After years of mystery, we now know what at least one Denisovan looked like.

Until now, we only had fragments of these cousins. Now we have face. Studying our evolutionary development and our sister-species is one of my favorite aspects of archeology. We’re constantly developing new information.

Side note: look up the initial presentation of Homo naledi. The leading archeologist did a phenomenal talk a couple of years ago (I think in December). It was really an exciting presentation. But I’m also pretty nerdy.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    214·
    2 days ago

    Same genus, different species.

    Species can’t interbreed…

    That’s like, the main thing for speciation

    think like wolves vs dogs.

    You mean like one species? You do know wolves and dogs are still the same species if they can produce fertile offspring, right?

    Like, there’s a lot of misunderstanding to unwrap here, but I’m thinking you think it’s a hard-line and a German Shepherd and a Chihuahua are the same distance from a Gray wolf…

    That’s not real life, that’s the dumb downed version we teach 12 year olds in science class.

    All races of homo sapien came from a species out of Africa at the same time

    Wildly untrue, is that a typo or did you really mean that?

    You really should read up on what actually makes a species a separate species, and stop just memorizing the list some racist made centuries ago…

    Like, those same people said Africans were a separate species, do you believe that too?

    If not, you really should take the time to learn what you’re talking about, instead of just repeating centuries old racist takes.

    Organisms are grouped into species partly according to their morphological, or external, similarities, but more important in classifying sexually reproducing organisms is the organisms’ ability to successfully interbreed. Individuals of a single species can mate and produce viable offspring with one another but almost never with members of other species. Separate species have been known to produce hybrid offspring (for example, the horse and the donkey producing the mule), but, because the offspring are almost always inviable or sterile, the interbreeding is not considered successful.

    https://www.britannica.com/science/species-taxon

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      4·
      13 hours ago

      The “species can’t interbreed” thing is pretty antiquated. Many heard it decades ago and have just been repeating it like a mantra, in spite of the fact that modern biology has shown countless exceptions to this. It is an integral part of the taxonomy we know currently. There are rarely clean, orthogonal lines in nature and speciation isn’t one of them.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        11 hours ago

        I knew most people wouldn’t be ready for this…

        I didn’t think you’d be lining up for days to tell me that you’re one of the people I was talking about …

        • theherk@lemmy.world
          3·
          11 hours ago

          I’m lined up? I’m one of what people? I’m just a person interested in modern evolutionary biology, that saw you were sharing some old misinformation about speciation.

    • kata1yst@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      12·
      2 days ago

      And apologies, I did you a disservice by not replying to your single citation.

      At the top of the definition:

      however. Some examples include the ecological species concept, which describes a species as a group of organisms framed by the resources they depend on (in other words, their ecological niche), and the genetic species concept, which considers all organisms capable of inheriting traits from one another within a common gene pool and the amount of genetic difference between populations of that species.

      The definition of genetic species are distinct due to more than just “can they successfully interbreed”. It’s more about their genetic drift and timeline.

      Your own text extraction says things like “usually” and “almost always”, because we have distinct examples of this happening over and over.

      Like most of science and nature it’s messy and categories are imperfect, but we use what we got to do the science we can.

    • kata1yst@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      121·
      2 days ago

      Species can’t interbreed… That’s like, the main thing for speciation

      False. Have you even tried looking this up? https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmarshalleurope/2018/08/28/a-long-busted-myth-its-not-true-that-animals-belonging-to-different-species-can-never-interbreed/

      You mean like one species? You do know wolves and dogs are still the same species if they can produce fertile offspring, right?

      False. Wildly false. Where are you getting this from? Cite your sources.

      Wildly untrue, is that a typo or did you really mean that?

      You really should read up on what actually makes a species a separate species, and stop just memorizing the list some racist made centuries ago…

      Based on what? Cite your sources. Otherwise you’re just spitting vibes and making up meanings for words. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        19·
        2 days ago

        False. Have you even tried looking this up?

        They identified the right problem, but came up with the opposite of the right answer…

        Similarly, human evolution was rife with interspecies sex. Modern humans have interbred with both Neanderthals and Denisovans, Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred, and Denisovans interbred with an unidentified hominin.

        They’re saying because they could interbreed, it means some species can interbreed.

        Because the author isn’t ready to acknowledge it means they’re the same species.

        We really need to stick to one issue at a time if we’re gonna make any progress.

        If you just want an argument, I’m not investing the time to help tho.

        Quick edit:

        Nevermind, double replies are a big red flag.

        • kata1yst@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          8·
          2 days ago

          I apologize for the double reply, truly. Didn’t want to add a huge amount of text in an edit since I figured you’d reply quickly.

          I’ll summarize my rebuttal thusly, and you can decide for yourself if you want to continue.

          I think we’re arguing over the definition of species using two separate definitions. Encyclopedia Brittannica indicates that genetic species is a distinct definition from the definition of biological species.

          Is it fair to say that genetically these homonids are extremely closely related, but had distinct populations with distinct traits and morphology over time and across large geographies due to adaptive pressure?

          So then the debate centers on when or if speciation occured with each of those definitions, which I don’t think is a really productive exercise. We’re basically saying the same things just differently.

      • Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca
        3·
        2 days ago

        Mules are infertile. Cranky science person you are responding to does specify that in one of their rants.

          • Spuddlesv2@lemmy.ca
            3·
            2 days ago

            I’m not agreeing with cranky science person, just saying they specifically mentioned sterility in offspring as a thing in “cross species” mating.

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 day ago

              We don’t know if hybrids of early humans were sterile. Since we have exactly zero mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthals, it may be the case that Sapiens fathers and Neanderthal mothers produced infertile offspring