Chris Stringer on Human Evolution, Recent Discoveries, and their Implications 

I highly respect Professor Stringer says that he 'used' to believe such & such way, but is now considering new theories. The excitement in human evolution is new data and new implications!

Much more complex than we imagine and will get more so I think. Thank you for your hard work Dr. Stringer

Excellent as always, Professor Stringer. Thank you for your time and efforts..

What a fantastic summation of human evolution. Thanks to you both!

Nobody I have seen explains evolution with the same clarity as Stringer.

I love seeing the new discoveries, it blows my mind these people go back 150k+ years

wow. fascinating stuff, brilliantly, simply presented.

I think the guy should introduce his as Professor Chris Stringer, he is an absolute legend!

When I was at school in the 1950s, the ancestors of modern humans were depicted in books as generic 'cavemen'. How exciting that, during my lifetime, the story of human evolution has become so much more interesting! This was a brilliant update on the latest thinking, which I appreciate ... but I'm sure that over the next 2-5 years, today's text books will have to be re-written all over again! R (Australia)

Wonderful lecture. Thank you Dr Stringer

Thanks for actually acknowledging the Australia question so many others ignore!

Very interesting, thank you.

Thank you, Oxford Archaeological Society, for keeping the rest of us up-to-date with the latest synthesis from Prof Stringer. New information and novel analyses keep coming out, and it is good to have a frequent, knowledgeable synthesis available. I still want to ask him what he thinks of the hypothesis that Denisovans, Homo longi, and Homo erectus are the same lineage of humans. So far, only DNA of one, and fossils of the others-but they’re in the same SE Asia areas.

Thank you. Fascinating.

content starts 7:25, talk starts 11:30

Yes! Finally, at 10:25mins., someone has the right idea.

I am thinking of doing a course on Evolution of Human ehaviour at Ox.

Can we obtain dates of the age range of Homo sapien fossils so we can determine how long older individuals lived vs Neanderthal relatives lived?

I have not seen any comments on whether the Neanderthal DNA in the Sapiens genome is more present in the mitochondrial DNA, or on the Y chromosome: that is, was the interbreeding mainly from female Neanderthals or male - or equal? Or is my understanding of genetics faulty, and this deduction cannot be made?

Having Neanderthal DNA in me was noticed by the dentists 30 years ago, telling me my front teeth have a thicker basin. 20 years ago, a nose doctor told me my nose cavities are huge… like cathedral in Kolon. I have resistance to viruses, including HIV and Covid. I got infected many times, but I had only slight fever unnoticeable. I also hibernate in the winter and gain weight from eating too much. But in the summertime I work a lot physically with my big and heavy artwork over 30 pounds each juggling like in a circus. I can loose 30 lbs in few weeks. Skin is hanging. My testicles are size of chicken eggs. I don’t know if this will help you in your research. Bogoslowsky My genetic descendants, all come from the region of river Volga in Russia from today’s Volgograd, a.k.a., Stalingrad and Saratov . The area called the great steps of Russia. Everyone in my family is over 6 foot tall, blonde, blue eyes, and the redheads. But not me. My mother’s father was Ukrainian from Don river region . I have no allergies to milk I am addicted to warm goat 🐐 milk and sourdough bread.

I've been preaching a pan African origin since I was a kid in the mid 1970's. My essays received decent grades for being well written...but my conclusions and theory were... essentially...ridiculed by my teachers. Vindication is sweet in my old age.

Prof. Stinger, please coment on "Udo" excarveted by Madlaine Böhme and her group in Bavaria

The fosils across the 200ky time range, where the genomes comparison were obtained, are they of the same species? Is the out of Africa theory concluded by comparing genome of different human species, or by comparing modern human to ancient ape? Given the same result, will you still draw the same conclusion if the comparison is made to, say, a fish, instead of an ape? The out of Africa conclusion is it not based on senseless comparison?

Commenting for algorithm

I speak and read Polish I lived in Poland for eight years, and I have many friends in my opinion there’s Amber bear is a fake. I am a very skillful faker in high school I was making fake Byzantium icons and making some good money with it. The article doesn’t describe, the circumstances of those artifacts by the way, there are many many artifacts in this article but thank you for this reference #Bogoslowsky 🦁🤴

I did not hear much about the making of clothes. The neanderthals were physically adapted to survive in cold weather. By adapting clothes to the weather modern humans could have had an enormous advantage, especially during summer.

