EXCELLENT! The best I've heard Evolution explained...using the latest findings as of 2022! If we ever find a way to dig up the Sahara Desert, especially in Sudan/Nubian area...EXCITING!
Oh “a light switch turned on in humans all over the world!” LMAO. The mental gymnastics needed to attempt to discredit the fact that human culture evolved on the Eurasian steppe is astounding really.
Thank you for truth and clarity, at last. If Europeans, et al, finally embrace what other great civilisations have known for eons, and then include it in their school curriculums, we can really move forward in our understanding of who we are as humans. Supposed intellectuals who do not condemn that ‘Ethnocentric’ thinking, and confirm how it has destructively inhibited our growth as humans, will be judged by the future generations to come.
And Europeans are the only ones guilty of being Ethnocentric, I suppose? We'll get even further in our understanding when Europeans are no longer the only ones upon whom all the evils of human nature are heaped.
I have a question, the first colonists settled in the Americas in 1607 and the first man walked on the moon in 1969. Man advanced in 362 years to land on the moon. So in millions years man waited around doing nothing and in 362 years they put a man on the moon.
The idea that culture emerged in Europe is the result of a bias. However, how more sympathetic the idea of all humans are equal and contributed equally to culture may be, it is just as much a bias.
Sheila as a scientist myself I must tell you that scientists shouldn't be moved one way or another by some ideas being "problematic" or not, something that seems to be your central concern. To illustrate what a scientist is I would refer to the quintessence of scientists: people like Galileo facing the inquisition or Charles Darwin, daring to question, based on facts, religious dogmas of an entire civilization. What do we see in them? Well, courage, and scientific integrity to stand by the truth of their findings no matter what. What Galileo and Darwin did was "problematic," extremely "problematic," can't you see it? Courage and scientific integrity is what today is required of scientists to assume their historical role in society, which is ruthless objectivity, and properly respond to "woke" fanatic cults.
Eurocentrism is a racist, fanatic cult that bends reality to fit its ideology. It’s not scientific, it’s biased. Calling out ‘problematics’ encourages more rigorous scientific inquiry. It’s not about being ‘woke’, even if the increasing polarity between left and right is all over the internet/media. Science should call out the limitations of bias, which includes racial bias, and bring it to people’s attention in this political climate regardless of affiliation.
Neanderthals achieved all these cultural markers before humans in Africa. I understand the motivation to correct eurocentric thinking, but this goes too far. Maybe sapiens encountering Neanderthals sped cultural development in Europe.
Why didn’t Africans conduct their own archeological research? Why didn’t they do it hundreds of years before Europeans? After all, they got settled first given we all came from there. Eurasians were too busy migrating.
Not every human knows how to do culture! Modern day culture shows us that. Not every human brain functions in accordance with cultural expectations. Culture is built upon current concencus, which turns out to be, what the majority expect each individual to bring to the party. A person with brain damage, or mental issues, don`t simply just do culture!!! So this talk begins with a mighty big assumption, that is completely wrong. How many other assumptions have been shoe horned into helping this theory win favour?
Once African-based Humans left Africa, they evolved differently all over the world. So much so that today, the difference between a Caucasian and Black African skeleton can be easily shown by forensic bone experts. From skeletons to skin color we all evolved to the many races/Population Groups. Better to stick with Population Groups, as most Anthropologists do today. One reason they do so, is to avoid having the PC among them start yelling "Racist" or "Nazi" when they make accurate points like this. It's reasonable to think that, along with bones and skin color, that the very impactful brain would also see some evolutionary changes in the various out-of-Africa Humans as they evolved. And also among the different African Population groups that evolved. The Bantu, for instance, are very racially distinct from the tall, thin Sudanese and the very short Bushmen such as the San. Lets not be blinded by PC as we take a look at these aspects of "Evolution in Man," shall we?
Sally McBrearty's and Alison Brooks' emotionally biased guesswork from 2000, predates Homo floresiensis (2004), Denisova bracelet (2008) and Denisovan DNA (2010-12). Why is this "afropologist" video presented in such an uncritical way?! Already 1992 in my book Demand for Recources, I pointed out that the oldest "Africans" with "mongoloid" (i.e. cold adapted features) may be connected to the big skulled (1,400 cm3) but equally "mongoloid" flat faced 280,000 BP Jinniushan fossil from northern China, which I wrongly thought was a male, but now we know the skeleton belonged to a female, which makes it the biggest female Homo fossil ever found. My question in the book was: Why didn't she or her descendants go to the Moon when they had all time in the world to do so? Moreover, an other Swede, Nobel prize winner Svante Pääbo, after having discovered Denisovan, also sees share my view, i.e. that something happened with the intelligence of Homo sapiens some 50-60,000 BP, precisely because of the sudden jump in sophistication which is evident with the findings in the Denisova cave in Siberia. 2012 I explained Pääbo's finding as the result of a better packed Homo brain from SE Asian archioelago due to island shrinking and later mainland connection - the latest in a series that created Homo sapiens. Hybridization did the rest and also explains the variety of fossil species.
