Hacker News Reader

Comment by 5350-uiop-1130 | Hacker News Reader

You might also find the red ladder from la pasiega cave in Spain of interest. It's 65,000 years old which means it was painted by Neanderthals (based on current knowledge).

It blows my mind to think that another human species walked on this same planet and drew this art. To me, that's as profound as the discovery, if ever, of another intelligent species in the universe.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/22/neanderthals...

Also worth considering, is the art of Chauvet Cave and the excellent Werner Herzog documentary about it. The artistry is incredible. It stands up to anything we could draw today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvet_Cave

This art from when I last read is considered to have been done around the time that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals were both present in Europe. It's incredible to see that these people who lived in ancient France where drawing wild animals such as Rhinos and Lions.

View on HN

> It's 65,000 years old which means it was painted by a Neanderthal.

I'm not saying it wasn't made by a Neanderthal, and I don't think it's unlikely that Neanderthals made cave paintings, but there were human expeditions out of Africa during that time[0].

> To me, that's as profound as the discovery, if ever, of another intelligent species in the universe.

For me, the fact that Neanderthals are so closely related to us removes some of the amazement. If octopuses were making paintings on the ocean floor, that would seem more comparable to finding aliens doing the same thing.

[0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/01/oldest-human...

I agree. I've updated the first point. A lot of this is based on our ever changing knowledge of our history with new discoveries current understanding seems to change almost every day.

It's not so much about them being closely related. Rather it's the idea that a mind so distant from my own, that lived a life so alien from my own drew that. I find that deeply fascinating.

The fact that they are lost to us just makes them seem even more interesting, the fact that we can never really know, we can never really understand why they drew that, why they took the time out of their harsh and unforgiving lives to draw some lines on a wall that one day, a different species would ponder over.

> It's not so much about them being closely related. Rather it's the idea that a mind so distant from my own, that lived a life so alien from my own drew that.

I think I'm using the former as a proxy for the latter. If Neanderthals were more distantly related then I would imagine their minds to be more distant from my own. If less, then less. I imagine that my mind is much closer to that of a chimpanzee than that of an octopus, so I would be less amazed by similar behavior in the former than the latter. This isn't to say that I find no amazement in what little we know of Neanderthal culture, just that it's nowhere near the amazement I would find in seeing a truly alien culture. They're on the same continuum, but not at the same point on that continuum.

"It's not so much about them being closely related. Rather it's the idea that a mind so distant from my own, that lived a life so alien from my own drew that. I find that deeply fascinating."

Well, genetically they were not much different, close enough for interbreeding.

But their mind ... and culture was probably very alien to us.

There is enough Neanderthal DNA in the modern non-sub-Saharan human population (we all have a few percent Neanderthal DNA, but that few percent is different in each of us) that some people probably think like Neanderthals.

I was more talking about the different mindset ... coming from a very different culture.

My point was actually that the DNA difference probably does not lead to a very different thinking. But different culture does.

We certainly know that different DNA leads to different thinking or else we would think like a chimpanzee. The question is does Neanderthal thinking live on in our modern culture. I have no idea, but it is a testable hypothesis.

Surely does different DNA leads to different thinking. But when interbreeding is possible, differences might not be great ... much smaller than the cultural differences

That is a hypothesis, not something we know. Having three children of my own all very different to each other in thinking makes me doubt culture has much influence on how people think.

I am sad for us all that they're not around.

I can't even imagine the impact they would have had on the evolution of our culture and religions if they'd stuck around. The "winning" religions hinge on humans having dominion over all other animals in clear-cut ways.

Might belief systems like Buddhism or Jainism be more hegemonic if there had been a bridge species to tell us we're not so clearly special. And if they'd stuck around, would we still be having such a nail-biting time threading the needle on this extinction event that's predicated on our dominant cultures seeing nature as "other.

I wonder if we could bring them back to some extent. Apparently they interbred with Homo Sapiens so there are many of their genes amongst our DNA.

We humans are prone to wiping out sects of our own species. You think we would have allowed another, highly competitive, species to coexist with us for that long?

What makes Neanderthals so interesting is they split from sub-Saharan humans long before what we now call modern humans evolved. That and the fact they still walk amongst us - everyone who is not of sub-Saharan decent is part Neanderthal.

> everyone who is not of sub-Saharan decent is part Neanderthal.

Has this been proven? I mean both conditions, ie: that everyone of sub-Saharan descent having no Neanderthal DNA? Also, the percentages are really low, eg: my friend from China did 23andme and his Neanderthal percentage was 0.1%.

