The Humans That Built Houses 1,750,000 Years Before Us 

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.

stick your heritage u know where....👎🤧

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.

Caves sites show that Homo erectus only had use of the flip phone.

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?

"It's witchcraft don't trust it" "What's witchcraft you're not imagining things again are you Gorsh?"

the first boat moment was also probably the first "hold my beer" moment 🤔🤣

I'm convinced that 90% of human* discoveries were just some homies f*ckin around and finding out *human: as in the Homo gene

No respectfully. The 2nd boat was made and they went Racing.

And you have to name him Grog. Can't resist the temptation, can you? 😂😂

👑 🏆

Awesome comment man!!

Understatement of all time.

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

Would be nice to see history without living in it 😂

We have one!! Paleontology 😀

​@@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....

Well they're remarkably dead now.

​@fredkelly6953 they were around for longer than we've been here. Maybe in another 600 000 years homo sapiens will all be gone too

@@fredkelly6953 did they not assimilate with later species?...or evolve?

​@@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.

​@@xtinctube7283yeah, part of them evolved eventually into us.

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

PS It would only take a few hours to walk those 5 miles leaving vast majority of day for other activities

Dogs pulled Beringians on sleds

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.)

Who are those people? Fat colleagues?🇺🇸

Man standing.

@@randallbesch2424 Man standing to attention? If you get my drift lol

@@randallbesch2424 Man standing erect.

​@@andyf1235lol

@@randallbesch2424 As you say...

😂

Why not? Brian of Nazareth was kidnapped by a flying saucer. Admittedly they gave him back.

@@michaelreifenstein2114too plausible needs rewrite

Your confused, you mean aqualung by Jethro Tull

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

@@TM-ch3hlthere was almost certainly stealth involved in the initial aproach too no doubt. which changes nothing, becuase that is also difficult lol.

@@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 Trackers are amazing people. Hard thing to learn, I'm sure.

​@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.

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.

@@ARealManInTheMaking 🤣🤣🤣

If they came back to modern times, the first thing they'd do is sue for defamation based on all the crude depictions.

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.

​@@DrCorvid what are you mumbling about?

@@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.

same i lowkey only found out about this channel because i was hyper fixated on dinosaurs

I’m hyper fixated on both

@@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.

oh I am not alone I see

oh, I see I am not alone in my obsession

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.

Homo genus

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.

@@johndesade126 this implies that all diurnal animals evolved that way because they inhabited caves. untrue

Why couldn't they figure that out? Even the simple Portuguese Man O' War use their "fin" as a sail to go thousands of miles

They turned their jesus hack on walked across my dude

Our Australian Aboriginals were an undisturbed Civilization for 75,000 years, and never had sails on their canoes.

​@@johntomasini3916Pacific islanders had pontoon style canoes they paddled everywhere. Sails leave you at the mercy of the winds and tides

The record shows sudden changes so accept it.

Much like African wild dogs

Amusing. You go on to memtion these very points.

*mention

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.

@@SewingBoxDesigns Potentially, depending on resource availability.

"Okay, Helicocystis" 🙄 (Cambrian joke, had to, 😅)

You are of very great age.

Because it can’t be spelling…

Arrogence

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.

A lot. Fair amount of fossil evidence. Murder of course has always been higher

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.

Beijing is also spelled as Peking.

Although, when you think about it, are not all men pecking?

And the uncomfortable fact: "erect man", I mean... seriously!

​@@LuisAldamiz"Homo" erectus no less!

"Like homo sapiens - us!" "...Pecking Man." Artificial intelligence not a member of homo sapiens.

🤣🤣🤣

Scallop shells float?

In Greek mythology the do

Majic

Appearing in the fossil record.

Fire, for example: was probably discovered sporadically throughout different regions and time spans. Probably the same for other major discoveries as well.

I talk to my cat. And she talks back!

That was a great movie when you think about it.

Good point

Fire is also a weapon. IMHO Homo evolved, while Australopithecus and Paranthropus went extinct, because of the dialectics between lions, just arrived to Africa back then, and fire, just tamed in Africa around the same time. Previously we (australopithecines) survived big predators by climbing to trees, especially at night, as neither hyenas nor saber tooth cats could do that, but when lions (and their individualist cousins: the leopards) arrived from Asia, those who could not muster fire and some half decent weapons, were at great risk.

well done!!

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.

@@timl9724 thanks for th thorough answer man learnt a lot

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.

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.

@@SG-js2qn my God that would be amazing hunting land, can you imagine the bounty of unperturbed fauna

@@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.

Some of us don't have a genetic trace of that kind of archaic-sourced hybrid. Game on huh?

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.

You're confusing two different words from two different languages (Greek and Latin).

_"who’s to say we’ll be the first human species to colonize the stars"_ The evidence.

@@AlbertaGeek the evidence of what??💀💀 we haven’t gone anywhere yet

@@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.

@@jeremycoffen4619 Modern humans have been around for at least 250,000 years.

@@AlbertaGeek that we are aware of.

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.

yea but lions have their own pacts which isnt seen in other felines@@TheMudwatcher

​@@wingedhussar1453 brother cheetahs stay together for years

@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

ya that is interesting. perhaps a lot of animals in africa might bear defenses from homo cohabitations past

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"

Their physical characteristics and dna are far too divergent to be considered the same species. These are very different beings.

@@samgoodwin89 Nonsense Sam. They are anatomically and genetically the same as us with almost negligible difference.

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?

Click the gear, fast forward. It really IS that easy.

Tap the screen, drag the red button while watching the thumbnail. Even easier.

@@hollyingraham3980 of course. But you need to know where to skip. I believe majority of people knew this as it is a know topic. So... useless.

😂 that's why we should Just focus on our heritage

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.

That depends upon the level of sophication or language and the ability to make stuff up and lie about it.

@@luludhamma774 why do you think language was ever invented, so they could sit around the fire and lie to one another, just as we all do today.

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.

Human beings were eating their neighbors just 500 yrs ago

@@user-jl2pq7zj2p That is stupid.

You are so gay

Dinosaurs were cool 🦕 🦖 🐲

Lots of humans species went extinct. And some dinosaur species haven't. In every mass extinction event (5 previous) 75% of species on earth or more went extinct. Plus there is always a background extinction rate normally

​@@frakismaximus3052agreed!

Dinosaurs are not extinct. Birds are therapod dinosaurs.

Leave the Internet buddy, Ai are here to stay.And I don't think this channel is AI. Just listen to his voices.

@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.

He's not AI....he's shown his face before. In your own words, at least fact check things before trying to spread lies and negativity

Lol take a break buddy he's real...

@@snowedinthesun So why does he mispronounce so many words phonetically? You can use your own voice as an AI voice you know.

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.

Nit picker!