Very logical presentation made easier to follow. I appreciated the profs. refreshing us to terms, titles, connecting facts and lineage of the subject matter. Thank you.
I love your class. In person you are amazing but I also enjoy to listen to your record videos. I have learned so much and I hope I can learn way more about this beautiful topic before the class ends. Anthropology is one of my favorite classes. Thank you very much for everything.
Oh, sweet! This documentary just showed up on my You Tube home page. Paleoanthropology is my favorite subject ever!! I will make time to watch the first half tonight. I'm off to the library.
The Bible is a faith history--a history of humankind's encounters with God. The Bible is not and never was intened to be a science book. Science, as we know it, did not exist when the book of Genesis was written. Genesis teaches truths about life and the universe according to the ways and thinking of the time and which are still true today. Science and the Bible address entirely different domains of knowledge. Science explores thw physical how and why; whereas, the Bible is about transcendent issues such as the meaning and purpose of life. The fundamentalists claim to believe the Bible literally; yet, one cannot read the Bible without interpreting it. To understand the Bible requires understanding the social, historical, religious and linguistic context. The creation story in the Bible must be understood allegorically. And the truths it teaches are no less diminished.
@@linehauler208 Understands what? That it's a massive plethora of myths transcended through millenia from various polytheitic cultures? That's obvious but it doesn't change that the multitude of authors were living in ages of very little comprehensive knowledge. It's difficult to imagine anything as illogical as following this "information" today.
This is so comprehensive and very clear to understand. I know that since this video was made certain things have developed that cause a few points to be outdated, but overall it's absolutely worth checking into! I don't know exactly when in academia that solutreans began to be part of the discussion, but I kind of hoped they would be mentioned. This video would be a great basis for a slightly updated, edited version!
What are you referring to by “a few points”. Please explain. Maybe the rest of us would like to know. Also please add the time to what you are referring to.
@@benphartine I would gladly share those few points with you, I refrained from doing so because I didn't want to bore people who weren't interested lol. It's been a while since I posted my comments so I'll have to look at it again to refresh my memory which points I was referring to.
Solutrians have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. That's a type of stone tool technology used only by modern humans in much more recent times than are being discussed here. Solutrians are not a species.
Great presentation. The earliest bipedal hominids had strong arms which implies that babies held onto their parents rather than the other way round. This also works with the idea that they ran to trees and climbed up to escape predators; the adults could drop tools to do this but would also be forced to drop babies.
A major advantage of upright walking is the greatly increased visual information, height of eyesight, the length of neck or legs benefits especially in more open landscapes.
Funny how they speak with biiiiig respect when they comparing our brain with the tiny brain of other hominins but when it comes to neanderthal they say that their bigger brain does NOT mean they were smarter 😂😂😂
I have always claimed that a man and a stick belong together. Interesting that the most typical picture of an Australian Aborigine just a few years ago used to be an Aborigine standing on one foot, leaning on a thin, long spear/ lance. To face the world by one's belly in the wilderness teeming with predators, needed a trade off in the form of a stick. The fact is (and it keeps me flabbergasted to this day that the scientists refuse to see the logic of it) that once you realise how important tool a long, pointy stick is, you have an issue of how to hold it and still run on all four; if you do that, it hinders your run. But if you stand on two feet only, it actually helps you moving! Till this day, an old man leans on a stick! So why don't the scientists see that a stick had been both the reason for bipedalism and a weapon which made us stronger, which made the trade-off for vulnerable belly easier? Any animal will avoid a sharp stick! You can kill even a bear like this - you let him run towards you and place the end of the spear to the ground and step on it, while holding the tip against his chest! In this first picture, the standing male holds a femur bone. Right. But an Aborigine leans on a long, slender stick and this is a far more likely picture of man ever since the dawn of mankind, since the very dawn of bipedalism!
@@Alarix246 Carrying babies would be an important reason for bipedalism just as much as freeing up the hands to carry other things like weapons or food.
@@wendydomino i don't know about that. Have you seen chimpanzees walking due to carrying babies? They had this mastered long time ago - they just piggybacked. But remember, evolution of an individual is a shortened evolution of species: have you seen boys and their fascination with sticks? And old folks they just must use the stick for walking. Read what I wrote once more and slowly. Carrying babies makes walking harder, not easier. I can imagine carrying a baby while leaning on a stick. The baby slows you down; the stick is a weapon. Think what was more important while out in the bush.
I think your question could be stated, which came first? The stick? or the bipedalism? I don't see any apes trying to run around with sticks and becoming bipedal. Therefore, I think the bipedalism came first. Also, I don't think your description of killing a bear would be successful very often. I think the bear would dodge the stick or run through it mostly unharmed at least 99% of the time.