I suppose in theory that there might be some non-sub-Saharan people that don’t have Neanderthal DNA just by chance, but it is unlikely.

There are also people that have far more than the average (2-3%) - for every person like your friend there are other with way more.

4% here!

As a non-biologist, am I the only one who had a claim like this raise my eyebrow in skepticism?

What does it mean to be a separate species if you're interbreeding in a significant way?

What does it mean to have n٪ Neanderthal DNA if that DNA is found in a significant proportion of "modern humans"?

There are many species that are separated by 100K/1M years that are still able to interbreed. Horses, Donkeys, Zebras are a good example. These animals can produce viable offspring but still have significant anatomical differences (those differences tend to define what we call species)

Yes, but they are notable because of their exceptional nature, and where many of them do interbreed, the understanding is they often/ predominantly produce sterile offspring, and thus do not/ have not spread in any meaningful way through the resulting population.

If 'Neanderthal DNA' is found in a huge percentage of 'modern humans', on the face of if, it seems to me the notion that Neanderthals should be considered a separate species is the preposition that seems somewhat/increasingly spurious...

Could you explain why you think the number of hybrid offspring of Neanderthals currently living prevents Neanderthals being a different species? This is like saying that if there are a large number of mules alive that donkey’s can’t be considered a different species to horses.

There is evidence that the offspring of the Neanderthal hybrids follow Haldane's Rule [1].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_rule

> What does it mean to be a separate species if you're interbreeding in a significant way?

Species is a squishy concept. You might be amazed at how much intense arguing that continues to be about what delineates two closely related species. I think it's hard to consider Neanderthals a separate species, given what we now know thanks to ancient DNA. I think the term sub-species makes more sense.

> What does it mean to have n٪ Neanderthal DNA if that DNA is found in a significant proportion of "modern humans"?

It means that before the point at which the lineage that we call "humans" interbreed with the lineage that we call "neanderthal", these particular pieces of DNA were found only in the neanderthal lineage.

And is that actually the case in the instance of modern humans and the distribution of genetic components? (Genuinely asking for someone more knowledgeable to chime in here).

I admit my sort of base assumption is that simple quantitative metrics such as n% African/n% Neanderthal peddled by the likes of online genetics testing labs are grossly oversimplified at best and probably borderline meaningless at worst...

Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re asking. Can you restate?

Regarding ancestry testing: it’s pretty valid, in general. DNA extracted from ancient human remains has completely revolutionized our understanding of recent, ancient, and extremely ancient human history. The online testing companies use the same methods and data sets. The way they present results boils a lot of different stuff down to a single number, so nuance and some fidelity is inevitably lost, but that’s always an issue when you try and make a nuanced subject understandable to laypeople. But, generally speaking, if an online test says that your DNA is 5% Neanderthal whereas someone else’s is 1%, or that you’re 20% Western European and 40% Eastern European, that is probably a valid way to present things.

> What does it mean to be a separate species if you're interbreeding in a significant way?

Yes, great question. Pheasants and chickens can breed and produce fertile offspring, along with many other combinations. Are they different species? Most say they are, but why given matching chromosomes?

They look dramatically different and are from different areas, true, but just like Native American Chihuahuas and Greek Harehounds, both which we claim to be dogs. They definitely don't look the same to me, or to most people.

As far as Homo Sapiens Neanderthals goes, well... yes, some still say that's actually Homo Neanderthals, but a lot now agree it's not really a different species. Source of quite a few bitter fights in academia though.

This gets into a really complex topic about what is a species. Everyone considers lions and tigers separate species yet put them together they will interbreed creating a liger [0]. Ligers are even fertile.

As for what it means if some of us have Neanderthal DNA and some don’t is some of us are a hybrid species [1].

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)

What I think is more interesting is that there appear to be distinct differences between Neanderthal-influenced European gene lines and Asian Denisovian-influenced gene lines, vs pure Cro-magnon gene lines. The whole thing is more complicated than the neat stories that we have been told.

Given how races within the human specie are a controversial topics in Western societies, it's not hard to imagine why the topic of having DNA from different human species is totally untold by the various national education systems.

Probably because the fact of external genetic influences has little to do with the wholly political concept of "race"

There is a Neanderthal flute in the museum in Ljubljana. I found that even more astonishing than the paintings. They didn't just daub, they made music!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divje_Babe_Flute

A 43k year old flute! I never knew. That is amazing indeed!