He is a simply following institutional knowledge and still looks at other species and even older humans as “primitive”. This is especially apparent when he talks about art and it’s human origins and that (even) Neanderthals couldn’t have art. Or at least he thought was very unlikely Neanderthals had it. We have a number of art pieces that were most likely of Neanderthal origin and now we have the art found in the rising star cave which almost unequivocally created by Homo Naledi 200,000 years before most of the other cave art.

Study #linguistics to understand functions of your own mind Illogical to tell others how you feel/they should #feel #Bogoslowsky

It seems to me that all ancestors would have interbred if given the opportunity.

One question I would like answered.How did homo sapiens produce so many offspring that we now number in the billions?Was it a lack of predators?

In short .. 'evolution' (the real process not the comic book presentations of it) is not - quite - what it was (once thought to be or taught as). And that, dear souls, is genuine science at work. However, the same flaw arises - constantly, if incidentally: 'us' and 'them'; the spread of sapient humans (aka, us) is mapped (fairly well) in the mix with (them) other very successful 'human' humans whether in Neanderthal types or others, less well demonstrated in Jebel Irhoud, etc, chiefly across the (relatively easy to traverse) areas outside Africa, not so much in (the often far from easy terrain of) Africa (yes even thousands upon thousands of 'years' ago). What then, the question must arise - yet again, makes man a human (male, female or whatever today's definition may be)? Posture, size in hats, use of various tools, the capacity for moral reason or .. what? So a long-term tree-dwelling human may be as much of a moral reasoner as an occasional cave-using human, also a pokey-stick user as a carefully sharpened edge flint-maker, a digit counter and a cognitive summer-upper, measuring and tying with woven strands of dry grass or reed or by using a stick with a variable length of flax or wool, an accidental dinner burner or a willful burner of an enemies fields .. ;o)

It has been stated that different types of hominids mixed with each other. Starting at 250000 years ago they could have traveled around Africa's coast since then moving one meter a month. They moved, they met, they dated!

its true what you say but 12 million years before the prehumans were in europe but when the going got tough they went to africa . so its time scales.

From the skeletons., it appears neanderthals were taller than humans, and maybe stronger by a significant measure. Is it possible some of these survived into relatively historic times, to fuel the stories of "giants"? This would help explain the megalithic constructions around the world, also. However, you use a conventional map of the world, as it constitutes today. I suspect the modern arrangement of continents, oceans and orientations is less than 5,000 years old. The world of the Neanderthals and Denisovans, along with all other variations of early humans, looked so different it would be unrecognizable to modern humans.

Most specimens found in Africa because it is not developed as compared to the rest of the world, that is it.

Delicious...

The anchor and center of gravity for the most influential evolution focused scientists apparently continues to be "out of Africa". Nonetheless, Stringer might have opened as much as a ten percent window for at least questioning the theory.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂

Don be silly...look around us today...see anyone or anything seems to be evolved from something else physically? Someone created different living things at different period of earth history...

Chris Stringer could have said, "I am sorry that Milford Wolpoff has had to endure unwarranted insinuations that he was a racist or was unconsciously providing scientific frameworks for racist ideas, when all he was doing was pointing out now accepted morphological features common to Neanderthals and northern Europeans, using the conventional definition of species. I should have done my best to stop such unjust accusations, and to refocus scientific discussions on evidence and established definitions (without which scientific discourse would degenerate). Now, molecular genetics has clearly shown that the modern humans have evolved with regional influences from older populations throughout Eurasia, just as other species have evolved through admixtures between previously isolated subpopulations. Wolpoff and his colleagues of course recognized that modern 'Out of Africa' humans had replaced most of the genes of archaic populations. For example, D. Serre & Svante Pääbo wrote: Thus, the Neanderthal mtDNA could have been swamped by a continuous influx of modern human mtDNA into the Neanderthal gene pool (Enflo et al., 2001)," citing "Enflo, P., Hawkes, K., Wolpoff, M., 2001. A simple reason why Neanderthal ancestry can be consistent with current DNA information. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 114, 62." in Serre, D., Pääbo, S. (2006). The fate of European Neanderthals: results and perspectives from ancient DNA analyses. In: Hublin, JJ., Harvati, K., Harrison, T. (eds) Neanderthals Revisited: New Approaches and Perspectives. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer, Dordrecht. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5121-0_11

Stringer now says that "out of africa" couldn't have happened.. did you read that?

