Why don’t you get to think and make a suggestion creating another RU-vid Videos Shows that’s all about the Extinct Prehistoric Amphicyons (Bear Dogs) on the next Extinct Zoo coming up next?!⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍👍👍👍👍
Why don’t you think of a suggestion making a RU-vid Videos all about Dakosaurus, the “Biter Lizard”, an Extinct Prehistoric Metriorhynchid (the Marine Crocodile) the “Godzilla” of the Jurassic and the Cretaceous Seas on the next Extinct Zoo coming up next?!👍👍👍👍👍⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Why don’t you think of a suggestion making a RU-vid Videos all about Dakosaurus, the “Biter Lizard”, an Extinct Prehistoric Metriorhynchid (the Marine Crocodile) of the Jurassic and the Cretaceous Seas on the next Extinct Zoo coming up next?!👍👍👍👍👍⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Literally every claim you make here is soundly disproven by genetic studies. That and archeological evidence. I’ve heard a thousand versions of this narrative by now. I’m leaving this here as a note. This is not science. Its ideology.
It's a bit mind-blowing to me that Homo Erectus was around with its home-building and tool-making technology for about 1.75 million years. All that history, and we'll never know anything more than a minuscule fraction of the broadest outlines.
Humans have been around far longer than 1.75 million years. everyone will know in the near future. They can't hide it much longer and many already are becoming aware. You'll be hearing it from their descendants.. not people on the surface of Terra.
And at some point in the future very much the same thing will probably be said about us. Little will be left of our technology in any evidence of how we lived, if those in the future looking back are so advanced in their technology, that what we could do impressed them but still classified us primitive.
Post singularity AI will be able to simulate what it was like for them with high fidelity. The question is will we live long enough to see that time? Also, assuming society doesn’t collapse before or because of it.
An interesting question along those lines is: did bands Homo Erectus engage in warfare with other bands of Homo erectus? Is there any evidence in skeletal remains of injuries that are the apparent result of attack by another human? Or, were the bands so spread out (that is, was the human population so small and sparse) that bands rarely, if ever, encountered one another?
Yea I think something like this would be more achievable then taking someone back in time. Like opening some kind of hole to se in space woth telescope idk
@@wingedhussar1453alright... Hear me out... What if we used complex AI that basically "does the math* on like, the whole planet... It would be a huge thing and maybe not even possible. But if it scanned an area it could determine how everything got there right? By like crunching the numbers? Like how certain geological formations occured or how certain things could or couldn't be possible? Idk I'm not a genius lol. I'm rather average just thought of it when I was a kid....
Absolutely most successful human species, not only by longevity, but by the advancements they made (sapiens excluded) Using and making fire, clothes, advanced weaponry and tools, caring for others for extended periods...remarkable people.
@@fredkelly6953Is that a mockery? They evolved and adapted to become us. They were here for 2 million years and we are here for only 300,000. With our current speed in tech advances, I believe our own specie will be gone in a shorter time. Our descendants will call us dead too.
Nowadays people complain when they have to walk more than a block between escalators and elevators. Our ancestors were able to spread throughout the world, in between long dangerous swims or boat voyages, in every possible weather condition, entirely on foot! What heroes!
Not really a big deal. Most fit people today walk on average 5 miles. 5 miles x 365 days in a year is 1825 miles. In slightly more than a year you can easily walk across a continent. To me the hard part would be not having shoes so i suppose they must've made shoes - or had tougher feet
to be fair though, some of us have deformities that prevent us from stuff like endurance running (i have one leg longer than the other, i have asthma, super high arches on my feet, not much fat cushioning in my feet, etc.)
Ive always felt theres a deep biological connection in our brains between how we portray the villians in slasher movies, And how it is we hunt. The similarity is eerie if you think about it. The killer never runs. hes a walking, steady pace, never tiring brute with a sharp implement. You run away from him, he only walks, so you MUST get away right? wrong. Just when you think you can relax, here he is again. you can never escape. ...... you can run a hundred times faster than him trying to save your life, But he still runs you down, and never even ran to begin with......................... The victims in slasher movies are the legit experiences of our prey.
