Thank you so much, this breaks it down and makes it easy to digest. A lot of people use big words that I have to google, and you make it comprehensible
Your presentation of paleoanthropology is most EXCELLENT. Absolutely SUPERB. It is the kind of comparative presentation that I have been looking for, for many years now. Kudos to you. And more power to you and your undertakings. (Please make the effort to update or revise your presentations as new discoveries and research findings emerge over time. Thank you.) 😊
(9:50) Savanahs did not appear because of increasing heat but because of decreasing heat! Declining temperatures in the Miocene meant less CO2 which led to evolution of grasses that used a more efficient method of photosynthesis (C4).
beginning kinda threw me off talking about how the “lighter pigmentation at the end of the evolutionary line indicates anyone who doesn’t have lighter skin is considered further back in the evolutionary line.” i’ve never in my life heard anyone say that. it seems like a backhanded attempt at combating racism that was never there in the first place. otherwise good video.
I thought that same too. I have NEVER come across anyone saying that, and I've been a researcher for over 20 years. Remember that the Woke agenda is rampart in ALL fields of academia. I'm ashamed that this presentation is tainted by this persons ideological and racist views. Please! don't let her lies and prejudiced divide us. White, Black, Brown ..Green Whatever! We are ALL brothers and sisters!
Is just superior documentation of humanitarian and systemic method, both here in the physical anthro, and religious studies. Thank you for this new page. Thank you so much 🙏🏽🇲🇽
Thank you, I love this, this is basically most of my anthropology class at WSU back in about 1995-96, my teacher was shockingly a preacher who was specializing in some very old Christian group in Egypt
== GOD/Nature-guided & the reincarnating God-incarnate led (Co)Evolution == Chaos theory, accretion. Population I star. Abiogenesis, life 4.6+ billion-years-old, directed panspermia/seeded, data transfer. Earth 4.54 byo and life on Earth 4.2 byo, Moon’s giant-impact 4.4 bya, Earth’s rotation and tilt, LARGE moon affects stability & tides. Galactic habitable and Goldilocks Zones/near-circular orbit, Van Allen belts. Volcanoes. DNA & RNA. Bony fish 500 million-years-old, land animals 428 myo, Pangaea(7), intelligent design, spontaneous order, complexity, catastrophism/asteroid 66 mya, viruses. Bipeds 6 myo & humans 2.8 myo, purpose, decisions, nonrandom mating & genetic drift. Homo sapiens/Neanderthals/Y-chromosomal Adam 300,000 years ago & Mitochondrial Eve 160 kya, Mind’s Big Bang 50 kya & farming 12 kya, altruism, empathy, morality, ‘follow-da-leader’. ET intervention (Eden 6 kya) & founder (Fod.) effect. - Seal #1b of the 7seals.blogspot.com . Only the returned Christ & Einstein reincarnated could produce that - it’s triggered The Apocalypse/Revelation which is NOT the end of the world - it’s the 2nd Coming (E=mc²).
@@11304800 Not a curious person are you? Move along, a lot of us are. The difference is... we are curious and not held down by generational indoctrination.
As someone who has darker skin and loves human evolution, thank you for adding that skin color segment in the beginning. when i was younger, i used to think that i was less evolved due to images of lighter people as "the pinnacle of evolution". it used to be one of my biggest insecurities, but now i embrace it. also this was a great video overall, it was very well put together and conveys the information efficiently.
As another darker skinned individual, I'd like to add that not all of us are dumb enough to equate skin color with peaking evolution. Light skin is a rather recent "development". So, if we say that our ancestors were darker skinned, then I personally, as a "POC", don't think it is harmful to depict humans with the most recent change in phenotype - which is overall lighter pigmentation. It just shows how we as humans have adapted to surroundings after migrating from a hotter climate to a colder one with a change in UV exposure. White people aren't different from other races, we're still all the same species, we just look different due to selection for different traits based on our environment, sexual preferences etc. This whole "b-but what about me" is a narcissistic and primitive character trait that doesn't belong in science. If "representation" is your first and foremost priority, then you should head on over to sociology or gender studies and leave objective science to the rest of us adults.
Spare us the preaching about the 'problematic' depiction of the evolved human being European in appearence. Maybe the illustrator was just European himself? I want to hear your expertise on hominin evolution without worrying about diversity quotas in a bloody drawing. You can always draw your own picture where the Homo Sapien is black, right? Oh but you were happy to simply use someone else's work and then complain about it.
