Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Possible New Human Species Discovered In China

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the family-tree-gets-another-branch dept.

China 234

BayaWeaver writes "These are exciting times in anthropology. Recent analysis of fossils first discovered in China in 1979 indicate that a human-like species may have co-existed with modern humans as late as 11,500 years ago. This presumably new species has been nicknamed Red Deer Cave people because of their apparent taste for the extinct giant red deer. Other species recently discovered include: the 'hobbits' on the Indonesian island of Flores which are also thought to have been around until 12,000 years ago and the Denisovans discovered in 2010 that co-existed with modern humans in Siberia about 30,000 years ago."

cancel ×

234 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

missing link (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358567)

still not found.

Re:missing link (1)

ThePeices (635180) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358677)

What missing link?

Re:missing link (4, Funny)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358859)

The link between /. commenters and intelligent human beings?

RE:intelligent human beings (2)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359027)

Huh? I thought they actually found NEW (as in living, just formed) human species...

Re:missing link (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359913)

I read the summary and immediately got a flash of 'The Tomorrow People' ;)

Too many Godzilla movies in my youth I guess...

Re:missing link (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358837)

The missing link was found. And the two new missing links on either side of that, and the new "missing links".

Please, if serious you need to accept that it has become so well studied of a field that scientists actually estimated based on previous research where a "crock-o-duck" should have existed, went there and found the bloody fossils. Same for whales. Your argument has devolved, pun intended, from something that could be respected to practically a parody of Xeno arguing that a runner could never catch a turtle.

If a troll, I may be feeding you, but feeding you is far worse than feeding people who actually use such arguments. Please, just stop.

Re:missing link (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359335)

This [myvidster.com] (Futurama S06E09 exerpt) sums it up quite well imo.

Re:missing link (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359491)

Because... there are no missing links, but that's what the discovery of the next one will be another one of.

Re:missing link (3, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359231)

Then you need a better filesystem integrity checker.

Re:missing link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359921)

http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/9bjufz/futurama-evolution-under-attack

No matter how many fossils we find, there will always be missing one. Please, don't be that silly orangutan...

Discovered humans in China? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358571)

But they were wiped out by the Chinese?

I always knew they weren't human! Beware the Yellow Peril!

Re:Discovered humans in China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358771)

I think we understand that by now.

Fascinating! (5, Insightful)

SultanCemil (722533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358593)

I, for one, think this is absolutely fascinating! The thought that, as recently as 10k years ago, there were other species of human is amazing - that's not far off of written history!

I wonder if we could think about cloning these people - is the DNA "fresh" enough?

Re:Fascinating! (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358669)

Why does written history only go back 10,000 years? Our ice age ancestors were smart enough to write - did the literature get lost over time? (Like greek and roman music was lost.)

 

Re:Fascinating! (3, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358709)

written history only goes back to about 5000 years, I think ancient Sumerians (Iraqis) writing cuneiform on clay tablets.

To paraphrase a nerd, if the cro-magnons who left cave paintings 30,000 years ago in France could've written something, they would've written something.

Re:Fascinating! (4, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358981)

30000 years from now, no paper or electronic writing produced by the current generation will exist. Just what little we have carved into stone.

Hard to say what a people were capable of when we know so very, very little about them.

Re:Fascinating! (1)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359603)

I wonder what the practice in most modern civilizations of burying the dead in caskets will mean for archeologists or alien explorers even 1000 years from now. A quick google suggests even bones disintegrate after a few hundred years, assuming a neutral environment within the casket.

Considering the odds against fossilization to begin with, it would be ironic if the ritual of burying the dead to preserve their memory, ends up ensuring little record of modern human biology remains for future civilizations to (re-)discover.