Still looking for a professor to discuss why gibbons, the only other extant and gracile hominines to walk and run bipedally, are left out of the lecture. Then we won't have to omit Ardipithecus and Homo floresensis. When the gibbon line of taxa are included in analysis Australopithecus nests between Pongo and Pan + Gorilla, as a convergent biped.
Awesome video covers the subjects addressed comprehensive manner and directly. Thank you for providing valuable resources. Is there a way to get 3D models of known remains and talk about the changes between species in a progression over time? I'm not thinking it's relevant towards classes as a whole but finding a video just referencing the different species alive during the same time was difficult and very helpful when I did. Thank you. Seeing that timeline with traits surviving and discontinuing I think would be a very useful tool that doesn't seem readily available in any resource I know about.
Lions’ main driver would be to catch prey. Bigger teeth sharper stronger claws and jaws, faster powerful running. As they were perfectly suited for their environment only these features became more refined. They did not derive bigger brains as this was not a driver. Early hominins were completely ill-suited for their (savannah) environment and had to rely on inventing their way to survive.
I'm wondering if Sheila Nightingale is a Lancashire Nightingale or a London Nightingale. We are attested in Hindley, Lancashire going back to around 1300, info courtesy of Victoria County History, and the Southern branch seems to originate in a Benedict Nightingale in Cambridge around 1350 (and you'd think he was social distancing considering *that* plague the year before). First Nightingale in to the Colonies was mid 1650s, to Boston, suggesting, I think, a Southern English origin. Curious. I'm the Lancashire branch. Ancestor was in Rivington for the Oath of Protestation in 1642.
Although there are a lot of questions about lines of descent, the overall picture is very clear. We definitely have Australopithecines in our ancestry, along with Homo erectus. I would love to go back in time to see these creatures.
excellent video! thanks so much. just one enigma - rhinos, hippos, oxen, horses, kangaroos do not eat meat (except for insects, and maybe Animalia entangled in the grass or lake grasses). they are big and very strong. so why didn’t we stick to plants more than we did? i don’t think it was for energy, but maybe for more freedom of movement. Grasses and grains take up way more time to chew than a hunk of meat. gorillas are plant eaters as well as foraging into termite hills. orangutans eat fruit, plants, and some insects, eggs, or small vertebrates. to me, this is an interesting question. have an interesting day :) 😋🌷🌱
I would say the main driver of hominin evolution is fashioning tools to find meat. That would be abstract thought, hand/eye coordination “bi-handilism”. These main drivers were supported by suites of secondary adaptations eg bi-pedalism, neotony, language, social adaptations, all other features that would support big abstract brain
I commend Sheila Nightengale for her lucid presentation of a very complex subject and her careful enunciation. Many of the lecturers in similar videos on RU-vid need a course in public speaking. Although this lecture is excellent, a few clarifications are in order. Some of the subspecies shown on the charts here are based on very limited fossil remains, and their significance is debated even within paleoanthropology. Likewise, DNA evidence is not definitive, because not all genetic contributions have equal value. For example, there is an on-going debate about how long ago homo and Neanderthals interbred; that only 2.5% of the homo genome derives from Neanderthal suggests that the time predated Cro-Magnon. Whatever the case, most Neanderthal genes were maladaptive and lost (selected out); those that remain appear to have specific adaptive value, such as resistance to specific diseases. Similarly, Denisovan genes that remain in Asian humans aid specific behaviors, like adaptation to heights in Tibet. But these genetic contributions are peripheral ones. It would be a mistake to consider modern humans as refined examples of either Neanderthals or Denisovans. We are a unique and separate species. Indeed, some of our genes derive from homo erectus and australopithecus, but we can’t prove which ones since we have no DNA for them. We have modified that genetic legacy and become something new. We are not the same as any of them. For example, we are often reminded that 98.5% of our genes are the same as those of a chimpanzee - but we are not super-chimps. Small and crucial differences have large effects in genetics. It is also misleading to regard human evolutionary development solely in terms of the fossil record, as paleoanthropologists tend to do. It suggests that evolution stopped several millennia ago with the last fossils of homo. In fact, all living organism are evolving constantly, often in very subtle ways. See the lectures on RU-vid regarding biochemical sexual selection that may explain how species diverge or the feedback loop between genetic adaptations and the environment, such as our own species’ adaptation to the last Ice Age. Moreover, evolution is driven not only by natural selection, but artificial selection, some of which may not even be conscious, such as the effect of excessive use of antibiotics on the human immune system, among many other medical interventions. This video is only an introduction to one aspect of human evolution.