It's a dumb model to begin with and we'd be better off skipping her whole take on hominin evolution. Directed Evolution and Interventionism are far more plausable.
Regarding the hominin lineage image, evolution branches off when moving forward in time, but looking back in time from Homo sapiens, it’s a more or less straight line, right?
I am grateful to you for beginning this video by speaking THE TRUTH! I was about to stop watching because of the picture showing the 5, periods of early humans. I am proud of you for this. Thank you.
Thank you for addressing the implicit racial bias in those 'progress of evolution cartoons' that are so common. Unfortunately there are numerous examples of this. Will be sharing that insight with my classroom.
Your PowerPoint doesn’t match your presentation. It goes off the rails when you’re discussing teeth. You say “I hated that” and re-start the information on teeth but the slides move on.
We did not descend from chimpanzees. Chimpanzees shared a common ancestor with humans that had a human type hand. Chimpanzees ancestors then adapted to life in trees and over time generations chimpanzees evolved to have hands suited to tree climbing. Life in sea shallows and shores could account for humans evolving as an upright stance species.
bipedalism is the option for most birds, better breath control, talking, singing and better navigation and social information when travelling in groups. I have for many years hunted with greyhound and whippet type dogs, and the teamwork is often based on dogs checking humans for direction, basically which way did it go? Very similar with sheep herding techniques.
I have a question so I think there is a few tribes or an island tribe that has never been in contact with the modern world would their dna or traits be thousands of years apart from ours since no outside dna has been introduced?
Thanks for explaining the image. My students asked the very question: How did hominins evolve from dark-skinned less humanlike to light-skinned human. It's certainly misleading. My 6th graders are predominantly African Americans. Thank you.
Ultimate spirit taking different forms and conditioning itself to work in physical existance. From one cell to multicell, all existing in brahman, only having different suppression, smoke and mirrors. This evolution in this planet is nothing in grand scheme of things. Dont think because life evolves it has some meaning except to mirror spirit, and to react to web of action and reaction. its act of matter and spirit. Spirit acting all parts. A=Outer, physical existance, memory, brahma, solidified state of spirit, underworld U=inner existance of ideas, mind, law, word of god, balancing physical and unphysical existance, midworld, vishnu M=undifferentiating existance, pure consciousness, sleep, spirit, state where ignorance gets destoyed by light of god, upperworld, space, shiva (silence)= ultimate reality, beyond emptiness/fullness, true onesness, root of all existance. Brahman. AUM.
@@vesuvandoppelganger why wouldnt species react to changes in environment ? Black skin, white skin. If humans neglect use of memory and use computers all the time instead. wouldnt it lead to changes in the brain thru repeated action ? Then this information will make suptle chances in physical memory and people will slowly transform. First there was egg of life (first life, unicellular), this then transformed into many different forms, trees, birds, fishes, mammals. Each becoming from the same physical and spiritual root, then specialized to live in different platforms. Life is alive, life has memory (dna), life has actions, consequences, patterns and layers. Every cell in your body is alive, breathe, eat, communicate, react and serve the master consciousness, so do we have master consciousness above us. Realization of master consciousness makes you divine. krisha, jesus, buddha and thousands of other shamans and sages in all cultures point you to this ultimate goal where you become master of this vehicle and its actions, instead of being slave to patterns and sense pleasures. This is true religion. Religion that happens now. Not in the past or in the future. True way to god. Jesus did teach this philosophy where kingdom of heaven is already amongst us, we are just too blind to see it.
People have black skin and white skin because it is part of the genetic variation within the human species and has been there ever since humans were created. Again, life doesn't evolve.
This needs more views. Waay to many people have it all wrong because they are watching outdated videos, and arguing is a waste of time. At same time, its not really our fault we were taught lies. I would be a lot smarter if I just skipped schooling and learn on internet. I get it. Watching videos Inst good research, but still more up to date and more accurate than textbooks
I watched up to 5 min into the video: The chart does not affirm racist bias, that's stupid that children would be born racist. The only reason it goes from dark skin to lighter skin was because neanderthal hominids with lighter skin in higher latitudes with less sunlight were discovered first in archeological findings and later found to intermix with homo-sapiens coming out of Africa. Also homo-sapiens coming out of Africa migrated east to intermix with denisovans and other neanderthal locations, and presumably other hominids we haven't yet discovered in archeological findings.
