Hacker News Reader

Comment by rubyn00bie | Hacker News Reader

The title is misleading (as written on HN) because the meaning of "hominim" is more to do with what we, humans, and other hominim (like neanderthals etc) evolved from. See linked chart:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yEUEavwMSCE/ULtMp3e_cVI/AAAAAAAAAD...

This isn't our specific species but rather whatever we and similar species evolved from.

I'm absolutely no expert on the subject.

I actually find the title offensive if I'm right but I'd happily be wrong. Mostly because I'm sensitive to how unlikely it is people are up voting this because they understand it and rather they want it to reflect their world views.

Edit: for those downvoting me, could you explain why? I'm happy to learn. It's just weird to see a sudden surge in down votes with no comments explaining how I am ignorant or wrong.

View on HN

Adding on to this:

The human ancestors before this single instance were all from Africa. This title picks one particular definition of human and uses that as the basis for its claim. The ancestors of this species were certainly from Africa, and many later human descendants were also from Africa. Africa has much stronger ties to Human kind's birth than Europe does.

Also, it's very possible that this species died out and left no descendants. There are many examples of this at many stages in humanity's histories-- Paranthropus robustus, homo neanderthalensis, and Denisovans. If a common ancestor of Anatomically Modern Homo Sapiens really originated in Europe, we should be finding more evidence soon. Even if we find more evidence of that, we still can't say that Europe is the birthplace of mankind, because so much of Mankind's evolution (Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, etc) took place in Africa.

It's just silly to call Europe the birthplace of mankind.

Maybe it's silly to say that either Africa or the Mediterranean (or wherever) is "the birthplace of mankind". That is, maybe there was considerable migration and interbreeding throughout the process. We know now that both Neanderthals and Denisovans contributed to the modern human genome. So why not more backcrossing, going back further?

This is known as the multi-regional hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern...

If many Europeans have some Neanderthal DNA (which is what I've understood), then neanderthalensis hasn't entirely died out without descendants, right?

Your post itself is inciting, because you imply that those up-voting the post did so due to "their world views". I am sure you can think of other, less offensive reasons that are more likely explanations of the votes, like scientific curiosity.

> I actually find the title offensive [...] Mostly because I'm sensitive to how unlikely it is people are up voting this because they understand it and rather they want it to reflect their world views.

What if the title said "South America" or "New Zealand" was the birthplace and people upvoted would you have found the title just as offensive?

Or to put it as another thought experiment, what continent region being upvoted would you find least offensive.

I just upvoted the article for unearthing more hominim, no need for an ad hominem.

I don't see how the article being incorrectly titled is ad hominem. It does appear to reflect the world view as opposed to the science within the article.

Can you please explain further or qualify your statement so that I can learn. As I said in my comment I'm happy to be wrong but you provided nothing. I'd say your comment as it stands is ad hominem if anything.

It seemed like you suggested that upvoters just begrudge Hipster-Africa for having humans before they were cool. I think it's absolutely amazing how we are finding out how humans and almost-humans lived, met, invented the first things, developed culture...

I also like my little pun :)

Every conceptual viewpoint reflects a particular world view, whether an officially accepted world view or an alternative world view. To rest an objection or finding a fault on the basis of a generalized statement like you made anent "world view" is actually proof of nothing and possesses little meaning of any consequence - other than, of course, that we reflect an individual or a collective world view.

As for the origin and global point of emergence of the human species, this could be debated ad nauseam. I would contend that no current view would be entirely correct.

How on earth this title could be offensive? Why does it make you offended?

For several years we were tracing the beginnings of mankind to Africa. Now there is another source in Europe. In the future other sources might be discovered. How is it offensive? What does it change for you?

This news being offensive to him might mean he is a racist. No sane person would take this title as offensive.

Please don't take HN threads in uncivil or personal directions. It can only make things worse.

How is it offensive?

Could you elaborate on why exactly do you find it offensive, and what are the world views you think upvoters have that they want to support?

I'm very curious to hear an answer to that question, too.

You mean "hominin", not "hominim". Yes, the title on HN is sensationalism.

I did not downvote you myself (pinkie swear?) but since you asked, it's a little strange that you would immediately assume that the article was upvoted because of an ideological viewpoint.

Your meaning is not clear but based on the context it seems likely that you are implying that a group of caucasians have upvoted the article because they desperately want humanity to have come from Europe. If this is the sentiment that led you to post, then it is more than a little ironic.

For the record, I did upvote the story simply because it was interesting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com