This presentation is so informative!!! Evolution is not a linear process!! Lots of experiments going on as well as a certain amount of sexual ‘experimentation’. Perhaps there weren’t a lot of their own species. Would we have evolved as well if we had not had inter species breeding g?? Thanks for this presentation. ❤❤
This is very unconfincing - there are strong indications that we come from a line of tree dwellers who swung from their shoulders as do gibbons whose feet were not adapted to grasp tree branches - it is very unlikely that our inline big toe was ever used for grasping branches
I'm looking at the legs and I'm imagining that to pirouette on a chimpanzee like leg puts one off balance and this would be a critical movement when hunting
There's so much conflicting information out there about whether or not Sahelanthropus was bipedal or not. To the best of my understanding as a lay person just trying to educate myself, it looks like most of the experts are saying now that it wasn't bipedal, but the foramen magnum seems to be positioned closer to that of a human position than an ape position. Could it be mostly quadrupedal but facultatively bipedal then? Maybe Chimpanzees are descended from an at least partially bipedal ancestor? It's all very confusing. i wish I had the formal education to be able to parse all this out.
This is a great discussion the skull brain capacity and shape determines a type often of the branch of mammals we are . If I look as say compared is nallanceing the brains functions a better evolution key to passing through a extinction window. Chat yes and seein well there is no one talking to him her or the antelope and zebra crossing is not here . There is a safe box with a dial. These sight touch feeling s.listeningnhearing processing retaing and recall at times best for Yee or not bringing illness to Yee is evolution by saying walking this adds what and etv
how sad would it have felt for last surviving member of a group that went extinct?. imagine one human left on earth after the death of all humans. i really sympathized with them. i hoped they were welcomed in human society to live out their last moment on earth.
Life was brutal. I have no doubt that life for early hominids was violent, brutal, extraordinarily harsh and short. A violent death lurked around every corner every bush. I don't think they were sitting around the campfire singing kumbaya with their soon to be extinct cousins. The final surviving man surviving men were quickly dispatched, the remaining women raped. 😢 Modern Homo Sapiens aren't much better. It's better to face the truth than live in a fog of denial.
@@blindwatchmaker2345 I agree generally with your sentiment, however, how do mutations occur occur in groups? Things can start with a single individual in this regard.
Sheila, I LOVE this stuff! Average people just can't comprehend what 1million years time is. That's a long time for us. A blink in Universal time. All these changes going on in the last 7 million years. Then I see a photo of our earth and the moon from Saturn and what's the purpose for all of this? "It's all about nothing!" (Seinfeld) I LOVE this stuff!
IF all these different type of humans DID NOT EVOLVE from each other, over time, that means MULTIPLE common ancestors must have had a split in their babies ... One turning into whatever and the other turns into a human. -- This common ancestor idea MUST have happened at each of these different human types ... Hard to grasp this idea.
70,000 years ago modern humans were basically all cousins due to the genetic bottleneck of Mt. Toba supervolcano. Meanwhile the "Hobbit" was hanging out in Flores... for another 50,000 years....
It's not a matter of bipedalism occurring, it's a matter of how much it placed a part in every day life. Chimps are often bipedal but not for long distances like humans would be. Progression of bipedalism and how long it lasts represents more then it's "occurence".
@@kerrymoynihan6686 I wish I remember where I saw it - it was a pretty serious scientific video about some finds that showed the bipedal anatomy in the hips completely formed much earlier than expected. I'll see if I can find it.
Have yet to have anyone explain how a change of environment caused a change in a creatures DNA. Radiation, either solar or radioactive elements? Or just the normal variations in our DNA? The mutation that led to bi-pedal walking happened at the same time as the environment change. Because of the change in environment, those that had the mutation survived better than those with the old system.
Yes, you've just answered your own question, basically, in your last sentence. While radiation can cause mutations in DNA, I've yet to see a single one of these scientists propose radiation as contributing factor in human evolution. At least in the sense that we were "zapped" or something during climate change. The climate and environment changes, and some random individuals have some tiny difference that allows them to survive while others die. By definition, they are the ones who get to make babies, and then those babies have that difference also. Eventually, the only creatures living are those that have the difference (mutation). If the environmental change is large enough, or important enough in whatever factor that matters, these changes in population can be dramatic. But living things don't evolve simply for the sake of evolving. If the environment doesn't change, mutations still happen, but those with it aren't going to be the only survivors. Take the coleacanath, for example. They live so deep in the ocean that their environment hasn't changed in 350 million years, so they haven't either. They were swimming around before the dinosaurs went extinct, and we've seen them alive today. They haven't changed, cause there's been no driver to cause a change.