Wrong! The ancestry of Neanderthals is traceable to Africa about 700,000 years ago. Secondly, the DNA of modern Africans contains 0.3 percent of Neanderthal genes.
That part of the first 5 minutes is very interesting, specially your personal comment is hopeful for a future that develops the ultimate potencial of every citizen. That happens because those first studies were made by white europeans in an age were racism and segregation (eugenics) based on lies result of the oppression outcome of past wars in the clash of past civilizations (specially the civilization that lost the war). If you change the language, the region, and goes far from "The West World" education you will find in pictures and books, the so called "white men" civilization is just a matter of few centuries in a planet civilization where what white man calls color people always were dominant and still is the majority of the population of the planet (always be). The same with the conception of the size of the national economy (GDP), the media and a lot of "The West World" put USA as the leader but in a realistic contrast it is a matter of a bit more than a century, meanwhile China's economy size has always been the leader for a millenium or more in this record of civilization.
In China they will show Chinese. In India they will show the local phenotype. The same would be true for Ethiopia. Every population considers them selves to be the epitome of creation. This is normal. Get over it.
Agree with you both plus almost all the early work was done by Europeans or European descended people (Americans, Australians, etc). Hence when they did the graphics it was done with people like them. Don’t know why any serious student of paleontology would get upset about this. It is made very clear in classes that all humans are very closely related, and not very genetically diverse compared to chimps and other apes species. Got to get that wokeness in there to appease the snowflake students I guess.
Because many people have seen it in text books and it's still used in popular media, so it distorts people's view of how many groups of hominid were around concurrently in history.
Well you see she could draw her own picture with a BiPoC transgender lesbian Homo Sapien in final form - but she instead just chose to use someone else's work and complain about it like a true academic.
yeah, a few too many assumptions and errors here. Also this obsession with animal proteins. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between frugtivorous and omnivorous diets going back millions of years. Large brain sizes seem more related to the amount of calories eaten, not their source. Killing off the competition seems a more likely source, not a change of diet.
Excellent. I watch most of the CARTA videos, but a summary like this makes things far easier to recall. I wish there was a little more evidence and characterization on Paranthropus's skeletal remains. Was it for sure bipedal? I guess if the evidence was there she would have said so and the orientation of the skull suggests bipedalism?
@ 4:09 I dare say it could be perceived as vastly more racist had the alleged sequence of human evolution culminated in a black skinned man or woman. I'm curious, what would be a better way to represent so-called human evolution in a simple diagram that is free from offending the racially sensitive? Perhaps educators have become so hyper-sensitive to anything that could be perceived as an "unconscious" racism that they perceive racism even when it does not exist. Not unlike how a person may recognise a face in burnt toast, or composed of tea leaves in a teacup. Such faces are not really there, of course, but recognition of faces can spring forth from the vivid imagination of those who have been primed to notice them. We should definitely seek to eradicate actual intended racism, but let's not _also_ become spooked by its imagined shadow! I wonder how evolutionary biologists compare to other groups of educators when it comes to vulnerability to apophenia, pareidolia, and noticing other optical illusions. Certainly, the urge to recognise patterns and connections between _unrelated_ things does seem to help - _rather than hinder_ - a person's belief in bacteria-to-bacteriologist evolution. Would people so readily accept fish-to-fishermen evolution if they weren't "wired up" - _or more simply trained and primed_ - to make connections that do not really exist?
I think your forgetting about the historical use of bogus science around things like evolution and the idea of European ancestry being more "evolved" to endorse racist systems such as slavery. It's not that scientists are creating an issue out of nothing but rather that they are seeing a legitimate trend from history being perpetuated in ways that either enhance or create extremly harmful mindsets around race and that some races/societies are naturally better than other ones cause they are seemingly more developed.
@@Alice-si8uz __ What changes would you make to that simple transitional diagram in order to convey the same concept to children while also removing all hint of racism?
SpongeBob Imagination I think you’d start by replacing the linear diagram with a branching one, to mitigate the misconception that more recent species are “higher” on the evolutionary scale than older ones. Then using an human image that is not clearly identifiable by skin color to represent Homo Sapiens.
There are plenty of images of ambiguous or mixed "race" people available - this image is obviously if obliviously assuming white supremacy. It's so obvious I wonder that you do not see it?
Hi Sheila, this series has been brilliant. I do however have a question or observation. You seemed to say that Sahelanthropus Tchadensis was, or could have been, the last common ancestor but, you then go on to explain why. Because, I think you said it was beginning to exhibit bipedal characteristics such as the foramen magnum moving under the head to make bipedal walking easier. But, if is already showing signs of having already split from the apes, it cannot be the last common ancestor but could be the best evidence to date of the split having already occurred in the recent past. Of course I may have misheard completely, if so I apologise for being so lax.
So it really surprised me that after that rant about the misrepresentation of the evolution of hominids in diagram form, that you didn't provide one that would be a great all round substitute!!
Big Red instead of one individual jumping to another in sudden distinct mutation. It should be a population breaking into groups via isolation then continually and those groups undergo slow changesIf isolation occurred for enough time the groups will no longer be genetically close enough to procreate. Speciation has occurred at that point. While most groups fail and die out some continue on. Each step in our simple diagram represents a single population sample taken from the groups that eventually lead to us. By inserting ethnicity into the diagram from darker to whiter tones, we fail to display ethnicity in each and every group in the past. While what we refer to as ethnic differences appears distinct, this is a cultural bias and in no way represents a distinct genetically different group. We are all just human. We are all equally evolved as our ancestors have been evolving for the exact same amount of time. A chart showing populations of diverse individuals at each sampling step would be vastly more accurate.
Should tell us something... Throw out the whole model; please don't make it rainbow silhouette. The model completely misrepresents human origins, whether ET made us or whether God made us.
Sheila, (may I call you Sheila?) Regarding your statements early on that the old "standard" image of hominin evolution, showing a dark skinned ape-like creature at far left, and a light skinned person at far right, has a racial bias... you make the claim that it teaches children a subconscious bias, as if to claim that human beings with dark skin are somehow "less evolved". However, at 2:59 you yourself state that lighter skin (decreased melanin) is a "more recent adaptation". Do you not see the incongruity there? You basically just stated, correctly, that human beings with lighter skin are descended from ancestors who made at least one more "adaptation" (sic, evolutionary change) than have the ancestors of dark-skinned people. (possibly implied "yet"). This is a fact, not a political posturing point for anyone to make. I see obsessing over not implying racial bias is to avoid the obvious, to tell a young person who clearly sees inequity (that 2 individuals are not the same) that they ARE the same runs the risk of fostering mistrust in the very science we're trying to convey. Try to explain hominin evolution to some folks in Alabama, and you'll see where that mistrust in science can lead. Of course, that kind of thing can be found pretty much anywhere - thus my point. Teaching equality and all that is a cultural, moral act, and not a job for hard science. It's more important to teach someone how to think rather than what to think. Men and woman are different, physically and psychologically . We are still a sexually dimorphic species. Boys and girls figure this out on their own around age 4. There is a difference. This does not equal that. We are not "the same". It is disingenuous to teach kids that we're all the same when we're not. Don't you agree it would be of more value to critical thinking skills to teach why so much variety exists in our species, across gender, ethnic and cultural lines, including maturing and aging? My own self at age 10 is markedly different from my own self at age 20, and so on. Today, at age 50, I'm of the firm opinion that the value of skepticism and critical thought should come before facts and figures, so that filter exists to process them in a more ... mature and productive way. Just a respectful critique of your explanation of racial bias in the old linear evolution diagram. According to your own logic, where would you place a black man in that image? Somewhere? Nowhere? To the left of the white man, or to his right? If we're going by hard science, every human being on this planet has a dark skinned ancestor from Africa. I fully agree with that, the evidence is indisputable. But your statements assert that lighter skin is a more recent adaptation made by a subgroup of our species as we evolve. That literally places the white guy at the far right as the "most evolved", but only because there's no Asian human represented. They would be to the right of the white guy! Uh oh, can of worms time. See the slippery slope? The harder we try to teach people WHAT to think, the more bullshit alarms will go off in their heads. A fact is a fact is a fact, regardless of anyone's comfort level with it. The facts are, we are all a little bit different from each other, but we're all one species. We are not so genetically dissimilar at this stage in our continuing evolution that we can not mate across these differences and produce a viable offspring. The fact that we can is proof of our status as a single species. Look at dogs - as bred by humans - and you will see tremendous morphological variation. A Great Dane can mate with a Chihuahua and produce viable offspring. If you didn't know better, just by looking at these two dogs you might think they must surely be different species, given how different they look. Are they equal? On a leash, unable to interact, yes. They are equal. (until you have to feed one of them or pick up its droppings). A Great Dane will take you for a pull. You can walk a Chihuahua. But off the leash? Well .... let's just say I hope the Chihuahua is the father, because I sure as shit wouldn't want to see how things go with the Great Dane as the father. I can't top that mental image, so I'll just end it here. Respectfully yours, 99goat99
If you finish watching the video and the second part, you will learn that there are *all kinds* of adaptations, not just skin color, that have occurred in and out of Africa, and movements over time of hominins both into and out of Africa. Therefore, singling out one adaptation of lighter skin color and asking whether it's "more evolved" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the material that's been presented. People with black skin did not somehow "pause" in evolution while other lineages continued and therefore white skin does not represent an "additional step" that some populations have taken that others have not. It is one adaptation out of thousands that has spread through some populations and not through others, and the reverse is just as true. Really, the whole point of this video series is explaining that evolution is a process that affects different groups simultaneously in different ways, with periodic mixing between them based on genetic fitness, rather than a linear process. Asking where you would put a black man in that series of pictures shows that you missed that core point completely. Finishing the video and answering your own question would have taken less time than writing this ridiculous screed.
@@agooglyminotaur169 I watched the entire video, and missed nothing. I stand by my statements, and really don't know what motivated you to make this reply at all, other than an errant take on my original comment. You take issue with this "People with black skin did not somehow "pause" in evolution while other lineages continued and therefore white skin does not represent an "additional step"" and yet, that statement of mine is objectively true, at least when speaking about skin pigmentation. You are the one who missed MY point, Andrew. My comment was not to stir the pot or make a racially charged statement. It is simply a fact. If you or anyone else does not like a fact or it makes you uncomfortable, the fact doesn't care and remains a fact. Homo Sapien skin pigmentation is dark brown by default, as our species originates in and around modern day Kenya. (Until new evidence proves otherwise, which is not the case as of this reply). The adaptation towards lighter skin can be called "micro evolution" (a term I utterly despise), as it is a small change. And yet, it is by definition evolution, and a step not taken by those whose skin remained dark because of where they lived. Period, factual statement.
@@99goat99 you might want to understand the difference between evolution and adaptation. And while you are at it, stop creating an elaborate linguistic charade to hide the fact that you are a fucking racist.
Charles Darwin taught survival of the fittest and natural selection. These theories eventually gave rise to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Darwinian Evolution teaches that we are merely evolved animals that must do whatever it takes to survive. There is no right and wrong. Every man for himself. The strong survive, and the weak are left behind. You get the idea. This is basically the pattern of the world we live in. However, the Bible tells us that all human life is precious in the sight of God, and that we should love our fellow human beings because we are all made in the image of God. We should help and look after eachother, just as God loves us. Therefor I urge you, if you have not yet received Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. Know that He is the Son of God who died for your sins and rose again on the third day. If you believe the gospel and accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, then you are saved.
hitler burned darwins books. stalin was like a god. no one could even think badly about him because they would get punished. mao was insane, nothing to do with evolution through natural selection. survival of fittest that darwin was talking about, is ability to produce fertile offspring. thats it. fittest organism is the one that makes most babies. there obviously is right from wrong. its whatever we decide. thats why we have laws. bible tells us lots of weird stuff that doesnt make any sense in 21 century.
3:31..... same can be said no matter what color you choose for the final representation.... need to make him, her , or it neon purple or some other unnatural color as to not offend anyone. I came here for history of hominin evolution, not sjw history 101.... stay in your lane how about and leave the political crap to other topics that deal with politics.... Christ almighty this freaking world is going to hell in a handbasket. Can we not enjoy one thing in this world without politics being shoved down our throats at every turn?
