Robin May appeared on the latest episode of our podcast 'Any Further Questions?' to answer all the questions we didn't have time to get to. Listen on Spotify and Apple now!
you forgot the anunnaki dna influence 8 percent of human dna is ALIEN The human genome contains billions of pieces of information and around 22,000 genes, but not all of it is, strictly speaking, human. Eight percent of our DNA consists of remnants of ancient viruses, and another 40 percent is made up of repetitive strings of genetic letters that is also thought to have a viral origin.
Because the Women (Egalitarians') Forced 60% of Male genetic diversity in humanity over history of the species not reproduce. 3 factors separate the ability to reproduce. Genius level Intelligence, Status in Community, & Lack of Wealth.
What I really love in these science based presentations is that they always say..."maybe", "perhaps", "based on current knowledge".......and so on, unlike some others who claim to know everything, here and now. You know what I mean. ; )
Have to agree there, science is about learning more and changes according to the best evidence. If new information arises, hypotheses and theories may change.
Okay Old Timer, let me tell you about the scientific process. First, you observe a thing, then study the thing, create a hypothesis about the thing, create an experiment for the thing, observe the thing again and again. Then after doing this dozens of hundreds of times, a new way to measure or extract data, and you have to repeat the processes in multiple ways across several scientific communities. Then those brain people meet up and concur on a general consensus on the topic until new data is available. So on, and so on. Forever.
Just plausible deniability. The reality is: At least four distinct species of human evolved in Europe. That means, African and European humans are different species.
@@VILL4IN-1 =It's not a theory as in an untested hypothesis but is in fact supported by DNA. Not only do humans have a percentage of Neanderthal genomes but in 2016 DNA sequences from multiple sources showed that there was human gene flow into the Neanderthal genome as well. There really isn't a question that humans and Neanderthals interbred, they did. It's often pointed out that chimpanzees and Bonobos are our closest living biological relatives but DNA evidence shows an even closer relationship with Neanderthals.
In my lifetime, there's been sp much advancement of knowledge on the evolution of our and other species. It's so humbling when someone finds a very distant "ancestor." We're always surprised, too. I find it delightful. Thank you for this great lecture. I love going to class. ❤
To a certain extent. However much of our new knowledge is based on assumptions, theories, speculation, etc. I mean exactly how many ancestorial remnants have we found? Very few, and it seems like we are making huge assumptions on very little concrete evidence. Lucy is a good example, we found one partial set of bones, we didn't find a hundred or more. Maybe Lucy was a rare offshoot. What if a million years from now they dig up the bones of some NBA players and assume that all the people back then were 7 feet tall and incredible atheletes.
I have ‘watched’ this video but realised it was one of those i played right before sleep. … but the title is actually interesting. So i will watch again, this time for real
Fst is as high as .46 between Mbuti and New Guineans which is staggering considering the distinction between two different species like Coyotes and Red Wolves is only .08- .1. It seems a lot of animal 'species' should actually be reclassified as belonging to the same species if we use the same universal standard for judgment. Edit: In fact, after doing some more research, domestic cattle (bos taurus) and buffalo (bison bison) are even more closely genetically related (Fst of at most .368) than those two human groups, even though they aren't even classified as the same genus let alone the same species. Something seems to be screwy with our classification system.
Can the cayote wolf hybrids then breed, is the point, if they can produce offspring that is verile, then same species, if the offspring is infertile, then differnt species@@lacky9320
I do have a question about the categorisation of species. You noted that there are different species of butterflies that look very similar but are different species. Is that based on your definition of the same species reproducing together? The reason I ask is, do we know that these different species of butterfly can’t reproduce, or is it that they won’t reproduce, which I think are very different things. If they choose not to reproduce with each other but in actual fact could technically reproduce, would they then be the same species? I suppose it’s also very hard to tell because I’m assuming you can’t force two butterflies to reproduce with each other.
I’m assuming that due to them being classified as different species, I would assume that they are too genetically different to successfully reproduce even if they tried. And yes, if they could reproduce and yield genetically viable offspring (which are able to reproduce successfully) then they would be the same species. However it is also possible for the same species to begin to seperate through a change in mating behaviour. The key definition of a species diverging from the original group is when it is no longer capable of producing viable offspring which can successfully have children of their own. I am sorry if I worded this incoherently/ poorly. Hope this helps
It’s not up to them most of the time whether they want to reproduce or not. There’s pre and post zygotic isolations that get in the way. Habitat, Behavior, Temporal, ect
You should know that when you take your first college biology course you will learn about speciation. Speciation is an ambiguous and very broad subject in biology; you can classify species morphologically, phylogenically; biologically, etc. When it comes to humans all of these definitions are not very useful to us, there’s simply not enough differences between humans enough for a human sub-species to exist
Dickens'Uriah Heap a hero of yours eh titch?-No surprises there; it is invariably the unctuous and facile that suppose pseudo-humility to be some sort of virtue. Remember that every Heap has his Micawber as his nemesis. You'd be Mrs.Heap I suppose.
Well he is not clear as he says that Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homosapiens are different species and they interbred successfully. Well if they could interbreed successfully then as per his own definition of a species ( those who can interbreed successfully) , they all are one species.
