Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AI Study of Human Genome Finds Unknown Human Ancestor (smithsonianmag.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the lost-and-found dept.

Zorro shares a report from the Smithsonian: A recent study used machine learning technology to analyze eight leading models of human origins and evolution, and the program identified evidence in the human genome of a "ghost population" of human ancestors. The analysis suggests that a previously unknown and long-extinct group of hominins interbred with Homo sapiens in Asia and Oceania somewhere along the long, winding road of human evolutionary history, leaving behind only fragmented traces in modern human DNA. The study, published in Nature Communications, is one of the first examples of how machine learning can help reveal clues to our own origins. By poring through vast amounts of genomic data left behind in fossilized bones and comparing it with DNA in modern humans, scientists can begin to fill in some of the many gaps of our species' evolutionary history. "The new data suggest that the mysterious hominin was likely descended from an admixture of Neanderthals and Denisovans (who were only identified as a unique species on the human family tree in 2010)," the report adds. "Such a species in our evolutionary past would look a lot like the fossil of a 90,000-year-old teenage girl from Siberia's Denisova cave. Her remains were described last summer as the only known example of a first-generation hybrid between the two species, with a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father."

33 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. What a Family by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    Jeez I know my dad sowed some wild oats but this is taking it too far.

    1. Re:What a Family by mentil · · Score: 1

      Aah, Artificial Intelligence finally answered the age-old question:

      "Would you hit that?"

      The answer was 'yes'.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:What a Family by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      a previously unknown and long-extinct group of hominins interbred with Homo sapiens in Asia and Oceania somewhere

      If it was Scotland or Wales I'd say the unknown gene was sheep, but Asia/Oceania? Futanari perhaps?

  2. So did the 'AI' really find it, or by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

    or did they work backwards and apply algorithm 'filters' using the known existing fossil? Yup, I'm one of those AI isn't really AI crowd.

    1. Re:So did the 'AI' really find it, or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      or did they work backwards and apply algorithm 'filters' using the known existing fossil? Yup, I'm one of those AI isn't really AI crowd.

      It's a Bayesian algorithm, so it's not necessarily definitive, just a high degree of confidence based on the unknown data.

      What is not talked about when it comes to machine learning and sequencing because the genomics world doesn't want to discuss it is that there are major weaknesses in modern sequencing in the data. Sequencing data is not the actual AGTC's of the data. Instead the sequence is copied thousands of times with synthetic DNA, then modified to add fluorescent labels to it so it makes an optical signal, then that optical signal is ready by an extremely powerful camera, then that point of light is translated into a sequenced based on a reference library. If at any point one of those intermediate steps is wrong, the answer is wrong. Next Gen sequencing is great, but it's kind of Rube Goldberg-esque in it's approach.

  3. Re:Science figuring out what we already know by jouassou · · Score: 1

    ...and how exactly is your bible quote related to the science, which discusses how a mutated mixture of two non-homo-sapiens human species appears to have interbred with homo sapiens in ancient times? Or did you perhaps just read the title, and commented without even reading the summary?

  4. Homo Sapiens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Homo sapiens are the dumbest, stinkiest losers to have ever walked the earth.

    1. Re:Homo Sapiens by Scarletdown · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yet the only ones to explore the outer reaches of the solar system, walk on the moon, and when you get right down to it; did a lot to make this planet a genuinely comfortable place to call home, and not the feral hellhole that wants to kill you at every turn that it used to be.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    2. Re:Homo Sapiens by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      and not the feral hellhole that wants to kill you at every turn

      Are we using the same internet? Because I'd say that actually describes it pretty well.

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
  5. Species? by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sub-species. The biological definition of species is the ability to form fertile offspring. For example all dogs and wolves are the same species as they can all form fertile offspring. Horses and donkeys are a different species as the result is the mule, which is sterile. Talking about different human "species" interbreeding is wrong.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Species? by dryeo · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's at least 26 definitions of species. When you get down to it, defining a species is a problem. The observation of the AC about lions and tigers being able to hybridize with only one sex being fertile is an example that may apply to the different hominoids. There's also horses and donkeys where the offspring are almost always infertile but there has been rare cases of mules getting pregnant and producing offspring.
      Ring species where the neigbours can breed but further apart specimens can't.
      Plants get more complex. Dandelions IIRC skip generations so parent and offspring can't breed but grandparent and grandchild can.
      Then there's the organisms that are asexual.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    2. Re:Species? by Alci12 · · Score: 1

      Do we 'know' that or just think that. Given Humans wiped out the N (directly or indirectly) can we be that sure of the effectiveness of interbreading.

  6. Re:Science figuring out what we already know by james_gnz · · Score: 1

    how can god be a he but create female in his image

    AFAIK, the story goes that Yahweh created the first man in his image, then he created the first woman from the baculum (penis bone) he removed from the first man. (It's often said to be a rib bone, but I believe it was supposed to be the baculum.)