I dont know how they did it, if me and a group of guys walked into the woods now with a spear each and saw a deer, it would bolt and there is no way we would be able to find it again yet alone stalk it and wear it down, amazing
@@killgazmotron Injuring the animal on initial contact seems necessary for the entire hunting success. Predatory is our inherent demeanor. Oh, how one longs for the Garden of Eden.
@TM-ch3hl persistence hunting works best in hot, open areas, as heat exhaustion is part of what wears the animals down. Humans are better at staying moving when hot than some other animals. In a colder, woodland habitat with a lot of brush to slow you down, I dont think that strategy would work very well, so being stealthy and taking game down quickly before it can get away would be better.
One thing is clear: We don’t agree on how they actually looked. All jokes aside, thank you for an insightful documentary with great narration and great imagery
From looking at the many different skulls, it might be that ancient humans were more similar like dog breeds are today. All human, but slightly different, hopefully we’ll learn more.
The biggest problem I see with all these hypotheses is that whoever is coming up with them pretty obviously spends most of their time indoors. Like the idea that humans first captured naturally occurring fire rather than created it. Humans always gathered up dry grass for bedding. Apes do that. When humans started flaking stone tools is was inevitable that they would spark their dry grass bedding on fire. And this idea that physically modern vocal cords are required for speech. Apes talk to each other. My dogs talk to each other. I can tell by the way they bark what they're after. It's different for rat or snake or cat or possum. Solresol is a language with seven syllables. Southern Koisan uses five different clicks. It really doesn't require vocal cords to have a language.
Fire, for example: was probably discovered sporadically throughout different regions and time spans. Probably the same for other major discoveries as well.
I got the distinct impression that the video was referring to modern speech. Homo Erectus could communicate vocally, they just did not have the apparatus to make the sounds WE depend on for communication.
Shit, babies talk, if you count screaming and babbling. Most organisms have some means of communication, so something as sophisticated as these folks would definitely have some kind of language. Maybe not ancient Latin, but something, they must have had something.
@@kekkic I found out there's no evolution but there is rampant hybridisation and crossbreeding with other life forms. It wasn't even "natural selection" but beastiality. Good thing there are still real humans left to sort it out.
I would argue that a charitable and fair explanation for the disappearance of *Homo erectus* is as a result of isolated populations diversifying into other forms of *Homo:* namely, *Heidelberginsist->Neanderthalensis, Denisovans, Sapiens, and likely Floresiensis as well as Ludonensis.* Sure, there were isolated populations of them that simply died out, but this is not representative of all of what seems to have been going on during the later parts of their presence in the ecosystem.
The upper crust non-hybridized rh negatives were the source of the male part of the homo erectus lineages today via an "animal Eve" from the homo erectus group and an offworld male. The families with no homo erectus in them are vastly different, posessing the mtDNA of "divine Eve" that is apparent;y necessary for the ascension practise.
Erectus aren't the direct ancestors of any of the species you mentioned except the latter two due to differences in shoulder, skull, & limb morphology as well as overlapping temporal ranges. We still don't know the crown ancestor of Homo sapiens s, assuming there even is a single one we could point to given how fluid the notion of "species" is amongst Hominins.
@@Aerxis The black headed people were often said to not be able to learn ascension because they had no soul. They were exempted from the ten commandments according to ancient accounts such as king Og and were farmed like goats in the region with the highest dolmen counts in the world. Some bred in, even though original human strain with the rh negative blood can't host rh positive pregnancies very well. The mtDNA of a human with divine female markers is not from homo erectus. There were several original unrelated species.
I assume that Homo Erectus probably used logboats and rafts to paddle across open water, rather than anything as sophisticated as a sail? Either way, it was one hell of a feat.
Mankind during Paleolithic spent many a night in caves...our hormonal rhythms /endocrine system operate best under total darkness (with the illuminated dials and 'winky-blinky' lights bad for your normal body day/night endocrine balance)...therefore cave-sleeping allowed for our natural day-night cycle to develop.
I read a report from 1950 from mexico city that stated during the laying of a new water pipe thru the city that 4 ancient humans were laying next to a wolly mamoth.Spears and tools were laying around the site.Just one year later,close by the first find they found another wolly mamoth.
