I watched the recent 2022 Nobel Prize Winner round-table discussion, and couldn't help but be offended at the lack of scientific rigor and the poor communication to the public when it came to discussing the recent insights into Neanderthal remains.
What are the logical mistakes that these Nobel Prize winners are making? Here are the logical fallacies that I have identified that are being propagated by the discussion:
- modern humans existed 60,000 years ago
- there exists a hominid sub-species that lived 60,000 years ago that we are genetically identical to
- Neanderthals are "other" and are to be reviled
The three primary participants in the discussion were the host, Zeinab Badawi, Carolyn Bertozzi, and of course Svante Pääbo. So who did the worst job in communicating to the public?
First of all, the host: Zeinab Badawi, in her question "we set sail from Africa 60 to 70,000 years ago to populate other parts of the world with no idea of what layout there" uses the word "we" so as to distinguish "us" from "them" (the Neanderthals). This propagates fallacy#1 that I identified above. It would have been more correct to say "a homonid subspecies left the African continent 70,000 years ago and started interbreeding with the Neanderthals, another homonid subspecies." We give Ms. Badawi 2 angry skulls for her comment.
Secondly, Carolyn Bertozzi chimed in with her question "you don't know your percent Neanderthal but I do know mine I've had that analyzed so I'm 2.3 percent Neanderthal. Is that something I can be proud of?" On the one hand, a great trolling comment that rebukes Ms. Badawi's poorly phrased statement. On the other hand, it propagates the logical fallacy #2: that there exists a homonid sub-species that lived during the Neanderthal times that we are 100% identical to. Dr. Bertozzi did not explicitly state this, and since her question was somewhat of a trolling comment, we only give her one angry skull:
Finally, Dr. Pääbo answered the question with this gem "Neanderthals don't often have a very good reputation". This joke comment propagates myth #3. We give Dr.Pääbo two angry skulls for this comment:
Then Zeinab Badawi chimed in again with "because they're known for having a very broad muscular you know slightly brutish kind of I mean nothing thuggish about you" which propagates myth #3 and gets three angry skulls:
Finally, Dr. Pääbo could have taken this opportunity to express that there is no ancient homonid subspecies that is 100% identical to modern humans. We are the product of our ancestors. The Denosovians are only 6% similar to modern humans. It would be worth explaining which (if any) subspecies of homonoid that lived 60,000 years ago is most similar to modern humans. For failing to take the opportunity to educate the public, Dr. Pääbo gets two angry skulls:
Some interesting questions that I was unable to find answers to in my brief google searching: there were skeletons discovered such as Oase-1. How similar are these genomes to modern humans? e.g. if Neanderthals are 1-3% similar to some modern humans, how similar is Oase-1 to modern humans? Is it 1-3%? Is it 10%? Is it 95%. That would be interesting to know, yet, I could not find this key statistic. Which homonoid subspecies is most genetically similar to modern humans, and how similar are they?