@@nadeemnasir800 That would be because he is taking an outdated definition of "species" and by outdated I mean they knew it was wrong in the 60s . Just off the top of my head, wolves & dogs & coyotes, beluga & narwhals, tigers and lions, plus a lot of bird species can have fertile children (and like so many fish too). Some more consistently healthy than others (such as wolves and their relatives). . The problem is, nobody has brought about a better definition so people often go back that one, so the entire basis of whether we are or are not we are the same species is that at least the female hybrids children of sapiens and neanderthals were fertile (since we have no records of neanderthal Y chromosomes in sapien populations). Coincidently, female offspring being the only viable hybrids is the same as with tiger/lion, puma/leopard and a whole stack of others. And I haven't heard anyone claim tigers and lions are the same species, so I think it's fair to just ignore that argument completely.
during the segment about sister species I'm wondering why if bonobos and chimps are considered different species then why wouldn't humans with the same genetic difference of 0.4% also be considered different species?
It's politics, not science. The same rule doesn't apply to any other life on the planet. Just look at the wildly different morphology between the bonobos and chimps and you can see they're different species. But compare a Finn or Swede to a pygmy in the Congo and everyone says they're identical. In Australia, the scientists tell us how all the species were so isolated for so long that they drifted apart from their nearest cousins. Everything, except the humans who spent eons there cut off from the rest of the world. The aborigines in Australia are the exact same species as the eskimos in Alaska and the uncontacted tribes in the Amazon rainforest and the herders in Tibet. How that happened.... is a mystery, but we're sure it happened.
it's funny how they are only desperate to push this kind of neo-marxist dogma in predominantly European societies. almost as though they are the only ones not allowed to form in-group identity preferences.
@@theastrogoth8624 No, because that .1 - .4% difference in DNA occurs across all humans, regardless of population groups, so two Europeans could have a .4% difference, and a European and an African could have a .1% difference. It’s based on individual DNA, not groups of people.
@@alpharius_nox But isn’t it the case that classifications of species are based largely on outwardly visible traits? Of course, we started taxonomy long before we could look at DNA.
"Why is there only one species of Human?" 1min 45 secs into the video..."We don't really know why." Thanks for not waiting until the end of the video to say that.
If the possibility of interbreeding means populations are still the same species then it’s possible that there has only ever been one species of human that has altered it’s gene pool over time due to environmental factors influencing proliferation rates of respective genetic predispositions.
Exactly that, but it was not environmental factors, it was a part of the whole "creation"(not talking of "gods" here), therefore the natural degeneration of matter in the MATTER(physical) realm.
"The genetic difference between two very different humans is the same as the genetic difference between bonobos and chimpanzees. 0.4%" So if it wasn't for the requirement of 'species' to be able to interbreed we would be different species of humans today. Edit: Then again. Neanderthals were a different species but ancient humans interbred with them. It is all a little vague.
It's just a political definition. Chimps and bonobos are fully capable of interbreeding, but geographic barriers are significant enough to produce two distinct genetic groups. By that same standard, Africans in the Congo and the Inuit of Alaska (we assume) can successfully interbreed but are clearly separate enough geographically and genetically to be considered different subspecies. Simply put, for any animal species other than modern human, scientists just want the accolades that come with discovering a new species. Discovering a new species within modern humans however would be career suicide.
Neanderthals were a separate species which successfully created hybrids that could interbreed with humans so I'm not sure what the issue is. Are you saying they had to create their own restricted/exclusive society of hybrids first before getting it on with humans? The definition of 'species' is purely biological so that's the only kind of grouping I'm interested in.@@wecx2375
Humans want to put everything in nice neat, well defined boxes in an attempt to understand things but in terms of evolutionary biology the edges are blurred and overlap. You can't pinpoint the exact generation that one becomes another.
Different plant and animal species of the same genus interbreed with fertile hybrid offspring. The claim that infertile offspring defines a distinct species is rubbish, and curiously that "rule" seems to only apply to humans. The distinction is logically inconsistent.
because the ability to procreate isn't the only determining factor. when individuals from two distinct species procreate the result is hybrid offspring.
Because species has become a meaningless term. Very old human skeleton that looks slightly different? Must be a different species obviously. Two modern humans with an even greater degree of difference? The same species obviously.
@@marshallscot: "Two modern humans with an even greater degree of difference" White and non-white, you mean, as opposed to sapiens and neandertalensis?
@@stevey5151 it’s only 1-3%, though closer to 1-2%, which is already half of what you were saying. But for European populations, something as high as 2-3% pretty much only occurs in Northern Europe. Are you Scandinavian? Native Americans and certain Asian populations do have higher percentages as well. That said, Neanderthal DNA was almost identical to human DNA. So if you were 2% Neanderthal, you’d still be 2% of a species that was almost identical to us. So the actual difference between people with and without Neanderthal ancestry is very miniscule. And the 4% genetic difference between all humans only applies to Indigenous populations in certain areas vs the rest of the world. Most people you’ll ever meet are genetically almost identical to you, whether they look like you or not.
Great lecture. One thing confuses me though. Early on we choose a definition of species to use. One of the parts of that definition is no successful cross breeding. Yet later we discuss all the interbreeding between the sapiens, neanderthal, and denisovians. Am I missing something or does the second half of the lecture betray the choice of “best” definition of species?