Somebody please explain this to me. Correct me on any wrong information. So the source of new traits has nothing to do with the actions of the organism. The source of change has everything to do with genetic changes in the body. Those changes for new traits are called mutations and according to scientist mutations are random. To go from non bipedal to bipedal many genetic changes had to occur as the teacher explained from the leg structure, to the spinal cord, to the foot and many more. To say that all those mutations happened is to say that beneficial mutations are common. Based on the fact that mutations are random Isn’t it more logical to say that our species should have died off since hundreds of beneficial mutations for bipedalism had to occur? I speak on all organisms who appear to have dozens of adaptations supporting its survival.
Mutations are random but natural selection is not, the survival and better reproduction chances/rate of the fittest individuals that are the most well suited for their environment, or more specifically the niche they occupy, weeds out the worst mutations. The circumstances (topographical, environmental, etc) made it so that our ancestors had to gradually change their way of life in the past and adapt to occupy a new niche in order to survive. These circumstances meant, for them, that the individuals who could stand and walk for longer periods of time than others had a better rate of survival and reproduction. And then, further down the line, lead to a specie with individuals who could stand and walk most of the time. Ultimately, through generations of selective pressure, leading to a specie that became fully bipedal (us).
Jenny Talwarts I understand the function of natural selection and it’s a very good way to explain the preservation of species. However, my point is not on only negative mutations but also beneficial functional mutations. With each gene comprised of a combination of four letters and mutations mixing up those letters your talking math here. Have there been enough studies specifically on mutations to indicate that through accidental changes and recombinations of the genetic code functional new traits can emerge. It’s one thing to say a small mutation occurred that was beneficial. It’s another thing to say that they continue to happen. A good example is us. Even in this video she mentioned the massive changes that occurred. From the foot to the leg to the spine to the arms. Looking at our diverse ecosystem if the theory is correct successful mutations are common. Again have we done enough studies on mutations to back that up? Also I have looked up successfull mutation examples today and have found very few. You can assume that by looking out how diverse our world is and if the theory is correct it would require successfull changes happening all the time. Another point id like to bring up is the inconsistency the evolutionary theory portrays about mutation rates. Once again we are good examples of extreme mutations, but the rest of ape family only slightly changed. Successful traits aren’t enough to explain the reason why so many organisms have not changed. If changes are small overtime the genetic recombinations would shift the species even if it was suitable to its environment. If mutations are consistent through all species they should be happening all the time even if a species is well suited to its environment.
@@gabriellopez-mw8qc Based on what you're saying, you don't seem to really understand the underlying implications of evolution or might be coming at it from a religious perspective? I don't mean to offend you by saying this though, it's just that it's usually religious people who focus too much on "beneficial" vs "negative" mutations without grasping the process. You're talking about how we, humans, have gone through "extreme mutations" and "massive changes" but when scientists compared our genome with our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, they found that our genomes are almost 99% identical. Meaning that only a few genetic difference can and did lead to fairly substantial physiological changes.
Jenny Talwarts you didn’t offend me at all. I do believe in God and In the past I was looking at information that only suited my perspective. The last year I have been looking at videos, such as this one. Others include aron ra and maybe you can lead me to other channels. That being said, mutations/genetic changes are the forefront of evolution right ?? When you look at examples of mutations today in our species. Most are apparent malfunctions of the system. This is only my observation and analysis. I also have questions that are hard to write rather than talk about. So if we see a massive amount of humans with genetic faults and not a lot of mutations that are beneficial how can we explain an evolution process that created all this diversity amongst organisms? Exact one to one matches between chimps and humans is 84 percent. According to en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics.
Jenny Talwarts it just doesn’t add up to me when looking at certain organisms that went from environment to environment how certain features were gained from a random mechanism.Sure natural selection plays a part. However , before natural selection you need to have genetic alterations. I understand that evolution is not even close to a straight line. I only find it hard to understand how a random mechanism can produce new morphological features. Especially if any genetic changes today are usually bad. I am not trying to be ignorant. Only questioning.
WHICH 2019 finds and WHICH Journal and WHAT linear theory from Darwin, he didn't have one and even if the did its over 160 years out of date. We now have so many hominin fossils its hard to be sure which might have been an ancestor of modern humans. Its been that way for a while, not just starting in 2019.
@Paul Morphy You did not answer the question, you gave a sarcastic troll answer to try and get people to argue with you. Quit playing your games and go, little boy, no one wants to hear it.