Perfect timing, I was looking for something exactly like this. Started with dinosaurs, then pterosaurs, now homo. Love the history of our distant, yet closest relatives. A video about the earliest homo sapiens would nice (and other groups too, like heidelbergensis, habilis, neanderthalensis etc.).
Is it not a bit outdated to think that evolution was 'sudden'? The first human species to leave Africa have also been contributed to being Homo Habilis. Between Habilis and Erectus there is probably a lot of in-between variants.
@7:45 It is amazing how successful groups of predators can be with cooperative hunting tactics. Able to bring down much larger, stronger, and hardier prey than any one individual predator. Humans being pack hunters, tool users, and tool makers, were advantaged by physiology that also allowed them to become superb pursuit hunters.
Things have changed. My mother was one of nine, but their neighbor had 15 kids in the 30s. And that was under modern civilization conditions. Homoerectus woman probably popped out one kid or even two every fertile year of her life.
Wow, this was a fascinating video on Homo erectus, the longest-lived human species ever. I learned a lot from your summary and highlights of their achievements, such as hunting, fire, and seafaring. One thing that I think is also interesting is that Homo erectus may have been the first human to use symbols and art, as evidenced by the engraved shells found in Java that date back to 500,000 years ago [00:19:21]1. These shells are the oldest known examples of abstract patterns made by humans, and they suggest that Homo erectus had some form of symbolic communication and expression. I wonder what they were trying to convey with these engravings. Maybe they were the first artists of our kind. Thanks for the great video!
Smells like fraud or evolutionary misrepresentation doesn't it? .....considering that we are not homogeneous but several hybrids with other animals and rightfully deserve more distinctive categories.
Life's short span i.e. higher death rate due to the conditions certainly were the factors, this incl. lots of infants or newborn lost etc., men died often during the hunt or wars, women naturally exceeded them in numbers, and were also tolerated or in demand of other packs around, as it produced men - fighters, hunters protectors, so my guess the birth rate was very healthy, but the odds were not quite "pro" life in general.
Humans can have kids anytime, other species normally can't. Higher replacement rate. Only limitation is carrying 1 child only when migrating. I expect predation also led to faster development. Get smart or die.
Interesting that H. erectus "disappeared" during the previous glacial warm interval, a time between glaciations much like our own Holocene. They persisted as themselves apparently only in refugia, like Indonesian islands. Also interesting that the appearance of "modern humans" occurred at the time of an earlier warm interval. My guess is that during warm intervals there would be some forced and some opportunistic migrations, bringing different branches of humanity into contact with one another.
There's a positive correlation between warm temps and violent behaviors in modern civilization. Maybe there were interspecies wars during these periods.
@@FarmerDrew I'm not sure why they think this way, but scientists apparently think there may have been as few as 800 individuals at a time in all of Europe in the Aurignacian period (42,000 - 33,000). If this low count also applied in the Mousterian (160,000 - 40,000) which covered all of Europe and east to the Altai Mountains, it's hard to imagine any violent encounters of scale occurring during these early periods, warm or not. Hard to imagine any encounters at all, frankly.
@@FarmerDrew It's probably even more than you think, because they also say that in the past the density of animal populations was much higher than people tend to assume.
I don't think there's any argument, Homo Erectus, apart from sounding like a gay porn movie, has to be the most successful human species in history. We think we're clever, but to invent the use of fire, construction, advanced tools where there none before shows a level of ingenuity up there with luminaries such as Newton, Einstein, and Hawking, and we've barely been around a fraction of the time they were.
Yeah, and then they died out because on their island were growing more trees? Nah, man, that sounds so stupid. Evtl, some kind of virus or other things combined drove them to extinction, but a simple klimate change? when they had developed seafahring, fire, tools? Sorry but no.
And we haven't got any further than their use of fire - imagine it had never been harnessed. Where would we be? What wouldn't we have? Our entire existence is the result of the expert use of fire.
It takes such a perfect set of conditions for fossils to form that just because they disappear from the fossil records that in no way means that they were not around. Archaeologists are the biggest class snobs in all of Academia. I hate how they are always displayed in just a hide thrown over them because there's also been sewing needles found at these sites. I wish they would they would just be honest for once, and say that we got not a fucking clue. For someone to be buried with grave goods in the first place, there has to be such an abundance that those items are not detrimentally useful to the survival of the tribe.