You'll never get a straight answer from academics about the inconsistency between species definitions when applied to every other animal besides humans, for fear of mentioning the elephant in the room and getting canceled. It's all very vague and "safe" so they can keep their job and continue getting funding. We need more mature and brave academics who are able to explore the differences between human races without casting value judgments on the findings. Mature and brave, not "safe" and milquetoast lecturers playing with semantics and mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious.
Currently, humans are respeciated. Several times throughout history, several groups have, through natural barriers and seplf imposed restriction, have expeciated. Prior to the period of european exploration, it was very common for entire civilizations to be cut off from the rest of the world for centuries. The ability to hybridize and for those hybrid species to continue producing ofspring is how respeciation has occoured. Humans are, after all, just animals, so if we are to define speciation by specific clasification criteria, those same criteria also apply to humans.
I echo comments below by @bernard 2735. By the lecturer's own use of Mayr's biological species theory with his assumption that Sapiens successfully and often interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, it seems most logical to regard all three as members of a single species.
A formation of a species is a long process and how much distinct two species are is a spectrum. In the early stages, interbreeding is still possible but increasingly uncommon and less and less likely to produce fertile offsprings. Later it moves to a theoretically possible and finally ends with actually impossible. Sometimes people talk about a much larger species with a lot of different subspecies within them. One interesting example of this are birds living around arctic circle, with populations capable of interbreeding with neighbouring populations but not with ones on the other side of this circle.
Based on this video I am 100% certain I am not human because I have been unable to find any human that wants to procreate with me. They ask me occasionally, "Why are you like that?" ..but I have no clue what they mean... I'm definitely not a human if I can not secure mating partners for creation of offspring.
@@straighttalking2090 they're literally just saying that the closer two species are to their branching point, the more likely interbreeding is successful. I don't even want to know what you're insinuating here.
I would be interested in how the four blood types fit in with the evolution and the migration. The blood type AB is said to be started as less than 1000 yrs ago. Thanks..
There’s a book published called “Eat Right for Your Blood Type” which has a theory of blood type migration, backed by data. Because of this book I believe humans are like butterflies. There are distinct differences between blood types, however, those differences are barely noticed until you understand the markers.
I have a friend who has that book when published and followed it rigidly at first. I need to ask him how he turned out as to his general health or not after all. I didn't like it as much as myself. wasn't that fond of the diet it felt like I should be eating.
If species is defined by the ability to have viable offspring and modern humans have Neanderthal DNA, then wouldn’t that make Neanderthals the same species as humans?
yea they dont even check their own logic. If a horse and a donkey have an offspring(mule) that mule can't reproduce because the horse and donkey are different species but same group Equidae. So human and neanderthals arent different because we are still here, we were able to reproduce. Neanderthals might just be mutant humans.
How does one distinguish an interbred human (sapiens x denisovan, or sapiens x neanderthalensis) from a human from an intermediate evolutionary branch???
Then you will need some genetic samples from the isolated populations.. Where the instances of hybrids or interbreed were not observed/ reported. It's not easy I think and I'm just a student.. but you have to follow the haplogroups. If a population happens to share haplogroups with two distinct species then, it's a case of interbreeding.
Who told youthat "human (sapiens x denisovan, or sapiens x neanderthalensis)" ever " interbred and why do you believe them?-Just born as passively credulous as a kindrlander or did you go on course?
Can anybody explain why we don't classify the different groups of humans as sub-species? Aren't we all? Species is tricky to define, we call brown and polar bears different species, they can breed and make fertile offspring. Why aren't humans all groups of sub-species? Even if only defined by those who do/don't have genes from Neanderthals and Denisovians etc?
Because it’s politically incorrect. Subspecies is another word for race. See where it gets you if you try to say that there are different human races or subspecies. Note that the speaker chose the PC off-ramp and denied their existence. This, despite the fact that there are well known differences in susceptibility to certain diseases between the different races/subspecies of humans.
@@Ouroneacrefarm133 Agree. One human breed always produces a like offspring, not some other breed. Subspecies comes into play for organ transplants, intelligence, physical traits, and reproduction.
@@Astral-Cosmonaut actually the statistics show genetics as the base of intelligence. Various cultures have developed because the peoples were intelligent.
Whenever one of these lectures posts, I get a big grin on my face and figure out how to carve some time for great presentations and education. Can't wait for the next one!
Based on this video I am 100% certain I am not human because I have been unable to find any human that wants to procreate with me. They ask me occasionally, "Why are you like that?" ..but I have no clue what they mean... I'm definitely not a human if I can not secure mating partners for creation of offspring.
@@reasonerenlightened2456Why are you pretending breeding is the only goal of a species. If it were, homosexuality wouldn’t exist. It was more important before we were the dominant species, but with over eight billion people on the planet, it’s much more likely evolution has created more forms of natural birth control.
Thank you for a very interesting lecture, though I have a question about the definition of species. You define a species as a group of individuals that can reproduce successfully together. I understand that enough H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis interbred that many of us carry some of their genetic material. Does that mean that the definition is incorrect or is H. neanderthalensis better characterised as H. sapiens neanderthalensis? Note, I am not a zoologist so forgive any glaring misunderstanding 😊
At the same time, how sensible is it to assume that Neanderthals a) are extinct, that b) approximately 2% of the genes within a subset of the human gene pool can be traced directly back to them [Sorry, my misunderstanding: The 2% do not refer to the gene pool but are the average amount of genes within individuals of the subset] and c) at the same time describe them as separate species? I think that it is necessary to avoid the "species" category in order to meaningfully deal with the evolutionary development of different traits. The fact that we associate the term "Neanderthal" with the idea of a person whose characteristics no longer appear today is because some of these characteristics no longer occur. But others can still be observed in people living today... It would therefore make sense not to assume that the Neanderthal species is extinct, but rather that some characteristics that led to them being categorized as Neanderthals are no longer inherited today.
