History

4386 readers

25 users here now

Welcome to History!

This community is dedicated to sharing and discussing fascinating historical facts from all periods and regions.

Rules:

NOTE WELL: Personal attacks and insults will not be tolerated. Stick to talking about the historical topic at hand in your comments. Insults and personal attacks will get you an immediate ban for a period of time determined by the moderator who bans you.

Post about history. Ask a question about the past, share a link to an article about something historical, or talk about something related to history that interests you. Please encourage discussion whenever possible.
No memes. No ads. No promos. No spam.
No porn.
We like facts and reliable sources here. Don't spread misinformation or try to change the historical record.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

forensic_potato

zoidsberg

Our Human Ancestors Very Nearly Went Extinct 900,000 Years Ago, Genetics Suggest (www.smithsonianmag.com)

submitted 1 year ago by ooli to c/history

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mo_ztt 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's their evidence that it's #1, and not #2? I read the links but I still don't see a reason why. I'm not saying it is #2, just that as you said:

They did the analysis on the samples that they have. It’s not like they could travel back in time and take a genetic sample

Yes, which means that the only populations that are "visible" to this technique are the humans that left descendants to the modern day. Maybe there were other populations that didn't leave descendants to the modern day, specifically because of competition with other humans (but which would have survived, if not for the competition for their same niche).

Again, I'm not saying that that did happen. Just that it instantly jumps out based on a cursory reading of this that it sounds pretty possible, and I'm curious to see if there's an explanation for why it's not possible.

Also, outside of this article, the same evidence is cited along with how it is known that there was probably a huge population collapse thanks to other pieces of evidence.

I'm sure there was a huge population collapse; as I understand it, that's an established fact based on a sudden absence of humans in the fossil record. But, it's a very different statement to say "there was a population collapse" versus the statement "there was a population collapse down to 1,280 individuals." One is not proof of the other.