Re:Fascinating! (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359923)

What about the remains after modern embalming practices? This is not a field I have much knowledge of, but as I understand it, the body pretty much ends up so toxic and full of plasticizers that nothing wants it. Time does rather exhibit a beating on things, even without additional agents though... (It's sort of an even more extreme and long-lasting form of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokushinbutsu [wikipedia.org] )

Re:Fascinating! (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359249)

Possibly they did. By many of the paintings, there are symbols etched/painted. These are generally ignored, but it is entirely possible that this was proto-writing and new research is going into studying them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/11/cave-painting-symbols-language-evolution [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Fascinating! (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358733)

Hunter-gatherer groups do not have the population size, nor could they sustain the population size necessary to create sufficient specialization for something like scribes or a literate class. Writing had to wait until you had high enough populations and an economic system that could free some group from basic activities like food collection. In other words, you need an urban culture, and even with an urban culture it took a considerable length of time to develop writing. It wasn't an issue of intelligence, it was all down to economics.

Re:Fascinating! (4, Insightful)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358857)

And one of necessity....In a tribe, you can gather everyone together and talk to communicate to the population....in a city of thousands, you need something else. Sure town criers work but what bureaucracy needs a record to be maintained beyond what someone recollects a few months later....Who said a bureaucrat was worthless? I am it was a bureaucrat that invented writing in the first place.

Re:Fascinating! (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358877)

Some of the earliest examples of proto-writing in Sumeria appear to be tax records. It is both economies of scale and raw economic need of a large, complex state that drove the need for accurate record keeping. So you're right, it was bureaucrats that likely invented writing.

Re:Fascinating! (4, Informative)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359183)

So you're right, it was bureaucrats that likely invented writing.

And yet it was Phoenician traders and merchants who spread a simple phonemic alphabet around the Mediterranean. Such an alphabet was easy to learn and could be used to transcribe many (all?) spoken languages. So thank business for that advance.

Re:Fascinating! (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359277)

The alphabet was certainly the next big innovation, phonetic, easier to learn, could be applied to different languages without all the awkwardness one found in applying Sumerian systems to unrelated languages like Akkadian. In the history of writing it was the next big thing up until the printing press. Still, you have to give the earliest inventors of writing the credit, it still stands in my mind as the greatest single achievement of the human mind, from it springing pretty much everything we see today.

Re:Fascinating! (2)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359391)

Thank government for the foundational breakthrough that business could not do....

Thank government for developing a system that allowed business to even exist!

Re:Fascinating! (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359611)

Why should we "thank" them? None of the current governments had anything to do with it.

Re:Fascinating! (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359863)

did I say anything about current governments?

Re:Fascinating! (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359961)

Yes. By using the word, "government" without qualification. Current governments are the only governments around to be thanked.

Re:Fascinating! (2)

pipelayerification (1707222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359963)

If you think government is the reason business exists you are sadly misinformed. Far more likely is government existing for the sake of business. Government doesn't develop any systems. They simply regulate existing systems at the supposed will of the people.

Re:Fascinating! (1)

Chris Gunn (1336847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359865)

The symbols used in the first writing had been used on tokens for trading since 10000 yrs ago or so. The first collection of these symbols, were on bula. I'm going with traders started things off with contracts.

Re:Fascinating! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359175)

Hunter-gatherer groups do not have the population size, nor could they sustain the population size necessary to create sufficient specialization for something like scribes or a literate class. Writing had to wait until you had high enough populations and an economic system that could free some group from basic activities like food collection. In other words, you need an urban culture, and even with an urban culture it took a considerable length of time to develop writing. It wasn't an issue of intelligence, it was all down to economics.

Actually, mostly they didn't have the culture. When you're constantly on the move in small bands, you don't want to drag along a whole lot of optional stuff like records.

The real incentive for record-keeping comes when you have lots of stuff and lots of people in one place. An authoritative repository of objective information can be a big help if you're keeping common warehouses and granaries, paying armies, even attempting to provide some consistency in the administration of justice.

Re:Fascinating! (2)

dryeo (100693) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359947)

The hunter gatherers that lived around where I now live worked for 2 weeks out of the year. The ones a bit further away in a crappier situation had to work an hour or 2 a day. And they were all fairly stable.
Lots of hunter gathers lived in very rich areas where food was laying about for the picking or showed up in a predictable manner.
The locals also had a few people per settlement whose job (for lack of a better word) was remembering everything. What they lacked was a government and much in the way of business.