I agree, @bernard2735. Using Mayr's biol9gucal species definition, it seems more logical to regard Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans as a single species.
@@jrellis11so a dog a wolf and a coyote are the same species but they aren’t the same so why do humans feel the need to pretend we have no differences that make us behave so differently?
So if we were to juxtapose the evolutionary chart at 44:05 vs. his claim that "there is no genetic difference whatsoever between different races", then that should mean that the normal evolutionary process had completely stopped for humans ~60,000 years ago. Yet, he doesn't explain what might have caused this evolutionary diversification to _stop._
@@gintasvilkelis2544Belief that humans had stopped obviously evolving predates political correctness and fear of cancellation. If there was a general belief that humans are still evolving, there could be no concept of a pure, unevolving master race.
@@hwgray It's fundamentally impossible for _any_ species (incl. humans) to stop evolving, because significant genetic variations take place at the individual level every time an egg is fertilised. But there is nothing about evolution that mandates it to always progress in the direction of _improvement,_ and a very persuasive argument could be made that at this point, esp. in the materially-prosperous parts of the world, evolution is progressing in the direction of _lowering_ the average IQ, because the high IQ part of the population tends to prioritise their personal careers over procreation, while the lower IQ are the ones making most of the children, whose rearing then gets paid for by the taxes, paid by the high-income low-birthing high-IQ families. The movie "Idiocracy" seems to portray the current situation (and the likely longer-term consequences of it) rather well. I highly recommend you watch it.
The claim there's no genetic difference whatsoever between human races is pure nonsense. It's apparent by appearance alone. Phenotypical expression being informed by...yes, genetics. Anyone whose telling you no genetic drift occurs during 60,000+ years of separation between populations is a charlatan. Let's make this a real, honest science summer, no more of these constant snivelling conceits and lies.
Why is it assumed that 'out of Africa' is a one-direction process? As nomads they would be likely to have cyclical territories, retaining contacts with their relatives in the lands they had migrated from. This would include cross breeding, and there is no reason why, for example, Neanderthal mutations and technologies would not find their way back into Africa. Coastal lands are rich in resources and would support large human populations. Flooding at the end of ice ages would destroy or make inaccessible all the potential archaeological sites in those areas, so the survival bias in the sites we do have must paint an incomplete picture.
My understanding is that it is not an assumption: there is next to no evidence of neanderthal Dna in African populations except those recent arrivals from Europe.
Well they did creep back; thats how we find Neanderthal genes in human populations in the top part of Africa and even the odd place or two in sub-Saharan Africa.
It would interesting to get a DNA sample from an individual from North Sentinel Island to how development has varied compared to the rest of us if at all
You'd get a genetic result similar to Australian aboriginals, they used to be the main inhabitants of the Indonesian archipeligo, Australia, the Philippines and Taiwan. Before the southward migration of Asians.
I absolutely LOVED that lecture. The subject is fascinating and Robin May is a really engaging presenter. I would definitely like to hear more from him. Loved it.
I watched the whole lecture (Gen Z 23 y.o. here!) It’s just so fascinating that there were different species of humans! I searched up this question on google and it took me here, best video ever!
It starts by defining that a biological species is a group of individuals capable of producing successfully together. Then proceeds to claim that different species of humans were sustainably and consistently producing offsprings together. We certainly have to revise the definition as it was contradicted within the same lecture. Based on genetics and the DNA variation described in the lecture, we also can't be sure that bonobos and chimps are different species, perhaps they're different groups of the same species that have different habits and culture.
This is a controversial question, but it shouldn’t be. Nazi’s employed anthropology to further their cause, and ever sense certain questions cannot be asked. In the case of other animals,, we don’t talk about race. We talk about species and hybrids. I genuinely what to know how that concept relates to humans. In the animal world, there’s no such thing as pure species. They are mostly hybrids, specifically in case of migratory animals. Why would this be different in the case of humans?
There are sometimes you immediately know that what you are about to say is a controversial thought. But I'll shear them anyway. I have problem of understanding the percentages (%) of DNA similarities. How is it possible to have a 0,1-0,4% diversity in our species but at the same time someone can have 100% H Sapient genome and someone else 96% o H Sapient because 4% is from Denisovans? 0,1% is even more orders of magnitudes smaller than 4% comparing to the 0,1-0,4% to 2% here [10:18 to 10:54] And I have a second question. If Bonobos and Chimpanzees, who have 0,4% genome differences, are considered different, sister species and some humans have 0,4% genome differences, does that means that we could say we are a mixture of different sister species? I know that this will easily and immediately would be peeked up by some people to justify the "superiority of their species" and probably that's the reason he avoided to talk about it and just brushed over it [11:09] . But isn't it cool to think that we have such a fascinating history? We were keep separating, we were beginning to diversify and, later on, finding our cousins and became one again. Anyway. I really enjoyed the lecture and probably will watch more of you guys
It seems to me the human capacity for intentional travel has had the consequence of halting speciation which was already underway 100,000 years ago. I would guess if, as a thought experiment, geologically separate populations of humans were left to themselves on separate continents for another million years, some of those populations would not be regarded as recognizably human by the end of this epoch.
