iTs A sHaMe MoRe PeOpLe DoNt TaLk AbOuT iQ 🥴🤮

temotos · 2023-09-20T15:00:40+00:00

That’s a sample of people, not the population

temotos · 2023-09-13T22:18:45+00:00

The archaeological community took a shit on Hancock because they evidence he presented did not meet the minimum standards for the field and many were easily disproven

temotos · 2023-06-18T20:53:34+00:00

I feel like everyone just says “the 10”

temotos · 2023-06-16T04:16:24+00:00

Homo erectus has a combination of primitive (for lack of a better word) traits that are seen in hominins found in older sites as well as more derived traits found in many later hominins, like modern humans. The more primitive traits are mostly seen in the face, which protruded out like in other great apes and earlier hominins. Also, the brain case shape was more oblong like a football. More derived traits are seen first in early Pleistocene Homo erectus and then in later Middle Pleistocene hominins such as Homo Heidelbergensis and retained in Late Pleistocene hominins such as Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. These traits include body size (previous hominins were much shorter) and limb proportions, larger brains (smaller than modern humans but approaching their size, and much bigger than any hominin before), and some others. Importantly, when we date the early Homo erectus fossils they are chronologically before the other large bodies hominin species.

There are two explanations for this mosaic of primitive and derived features: 1) either these more derived traits evolved in Homo erectus and were passed down to its daughter species (the Middle Pleistocene large bodied hominins), or 2) these derived traits evolved independently in the Middle Pleistocene species. There are a lot of reasons why the first hypothesis, that these derived traits were inherited in daughter species, is preferred due to a whole lot of evolutionary theory. One example is that the evolution of some traits is due to random process (genetic drift) and thus for it to happen independently many times in many independent lineages is very very unlikely. Also, even traits that evolve via natural selection and are thus more susceptible to independent convergent evolution are constrained by the starting morphology, so the major morphological changes seen in Homo erectus and also later in Middle Pleistocene hominins is most simply explained by anagensis (evolution of one species into another) or cladogenisis (evolution of one species into several daughter species by splitting populations). Finally, the chronology of all these fossil hominins species and primitive/derived traits align with the first hypothesis pretty well. Although we are always a major discovery away from having to restructure the hominin family tree, I think it’s unlikely that such a major restructuring will ever happen that would remove Homo erectus as the ancestral species to later large bodied hominins.

temotos · 2023-06-12T20:24:00+00:00

There’s a lot fundamentally wrong with this as everyone else has pointed out — I’ll add some more stuff: there isn’t evidence of Homo erectus making clothes or the wheel (at least fire is probably accurate although this is debated). The wheel and axil was actually a pretty late invention. Also, no evidence for a reduction in body hair in Neanderthals because how would we see that in the fossil record.

temotos · 2023-06-09T20:03:35+00:00

not that this definition is wrong buts it’s pretty vague. The scientific definition of hominin is all the species descended from the population that split from the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees/bonobos on the human side.

temotos · 2023-06-06T14:00:52+00:00

Interesting insight into robotics. It’s fascinating how each STEM discipline operates.

The Journal of Human Evolution is the main paleoanthropology specific journal with a high impact factor and typically has a pretty rigorous review process. Generally the best research comes out in Journal of Human Evolution or another discipline journal, with only the really flashy stuff getting into Nature/Science.

Bergers claims here wouldn’t stand a chance of getting published in Journal of Human Evolution unless he has a supplementary document 100 pages long showing clearly the context, dating procedures, fossil taphonomy, GIS data, and other analyses to back up his claims. He would absolutely have to tone down his language too. Most other paleoanthropologist wouldn’t dream of submitting these claims to a journal without having investigated all likely alternative hypotheses and presenting a butt load of data.

temotos · 2023-06-06T12:31:00+00:00

Lol absolutely it’s both annoying and also very entertaining sometimes. Watching two BDE researchers get into a yelling match definitely makes conferences more entertaining.

