Woodworking

6275 readers

2 users here now

A handmade home for woodworkers and admirers of woodworkers. Our community icon is submitted by @[email protected] whose father was inspired to start woodworking by Norm and the New Yankee Workshop.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

476,000-year-old ancient woodworking discovery rewrites early human history (www.earth.com)

submitted 8 months ago by SteveJobs to c/[email protected]

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15221988

476,000-year-old ancient woodworking discovery rewrites early human history

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

[+] Skyrmir -18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

More like earlier Earth history. Humans weren't a part of it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What then? Aliens? Sentient ants?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Our non-human cousins.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Depends what you mean by human. If you restrict the term to homo sapiens you put yourself in a small minority. I'd say the fact that these people used tools in a sophisticated way pretty much defines them as human.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

I mean, that's why it's so exciting! Who is human and who isn't? I agree that a lot of folks who were our cousins could also be classified as human, but I think that requires re-examining the definition. That's why this is so interesting to me. This find redefines a lot of expectations.

If we considered ourselves special because we alone did x, y, z things, we aren't so special anymore.

[+] Skyrmir -6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Human is specifically Homo Sapiens. The rest of the Homo genus, be they ancestors or not, are not recognized as human.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

Nope. There are modern humans (homo sapiens) and archaic humans (extinct homo species).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans

[–] grue 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Considering the fact that we interbred with H. neanderthalensis and H. denisova (and still carry the residual DNA to prove it), I think it's pretty well proven that considering only H. sapiens to be "human" is overly narrow.

Personally, I would argue that anything within the Homo genus is human by definition (that's what the word means!), and that anything non-human belongs in a genus like Australopithecus or Paranthropus instead.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

That's not entirely accurate anymore.

Yet mounting evidence from fossil and archaeological discoveries, as well as DNA analyses, has experts increasingly rethinking that scenario. It now looks as though H. sapiens originated far earlier than previously thought, possibly in locations across Africa instead of a single region, and that some of its distinguishing traits—including aspects of the brain—evolved piecemeal. Moreover, it has become abundantly clear that H. sapiens actually did mingle with the other human species it encountered and that interbreeding with them may have been a crucial factor in our success.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-homo-sapiens-the-sole-surviving-member-of-the-human-family/

[–] somethingsnappy 2 points 8 months ago

Wut?