Not everywhere. There is an entire continent where people existed alone for 50,000 years. Earlier species have been found and carbon dated but they won't allow further research. I'm not sure but many ancient species evolved and later went extinct in that period. Even large mammals like the smilodon.
@@grannyannie2948 The earlier species of what? I think you are missing a couple of zeros. Neanderthals started around 800 000 0r 500 000 years ago (research disagrees). Sapiens about 300 000. Sapiens left Africa about 80 000 year ago. Neanderthal ceased to exist un-mixed about 30 000 yearss ago. If you listened to the video, it did mention that you need over 100 000 years apart ot differentiate properly, if you are human. Some other animals might do it faster: it is a question of how quickly generations follow each other. Humans need about 17 to 25 years. 100 000 years is only 4000 generations. For all we know, we might be evolving...but we don't/can't notice it.
@@annepoitrineau5650 Well something strange was happening here. In the 1960s several whole skeletons of what appeared to be a different species was discovered, the skeletons carbon dated 100,000 years ago. When the indigenous people who had lived here for 50,000 (at that time 30,000) years ago, realised the implications that demanded that scientists hand the remains to them. And they have been shy about any archeologist research ever since. Hmm. These people were separated from the world for 50,000. I have read their average IQ was 62. Whilst species take longer to evolve, Dr Edward Dutton has written several books on how IQ can rise and fall in mere centuries. Is a universal change in IQ an evolutionary change? I did listen to it. I now realise I was very sick though, within hours I was in hospital.
There used to be many hominids. The ice ages caused mass movement towards the tropics and sub tropics multiple times which caused the hominids to interbreed and reach what we consider anatomically modern humans
Yeah. This is what I was thinking the whole time and something I felt he was intentionally ignoring. There USED TO be several distinctly subspecies of Humans... then they all mixed together and we only have one species now.
But this is not true the first modern humans are the san people, they have no genes other other hominids. it seems Europeans and east Asian were already the way they are now, when they mix with other hominids. mixing with other hominids did not change them in any way because the hominids population was very small compare to modern humans.
@@Bunnidove what nonsense modern humans existed before the ice age, they wee in Africa but other hominids like neathandlal already existed. There is no physical evidenced of these being other, Europeans only have neathandlal genes.
@@tapewerm6716 not really. he prefaced it saying that there is no clear definition of what defines a species. generally its a lack of ability to interbreed but there are many exceptions
@@cobruh836it's not a waste of time, since it gets you get started on the path towards understanding complex issues and look at things from a scientific issue.
So what is it about the 0.4% difference that makes it a "sister" species in one case, and a "variance" in another case? What, on top of the "closeness", do we need to get to a "sister" species?
The Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010. From this it has been determined present day humans have Neanderthal DNA. Therefore, present day humans and Neanderthals were able to mate and produce fertile offspring. So they are the same species by Ernst Mayr's definition of "species". Right? Same goes for Golden Retrievers and wolves.
The biological species concept isn't as simple as you were taught in middle school, sorry to say. But it's a lot more complicated then that. A LOOOT more. American paddlefish and siberian sturgeons can interbreed despite the over 120 chromosome difference and the wildly different morphologies and genetics between them and produce perfectly viable offspring. And they're a different genera altogether.
ere is no such thing as “the” human (or Neanderthal)genome. Every human genome isdifferent. Otherwise we would all be identical. It is the endless recombinations of our genomes-each nearly identical, but not quite-that make us what we are, both as individualsand as a genus.
Africa has the highest levels of genetic diversity on the planet. While the out of Africa theory is well proven the inner African human evolution story has never been researched. Continual references to Europe and Asia makes no sense because you're only getting a fraction of the story. Surely if human life started in Africa it would make more sense to focus research on that part of the world. This avoidance is a deliberate one. What are they hiding?
"They" are skirting around the hard truth that Sub-Saharan populations are distinct subspecies which interbred with older archaic humans while the rest of humanity interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, and colonized all the other continents. The "genetic diversity" of Sub-Saharan Africa merely means that the populations have been bottlenecked there long enough to form many distinct groups, as opposed to the relatively closely related humans that colonized the rest of the world. Remember, truly indistinguishably modern humans (as opposed to "anatomically modern") are first seen in Morocco and Southern Europe, not in Sub-Saharan Africa.
no one is actively looking for fossiles early humans. it happens thr other way around. people find parts randomly (often in mining or construction) and then the archeologists start looking closer in that specific area. so, the reason we know a lot less about early african humans is mostly because there were either 1. less random findings (which can be related to geograohy because by far most fossils do not survive the centuries) or 2. the funding for archeologists when things were found was not available. this also includes the budget to stop construction or mining operations when stuff is found.
Not much. The Bantus wrecked other African peoples, but they are still around in reduced numbers. There is not much more to it than that. Africa having the highest levels of genetic diversity is exactly what you'd expect in an out of Africa scenario, in fact it is one of the smoking guns that support the theory.
We always bring violence, disease and the ability to extract all resources from an area--No kumbaya. And there is a bias to look for inter mating--which I believe is rare. Two things alike doesn't mean they are related.