Re:Fascinating! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358777)

Religion. The priests burned the written word for being the tool of the devil. :P

Re:Fascinating! (2)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358827)

I am sure the future humans will see us as a bunch of moronic neanderthals that had no culture because we have no long lasting and readable way to record our story.

Re:Fascinating! (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358701)

...as recently as 10k years ago

4000 years before God created Earth? You can't fool me with your elitist education.

Re:Fascinating! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358895)

Actually, he's allowed to fool you at least once. A wise man once said "Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Re:Fascinating! (1, Offtopic)

CaptainLugnuts (2594663) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359015)

I'm not so sure that that was a wise man.

Re:Fascinating! (0, Flamebait)

SultanCemil (722533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358921)

My apologies. These fossils were clearly placed (rather cleverly) to fool us & test our faith.

Re:Fascinating! (2, Interesting)

Empiric (675968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359237)

For those understanding the meaning of "allegory" (or who avoid pretending they don't to repeat a joke that was old for Slashdot 10 years ago), and/or very basic standard Judeo-Christian symbolism I'll just leave this here...

Jesus said, "A grapevine has been planted outside of the Father, but being unsound, it will be pulled up by its roots and destroyed."

--Gospel of Thomas, Saying 40

Slashdot's own Mr. Extracanonical, checking in.

Re:Fascinating! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359459)

Die, heretic!

Re:Fascinating! (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359529)

Hmm... I think Saying 13 for you, then.

Re:Fascinating! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358787)

Forget the humans -- we already have enough of them -- I want some of that tasty, tasty red deer meat.

Re:Fascinating! (1, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358809)

Cloning? To what end? Why did they die out in the first place? Ultimately, if they're genetically compatible do you really want to reintroduce their genetic lineage back into the modern human race? Relationships happen. That might be a step backwards for us even if the impact is negligible. Then you start talking about preemptive sterilization.

I can think of at least half dozen ethical issues so far. It's a can of worms I really don't think we should be opening. Just my 2 cents.

Re:Fascinating! (1)

SultanCemil (722533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358905)

You're right, of course. The ethical questions are staggering. I guess the geek side of me went "cool, I want to talk to these guys". Wouldn't it be cool to see if they were really like us? Haven't you always wondered if Neanderthals would see you as a fellow (albeit weird) "person"?

Re:Fascinating! (4, Insightful)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359197)

Cloning? To what end? Why did they die out in the first place? Ultimately, if they're genetically compatible do you really want to reintroduce their genetic lineage back into the modern human race? Relationships happen. That might be a step backwards for us even if the impact is negligible. Then you start talking about preemptive sterilization.

I can think of at least half dozen ethical issues so far. It's a can of worms I really don't think we should be opening. Just my 2 cents.

What kind of speciest talk is that? There is no direction and no step forwards or backwards in evolution. It is not directed, only adaptive. A concept of destiny is superstition. I don't mind mammoths being cloned, so what's the line?

You're right, of course. The ethical questions are staggering. I guess the geek side of me went "cool, I want to talk to these guys". Wouldn't it be cool to see if they were really like us? Haven't you always wondered if Neanderthals would see you as a fellow (albeit weird) "person"?

Neanderthals wouldn't stand out if you dressed them like us and educated them like our kids. The difference to them is smaller than the variety within homo sampiens. In fact, it hasn't been ruled out that there was mixing between Neanderthals and humans, so we might be all Neanderthals too.

Re:Fascinating! (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359239)

I guess the geek side of me went "cool, I want to talk to these guys".

The geek side of me thinks that if you truly are a geek, chances are that these folks would give you a wedgie, take your lunch money and play "Why did you smack yourself?" with you.

Haven't you always wondered if Neanderthals would see you as a fellow (albeit weird) "person"?