The truth is so much more complex than old Anthropologists like to debate. These ancestors of ours roamed back and forth and all over the World as best they could. They stayed in places for long periods of time, they migrated frequently at the same time others stayed put. They simultaneously evolved independently and interbred. It is not one or the other.
This obsession with whether humans began in Asia or Africa is entirely political. In reality, these are one single connected land mass, and the climate zones cross these land masses fairly evenly, with modern and past animial species living on both sides of the imaginary line between the continents. Europe too is connected to these, and the only line between them is in our collective imaginations. The only importance of this so-called origin is purely cultural and political, and it is neither scientific nor in-line with the modern understanding of population genetics.
Haha! Somebody deleted their goofy response to me. I guess they realized that, yes, human fossils have also been found outside of Africa. So goofy these people.
i totally agree with your point but let’s pretend we did start in what nowadays we consider africa, wouldn’t it be useful to know where in the connected land mass we originated ? i’m not disagreeing or anything but it’s the best way to coordinate the possible beggining of us. i agree with the political part though and imaginary lines
@@shamulol with population genetics, you're not going to have a precise origin of a species in time or space, so it becomes more of a zone (in time and space). It can take several generations or many generations for a recognizably new species to appear. So, for example, animals that are suddenly isolated on an island may become quite unique over just a few generations, becoming a "new species". Or for example, a natural barrier like a lake could dry up, and two distinct populations could converge into one in just a couple generations. We can't forget that many species can still interbreed with each other, and classification is determined by factors other than capacity to interbreed. These types of isolation or convergence events certainly would be important to our understanding of emerging species. But such easily identified events and places are more the exception than the rule. Often times with species that have a large range, like humans, they form gradients of difference over time and space. We can see that in humans with our "racial" changes both across the continents and across time, as groups converge and diverge. These more broad convergences and divergences are also useful to our understanding, so where and when they happen over larger and less specific areas are keys to that understanding. For humans, our bipedalism makes us extremely energy efficient for long distance travel by land, and that combined with our early propensity to follow migratory animals gave many of our ancestors massive territorial ranges. On the flip side, our ability to consume a low variety omnivorous diet and adapt a local environment to our needs can lead to long term settlement and isolation, thus a very tiny range. These two traits have opposite effects on our changes as genetic populations. The migratory groups tend to intermix frequently and have wider zones of origination of specific trait changes/adaptations. But isolated groups can become highly differentiated and highly adapted to a very specific place and time. For these reasons, it's best to view humans in a multi-origin context. Africa itself is a huge place, but so is East Africa. Pointing to the entire continent and saying "there" is pretty useless, unless that continent is isolated like an island, like Australia, for example. Humans are so migratory, however, that even barriers that create strong isolation effects on other species, like islands, are relatively weak. If we look at gene populations, we see that only massive barriers like the Himalayas, the Pacific ocean, and the Sahara desert had any kind of strong isolating effect during our evolution. But those effects have decreased over time, as we've become better at overcoming those barriers. Our ability to build sea craft like rafts may even predate our species itself, with some speculating that Homo Erectus could build such craft. This is a game changer from an evolutionary standpoint, strongly affecting the concept of place origin. Anyone who's floated on the ocean knows that coastal currents can carry you tens or hundreds of miles effortlessly. While bipedalism is energy efficient, floating effortlessly is far more efficient. We have countless examples of other animals getting trapped on natural sea rafts that cross vast expanses of ocean, like from Africa to South America, thus changing their evolutionary path. So when we introduce intentionally created rafts, that makes such massive distances less meaningful to population isolation, both for humans and the plants and animals we may take with us. All of this migration makes pointing to a precise geographic origin for the entire species somewhat pointless. Rather, the origin of different specific traits caused by specific regional events is more useful. So, yes, we can point to a place and say "there" for certain trait emergences. My original point is also very important, though. When we point to "there" choosing arbitrary lines has no utility at all. If we point to East Africa, understanding that it also includes the southern Arabian peninsula and eastern coastal Mediterranean (including small parts of Asia and Europe) as part of it, then, yes, it has meaning. But if we cut things off in the middle of nowhere based on geographic convention, that is purely political. The parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe that are close to each other or touch are basically the same place. From a biology perspective they should have the same name, while more distant parts should be called something else. There's no biological reason why Greece and Sweden should both be called "Europe". They're not remotely similar to each other in terms of habitat. But coastal Greece, Israel, and the Nile delta are much more similar from a habitat perspective, despite being on three different continents. I know you may have wanted a simpler answer of yes or no, but population genetics is anything but simple. And the concept of geographic naming predisposes people to odd biases that require a more nuanced explanation.