These video productions are a necessary history of "life forms" in all "systems", as defined by the cognitive sciences. These series make the common mistake that VOLUME of the Brain Cavity is important. Biologically this is extremely wrong. When designing a "computer" (symbolic, silicon or biochemical) the "volume" is not at all important. Many other factors also need consideration. An easy example are the older versions of "computers" to the later evolved versions. The "main frame" of last century compared to the Apple or Samsung Smartphone of today. Other examples: elephant or whale brains, compared to many much smaller similar creatures. The missing factors on "brain effectiveness" are the communication channels, coprocessors, cache systems, sensitivities of AI & trigger systems, redundancies, error treatments, etc. All these other units of the "computer" vary greatly in efficiency, compromises for different situations and compatibility with changing environments. The overall topic is covered by the cognitive science of "intelligent systems", regardless of material existence or symbolism.
Hi Daniel, there are so many really fantastic videos about hominin evolution out there, and it's not surprising that the content would be similar. But perhaps you saw a video of mine from a few years ago? This one was made last year to update information based on new data.
That's interesting, because I really enjoyed the first five minutes and found it thought provoking. I suppose the value one puts on it may depend on whether it is new or familiar.
@@DarrenGedye I'm writing this just after George Floyd, a dark skinned man, had his life needlessly and on most people's view of the incident murderously taken by a lighter skinned cop in the USA. I put it in those terms and not as black and white because that emphasises differences: we are all human. The first 5 minutes of this video are therefore relevant to the way in which many people may view the evolution of the human race and the pictures shown of the transition from dark to lighter are demonstrative that some may hold that this type of person is less humanly evolved and therefore less deserving of consideration or in extreme prejudice, life. All a nonsense of course, but in ignorant and prejudiced communities this type of imagery can be powerful in re-enforcing the belief that racial oppression is justified. I agree with you. She was right, especially in hindsight, to bring it up. It was interesting and thought provoking.
Keith C reverse the colors on the graph and the same words hold true.... so what is the answer? And remember Caucasian is not the majority worldwide... Caucasian on the world stage is a MINORITY. And yes George Floyd was an awful thing and that cop deserves to fry... I could not bear to watch that entire video, as it was just horrific.... the complete lack of empathy by the officer was by far the most disturbing part.... With that said, I don’t see what all that has to do with a picture of human evolution? I agree with the original poster, did not care for the first five minutes... politics are just being stuffed down our throats everywhere.... all I’m trying to do is find some entertainment for myself that does not have a political message... figured something science based and not about climate change would fit the bill and now here I am.... having politics shoved down my throat during a hominid evolution video.... it’s just ridiculous at this point.... enough is enough. My kids can’t even watch Disney, or Nickelodeon without politically charged commercials being shown to them.... my kids are 8,4,2 and 1 month.... they don’t need to know how screwed up the world is right now... I just want them to be kids damnit. After 5 minutes this video is exactly what I wanted... so I still enjoyed it... but I’m just tired of the constant bombardment of politics in all forms of media.
Because it was probably drawn by a European and published in a European text book? If you're going to draw a human you'll most likely draw one like yourself. If someone wants to publish a textbook on Hominid Evolution in Africa by Africans and the Homo Sapiens are black would anyone complain? No. They only complain when white people do it. Really makes you think.
40.40 Should we not depict Oldowan tools with smaller hands than modern ones? Maybe scale up oldowan tools to match our modern hands and examin how good they are. Oh and not forget the lenght of the arms back then.
Why is there no definitive evidence that backs todays narrative? Before you get your panties in a bunch, I’m talking about fossils that do not require a paleontologist to decipher.
It's funny she finds the light skin problematic because a hs recently used a similar graphic that had president Obama as the representative for homo sapian and having a colored human was also found to be problematic. Maybe we shouldn't pay attention to such silly things and stick to the important things.
"dark skin stuck with ...." Actually it's sticks with us, even now. Also great to know that "the white people" and "the black people" ate racist ideas. Better to discuss cultures and sub cultures.
I am so sick of all this racist talk God just stop it. I came here to learn and now I'm getting a speech about Europeans in their light skin. But when the speech on racism was over it was very good. Very informative
Should tell us something... Throw out the whole model; please don't make it rainbow silhouette. The model completely misrepresents human origins, whether ET made us or whether God made us.
You really needed to spend several minutes trying to point out racism? WOW 4 min in and i herd enough from you. If i wanted a lecture on race i would watch one. You obviously spend way to much time thinking about race. I will find a vid focused on evolution not personal feelings. Cry to someone else. 😭
The other thing to point out from your first slide showing the misleading linear evolution of humans is the change is skin colour. Blatant ignorant racism