Two things come to mind, one serious and one funny. Firstly, if you want to meet a Neanderthal, start following Rugby and try to chat to this french player [wikipedia.org] heh. Secondly, if you do a google search for sub-human, you will find a multitude of articles (especially around WW2) where one bunch thought another bunch was sub-human. You even end up with folks like "Shiro Ishii [wikipedia.org] . We already see enough differences between us and we are the same species to do horrid things to one another. I would hate to see what we would do if we had a scientific basis for actually being different. (I use we here as a general humanity, not individuals.)

Re:Fascinating! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358977)

Maybe they were too peaceful for their time. We could stand to have some of that in our genes.

Re:Fascinating! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359143)

Your post is idiotic on so many levels, but, oh well.

> Why did they die out in the first place?

Ran out of food? Cold winters? Dry summers? Mixed in with Homo Sapiens through breeding?

> That might be a step backwards for us even if the impact is negligible

I don't think you understand how evolution works.

There's no steps forward or backwards, there's only those who survived and those who didn't. De-evolution [wikipedia.org] is not degeneration.

Do you really think modern humankind will suddenly get supplanted by club-bashing cavemen, like in some bad 1960s sci-fi?

The only issue is indeed mostly ethical. A lot of questions arise if the cloning can be successful. Can we treat them as test animals? Do we educate them and try integrating them in the society? An so on, and so on.

I don't understand your worries about crossbreeding, what scenario that will require preemptive sterilization do you have in mind?

Re:Fascinating! (1)

Chris Gunn (1336847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359733)

Cloning? To what end? Why did they die out in the first place?.

Why did the Europeans who began colonising Greenland die out, leaving the natives? Is this proof the natives were/are superior and Europeans may as well leave this world?

Re:Fascinating! (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360017)

Ultimately, if they're genetically compatible do you really want to reintroduce their genetic lineage back into the modern human race? Relationships happen. That might be a step backwards for us even if the impact is negligible

Backwards? That assumes that there is a forwards to evolution.

Re:Fascinating! (3, Informative)

Michael Woodhams (112247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359253)

Can we sequence DNA from them? Probably, but not certainly. Ancient DNA is a very tricky business. The preservation of DNA depends a lot on the conditions they've been in since death. Cold and dry is ideal. I know we've sequenced DNA over 30,000 years old, I'm not sure what the record is.

Ancient human DNA is even trickier. If you're dealing with ancient bison DNA, you can largely avoid contamination problems by keeping the remains away from any modern bison. Keeping your human remains (and DNA samples extracted from them) away from modern humans isn't so easy. In this case, the cat is already out of the bag - the samples have been exposed to modern human DNA for decades. All is not lost, but it makes the job harder, and the outcome more open to doubt.

Can we clone them? Absolutely not with current technology. We can't clone a cow from a fresh steak, yet alone 10,000 year old bones. It is conceivable that future technology would allow it. I don't think you'll ever get it past an ethics committee though.

Ok, how many more are there? (4, Informative)

mfarah (231411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358599)

Besides Homo Sapiens, there are Neanderthals, Floresians (I ain't calling them "hobbits"), Denisovans and now these?

Pre-history is getting crowded with failed competitors. Yay us?

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (5, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358759)

>> Homo Sapiens, ...Neanderthals, Floresians..., Denisovans

Also the Orange People of New Jersey.

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358909)

Unless someone solved the issue recently, those were still around, failed competition or not.

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358863)

You know, the aboriginals look pretty different in many ways. Their bodies look pretty much "normal human" though. I guess it comes down to how much difference do you need before you call them "another kind of human."

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (0)

abigor (540274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358995)

The way species are normally defined is whether or not they can interbreed, and if so, if their offspring are capable of having offspring (think mules).

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359099)

That's crap though. We know we have interbred with neanderthals... well, the people who left Africa did anyway. Unfortunately there aren't any really strong divisions because life in all of its forms and continuous evolutions doesn't easily fit within any given definition.

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359147)

The way species are normally defined is whether or not they can interbreed, and if so, if their offspring are capable of having offspring (think mules).