It’s Africa, white person. Facts are facts. Sounds like the one who is “political” about it is you. Every scientist who is smarter than you and I would roll their eyes at you.
I think you would have to define speech! Homo erectus spread widely over the habitable planet. They lived in a wide range of environments which meant over time they had to adapt their physiology to live in those environments - body covering, footwear, fire, plant and tree awareness, directional awareness, and advanced planning skills, etc. They made tools, most probably some form of weapons and I've read they used water to transport. It's ridiculous to think they didn't have some kind of verbal communication skills to live successfully in their environment. I think those skills were probably more than squeals and grunts but whatever they used helped them be successful. They lived a long time and were probably taken out by advanced weapons and far more intelligent Homo sapiens.
Think again. Erectus led to Heidelbergensus which led to the common ancestor of Neanderthals and us. We are several steps down the line, much too late to be responsible for their decline.
Arrogance is necessary for survival. It hinges on belief, the ability to do something necessary for survival. Belief is the most basic human brain trait.
@@beingsentient there is a fine line between arrogance and confidence. Confidence is a healthy belief in your abilities, while arrogance is an excessive one.
@@ihaventshoweredin6weeksbut527 To one who is timid with little confidence, another person with much confidence will appear arrogant. Like most terms, these are relative, and your beliefs attach the relevance.
I’m a bit confused about the diagram at 18:47 and the clothes analysis. From my understanding of the current knowledge of homo Erectus there are no artifacts that indicate clothes were worn. In the timeline diagram at 18:47 the artifacts shown between 2 Mya and 3 Mya were dated to about 2000-5000 BC. I like the theory of clothing being created and worn my homo Erectus and I think it is plausible but currently there is no evidence to support the theory due to the deterioration of clothing materials. If im missing any new articles or artifact reports that provide evidence to support this theory could someone link them?
Agree. And no housing 1.75 million years ago, those are temporary shelters. Housing is a year round space that only began about 10,000 years ago when Sapiens needed a place to store grains year round.
You should do a video on the ancient human use of psychedelic mushrooms. It's a wacky theory for sure, but Terence and Dennis McKenna share the idea that there may have been a point in time when psychedelic mushrooms greatly impacted human society in ancient times. I won't get into their detailed ideas since that's a rabbit hole of its own, but if you are a reader or listener of their ideas, it's interesting to look into.
I became fascinated with Homo Erectus when I saw an Illustration of the earliest known human-made tools. I noticed that it was Homo Erectus who first created tools that were not only recognizable but almost pretty. When I read the book Java Man I learned of their nearly world-wide migration and their use of fire. Now they're my favorite early hominids.
The graph @ 20:34 is a good summation of what we know thus far. Only, it lacks a KEY hominid, in that the Denisovan is not on it. This particular subspecies is primary in the genetic code of people of South Asia and Australia.
@@jeremycoffen4619_"evidence of what"_ The highest level of technology achieved by the other human species. _"we haven’t gone anywhere yet"_ We've gone further than any other human species.
4:07 "Pecking man," lol! That was a needed giggle, although it didn't seem deliberate; thank you! Thanks also for the interesting presentation! It was especially interesting to see that chart, featuring the various species of Homo, and where their timelines overlapped.
They were like the pre alpha early access players when the game didn’t have all the features yet and we are in the absolutely broken full release that the devs abandoned a long time ago and it’s just this hacked bugged mess
0:05 homo is Latin for “same” ,in the like of homonym. Homo became the term to classify human ancestors based on they were similar or “same” to us. I also paused 5 seconds in to this video to comment this.
