see how that ties in with what we were talking about. New research and new evidence comes in all time, and upends past understanding, usually incrementally and sometimes radically: that's how science works, that's how scientific knowledge progresses. That ...not sure what your point is, that has no bearing at all on whether or not we accept such knowledge as science has so far opened up. Absent expert opinion (including our own, if we have the wherewithal to bring in or to acquire that expertise ourselves) one takes it that accepted science is evidenced, and true. That's straightforward, surely?

The point here, is Prof Chris Stringer's endorsement, which may or may not change how we view things.

 

[Chanakya]

Remarking on Prof Chris Stringer giving it his approval.

The point here, is Prof Chris Stringer's endorsement, which may or may not change how we view things.

Sorry, that still doesn't clarify. ...Do you mean that you were, likewise, wondering if those people you interacted with at that seminar thing, maybe might have a better handle on this than so-far established science?

I'm falling back on guessing here, since you don't clearly explain your meaning. If I'm guessing correctly, well then, while sure, that's possible; and while sure, if we have actual bona fide training and knowledge ourselves we can ourselves weigh in on that discussion; but absent such, it seems reasonable for us laypersons to take it that the evidence lies with established science. And then, should one of these challengers be proved right, then and only then immediately updating our understanding; but till then going with the established science. (As @gabeygoat summed up in one word: Evidence. Even without necessarily knowing what the evidence amounts to, exactly, and assuming provisionally that it's on the side of established science.)

----------

Apologies if I misread you, and ended up uttering these very obvious things out of context of what you'd meant! ...But you only hinted in that last comment, didn't explain your meaning (in answering me on how that tied in to what we were talking about originally), so I did the best I could.

Anyway, not to beat this sidebar to death! But happy to read any corrections to this you might want to put in, or any other comments generally. ...Good talking, cheers.

 

[Vixen]

Sorry, that still doesn't clarify. ...Do you mean that you were, likewise, wondering if those people you interacted with at that seminar thing, maybe might have a better handle on this than so-far established science?

I'm falling back on guessing here, since you don't clearly explain your meaning. If I'm guessing correctly, well then, while sure, that's possible; and while sure, if we have actual bona fide training and knowledge ourselves we can ourselves weigh in on that discussion; but absent such, it seems reasonable for us laypersons to take it that the evidence lies with established science. And then, should one of these challengers be proved right, then and only then immediately updating our understanding; but till then going with the established science. (As @gabeygoat summed up in one word: Evidence. Even without necessarily knowing what the evidence amounts to, exactly, and assuming provisionally that it's on the side of established science.)

----------

Apologies if I misread you, and ended up uttering these very obvious things out of context of what you'd meant! ...But you only hinted in that last comment, didn't explain your meaning (in answering me on how that tied in to what we were talking about originally), so I did the best I could.

Anyway, not to beat this sidebar to death! But happy to read any corrections to this you might want to put in, or any other comments generally. ...Good talking, cheers.

No, not at all. The point is simply this: when going way back into far antiquity, into the mists of time, all we have is theory, of which some will be based on scientific evidence, but which to all intents and purposes, will inevitably be incomplete. So we pick which authority we think is most likely correct, so we have chosen Darwin's OOA theory. But this isn't the only theory. Although logically, I dare say it is correct, at least as of the Last Glacial Maximum anyway. Looking through a glass darkly.

 

[steenkh]

No, not at all. The point is simply this: when going way back into far antiquity, into the mists of time, all we have is theory, of which some will be based on scientific evidence, but which to all intents and purposes, will inevitably be incomplete. So we pick which authority we think is most likely correct, so we have chosen Darwin's OOA theory. But this isn't the only theory. Although logically, I dare say it is correct, at least as of the Last Glacial Maximum anyway. Looking through a glass darkly.

I believe you are trying to say that there can be more theories that fit the available evidence, but "the establishment" tends to go with one version - until it is disproven by new evidence,

 

[Vixen]

I believe you are trying to say that there can be more theories that fit the available evidence, but "the establishment" tends to go with one version - until it is disproven by new evidence,

No, I m not. In respect of the recent find, and what with the abandoning of the 'Neanderthals never mixed with Sapiens' dictum, it proves that our knowledge is incomplete, hence the constant revising of accepted academic precepts. People are saying, 'It's obvious', but it never has been, which is all I was pointing out.

 

[Chanakya]

No, not at all. The point is simply this: when going way back into far antiquity, into the mists of time, all we have is theory, of which some will be based on scientific evidence, but which to all intents and purposes, will inevitably be incomplete. So we pick which authority we think is most likely correct, so we have chosen Darwin's OOA theory. But this isn't the only theory. Although logically, I dare say it is correct, at least as of the Last Glacial Maximum anyway. Looking through a glass darkly.