  7. "ghost population" of human ancestors. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    ALIENS. *FINALLY* someone is fessing up to it. Ob. link.

    And an AI found it. You realize it takes one to know one, right?

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  8. spoiler: it's actually cylons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So say we all.

  9. Humans get around by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    "Every place I go there's always something to remind of of another place and time...."

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  10. Re:Do the get protected status by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    No, this is a troll waste and reclamation site. Welcome.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  11. Re:Science figuring out what we already know by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Technically it only could have been the baculum, plus a heavy dose of female hormones.
    Luckily he was so good in surgery and hormone therapy, otherwise all women would be mega ugly and probably most men would be gay.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  12. Re:There has to be a reason why the black ones are by vux984 · · Score: 1

    "So, show me where that hypothesis falls down."

    South America.

  13. Yeah. Hello by BadTuna · · Score: 1

    I heard you were looking for me?

    --
    Your sig here!
  14. Re:There has to be a reason why the black ones are by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

    Thus the blacks were concentrated in Africa where they archived pretty well nothing, and the smarter European and North East Asians went on to develop world spanning civilisations.

    Africa is a much easier place to survive without good planning and cooperation between different groups.

  15. Species and hotness by Joe+Branya · · Score: 2

    The commentator above is correct; scientists define a group as a separate species only if it can't interbreed with other closely related groups.

    Leave it to the lawyers to muddy the waters. The misnamed Endangered Species Act apparently defined a species as any separate breeding population (the Florida panthers, for example) in order to "extend the reach" of the law well beyond merely protecting endangered species. This is the usual example of lawyers and legislators using the law to try to redefine words for public relations purposes. The result is that the public- and the lawyers- now don't know what a species is. This is the left wing version of the unborn child gambit on the right.

    Personally, I think Neanderthal girls are hot. I keep hoping to meet one at the beach. They're really good at beach volleyball. Do Neanderthals girls qualify for NCAA athletic scholarships?

    1. Re:Species and hotness by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're really good at beach volleyball.

      Ever driven a Saab 900? Notice how, when you pulled up to a stoplight, you couldn't see the fucking thing if it was close because the roof-line extends too far forward? Your Neanderthal girl wouldn't see the ball coming; her giant unibrow would get in the way.

    2. Re:Species and hotness by Empiric · · Score: 2

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

      No, they don't.

      That aside, per basic epistemology (e.g. Aristotle), there is a justification for a separate category for an entity when there's a unique characteristic differentiating that entity from all other entities.

      I'm going with "I have a soul" as my non-optional differentiating characteristic, as the most cursory analysis demonstrates there is no biological differentiator for the arbitrary distinctions between "hominids". Regardless of how many scientists subscribe to an arbitrary DNA division naming, and regardless if they try to non-sequitur philosophical gravitas by mimicking Latin naming conventions.

      The rest of you hominids and general animals who reject "soul", can propose your own.

      Spoiler alert: There isn't one, and if you claim you have, say, "rights" and Koko the gorilla doesn't, your stance is philosophically incoherent and you are deeply irrational on a profoundly fundamental level. At least you have a lot of company--with the rest of the secular Left.

      Evolution will fix you when you inevitably get naturally deselected though. Keep the "faith"!

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  16. Re: Was he... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Did you just presume xer gender?

  17. Re:Was he... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Homo Orangus

  18. The Denisovan Menace by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Has Hank Ketcham been asked for his insight in this matter?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  19. Re:Science figuring out what we already know by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Fortunately for me you got both ends of that stick and I'm strait and beautiful. Not too smart though...

  20. Re:Science figuring out what we already know by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    I'm unfortunately straight too ... or is it a myth that gays have more sex? No idea :P

    As long as my wife says I'm beautiful, I'm happy ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  21. Re:Science figuring out what we already know by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    So you like when your wife lies to you? As for the gay sex thing, its probably a lie just like strait guys do.

  22. Re: Was he... by tomhath · · Score: 1

    90,000 year old teenage girl.

    Or a Supreme Court justice who falls down a lot.

  23. Re:Science figuring out what we already know by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    If she is only lying about my beauty, sure I do. Like everyone else. Perhaps she only loves me because I'm good in bed ... but who knows. OR because I'm the only male she knows who can cook ... and I'm not already drunk 16:00. Women are a mystery, you know. Who will ever know why they love an unshowered, unshaved, farang? But: I'm not bald, have all my teeth and no belly, only muscles. Perhaps that helps.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  24. Re:Science figuring out what we already know by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    Nah, it's a case of poor translation because they didn't have the tech. God took out part of a chromosome. This means the first human was a female (XX) and God made a male by turning the clone into XY.

    Also, the Garden of Eden was a seed-ship with cloning capabilities, and God was the AI on the ship. The flaming swords were either a laser system that protected the ship, or its rockets as it took off and left the people behind.

    The story just got muddled because ancient Hebrew didn't have the right words for this stuff.

    --
    The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay