This is a bonus video (remake of an old one). New video still scheduled for Wednesday. Be sure to check out Stefan's video here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WSSmJLb468k.html
High Ground: Let me educate you some there buddy. It is wickedAWsome (one word) with women and children around and wicked pissa (two words) with the guys.
there should technically be a couple splits on the Human section as Modern humans are hybrids of the original Human genus and 1 of the other 2 Neanderthal and Denisoven; with Genetic evidence of another yet undiscovered species. Different Areas of the world have different Hybrid roots. East Asians and European ancestry is Hybrid of Neanderthal and Human for example. South Africa has evidence of Hybrid of another and Southern Mid Asia area Dinesoven etc....
UsefulCharts this is a load of BS, don´t spread missinformation, either because you don´t know any better yourself, or you simplify the wrong way! 1) MOST bacteria DO NOT cause ANY HARM in humans... take some time to actually read up on what you´re talking about. FYI there are more bacterial cells in the human body than human cells and MOST are obligatory and beneficial. Same thing for other animals and for ecosystems. 2) there is an "endosymbiosis" crosslink between bacteria and eucaryotes, but in your simple mind plants just "have a special part" thats green. So obviously you never heard of the endosymbiosis of cyano bacteria BEFORE these then became chloroplasts....
@@jesusjoseph1899 Tuataras split from the group that would lead to lizards and snakes after they diverged from crocodiles. If they were included on this chart, they would be on the end of a line that connected to the squamate line after it diverged from the rest of the reptile class.
I just learned about the San people and I let out a huge "oh my God!" It's actually sad that I never knew we have a group of people so incredible, relating to our oldest ancestors. Our history is out there, but we need people like you to bring it to us. Thank you!
Many will. Right now we have a single common ancestor, but in the near future, when more and more ancestry lines eventually connect, that common ancestor will come closer to our time. Well, perhaps not closer, but at least down at least one generation and ahead in time. This process of common ancestors has always moved forward and will always continue to do so, unless should humans completely evolutionarily diverge for some reason.
Really? Cause every little 20 year old atheist I know is miserable even though they think they have the world figured out. Meanwhile a lot of religious people seem to live happy lives.
A beautiful and very informative chart! I will certainly buy one for my daughter when she grows up a bit. Though, I have some comments: • As already mentioned, eukaryotes do not stem directly from the origin of life but are the result of symbiosis between alpha-proteobacteria and lokiarchaea. This is already well-known in the scientific community. So it would be better to connect eukaryotes not to "Life", but rather draw two lines of equal thickness to bacteria (replacing the dotted line for mitochondria) and to archaea. • Not all eukaryotes have plastids, only plants and algae do, so that dotted line should go not to Eukaryotes but to the red algae branch-off point. • It would probably be good to add Ctenophora, branching approximately at the same level as Porifers (it's still not clear who branched first). Ctenophora are interesting because they evolved a neural system completely different from the rest of animals (including Cnidaria and humans). Also, formerly Ctenophora and Cnidaria were grouped into Coelenterata (I was taught that in school), and only recently it has been understood that they are very different, so it would be useful if your chart clarified that matter. • It's an interesting fact that many modern humans have a few percent of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes. Probably add dotted lines from these species to Homo Sapiens? Though, as already mentioned, not all humans have this admixture, in particular, the South Africans you displayed don't have it. So probably not...
Boring. Humans and apes are boring. Mammals in general are much more interesting. Although I would admit that what hunans and apes DO are more interesting than what other mammals do.
I have this chart on my wall. I love it. My only regret is that it gets more obsolete every day; dang biologists keep figuring out new things. For example, now butterflies belong in pancrustacea, much closer to malacostraca (shrimp, etc.). But, life goes on. I mean your chart says it does, so, therefore it does.
JED 1977 I mean plants are incredible things if you really think about it. They’ve really got the jackpot with the whole photosynthesis shit, and their the lynchpin in all of earth’s ecosystems
Hi, I am from Uganda. And I am a big fan of life. So me watching this explaining about life. It was interesting. And I really want to share it with my people who do not understand English. I was asking for permission to allow me translate. This in our local language in Uganda. For my people, thank you.
I ordered the poster for my classroom and showed the video in all of my classes (6th-12th grades). I was so pleased with how much my students enjoyed it. Billions of years coherently reduced to 15 educational and entertaining minutes.
I was I had something like this in school when I was a kid, took me years off curious learning to start to piece together a greater timeline of how the evidence currently suggests it all went down. When I was in school they would always get to far into the details and not enough about the big picture so I would get bored since I didn't know how it fit into anything.
Funny to think that the mildew I kill in my shower is a distant cousin. One cell evolved one way, and the other another, and that has made all the difference.
This is less a chart and more a work of art. I have bought it for my office! I love it! Could this style be adapted to a family tree? Very cool! Well done and love your content!
@@teeniequeenie8369 At least most family trees can be proven. The evolutionary tree continues to be built by man with very little physical evidence. Evolution has already been decided by the biggest and best schools. Most civilized governments are on board. Edits in the “tree” are constantly being made to make it fit the desired result. I stopped believing in Evolution about 10 years ago. I could no longer believe in a process that man had built. Creation makes better sense and resembles the fossil record better. There’s just too much order on earth and in the universe that only an intelligent being could create.
@@teeniequeenie8369dave suggest that we should use a similar methodology ti our family trees and only label the people we care about. UsefulCharts deliberately left out billions of species and just labeled the few species we actually care about.
Great chart! It's kinda outdated because it's based on the classic systematics and not so much the modern understanding of species relations. Here are a few annotation, that would be important in my view: That animal/fungus divide is outdated. Both come from opisthokonts with amoebozoa being a sister group to both kingdoms. Protostomes can be divided into spiralia and ecdysozoans. This is kind of important because both nematodes and arthropods belong to the group of ecdysozoans. They ”split” from the other protosomes when they developed the enzyme ecdysone. The spiralia encompass the remaining groups (plathelminthes, mollusca, annelida) besides the chaetognata. I say this because on the map this relationship doesn't become clear. And the arthropods are missing some key names like crustaceans and Chelicerata. Also the Diplopoda and Chilopoda are more closely related to insects than the other land-dwelling arthropods (because of their trachea). And the reptile class is so fucked up; I don't know how to reorder them myself correctly... But it technically doesn't even exist as a monophyletic group. It's more a collection of all the scale-bearing, air-breathing animals. But how you showed them is very convenient and how you would use the term in a colloquial sense. Overall tho, this is a very nice production. The only real ”flaw” is the one with the animals/fungi. PS: also, the eucaryotes themselves come from archaea. This could have been shown more clearly.
Thanks for taking the time to give suggestions for improvements. I do relatively small print runs of the poster and therefore will try to make some changes in future to make it more up to date.
@@UsefulCharts I know it's much later, and has probably been said already, but I think Crocodiles and Pterosaurs should be swapped in position as well. Both Dinosaurs and Pterosaurs are Avemetatarsalia, while Crocodiles and Dinosaurs are both Archosaurs and share a more distant ancestor. Also I think we now order Cetaceans as part of Artiodactyla rather than a sister taxa, though this one is debatable. Very minor fixes I hope! Our understanding of ancient life changes every year so there's no way to never make any mistakes.
I came for this comment. I have small issues with fungi kingdom. I wish it would be separated better (molds and mushrooms don’t belong in the same phylum) kingdom fungi is a catch all phylum of very unrelated groups. and I’m a little uncomfortable with the beginning of the eukaryote lineage, archaea could have been shown connected to this.
YES! YES! YEEEEES!!! I've been literally searching for a nice looking tree of life poster for decades and it's so much more beautiful than I ever could've imagined! It even has classifications!! And it doesn't stop there, it comes with not one but two RU-vid videos explaining it! I'M SO SO HAPPY!!! :D :D :D This is no doubt going to be one of the best purchases I've ever made! Thank you for this!
There is no proof for evolution. Have you ever seen a slightest evidence of some animal species changing to another species? Even a little bit? No you haven't. Nobody has. Fossils give evidence for evolution only in evolutionists' imagination. Organisms can only produce their own species. Humans have developed hundreds of dog races. Is it evolution? Of course not. They are all dogs and have no chance to ever produce anything else than more dogs. Unfortunately, the more you breed new dog races the more they get hereditary diseases. That is devolution, not evolution. The species we currently see around in nature can produce many subspecies. Is it evolution? No, it is not evolution. It is devolution. Each subspecies is a specialized one and specialization comes from genetic specialization. Genetic specialization means that in the reproduction individuals lose some less important genes and the best genes for the new environment become dominant. Sounds good and is good - for a while at least. However the recessive genes gradually disappear from the genome. If the environment changes again, adaptation is more difficult than in the stem species. The end result can be - and often is - extinction of the subspecies. In the worst of the cases the stem species become rare and may disappear. This is happening all the time in the nature.
@@jounisuninen Since your first question shows so obviously that you don't know how evolution by natural selection actually works, I didn't even bother to read the rest of your response. But I do want to answer your first question, because I'm bored at the moment. Evolution by natural selection doesn't state that one animal gives birth to a completely different animal. So no, you're right, I haven't seen that happening and as a matter of fact nobody has seen that happening, because that is not how it works. (There is no crocoduck, do your research) In evolutionary biology we talk about a different specie when the offspring of two animals isn't capable of reproducing itself. For example: a lion and a tiger, that share a recent common ancestor, can reproduce and produce a liger. This liger is however incapable of reproducing with either a lion or a tiger or another liger. Therfore a lion and tiger are two different species. Another way of looking at it is to take me as an example. I'm a 44 year old white man from The Netherlands, but when I was born I didn't look anything like I do now. So you can make the same argument as you're making before. Baby Stephan looks completely different from old and bald Stephan. Did anyone see the Stephan that was in between? No! So they must be different right? Actually there never was an between. I changed very slowly, day by day, into the Stephan I'm today. That is how evolution works. Every generation is slightly different than the one before, and the differences are to small to notice between two generations. Even if had a picture of myself made every single minute of my life and you lay all those pictures next to eachother, than you will see no difference between two pictures that are next to eachother but you will see a very big difference when you look at one picture and than a picture that is 10.000 pictures in the past. Also, you can take two pictures that are 1 minute next to eachother and ask: yeah, but where is the picture in between? There isn't any. That is why your question is so stupid... So... here is what I'm suggesting... Please take a look at the RU-vid channel of Potholer54, it will take you about a couple of hours to finish it, but after that you'll understand what evolutionary biologists are actually claiming and you'll stop asking such shamefully bad questions that makes you look like every other creationist RU-vid commentor with a small weeny! DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!
As with all of your videos this is an absolutely lucid and entertaining overview of an exceptionally complicated topic. Thanks for all of the work you put into all of these videos and for sharing your knowledge.
Explaining science that considered as taboo againts religion is not weird anymore. It's all starting to make sense. Soon religion will gone and people will only depend on common sense.
I've been looking for a video that summarizes the tree of life in a simple, easy to understand way and that is also inclusive of all eras and branches and this is it! Thank you for creating this. I have subscribed to your channel to not miss more videos like this one.
@ShalakumX Simba I was not trying to be offensive. I know this chart if based on the available evidence for how biological evolution occurred. I believe in biological evolution. I was trying reference how people can believe in God and Evolution (I do) in a humorous way to respond. I am sorry if I made you upset in some way.
Actually, we didn't. I'm here to see if evolution has yet to explain how single celled organisms came to be in existence BEFORE the "Life" category he mentioned in the video. I got my answer in the first 1:40s. Evolution fails again. You can't create something from nothing. If evolution can't explain the WHOLE story, its an incomplete theory. Evolution therefore FAILS to tell us exactly when life began. Until evolution theories can explain how you create something from nothing, I'll hold to my beliefs. Things and people can "evolve", but they have to exist first in order for that to happen. People have always been people, animals have always been animals, BUT an animal cannot just magically turn into a person and a person cannot magically turn into an animal. Animal cells only turn into more "evolved" versions of themselves and human cells can only turn into more "evolved" versions of themselves. Humans ARE mammals, but we aren't "animals" like a tiger or an elephant. We are simply mammals with a much higher sence of intelligence, existence and self awareness, whereas, animals operate on instinct, although are very intelligent...just not on a human level. Am I saying evolution is ALL b.s.? NO. I'm just saying that it has a ton of contradictions and gaps. Following evolution to explain what happened AFTER cells evolved is fine, but to follow it as some sort of weird, "anti-religion" religion? Yeah, it doesn't make sense. I'm a firm believer in creation, but its the science that can explain creation with the HELP of evolution theory. It makes no sense to me to separate the two if they can help explain each other. There are gaps in BOTH. But if we use both creation and evolution to explain each of them, I think it'll fill in more of those gaps. Even more so if we add in history. A person CAN believe in more than one theory and still be a good Atheist or a good Christian. I'm pretty sure evolution can't explain where the ability to love came from but the bible does an equally bad job at explaining its fair share too. I just think we need to fairly start looking at and considering both if we are ever going to intellectually "evolve" as human beings.
@@ln2559 There are many theories for how life was first formed, such as the RNA World Hypothesis, they are just outside the scope of this video. The video producer actually explained that people can look up abiogenesis to get more information. I believe in God, but I also believe that at some point, whether it was God or not, something had to be self-existent, which means it always was existing outside of time, or it came from nothing. No scientist is saying that different species magically become one another. The theory of evolution is straight forward, over time some of the changes in genes help a specific population to better survive and pass on the genes that helped them survive, and as these changes, which are different for different populations (and sub-populations, and population splits, and population mergers, etc...), pile up over massive amounts of time, they become so different that they are different species, and this process continues over and over again. The way I imagine God creating us, is that he birthed the Universe into creation (through the Big Bang), knowing full-well the conditions and outcome would create life on Earth through some process of abiogenesis, and then when it came time to create humankind, he simply chose an existing species of animal, a type of great ape, homo sapien sapien (maybe an even earlier hominid ancestor of homo sapien sapien and other hominids), and gave them a spirit made in the image of God (not a body in the image of God). It is actually an amazing act of worship to try to understand the processes of the natural world, that theists like myself believe God created, and how those processes led to us. However, there is no way to prove or disprove God, I believe in God because of my faith, but I do not expect others to also believe in God. Also, a good number of our behaviors come from neurological wiring found in our closest non-human relatives, and many animals display intelligent behavior. I am not going to be responding to this thread anymore, because a previous commenter was right, that my comment about theistic evolution was not relevant enough to either the video or the original comment, and I do not want to get into arguments right now. However, I felt I needed to respond to your comment. This is not meant as an attack on you, just a well-meaning response to where I think you may be wrong.
@@ln2559 a cell is just nucleic acid within a phospholipid bilayer, and we already know those could form in primordial conditions...so..quit being irrational i guess.
Wow, dude! Nice chart. I can not only appreciate the enormous amount of work in figuring out what is what but also the work you put into laying out your chart to rep it. Thank you!
14:43 Humans did not evolve from Chimpanzees. This explanation right here I think would clear up a lot of confusion around the subjection. So many people still parrot the phrase "we came from chimps". That then causes so many people to emphasize the massive difference between us and the argument escalates from there.
Can someone explain how we came from a single celled threory of evolution?. If our ancestor came from a single celled how did they survive from embryo to adulthood? Scientifically theories any species can't survive from infant to adult without its parents and a cell can't evolved into adult without prenancy stage. Pls respect.
@@kumastrawarlord5282 There exist lots of single cell organisms that are pretty capable of surviving on they're own. As time went on there were organism that came upon the strategy of sticking together after multiplying. This proved beneficial as it provided some safety from from other organisms that would want to eat them and let the cell resources. And again as time went on the grouped cells adapted into speciation. Having different cells specialise in different things lets each of those cells perform their jobs better instead of just doing everything a bit (it's the same idea behind modern production methods in factories). And as time went on the cells grew more dependent on each other to the point where they can't survive without each other aside from very specific enviroments.
Ahh, taking me back to high school biology. Fond memories, thanks mate. Also as someone from South Africa; its nice to see people talk about human evolution. Its mentioned alot here with all the fossil finds. Also happen to go to the university where it is the centre of research in South Africa, so will hopefully get to check it out by the end of this year.
I just got this chart for my birthday. Spent an hour with my kids trying to sound smart answering their questions. Quality of print and cardstock is really good. Thank you so much.
Great job....thanks for all the hard work. I find it interesting to think that the cells in my body have been dividing since that very first cell divided billions of years ago...
Dinosaurs and Pterosaurs are also thought to be warm blooded; much like modern birds. Mammals/Cynodontis may still be the first to get warm blood, but this doesn't make mammals unique. Many dinosaurs lived in arctic/snowy environments, and many scientists believe that the proto-feathers found on many dinosaurs were for insulation much like the fur of a mammal. (amazing chart and video btw! I'm just a dino nerd :p)
The most clever evolutionists have started to declare that "we do not need the fossil evidence anymore". Why? Because it is already proven that there are no scientifically valid transitional fossils. They are jumping off the evolutionary train ... 😄
This is really nice, but, how do you know that this is what really happened? How do you know that life started 2000 Ma years ago? Any reference? Thanks for the video.