Is any of this in full articulation upon discovery?

There is only one homo sapien branch of human's out of many branches, because of the evolution of the unique quality of 'meditative wisdom', that evolved as pineal gland. There must be an explanation how homo sapiens perfected this evolution.

40000 year old Neanderthal painting records the generations of Noah in lines of dots in Spain

Are we really going on about this 'all humans are one species' nonsense?

how can mutations really evolve anything

Knowing how we are today i'm sure we wiped out the neanderthals

Atheist archaeologists love using terms like "suggesting", "most probably", "seem to", "more likely" and even "must have". And then say that evolution is a "fact"! Right.

Cool upfront artwork, kudos to the artist who live that long ago who was able to capture the likeness. If you dig up the graveyard in NYC, you will find the same diversity in fossils. Even look at modern day living people, you will see it. Everything from little people to what some might call giants, 8 ft teenagers. Title of video seemed to imply I would have seen some objective evidence of evolution. Guess you missed the largest DNA study ever completed in Human Evolution magazine, 1981 Stoeckle and Thaler. Notice how he uses the words "We dont know", "it seems to be", "maybe", "likely". People critique the date because carbon 14 dating isn't valid past like 50k years. It has shown to also be wildly inaccurate.

When The Smithsonian , Whips Out The Red- Haired(Mostly Male) NEPHILIM( Double Rows Of Teeth,etc) I Know They R Serious! The Catalina Islands Ones & South Point Ohio, Etc Ones , Too.. 😜🖖 😉

lmao, keep saying or suggesting OOA, despite the fact that any version of events that is still tenable and permits, merely referentially, the application of that label, is entirely different from the version of events to which that label has been applied for decades, and thus betrays the sense it has taken on, and which is an integral part of the general understanding of its meaning. It is thus misleading to use language which might evoke, even invertedly, the original hypothesis without explicitly distinguishing and rejecting it. Sadly, what I see far more often resembles an attempt to sweep under the rug the fact that any version of OOA-i.e., that ( _ⅰ_ ) modern _h.s.s._ arose in Africa, prior to emigration, ( _ⅱ_ ) resembling, phenotypically, modern S.S. Africans, and ( _ⅲ_ ) a subset of that fully-modern population which departed Africa is ancestral to all non-Africans, ( _ⅳ_ ) evolving traits typical of European and East-Asian phenotypes only afterwards. Any _homo_ population which evolved in Africa and is plausibly ancestral to modern _h.s.s._ could only have been some form of _erectus_ or pre- _h.s._ , _erectus_ successor, and all _h.s._ DNA present in the genomes of any contemporary population of humans derives from _h.s.s._ populations which arose in Eurasia, which either coincide with, or were close relatives of, populations traditionally identified as _Cro-Magnon_ , and which, phenotypically resembled modern Europeans. Accordingly, any _homo_ DNA in the genomes of contemporary human populations which is not derived from those Eurasian _h.s.s._ has as its ancestral source a non- _h.s._ species in _homo_ and constitutes admixture acquired through interbreeding.¹ ──────────────────── 1. Examples include non-trivial admixture from _h. neanderthalensis_ in non-S.S. Africans, the additional, and significant, _Denisovan_ admixture found in the genomes of modern Australoid and Melanesian populations, and the up to 20% "ghost" admixture (likely from an _erectus_ -like species native to S.S. Africa) in S.S. African populations, the latter likely constituting the only portion of the modern S.S. genome that completely evolved in S.S. Africa, with the remaining ≥80% being derived from modern Eurasian _h.s.s._ migrating South into S.S. Africa and interbreeding with females from the native _h. erectus_ populations (the lack of native yDNA haplogroups among modern S.S. Africans is likely explained by interbreeding pairs being composed almost exclusively of males from the Eurasian _h.s.s._ and females from the S.S. _erectus_ populations).

What a laugh from Wikipedia 😂😂😂

OOA is the most stupid hypothesis ever...firstly ape is not human...secondly why all apes are from africa, how about other living things?

