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.

  • kata1yst@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    101·
    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
      18·
      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
        7·
        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.