Love the video. Ordered this chart and the alternative chart of the elements. Looking for a chart of geological time and the movement and grouping of the continents.
I’ve always been curious where Ediacrian Biota fits in the tree of life. Whether it would be a separate kingdom or if they are proto-animals etc. I find Edicacrian biota super interesting and would love for answers to be one day conclusively given though as the fossils are so rare and are only impressions left by soft tissue as there were no hard parts to fossilise properly, I doubt answers will be conclusively given but here’s hoping!
Very nice! If you decide to update this chart, I would recommend including some geographic detail such as the arrangement of the continental plates when the taxon first appears. This would be useful for understanding why some types of land animals are present in some parts of the world, while absent anywhere else.
Yes because when mordern humans left Africa 70k years ago they're entered into the middle east and theu would of countered and interbreed with the Neanderthals and other extinct homins such as Denisovans. Only Indigenous Sub - Saharan Africans don't carry Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors never left Africa and interbreed with the Neanderthals in Eurasia.
Same with seals, sea-lions, walruses etc. Except from a different branch at a different time. I mean it's pretty obvious they're related to dogs and bears. Just look at those whiskers!
@@PiousMoltar Next up to bat as a totally marine Mammal with no links left to land, the Sea Otter. They have managed to beat need for land nesting by birthing at sea, carrying Junior on Mama's belly.
It's sad what has happened to mankind. Rebellion against the creator God. Everyone can choose who they will believe. But saying there is no God makes you a fool.
@@christinejoseph3366 I never implicated that god doesn't exist - I personally neither know nor really care - I was pointing out that the theory of creationism as an idea is absurd.
Even crazier is that whales are in fact within Artiodactyl (despite what the chat says). Hippos and I believe also pigs, and more closely related to Whales than they are to deer or cows.
I find it extremely interesting that clostridium tetini, causes hyperexitabilty in muscles, while just one species over, clostridium botulinum causes paralysis, what are the molecular differences between the two, genome wise, and toxin wise
As a biologist i gotta say This chart is really good! Some nitpicking aside it's going to be very helpful in helping people understand our family tree. Interresting to put Eukaryotes outside of Archaea in light of recent discoveries surrounding Asgard Archaea. Also, using a picture of a Dunkleosteus for jawed fish before mentioning boney fish is a bit strange. The Decision to leave out Diapsids and skip to Sauropsids is an interresting one, i suppose it saves time but I'm so glad that you grouped Turtles with them and didn't put them into an Anapsid phylum.
@@Ignasimp The guy is obviously not a biologist so it's an attempt. Atleast he didn't put prokaryotes in the animal kingdom. The dotted line of chloroplasts to LEKA is a bit weird though.
@@spambaconeggspamspam for me the biggest problem is that it still uses the kingdoms, which aren't used anymore. Plants and green algae are in the Arechaeplastidia category but a lot of other algae aren't in that group. And fungus and animals are Opistokonta and are very closely related. And there are other big groups like Chromalveolata and Heterokonta.
@@Ignasimp Also grouping Sauropods with Therapods, while not even mentioning Herrerasaurus - the dinosaur that that controversial relationship relies on is a misstep, IMO.
Covid is actually a very unremarkable virus. Generally speaking, the elderly and those with comorbities are almost exclusively representative of fatality rates. What made Covid so famous to us was the psychotic, hysterical, and unimaginably destructive overreaction to it.
@@Asteroid_Jam Indeed. And the "human zoo" tendency in anthropology is bad enough already. Imagine if we had Denisovans to dehumanize as well. ("Human zoo" meaning the tendency to want to "leave that indigenous tribe unspoiled by the western world, so we can study them and document their fascinating culture". As opposed to treating people like people with agency and giving them the opportunity to participate or not participate in the modern world, never mind if it "spoils" the academic study of them as a cultural curiosity.)
Can someone explain how we came from a single celled threory of evolution?. If our ancestor came from a single celled how did they survive from embryo to adulthood? Scientifically theories any species can't survive from infant to adult without its parents and a cell can't evolved into adult without prenancy stage. Pls respect.
Communism is the future I think you are missing the entire point about communism and the philosophy of dialectical materialism. “Ignoring actual science and facts” is inherent to communism since truth is only that which suits the communist regime. I personally love the “truth” and that is why I could never be a socialist or a communist
Is there a way to buy, or otherwise obtain, a high-res DIGITAL version of the poster? I'd like to use it, but don't want to deal with a printed item. Thanks!