That is how I always understood the distinction between species, but genetic research has reportedly determined that there was inbreeding between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. Also, virtually identical salamanders located in different wells 50 miles apart are considered separate species (at least for purposes of enforcing the Environmental Protection Act). So what is the dividing line between species?

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (2)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359345)

The species concept is more complicated than that. It is also full of issues. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Difficulty_of_defining_.22species.22_and_identifying_particular_species [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_Problem [wikipedia.org]

There are also cases of mules being fertile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#Fertility [wikipedia.org]

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359811)

>> (think mules)

Kinky... just not my kink.

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (1)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359075)

This is an excellent point, and all depends IMO on what is considered a species. Colloquially, I think species are generally distinguished by their inability to breed with another group. Hence why all the different breeds of dogs are still Canis lupus familiarias, yet can look drastically different from one.

But there are big exceptions to this colloquial definition such as the parentage of the mules [wikipedia.org] . Similar to a mule, this species-conundrum would also fracture our definitions if the Neanderthal/homo-sapien hybrids prove true as predicted by recent studies.

So, what is a species, and is a definition at this point useful to distinguish how REAL cross-breeding phenomena occur realistically?

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (3, Interesting)

Michael Woodhams (112247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359353)

The question "are these sufficiently different to be two species" is inherently a fuzzy one. We tend to be a bit more picky when dealing with our near relatives, so we might call these a different species when for two squirrel groups with a similar level of difference we might call them subspecies. I've seen it argued that an objective taxonomist would put humans, chimps and gorillas all in the same genus, we've classified this lineage into four - gorilla, pan, homo and (extinct) austalopithecus.

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (2)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358899)

Don't forget lawyers!

Well, they're almost human . . .

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359023)

Less "failed competitors" and more "kissing cousins", methinks. Probably every one of these species has been folded back into modern humanity. Homo sapiens just happens to be the dominant gene source.

We'll have to look at the DNA to be sure.

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359269)

DNA says that some of the cousins did rather more than kiss. So long as it was all legal and proper, that's all right though.

Re:Ok, how many more are there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359517)

Don't celebrate the triumph of Homo Sapiens just yet. The game's not over.

And they were seen at FoxConn factory (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358605)

assembling iPad 3

Re:And they were seen at FoxConn factory (0)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358681)

go away, racist troll

Re:And they were seen at FoxConn factory (2)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358861)

To be fair, that headline was practically begging for someone to interpret it as a reference to current humans, not to a population of hominids that lived in the area we call China thousands of years ago.

Re:And they were seen at FoxConn factory (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359055)

Who says they aren't related, in much the same way that Neanderthals interbred with humans, such that some of their DNA persists in certain populations? To say that modern Europeans ARE Neanderthals is a bit much, but so is the opposite.

Re:And they were seen at FoxConn factory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358743)

that's so awesome! I was laughing so hard. It's a shame the human chinese don't treat the sub-human chinese with "equal" rights like we do here in the USA to the subhuman American population. They put them to work making ipad 3 instead of having the humans pay their way to have more subhumans without any fear of repercussion. If America adopted the chinese model we would put the subhumans to work and that would be bad because the establishment would loose a voting base.

Al Gore's weather machine is getting hot too! Tell him to stop before I have to start paying carbon taxes.

End of ice age (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358611)

They lasted til the end of the ice age and then died-out when the earth grew warmer. I wonder why? Any idea what they looked like?

Re:End of ice age (2)

mfarah (231411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358641)

Perhaps they were Yetis?

Re:End of ice age (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358885)

I am sure homo Sapiens expanded into their territory now that the ice age opened natural barriers and...by that time we were sufficiently brutish enough that we probably went to war for their resources.

Re:End of ice age (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358887)

Big change always brings about extinction events. You can bet they lost out on an important food source. One of the things about modern humans is that we can eat so many different kinds of foods. It has kept us going through other major climate changes you know.

"Possible New Human Species Discovered in China" (3, Funny)

Tyrannosaur (2485772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358671)

And I thought we got over scientific racism a long time ago...