Based on this video I am 100% certain I am not human because I have been unable to find any human that wants to procreate with me. They ask me occasionally, "Why are you like that?" ..but I have no clue what they mean... I'm definitely not a human if I can not secure mating partners for creation of offspring.
I think the definition of species makes it so we don't have multiple species of humans, in modern times. Why don't regional traits cause different species? Like high altitude adaptations?
For most of history, boats were the main way that humans travelled long distance. Before we invented decent quality roads, it would have been easier for example to travel from London to Edinburgh by boat than over land, and indeed in fairly recent history we built a canal network to make it easier to travel around the country by boat. So I don't think the Wallace Line would have been much of a barrier for humans.
The real answer is because scientists chose to classify it that way. There are absolutely enough phenotypic differences between ethnic groups that you could classify them as different species in the same way as polarbears/grizzlybears are classified as different species. It's all perfectly arbitrary. The speaker talks about race not being a distinguishing factor because of people at the fringes of a phenotypical average (because our splitting points for races are arbitrary), but these same trait overlaps would apply to the aforementioned bears if you had enough of them or started to interbreed them without creating new distinctions along lines. Nothing fundamental changes in that case.
Polar bears and grizzly bears are different species with observably distinct behavior, reproductive patterns, etc. Human ethnicities/phenotypes are more analogous to breeds of cats or horse.
@couchgrouches7667 Talking about behavioral differences seems pretty silly to me when human behavioral differences vary widely too. Lots of behavioral modes are going to change with environment and I doubt we've really ran a lot of experiments involving rearing grizzly bears in the Arctic. And btw, cat behavior varies significantly across breed too. I'd say a lot of how we categorize dogs and cats as different breeds rather than different species is arbitrary too.
I could never be a biologist. It drives me nuts that there is no concrete definition of species, and even rules in the most widely used definition are broken all the time. Bonobos and Chimps are 99.6% genetically identical and can reproduce, and they're separate sister species, but humans that are 0.4% different are the same species? People say it's because Bonobos and Chimps became isolated from each other, but Native Americans were isolated for thousands of years and we still consider all of us the same species. That's frustrating to me. (disclaimer: I'm not campaigning to have different races classified as different species here, just stating that the lack of consistency would drive me insane if I was a biologist.)
Humans are considered the same species purely for social / political reasons. The macro races : Black, White, Australoid, Far East Asians, and Amerindian could easily be considered different species or at least sub species. There is no logical way to define species anyhow, you have to draw an arbitrary line between two organisms.
There is an easy answer to that: evolution does not evolve at a constant speed for all species. Some species once separated will drift very quickly, some won't. Many factors are at play. The main one is the time lapse between generations. E.g: A covid virus replicates thousands of times in one day, which multiplies exponentially the mutation opportunities, and they are simple organisms with simple requirements=a lot of mutations will be viable. This is why we had one mutant after the other. This is why we have bacterial antibiotic resistance. Humans, elephants reproduce slowly. That gives fewer opportunities for mutations to evolve. We are very complex, so not all mutations can be passed on, so there is a selection process which is also slow. This means we do not see evolution work in our life time, or even in the space of 100 000 years. And then, it seems some species are evolution prone (cats), while others are not (sharks). I am sure we will discover one day that some DNA is very plastic (cat), and some not (sharks), and we will understand why and how.
If the different human-like species were capable of interbreeding successfully over a long period of time.. wouldn't they all then be considered the same species?
@@johndavies9589 both are true in their own right... mixed race kids have very few genetic issues... But they sometimes get the weakest of both worlds. As a whole mixed race kids are healthier on average...
its a question of geographical/genetic differences, ancestrally nearby people who are different mixing tends to do better than 'exotic' mixes @@johndavies9589
@@EgoShredder mixed race people are actually genetically more diverse and are better equipped to fight disease. and if they are the same blood type etc as their parent then they can indeed be a recipient. you literallly get your blod type from your PARENTS.
Yes. At least by the most common definition. I think this is just an example of us wanting to glorify ourselves. There's also some clout attached to discovering and naming a new species, so there are incredibly strong incentives to classify anything and everything as a separate species.
@@nikkin.9206 If Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens could interbreed, and had viable offspring, then they were, by the most common definition, NOT different species. If you want to claim Neanderthals were a different species, then you need a different definition for what it means to be a different species, and that gets messy. More likely than not, your definition would allow us to call Asians and Caucasians different species. Of course, we just make all this up as we go along, which is why ultimately, you can claim whatever you want. Nature and biology are messy. They do NOT care about our desire for clean classifications or urges to separate into in- and out groups.
If you want to get into Darwin and positive seelection and a sister species, alls you have to do is look at the fact Neanderthals from certain areas were heterozygous for what became Rh negative and it was protective against Toxoplasmosis Gondii. Hence, there WAS Natural selection for the pre-cursor to Rh negative, and, like sickle cell anemia, the positive selection resulted in homozygotes who actually had Rh negative blood type. The Rh negative blood type is a reproductive barrier, and signifies a speciazation event. Many Autistic people are Rh negative blood type. Most Neurotypical "humans" are not.
I would be curious of your thoughts of future human species when people get specialized for living on the moon and mars. Will our adaptation create separate species especially if radiation may play a dominate play in those that will live there.
From the original definition of species in this video, surely you could make the argument that sub-species already exist through geographic separation of population centres throughout the majority of human history.
