Discussion
Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human evolution
A_D_E_P_T: Not that surprising when you consider, as the paper does, the explosion of very meaningful traits such as the ability to digest lactose and various anti-malaria adaptations e.g. Sickle Cell and the Duffy-null mutation.It's just controversial for obvious reasons. The notion that human groups may have meaningfully evolved in different ways over the past 10,000 years, and may still be evolving, is an unpopular one on both ends of the political spectrum.
mohamedkoubaa: "To supercharge the search, Reich, Ali Akbari, a computational geneticist at Harvard Medical School, and their colleagues amassed the largest-ever collection of genomic data from ancient humans — from a total of 15,836 individuals from western Eurasia — including more than 10,000 newly sequenced genomes."Without commenting on the content of this sentence or article, I will say that it is refreshing to see sentences like this in the wild after being regularly and constantly subjected to LLM slop.
sho_hn: And yet you managed to center AI in the discussion.
AlotOfReading: The reason no one wants to talk is that these discussions are always co-opted by racists wanting to affirm their beliefs, regardless of the underlying science. Reich in particular is borderline deliberate about attracting those sorts with his lab's research, because of how badly he chooses to handle the topic and terminology of race.
like_any_other: Is there any species, other than humans, that is found all across the globe (i.e. geographically separated), and has not differentiated into subspecies? Wolves, elephants, tigers, bears, and foxes have all been categorized into multiple subspecies each, distinct but able to interbreed.
nostromo: Science is about truth not social outcomes.People keep wondering why trust in scientific findings is in free fall. A big part of it is because many scientists have become comfortable lying when they feel it’s for a noble cause.
meroes: Dogs?
like_any_other: I don't think you could have chosen a worse example. Dogs are themselves a subspecies, and are split into many different breeds, of wildly different character and physiology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog#Taxonomy
nefarious_ends: Seriously what’s the point of this comment
phainopepla2: Is it unpopular on the right? Genuine question. I have only seen people associated with the left deny or downplay this.
paulryanrogers: Aren't dogs technically one species?
jetrink: The religious right, specifically. They would say that all people are descended quite recently from Noah and his family.
burnto: Evolution itself has some skeptics among the religious right.
greazy: The definition of what constitutes a species is a human construct.Two birds living in the same locale but divided by a mountain range therefore not naturally breeding with each other would classify as a different species, even if they could breed with each other.So your question is hard to answer.
hooo: This distinction seems more arbitrary over time. Growing up I was taught different species couldn’t interbreed. But what about Neanderthal and Sapiens?
erichocean: Humans have, obviously. Just interbreeding with ancient species was enough to do it, even without separate evolution.
FunHearing3443: Not all of us. Many are evolutionary or old earth creationists that generally don’t have an issue with many aspects of evolution.
idiotsecant: This comment section will be full of rational and well meaning discourse for sure.
renewiltord: They have to be. The snail darter is genetically identical to another animal and is a separate species. Most likely different humans are as well.
idiotsecant: Breeds and species are different things. Parent post is making a (very good) point that dogs can pretty much all breed with one another.
orsorna: I really don't care if the people around me have physiological differences from me. It would be wonderful to explore that and such differences. But as OP pointed out the discussion gets co-opted by people who would kill others over physiological differences. How is such a viewpoint conducive to a peaceful society where millions of people with physiological differences exist?For good reason, the wider community isn't able to have a productive conversation about it. I wouldn't even call that a noble reason, but a necessary one, unless you would be okay with inviting people that want you dead into discussion on scientific consensus.
like_any_other: > people who would kill others over physiological differencesMost of them just want to enforce borders. And then the dogma that we are all the same is co-opted by people who would see their ethnic group wiped out, as they are told that they don't even exist except as a meaningless social construct, and their desire for ethnic self-preservation is therefore illegitimate - there is nothing to preserve!The same rhetoric targeting Palestinians: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/perpetuating-the-myth-of-a-p...
yabutlivnWoods: > ...distinct but able to interbreedI mean people won't like the idea but that's not my point; what you describe variety in superficial traits while maintaining common traitsApplied to humans; skin color, eyes, dwarfism, hypertrichosis... can still interbreedWhen it comes to categorization and taxonomy in leaky abstractions like languages the boundaries get a bit hand wavy and usually land on whatever fits the prevailing social desirability bias of the day
MontyCarloHall: >Reich in particular is borderline deliberate about attracting those sorts with his lab's research, because of how badly he chooses to handle the topic and terminology of race.Sorry, do you have any examples? His views that I've read [0, 1] are not just scientifically rigorous but also quite deftly navigate the politics that some consider extremely controversial.[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-r...[1] https://sackett.net/reich_who_we_are_and_how_we_got_here.pdf
api: Not many. Part of why we are like this is extreme mobility. Even before modern times we were always good at getting around and seem to have a desire to roam. Or at least enough of us do to mix up those gene pools.
AlotOfReading: It's unfortunate that the URL happens to be buzzfeed, but there was an open letter to Reich by other academics about his terminology in the book you're quoting [0]. The short of it is that social categorizations we believe in like race intersect with genetics in a very complicated way. Reich is a world-class expert in genetics. He simply commits the same error as many other other experts in discounting the complexity of subjects he's adjacent to, but not directly an expert in.I get that this is a high standard to hold him to (and I sure as heck don't meet it myself), but he should do better given his visibility in public discourse.[0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics...
like_any_other: > you describe variety in superficial traitsThe same selection pressures that produced the variety of "superficial" traits also act on "non-superficial" traits - nature does not recognize this distinction.
like_any_other: If that were true before modern times, distinctions in appearance never could have developed.
showerst: How about Taraxacum officinale, the common dandelion?It’s not quite all across the globe but pretty close, and is so adapted that it is not considered invasive any more in most places.
nelox: I’ve often dreamt of breeding with that mythical bird far, far away.
api: It’s not binary. Before modern times there was enough mixing to keep speciation from occurring but not enough to fully homogenize.If our modern world continues for thousands of years eventually our differences will start to dissolve.
dmitrygr: > race intersect with genetics in a very complicated wayPlease explain the complications. Use scientific terms only, with no references to anyone being offended, since that is irrelevant.