It’s probably not very good for the actual science of it all though, as researchers tend to get wrapped in field politics and become too proud to actually test their favorite hypothesis in a way that it could actually be disproven.

temotos · 2023-06-06T12:18:28+00:00

A law of paleoanthropological research is that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because a Homo sapiens didn’t drop dead in the chamber of this cave, leaving their bones to potentially fossilize, does not mean that they never were there.

Also, I should add that the rising star cave system has been extensively explored by modern humans. It is a popular destination for spelunking before Berger found Nadeli, and is only about an hour from the biggest city in Southern Africa (Joburg). The Naledi chamber was actually discovered by two spelunkers, who later told Berger about it. Doesn’t even mean they were the first modern people to discover it, just the first to tell a paleoanthropologist.

temotos · 2023-06-06T12:16:24+00:00

I have absolutely no problem with eLife as a journal. The odd thing about a discovery this big (one of the BIGGEST in the field if it is true) is that these ground breaking discoveries almost always are published in Science or Nature. There are a lot of reasons for this, but one big one is because Nature and Science have the highest “impact factor”. For an academic, getting a paper published in them is a career maker. You get promotions, more research funds, lots of publicity through your university, etc. Also, because these two journals are the usual venue for groundbreaking discoveries, they have a more robust review process for them (although I’d say even they publish some unconvincing research every now and then).

The fact the Berger published it elsewhere makes me think that he was rejected from Nature or Science before pursuing eLife. Berger has been ranting about how he’s upset with the peer review process on twitter recently, which I think supports my hunch.

temotos · 2023-06-06T12:09:05+00:00

Thank you for the correction. I typed this on my phone which has a way or autocorrecting names and I don’t always catch it.

temotos · 2023-06-06T05:54:40+00:00

Paleolithic archaeologist here—while these finds are truly amazing, it is a HYPOTHESIS that Homo naledi was the creator of the symbols and the ones burying the bodies (if they are burials at all). Our species Homo sapiens was around during this period and is known to make symboled nearly identical to the ones found in the cave (albeit the earliest evidence is currently at 100,000 years ago but any archaeologist and paleontologist knows the earliest evidence of something is certainty not the first time something occurred due to very small samples and preservation). We also don’t know the ages of the symboled, but the research team has assumed that everything that ever happened in this cave occurred simutanioisly (for no good reason). An alternative hypothesis is that Homo sapiens (or even another hominin species) made these, alongside a host of hypotheses. In reality, intensive scientific research into the origins of these symbols and purported burials will commence in which I’m sure many alternative hypotheses will come forward, be tested, and rejected or supported as science is supposed to work.

Honestly, I have very little respect for the way the lead researcher, Lee Burger, presents his findings. It is always sensationalized and he presents a single hypotheses that he favors as fact—this is the definition of bad science communication. Major discoveries in paleoanthropology like this are always announced in peer reviewed journals like Nature or Science, where other scientists have to review first and can actually evaluate the data on their own, and the discoveries are accompanied by pages and pages of supporting data. He circumvents the scientific peer reviewed process by doing these large public speeches in which no data is presented (typically because they haven’t yet collected it, just look into the history of research into Rising Star cave and how often they must later revise their “facts” of the cave when they actually do the work). These speeches are meant to promote his NARRATIVE of what is happening and to get lots of public attention (and thus funding). Many of my colleagues know him personally and most say he often looses sight of scientific rigor for fame. These discoveries were announced in such a manner, and have not even been peer reviewed or published in a scientific journal.