How long does a (humanoid) species need to be isolated from others (approximately) until it is considered to be a new species? 10 kya? 20 kya? 40 kya? (Are there statistics for this?) Are there examples of species, where typ A can have kids successfully with typ B, and also Typ B with Typ C, but not Typ A with Typ C?
I've wondered exactly the same thing, about whether or not fertility or survivability of the offspring between all of the existing human groups on Earth today has been fully tested. We may be surprised that some of these pairings may result in infertile offspring, like a mule, or worse.
@@Moe_Posting_Chadthey were close becoming a own race but they star mixing with humans seven thousand years ago. The same time the Dingo (Dog) came to australia and purged the wildlife.
Smart people take their time to answer questions and I can tell the presenter is intelligent. Not like in "I know my stuff" sense but in his ability to evaluate questions and make logical conclusions. Human intelligence is an amazing driver and result of evolution.
46:48 "Biologically race is completely meaningless. Doesn't mean anything at all." Different races have different susceptibility to certain diseases. This is basic knowledge to all medical practitioners for effective diagnosis. Sickle cell, alpha-thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, SMA, beta-thalassemia, gaucher diseases, tay-sachs disease, fam. dysautonomia, canavan disease, just to name a few.
Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits - Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario 2001 "Despite 150 years of evidence that the races differ in brain size, and that brain size is related to intelligence, this research is often claimed to be inconclusive or to reflect little more than personal bias Brody, in press, Gould, 1996, Graves, 2002, Kamin & Omari, 1998, Lieberman, 2001. The change in view from Darwin's time to today did not occur because of more and better data or methods of analysis, but because of changes in the political climate. This began when Franz Boas (1938) and his students chipped away at traditional “hierarchical” thinking throughout the 1920s and 1930s, rejecting an evolutionary explanation of IQ and instead championing the omnipotence of culture."
That would be like saying that "black" people are a race. Populations near the equator trend dark in skin tone and populations away from the equator trend light. So taking a trait, even a suite of traits, and lumping people together into a "race" based on them can be falacious.
@@spitfire184 you know no one uses "black" to reference the skin tone no matter how dark brown the person is. Black is used exclusively to talk about the three black races (congoids, australoids and Khoisan).
If the HLA gene is associated with denosovians and a mutation in the HLA gene is associated with many autoimmune diseases, could i then blame denosovians for my Crohns disease?
11:26 this cladogram confuses me. From what I gather . A change occured ro make a proto/bonobo-chimp and then a second mutation to create a seperate bonobo and chimp spp. So the second change created a great DNA change in bonobo than chimp so that chimps have retained more DNA that would be in that human line. It goes against parsimony, yes? Id love another view on this
How do you determine that a person is 2% neanderthal if they shared so many trait / genetics with us already? Can't i inherit from say my Neanderthal parent, some of the exact same traits i would of inherited from my Modern Human parent?
Neanderthals were also humans. They looked more different than modern people between two different “races” but they really weren’t all that different. Some scholars debate whether Neanderthals and Denisovans are different species or simply subspecies of modern humans.
Professor, in the definition of species, is it that they "can't" reproduce, genetically, or do they just not breed with the other group because a mountain range or island prevents it?
While it may be true that a mountain range prevents reproduction, the definition refers to being incapable of producing viable offspring. Such as how a donkey and a horse could have offspring, but that offspring would be sterile.
It has to be separation, imo. There are currently 3 species of Fox that have evolved on the continent of Africa, and 6 subspecies of lion. Somehow, they are isolated from each other enough that they were able to establish enough difference to be classified as they have. Not being "thinking" creatures like us, it's entirely possible that they simply don't interbreed because they don't recognize the mating signals of the different groups.
That's almost a philosophical question ... if they can interbreed succesfully (so that offspring can also reproduce) one could argue it's the same species even if behaviorally they avoid each other or are separated physically. One could also make an argument they are different species (as many biologists do).
Geographically isolated groups that could potentially reproduce with each other are called subspecies. We are only different species if we can't produce offspring with each other. So, there are dozens of human subspecies, but only one human species.
that is not the definition of species. there are many different related species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, there are hundreds of prominent examples.
In the ocean we have Fish but there is different species of fish (Shark, Dolphin, etc); On land we have Birds but there are different species (Owl, Eagle, etc). Humans have different species (Whites, Indians, Blacks, Colored, Khoisan, etc)
They seem to have genetic introversion of an archaic hominid, which most probably is H. floresiensis. No smoking gun until we have H. flores.’s genome.
Yes, up to 12% same as many SEA and indigenous Philipinos and some Native Americans. Aborigines also don’t share the same Rna as everyone else on the planet!
He conveniently leaves that one out since Australian aborigines are distinct enough genetically and taxonomically to be a separate subspecies by any objective evaluation.
Natural multivariable clusters. Though it can be contrived groups as well, after all, originally it's all contrived until you figure out natural clusters.
Shhhh - it's about humans, you can't say r a c e.. You can talk about it in regard to any species you like - but one... Like the apple of knowledge in the garden of Eden - DON'T TOUCH IT! AAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!
When you start learning about taxonomy you learn that what defines a "species" vs a "clade" is totally subjective, and it just goes to show you how humans feel about themselves when the way we treat ourselves taxanomically differs so dramatically from any other animals. It also belies the dogmatic and self contradictory nature of organized academia.