There is a 3D version of Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams and it is one of the best uses of 3D that I've seen in a film. Being able to see the depth in the walls literally adds another dimension to the experience.

I also enjoy the meta here of using a technically sophisticated visual medium to portray the oldest, maybe most primitive medium.

Makes me wonder if there's a project to use "primitive" painting techniques from 40K years ago to portray modern day activities...

>people who lived in ancient France were drawing wild animals such as rhinos and lions.

My guess is that when Homo sapien met the people who live in caves, they got to talking about africa and one human was trying to explain rhinocerous and after a while they got frustrated and said "no you're still not getting it. Give me that ink over there, I'll show you."

And then they drew the rhino and also a group of people, for scale.

Or maybe they were enjoying a game of pictionary.

On that note, it's kind of fascinating to consider that ancient humans (both homo sapiens and other human species) almost certainly had their own variations of currently universal party games like charades, would you rather, etc.

Or maybe they were just drawing the extant megafauna that had not yet been hunted to extinction [0].

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_rhinoceros

There used to be rhinos and lions in Europe...

> It blows my mind to think that another human species walked on this same planet and drew this art. To me, that's as profound as the discovery, if ever, of another intelligent species in the universe.

Well, it's certainly something to think about, but I have to say that it is surely nowhere, absolutely nowhere at all near as mind blowingly profound as the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would be.

Discovery of intelligent alien life would cause a brief flurry of interest. And then most everyone would lose interest when they realize the aliens are too far away for any type of meaningful interaction.

I disagree, I think it would completely redefine the human experience forever.

Dang, you weren't kidding about Chauvet cave. Some of those photos are strikingly beautiful.

Neanderthals were a distinct human species in the way that lions and tigers are distinct species. They are distinct, but not in any particularly remarkable way

"Another human species". Europeans are part Neanderthal, so it's not another species, just some of our ancestors.

No, neanderthals are scientifically considered a different species from homo sapiens.

It's not uncommon for two related but different species to be capable of interbreeding with viable offspring. That doesn't detract from distinct speciation.

This was, perhaps is, a topic of vigorous debate.

You will find in various sources, the names homo sapiens neanderthalensis and homo neanderthalensis, it would appear Wikipedia prefers the latter, which is of course conclusive.

What a species is, exactly, is the biggest spook in biology.

In the case of such closely related populations the distinction is rather meaningless. We're arguing over semantics, not genetics. Calling Neanderthals a different species doesn't change what happened.

Dunno, one of the commonly accepted definitions of species is the largest group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring. Using this definition, Neanderthals, Sapiens, Denisovans, etc..., are definitely the same species.

And if they're not the same species, it presents an interesting problem, as it would mean many humans today aren't 100% the same 'species'...

As a counterpoint that would imply wolves, coyote and dogs, donkeys and horses, lions and tigers, house cats and bobcats, grizzly bears and polar bears, etc. are all the same species, because they are all capable of interbreeding with viable offspring.

Taxonomy is not a settled question, and I'm not trying to imply it is. But neanderthals exhibited significantly different traits from humans. There is probably a case to be made that modern homo sapiens are a subspecies of neanderthals and another hominid. Hybridization can (and frequently does) result in new species distinct from the forebear species, after many generations. But speciation doesn't preclude interbreeding.

The European Lion lasted quite awhile.

Take the Greek legends of Hercules defeating the Nemean Lion, Nemea is in present-day Greece.

my wife made copies of some of the Chauvet cave paintings:

https://www.etsy.com/shop/ElenaGoryachev

> To me, that's as profound as the discovery, if ever, of another intelligent species in the universe.

Err, what?

Edit:

To elaborate, this strikes me as completely ridiculous.

We're only talking about thousands of years, this is not a long time.

Just imagine if every person living in the united states alone were born sequentially, and that the average lifetime were 60 years. There's over 300M people in this country alone. That's what, 18B years? Even hundreds of thousands of years isn't a long time.

If anything's profound it's how quickly things have drastically changed. Not how impressive it is to find art in caves from less than a million years ago.

Person years is a bad metric to compare to time years. You should compare the 18B person years to the about 5 trillion[1] person years that have existed since these cave paintings. Now that’s truly a long time, and shows how slowly these changes really have been. To get from those cave paintings to where we are now would take trillions of years for one person.

[1]: ~100B people ever[2] * ~50 years of life span = ~5T person years.

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Reply on news.ycombinator.com