B S

If it has a Sloping Forehead and a Mid Tarsal Break across the center of it's Feet ? Then it is a Sasquatch Person , no matter what they name it.

BS

Nothing human has ever came out of Africa..

August 2023: ""ancient ape from Türkiye challenges the story of human origins."" We came out of Europe. We came out of Europe. The human evolutionary tree is just a bunch of cxxx or sxxx or more politely total baloney.

🐂💩.

My “religion” is truth. If it’s not true, I don’t want any part of it. The geology that we have of a number of mega sequences of consecutive water deposited sediment layers over a mile deep with fossils in them around the world on every continent necessitates a global flood catastrophe. I know that hurts the belief of every other made up alternate narrative. It just happens to be a fact that we are all the descendants of those who stepped off of the Ark in the area around Mesopotamia. You can’t argue with known human history or ancient calendars going back only 5,000 years. The ancient civilizations are all descended from Noah who had sixteen grandsons that became the sixteen ancient the civilizations each with their own paternal haplogroup lineage. The Bible is the only text that outlines the following Table of Nations. 1) Tubal Italy K, 2) Javan Greek sea people T, 3) Tiras Thracians L, 4) Magog Asian O, 5) Meshek Siberians N, 6) Madai Medes Q, 7) Gomer Europeans R, 8) Arphaxad Arabs Hebrews I&J, 9) Elam Elamites H, 10) Asshur Assyrians G, 11) Aram Arameans F 12) Lud Lydians F2, 13) Cush Cushites A B & C. 14) Phut early Phoenicians E1, 15) Canaan Canaanites E2, 16) Mitzrayim Egyptians E3, D is likely the Sinite tribe from Canaan. C is the descendants of Nimrod since they can’t possibly be from anyone else. Neanderthals are Japhethites and Denisovans are a mix of Japhethites and Hamites, not Semitic. It shows up on DNA maps and charts. Every grandson of Noah and their descendants have their own paternal Y chromosome haplogroup lineage! I can name all sixteen of them like I just did and give you each of their haplogroups! The evolutionary out of Africa claim is exactly backwards since the *oldest* progenitor is Japheth the ancestor of Eurasians then the Semitic populations of Shem and then the Hamitic African is the youngest progenitor with their eldest sons connecting the three different families descended from the three sons of Noah. It took me a while to understand that the evolutionary claim is assuming that SNP markers are being gained forming the stair steps out of Africa when *the reality is* that the original SNP markers cited are in fact being lost forming the opposite stair steps out of West Asia as known human history shows. The stair step out of Africa claim has to be addressed because the SNP markers are *real* evidence but the evolutionary assumption is exactly backwards. The correct view requires that the older most original genomes of the Japhethites be connected to the Semitics by way of the eldest son of Shem which is Arphaxad (IJ). Arphaxad’s descendants can share the (IJK) SNP marker with the descendants of his uncle Japheth while the descendants of his younger brothers do not share that same (IJK) SNP. You have to root the tree with Japheth the oldest son of Noah and then the oldest son of Shem (IJ Arphaxad) and then Elam and then Asshur and then the youngest brothers Aram and Lud. So you have to begin with the *most original* Y chromosome of Noah’s oldest son Japheth and then the changes occur in the people who were born later. It’s not necessarily a stair step of descendency. It’s changes in the Y chromosome with time. *Arphaxad isn’t descended from Japheth.* He just shares a marker with his uncle that his father used to have when he was born. Shem then lost the marker when Arphaxad’s younger brothers were born. The descendants of Shem are then connected to the descendants of Ham by way of Nimrod the King (C) the the eldest son of Cush who is the eldest son of Ham. So the Hamitic CF (xD&E) paternal haplogroup SNP marker was lost to the *odd ones out* and less original younger brothers and cousins verifying the Table of Nations outlined in Genesis.💥 Learn the Bible before trying to learn anything else. It’s also noteworthy that the D paternal haplogroup lines up with the E2 haplogroup of Canaan which is his son’s tribe of Sinim the Biblical namesake of China. So the only Hamitic haplogroups outside of Africa are the C of Nimrod and the D of the Canaanite tribe of Sinim which is still there in Andaman, Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese and Japanese areas today.