Housing began and spread with agriculture when our ancestors needed a place to store grains year round, about 10,000 years ago. Prior there were only temporary shelters. No houses 1.75 million years ago.
Group hunting is probably the norm among most felines that predate on herds or large species. Although cats often specialise in solo ambush predation cheetahs are team predators, Lions still practice a small variation on the feline norm of females and young hunting in groups and the males being pretty parasitic on the rest of the group except when extra muscle is required.
@FarmerDrew once again thts only cats in Africa where humans migrated out of. Cats outside of Africa dint have groups .seems like lions evolved to b pact animals.suprised scientists didn't put those two facts together
Peculiarly pedantic point to pontificate, based as it is on a mispronounciation of the largely obsolete Wade-Giles transliteration for Beijing, but its "peeking" not "pecking".
I reckon the CG AI voice thingy has discovered, quite by chance, the Pecking man. A totally new subspecies of Homo Erectus. Shudder the thought. Wonder of its got a beak?
Fire is ubiquitous thus hominid groups must have discovered how to create it many times, perhaps in many cases through tool making because some types of rock give-off sparks when struck.
At 11:39 you show an illustration depicting chimpanzee, homo erectus, and homo sapiens. I think it is mislabeled with the chimpanzee and homo erectus being switched. One for sure mistake is the misspelling of homo sapiens as homo sapien, without the s.
I love that these distant ancestors of ours lived very hard lives and been through it all just so modern humans can call them fake and never existed thousands of years later, funny how history works
Maybe the engraving on ivory and shells were “maps” as Jean M. Auel portrays in The Mammoth Hunters. Highly recommend reading her series The Clan Of The Cave Bear. Simply marvelous storytelling!✌️
You must be young.... Not being detrimental towards you, it's just that it still amazes me how with each generation things need to be learned and taught again. Guess how long ago this information has been known?
I highly disagree with treating them like they are entirely different species. These are also human beings but of races much more different than the differences of today. I don't believe these highly adaptive and intelligent people totally died out, but live on in modern people just as the Neanderthal people do. This treatment would be like finding the bones of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli and concluding that Aragorn and Legolas closely related races of the same species, but stumpy broad Gimli was a primitive sub-human and perhaps could only grunt and groan about superior elves. The world once had much more diverse races as populations were small and spread out, but as they grew they blended together as is no longer disputed regarding Neanderthal. They were weird looking and differently built as some people are today, but I consider them human until proven otherwise.
In a way you’re right, the distinction of separate “species”was created by us and race is a social construct that doesn’t correlate to actual modern human variation. However, the distinctions between us and other extinct human species can be extrapolated through genetics. All Homo sapiens sapiens are very closely related albeit with many groups having small genetic admixtures with extinct species. But again H. Erectus for example was probably something like nearly 2 million years removed from our modern lineage so the distinction of them as separate species is definitely a fair distinction and both useful and important for taxonomy and categorization for the purposes of researching and understanding biological anthropology. Edit/: Also all other species of humans did technically “die out” because they no longer exist as distinct lineages/populations. Gotta be careful with these types of assertions because these type conclusions are now being used to promote new types of dangerous pseudoscientific racism (I don’t believe this was your intention though). Finally, with all due respect, LOTR; which is a fantasy world is a terrible comparison. It is cool though, I also enjoy LOTR and other fantasy worlds. I think that a high fantasy that world that includes interaction with other human species and extinct fauna would be awesome! (I’m also literally working on this exact world building project, so I’m biased!)
Well said. I just made a similar comment. I think there's a political motive lurking in this "they weren't us" narrative. Soon "we" will be blamed for exterminating "them".
Also,these differences would have occurred slowly over many many generations. It's not like some homo erects parents looked at their kids and said, " these kids dont look like us, they must be homo sapiens"
~ Surprizingly, HomoErectus has an authentic Asian ancestry, whereas they were the first to develop the ability to look over the tall grasslands in order to see predators approaching by watching the grass patterns made as the predators traveled across. If there were trees around & HomoErectus could see predators from afar, then they would give a warning signal, but if there were no trees around, then listening for predators traveling across the grasses & looking over by standing & watching for falling grass as the predators roamed, was the way to be aware of their presence approaching. ~ A great advantage for HomoErectus was bamboo, one of the first largest grasses, per as it first served as weapon then eventually used for refuge from predators because bamboo is very strong & sturdy. ~ DID YOU KNOW: Ancient humans eventually developed strong vocal cords to ward off predators when they were being attacked, by screaming at them in protest.