Re:"Possible New Human Species Discovered in China (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358781)

Well, it's not quite as bad as their last article, "Possible New Human Species Discovered in Cardiff."

Though at least they had the obligatory blurry, shaky video [youtube.com] for that one.

Re:"Possible New Human Species Discovered in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358841)

The problem with racist stereotypes is how painfully true they can be.

Christian apologists' response (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358691)

but...but...but.. the world is only 6,000 years old and man was created in his current image by god! There must be some other explanation!

Re:Christian apologists' response (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358919)

That 'image' you're holding? It's a balloon animal with a Groucho Marx face drawn on it with magic marker.

Re:Christian apologists' response (2, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359929)

but...but...but.. the world is only 6,000 years old and man was created in his current image by god! There must be some other explanation!

That's why they're a different species: made in someone else's image.

And survived right up 'til 5500 years before creation, too!

Misleading title (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358807)

Based on the title, I thought that mankind has just made another evolutionary leap! But no, it's actually an old human species, not a new one.

I'm high on acid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358815)

this all makes so much sense, the sense of the universe!

New Chinese Species (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358829)

Communis Opressednus

Re:New Chinese Species (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358923)

As opposed to "corporatis oppressednus"? What about "imperius oppressednus"? There are all sorts of ideologies with which to oppress people. If you think we, in the west, don't enslave others through various forms, you're quite mistaken. Our hands are cleaner only because there are lots of steps we never see and it's not happening on out dirt... (that damned constitution getting in the way you know)

Re:New Chinese Species (1)

CaptainLugnuts (2594663) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359085)

There's always an oppressor. If not you have anarchy, which could be called oppression by the strong.

Home cooked! (2)

oyenamit (2474702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358845)

Named the Red Deer Cave people, after their apparent penchant for home-cooked venison...

Of course, we know that rest of the human species at the time preferred takeout...

Re:Home cooked! (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359281)

The ones in Manchester, England, certainly preferred takeout. With stone knives from Essex Culture found in London, Essex lads were partial to finding the best eateries even then.

MBP! FOUND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358851)

Half man, half bear, half pig! Also new Southpark finally.

Why not study the modern, living pygmies instead? (3, Interesting)

ace37 (2302468) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358867)

We have Pygmies today across Africa. They've endured a lot of human rights issues over the years, and theories are out suggesting Iodine deficiencies are related to their short stature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmies [wikipedia.org]

Why do we see papers about recent human evolutionary theory only when it pertains to extinct peoples? Are the currently living pygmies less studied simply because anthropologists aren't interested in living people, and nobody else is into these fields of science?

Sorry but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358879)

12000 years ago? Not exactly new is it? :/

Was it Agricola Aurifer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358915)

Not so extinct....

poor taste? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358963)

i could make a poor taste joke about cheap Chinese knockoffs right about now...

There are probably living human subspecies today (2)

voss (52565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358967)

We just don't recognize them because their bones are buried or cremated and we generally dont go digging up graves.

Insensitive Barbarians (0)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358989)

A new species you say? How about the master race. The Chinese have been telling us this for thousands of years.

'The Hobbit' Race Threatened With Lawsuit (2)

geonik (1003109) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359009)

It won't be long until lawyers from the Saul Zaentz Company in California start threatening the 'Hobbit' race of Flores... not even extinction will save them!

Red Deer Cave People? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359223)

They're not extinct! I just got their new single off iTunes.

http://www.younow.com/shows Vote this chick up! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359341)

http://www.younow.com/shows Vote this chick up!

New subspecies found (1)

rcamans (252182) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359575)

Politicians. Apparently descended from some inbred Neanderthals...

Score one for open-access publishing (4, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359673)

The journal article that is being linked to is open-access. There is no paywall, regardless of where you are accessing it from. You can download it and print as many copies as you want, you can even download it and repost it in its entirety on your own website if you feel like it. You can do the same with every article in the PLoS journals as well.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?