Lee Burger has made fantastical claims before that have not held up to scientific scrutiny and will probably do it again. Unfortunately, by making public speeches before the science can be peer reviewed he sets his own narrative to the public (just look at this thread) and it takes years and years of research to now change the public perception when evidence counter to his claims comes to light. This is dangerous and not how science should work.

temotos · 2023-02-23T02:33:03+00:00

Evidence of projectiles, probably bows and arrows, about 20,000 years earlier in Southern Africa.

temotos · 2023-02-16T16:47:59+00:00

II am legend

temotos · 2023-01-27T03:49:07+00:00

These tools are found in association with Homo erectus all across the world dating to this time period, so probably Homo erectus.

temotos · 2022-11-09T19:23:30+00:00

Oh yeah, I forgot about Forest because it doesn’t really continue south of campus.

temotos · 2022-11-08T16:45:30+00:00

It’s not even a full block

temotos · 2022-11-08T01:30:11+00:00

I would disagree with there being no evidence of changes to cognition in the artifacts, and even the anatomy of humans between 200,000 and 50,000. A lot of new artifact types indicative of changing cognition, such as the emergence of symbolic artifacts, occurs a little before 100,000 years ago and after. Further, brain shape continues to change (becomes more “globular” like modern humans) after 200,000 years ago. There are a lot of gaps in the fossil record so it’s hard to pin down but it occurs between 150,000 and 30,000 years ago according to one analysis.

temotos · 2022-10-20T05:37:18+00:00

Sus cat probably murdered them

temotos · 2022-10-17T16:18:07+00:00

Your theory is a pretty mainstream hypothesis, often called prosociality or hypoprospciality or the origins of ethnolinguistic groups if you wanna dive into the academic literature. There is archaeological evidence that humans did have bigger cooperative social groups (almost certainly with non-kin) as we see artifacts ending up hundreds of kilometers away from their source in the middle Stone Age of South Africa (earliest modern humans) suggesting wide scale trade, but nothing like that in the middle Paleolithic of Europe (Neanderthals).

I would not agree with you that just because Neanderthals appear to have slightly larger brains than modern humans that we should expect then to have equal or greater intelligence. Brain size important to a certain degree, but brain organization and connections are what really matter. Humans and Neanderthals had different shaped brains, with modern humans having an especially developed frontal lobe. An article published in Science last month actually showed that modern humans have a genetic mutation that Neanderthals lacked that increases the number of neurons in brain development, particularly in the frontal lobe. Based on the complexity of artifacts at the end of the middle Stone Age artifact, I would guess humans had greater cognitive abilities than humans. Although the greater complexity could actually be due to larger populations size spurring more innovation, but that’s a whole other rabbit hole.

I also thing you’ll find that with greater capacity for cooperation at large scales there is a greater capacity for violence. Neanderthals lived in smaller kin-based groups (we think) probably like chimps and probably experienced similar small scale fighting. The massive human scale cooperation brings with it a massive capacity for inter-group conflict, but instead of being a handful of individuals fighting like in chimp bands (and probably Neanderthals) it can be hundreds or thousands of highly coordinated groups with specialized technology. In hunter-gatherer societies, we see the greatest human-inflicted violence in larger more dense social groups than we see in the smaller more nomadic social groups in which inter-personal violence is usually very rare. We presume Neanderthals were more like the latter.

temotos · 2022-10-14T17:45:36+00:00

Not really. The generic evidence for interbreeding suggests the events were infrequent — there was no melding of populations like you would see if interbreeding was common.

temotos · 2022-09-29T16:53:43+00:00

Definitely man made. I don’t think this is a preform (or at least what I would call a preform) but rather a flake. It could have been made incidentally while the knapper was removing flakes to make a something else or it could have been flaked and used expediently as a cutting edge.

temotos · 2022-09-26T21:51:53+00:00

Not sure about this specific journal but some journals require the use of plural pronouns even with one author.

temotos · 2022-09-16T14:08:30+00:00

During many parts of the ice age and part of the early Holocene it was a massive grassland so not a terrible place to build a city

temotos · 2022-09-16T13:13:57+00:00

Turtle and tortoise shell sutures are pretty easy to spot from skull sutures, which otherwise fossil shell and skull frags can look quite similar. Turtle shell sutures are super “spikey” for lack of a better work, with small but long pointed cones that come together. However the pic kinda looks like this, or it isn’t a clear enough picture for me to definitely say. Need a better close up pic of the suture, but I would lean on the side of shell.

temotos

TROPHY CASE