A 160k-year-old jaw in a Tibetan cave might explain high altitude living
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
Interesting, so the Denisovans might have been called something else if they had only looked at this?
This is actually common situation. If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Neanderthal_fossils, the first Neanderthal fossil found was Engis 2 in 1829. The namesake fossil Neanderthal 1 was found in the Neandertal valley in 1856. It is just that Engis 2 was found but not recognized as Neanderthal fossil until 1936.
You have to admit that Denisovan has a nicer ring than more descriptive "Late Pleistocene Pan Asian Hominid"!
Pleistocene = “most new” in Greek.
pan- = “all” in Greek.
Asia = “northwest Anatolia” in Hittite.
Hominid = “human-looking” in Latin/Greek mashup.
I love - or am practically obsessed with - etymologies, but an etymology is the linguistic equivalent of of a fossil.
Much as evolution reused terrestrial therapod dinosaur feathers for flight in their bird descendants, language creates new meanings and concepts by reusing older ones. And thankfully we don't communicate in etymologies.
Naming this sketchily understood category of ancient people after some cave in Russia (itself named after one Denis, an 18th century religious separatist hermit who lived there by himself) is only obscure at the start. As we become familiar with the name “Denisovan” it becomes a fine description, whether or not we know or care about Denis or his cave.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/teaching-e...
Perhaps there is a seed of truth to that after all.
Denisovans are speculated to have existed no more recently than 15,000 years ago- in New Guinea, at that. That's at minimum 700 generations ago. This jaw find is 8,000 or more generations ago.
It could be like those headlines "Psychic Predicted The Last 3 Elections".
So while random legends might be that, there may be other characteristics of legends that are not being accounted for with a purely random selection.
Perhaps you underestimate the time scale involved here?
I am suggesting that there may be a legend that was somehow carried from the days that the Denisovians (ogress) mated with Homo Sapiens (monkey), so that that the modern-day Tibetans carried those genes for living in high altitudes. That mechanism for passing on those genes are exactly what the the article is suggesting.
At no point am I saying that these legends were somehow the cause. I am not sure how you got to that idea.
This isn't the right question. There's nothing stopping a legend from persisting indefinitely.
But the information about where a legend came from or how old it might be will become unrecoverable.
As a minor digression, consider the related question "how long can a word persist in a language?". We can trace languages back several thousand years. Many words don't go back that far. Many words do go back that far, but have changed significantly in form, meaning, or both. Some words have, by coincidence, been preserved almost exactly in both form and meaning -- in at least one descendant language. There's no reason not to expect the same pattern to hold at larger timescales... but we can't reconstruct ancestor languages at those larger timescales, so there's no way to evaluate the claim directly.
Back in the realm of legends, we know that the proto-Indo-Europeans had a legend of a warrior who kills his own son. The Irish reflex of this legend is the story of Cuchulainn, and the Greek reflex is the story of Hercules. These two stories have some suggestive similarities, but in isolation it is not obvious that they are the same story. In particular, the manner in which each kills his own son is totally different. We are nevertheless confident of the relationship between the legends because we can see the same legend occurring in other Indo-European traditions.
So in summary:
1. A cultural feature may persist for pretty much any length of time.
2. However, after a while it becomes impossible to determine how long the feature has been in place for.
3. And very old features are likely to have mutated in some ways; without points of comparison, it is not possible to tell which aspects of something are old and which are new.
Which if true would put legend persistence at at least 12,000 years.
I don't know why paleontologists think this is a large distance to humans. Modern individuals often walk that distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_hu...
I have a theory that early Martians will see some gene input from all three of these groups and I’m curious what the results will look like.
I think it's plausible for things to play out something like this, a bit different from Kim Stanley Robinson's predictions in a few critical ways:
You have a group of people on Mars who can survive and reproduce in cheaper habitats than everyone else, eventually they'd realize they could sod off and do their own thing. Lower barrier to entry maybe overcomes economic and political pressure, and pretty soon they outnumber everybody else. Your first group that refer to themselves as ethnic 'Martians': Tall, dark skinned, barrel chested (because of the air) individuals who speak a pidgin of English, Amharic, Quechua, and a handful of Tibetan words, and don't answer to Earth.
They are the first people who can walk the terraformed surface without equipment, and they explode out onto the surface. A fresh wave of earthlings from above 10,000 feet arrive and bolster the numbers and gene pool. As terraforming continues, a second wave inundates the First Peoples with many immigrants who swarm to the lowlands. There is a comedian who does an entire monologue on the crazy customs of the New Coloradans, and how they never seem to get along with the New New Mexicans (which leads to 3 full minutes of material on why the hell they called it New New Mexico). For her second tour, she asks why so many Mormons are there. This trickle never really slows down, and Albuquerque and El Paso become a kind of continuous concierge service where people come to live for a year, and then either go home or to the space port to fly to Mars (people who go through Albuquerque have better outcomes, but El Paso competes on price).
Eventually a third wave brings people from everywhere, and the 'Old Ways' find themselves in the highlands at first, and on the slopes of Olympus Mons later, where no amount of terraforming will ever create a popular destination for lowlanders or Earthers.
The rich have access to gene editing. I seriously doubt working class Martians will. And I'm not sure that safe gene editing will get here before Mars colonies do. I could see it going either way. People will try it anyway, and some will win the lottery while others lose.
The wiki page for 'High-altitude adaptation' in humans even mentions that adaptation to high altitude arose independently among different highlanders as a result of convergent evolution. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_hu...
EDIT: ok, no.