That still makes no sense.

That is: The things I said to you were obvious, so obvious that I felt a trifle embarrassed pontificating about those commonplace ideas. But if you're in agreement with those ideas, as I'm sure you must be, then this above makes no sense.

But cool, not to beat this small simple thing to death.

 

[Darat]

That still makes no sense.

That is: The things I said to you were obvious, so obvious that I felt a trifle embarrassed pontificating about those commonplace ideas. But if you're in agreement with those ideas, as I'm sure you must be, then this above makes no sense.

But cool,
not to beat this small simple thing to death.

I think you may have entered the wrong forum.....

 

[arthwollipot]

No, not at all. The point is simply this: when going way back into far antiquity, into the mists of time, all we have is theory, of which some will be based on scientific evidence, but which to all intents and purposes, will inevitably be incomplete. So we pick which authority we think is most likely correct, so we have chosen Darwin's OOA theory. But this isn't the only theory. Although logically, I dare say it is correct, at least as of the Last Glacial Maximum anyway. Looking through a glass darkly.

You're coming close to claiming here that all of science is just theory really and one theory is no better than any other, we just pick the one we like.

That is not the case. The theory that is supported by the evidence is the one that gets accepted. And there really isn't any way to have more than one theory that is supported by evidence.

Also, Out Of Africa isn't Darwin's theory, though he did speculate about humanity's relation to African apes. The theory was accepted after evidence was found for it.

 

[Vixen]

You're coming close to claiming here that all of science is just theory really and one theory is no better than any other, we just pick the one we like.

That is not the case. The theory that is supported by the evidence is the one that gets accepted. And there really isn't any way to have more than one theory that is supported by evidence.

Also, Out Of Africa isn't Darwin's theory, though he did speculate about humanity's relation to African apes. The theory was accepted after evidence was found for it.

No, I was specifically referring to antiquity. No, we don't know it all, which is why archeology is so interesting.

 

[ahhell]

While the interbreeding standard for species distinction is a reasonable first approximation, there are many species that blur the line.

Yep, its not always easy to tell one species from another when they are both extant. Trying to figure out if any particular hominid fossil is human or not human based on a few teeth and bones is bet at best.

So, if this story is entirely accurate, does it actually change much about our understanding of human evolution as to whether it looks a bit more like one thing or the other?

 

[arthwollipot]

So, if this story is entirely accurate, does it actually change much about our understanding of human evolution as to whether it looks a bit more like one thing or the other?

Yes, it kinda does. It puts a major branching point much further back than previously thought.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

That is not the case. The theory that is supported by the evidence is the one that gets accepted. And there really isn't any way to have more than one theory that is supported by evidence.

The history of science records a great many examples of multiple theories, each supported by evidence. When that happens in an experimental science, such as physics, the multiplicity of theories motivates the design of experiments that can rule out one or more of the theories.

The EPR paper is a famous example. In 1927, Heisenberg published his uncertainty principle. In 1934, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published a competing theory that postulated hidden variables. Both theories were consistent with the evidence known at that time.

Although most physicists favored Heisenberg's theory, EPR's hidden variables were not definitively ruled out by evidence until well after Bell published his theorem in the 1960s. Bell's theorem showed how the idea of hidden variables could be subjected to quantitative tests, which began in the 1970s and continued to the present day. In 2022, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three of the experimentalists who hammered nails into the EPR theory's coffin.

No, not at all. The point is simply this: when going way back into far antiquity, into the mists of time, all we have is theory, of which some will be based on scientific evidence, but which to all intents and purposes, will inevitably be incomplete. So we pick which authority we think is most likely correct, so we have chosen Darwin's OOA theory. But this isn't the only theory.

This reminds me of a line of argument that goes something like this:

Were you there when that fish walked onto land and became an air-breathing mammal? Did you actually see it happen? No? So all you have is a theory. There are other theories. We can pick which authority we think is most likely correct. I hold with Genesis. It's been right about everything so far, and there is no better authority than the Creator Himself.​

 

[arthwollipot]

The EPR paper is a famous example. In 1927, Heisenberg published his uncertainty principle. In 1934, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published a competing theory that postulated hidden variables. Both theories were consistent with the evidence
known at that time.

That's the significant phrase here. The evidence ends up supporting only one theory, but there can be multiple competing theories prior to that. M-theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are both supported by evidence, but the evidence at this time does not support one over the other.