Wait one second, you're saying that primitive humans were able to scream and yell, just like most jungle monkeys do today? And for that matter, most other animal species too!...... Well that is amazing, isn't it! By the way, have you ever seen how a lion moves through very tall grass? Is like a freaking shark moving through the water!.... You sense it, but you really don't see it much..... It's freaking awesome!
Sorry to say that’s unlikely due to our warlike nature. We no longer have to fight for food, so we fight for land, water, beliefs and politics. We graduated from killing animals, to killing humans and now we have the capacity to destroy the planet efficiently. I’m not sure if we can survive another upgrade. ❤
What does that mean? "A new species arrived on the scene". They didn't evolve in a vacume. What was that pivotable moment in time that distinguished them as something different than thousands of generations that came before? Was it just one indivdual that some how managed to pass on their DNA or several indiduals spread through out the population? What was it in their DNA that was different from their predecessors?
And yet we think it’s impossible for a species of upright bipedal hominid to exist independent of humanity despite the countless eyewitness accounts across vast gulfs of time and space that share similarities with one another.
17:17 so, if I want to see those houses mentioned in the title, I have to watch the 17 minutes of everything everybody should already know about our ancestors?! Is this a novel way to attract more viewers?! Or shall we call it something else?
Thanks for the great video. I think you got the naming at the shoulder view diagram wrong, looks like the chimp is more modern looking than erectus @11:44
Too many hads, the second had is unnecessary. There is a large school of thought that homo erectus is just homo sapian, so it is very possible that they had faith in a deity.
It seems anachronistically quite rad that early hominids had their own industrial periods, as well. To think of it in those terms lends a greater relatability to these guys and gals. The real question, however, is did Homo erectus also produce industrial music?
I think it would be much more realistic to depict early humans foraging for tubers, seeds, insects, and berries than killing large animals for the majority of their food. Fossilized evidence of early humans eating food other than animals does not exist for obvious reasons. It is silly to assume they ate mostly animals.
I think it is in part due to large animal bones showing marks of being butchered. Of course knowing if this was the norm or rare would be difficult to know.
I'm guessing early humans are still here. It's called evolution, not climate change. This stuff makes me laugh. A little entertaining though. Funny how money and politics has too enter into everything.
That's probably because we know more about the damage those pesky European invaders did to the cultures and peoples already living in the "colonies", who for some reason or other thought they were doing perfectly fine without their new, uninvited overlords, thank you very much. That, or the terrible clothes the invaders chose. I mean, have you *seen* what the Conquistadores were wearing, for example? No fashion sense at all.
These AI generated vids are getting ridiculous. At least listen back once and fix all the mispronunciations and gaffs. RU-vid needs a filter to not recommend AI generated content when selected.
@EnigmaDave AI Has All information gathered. They can't make any mistakes or misleading. It's human who could give wrong information. The choice is yours, most of us enjoying this type of content, far better content that humans could make.
15:16 Now I am a dumby, but I can't imagine something migrating into such a harsh, potentially unknown climate not knowing how to make fire. There's no chance they would do something that risky, bringing something they didn't know how to generate and only hoping to find the materials to fuel it. No way maaaannnn
There are likely many more variations in early hominids than we currently have evidence for. We will learn more over time but it’s likely that we will never know the full extent of what existed and when.
I been wondering a lot about how boats came about and I think it has to do with crossing large rivers. Let me explain. If you been to a large river you will notice that from time to time a piece of wood will be floating down stream. Sometime it is a whole tree. I think that our ancestors saw that and got the idea that they could ride the tree from one side of the river to the other. At first it would have been clunky but overtime they would have started to understand how big the tree actually needed to be transport to certain amount of people and started to (craft) slim down this trees since smaller trees are easier to steer and control in the current. Slowly this slimming would start to slowly become more and more exact and closer to a canoe or small boat. What do you guys think?