Well, recently it goes by last common ancestor. Currently decided by genetics. By this definition you’re a fish and a monkey. Just a very strange fish.
Minor correction: there are some distinct biological/genetic differences between what could be considered racial groups, in that expression of certain alleles/genotypes of genes display a distinct spectrum between groups of ethnicities. I specifically refer to the ABCC11 gene, which controls earwax consistency (waxy v. flaky, with waxy being the default and dominant allele) and axillary sweat gland composition (which affects whether or not the sweat smells or not). East Asians, notably Koreans, northern Chinese, and to a lesser extent the Japanese (lesser probably because of historic and prehistoric admixture with Ainu and other Pacific islander populations in the primary Japanese population), are almost completely ABCC11-recessive (i.e. flaky earwax, no armpit sweat odor), whereas other ethnic groups are nowhere near this distribution (in the Indian subcontinent the percentage of ABCC11-recessive individuals is something like 55%, whereas in Western Europe this is less than 2%).
He stated there is minor differences, like your point. His point more so that there isn't enough difference if we pulled you up in 150years you'd be more or less identical to myself. We are the same species regardless of race.
Yeah, you can also find similar differences inside what you consider racial groups (but your instinct wouldn’t tell you to classify them differently, would it?). Doesn’t matter because small genetic differences do exist between all living things, but DNA-wise, we are almost all exactly identical.
Yes, but there are also differences which are socially and civilizationally consequential. This is what the deniers repress all discussion of. Not earwax consistency.
@rxw5520 It’s all social construct. One problem with these discussions is that we forget that we’re determining scale. Whether or not a difference is consequential is based on whether we feel it is so. And as the other commenter mentioned, when they dig bones up 1000 years from now, those differences won’t be enough to matter, if they can be determined at all.
@@screee5783 oh there is genetic difference, you just arent going to be told about it in the west. i say the west because some place like china this would be taken as obvious.
As alluded to, defining a species is a complex task in biology and there are several factors that scientists consider when doing so. He mentioned some, but for those who might be interested (maybe you're watching this video to research for a paper or something) more such factors include, but surely aren't limited to: Morphological Characteristics: Physical traits such as size, shape, coloration, and other observable features. This traditional method of species identification relies on visual cues. Genetic Variation: Examination of genetic differences between individuals within a population or group. DNA analysis, particularly through techniques like DNA sequencing, can reveal genetic diversity and help distinguish between species. Reproductive Isolation: Species are often defined as groups of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring within their own group but cannot do so with individuals from other groups. This concept is known as the Biological Species Concept. Ecological Niche: The role an organism plays within its ecosystem, including its habitat, behavior, and interactions with other species. Species may occupy distinct ecological niches, which can contribute to their differentiation. Evolutionary History: Consideration of the evolutionary relationships between organisms, including their ancestry and the divergence of traits over time. This is often studied through methods like phylogenetics and cladistics. Geographic Distribution: The geographic range in which a species is found. Populations of the same species are often connected by a continuous distribution, although geographic barriers can lead to isolation and speciation. Behavioral Characteristics: Behavioral traits such as mating rituals, communication methods, and social structure can also play a role in defining species boundaries, especially in organisms where these behaviors are highly specific. Hybridization: Instances where individuals from different species interbreed and produce viable offspring can complicate species boundaries, especially in cases of recent divergence or ongoing gene flow. To conclude, these factors are often considered together and different species concepts may prioritize certain factors over others depending on the organisms being studied and the goals of the research. Additionally, the definition of a species is not always clear-cut and can vary depending on the context and the specific organisms involved.
@@worldsend69 It didn't come directly from a website, it's just some of the most common sense factors that are considered. There are definitely more though. It's funny to think that something seemingly so simple could get so complex in reality, but when you sit to think about it, lots of thought actually is required.
@@benfubbs2432 Well, yeah, obviously lol humans are definitely a different species from others. Not sure what you think you've discovered to say such a thing, but great! hahaha :)
@@GagnierA Those things you list would indicate some groups of humans are a different species to other groups of humans which contradicts the premise of the video. I'm not saying I made a discovery I am saying that your definition doesn't align with the premise of the video. Perhaps you could reconcile this?
@@benfubbs2432 It's easy enough to reconcile by saying what I've already said in the closing statement (since I took the more formal route in case serious readers stumbled upon it)...and that is, it's an incomplete list. However, it can be debated that the different races of humans could be considered sub-species scientifically speaking. Much like there are different breeds of dogs and cats (and other animals/creatures), which are sub-species of those classifications in some cases, we aren't going to call different human types "breeds" or "pedigrees", or even "sub-classes" -- race is a polite term reserved for humans in replacement of that to be politically correct and compassionate. Even though we're all the same physiologically (while acknowledging injuries, accidents, surgical modifications or genetic abnormalities), things like skin color, hair color, environmental temperature tolerance/comfort, cultural differences, size variation and many other factors could all be considered points of classification. Instead, since we're human and politically correct in the words we use to describe each other, we call that demographics instead.
Thank you so much for this, I loved it from the very beginning to the very end and for once to get a much clearer overview of how things came to be maybe perhaps….. seriously, excellent
Another reason why we did not eradicate Neanderthals: Eurasia was huge...3000 sapiens got out of Africa. Being hunter gatherers they did not reproduce exponentially, as farmers did, but much more slowly. Then it has been calculated that there were 50 000 Neanderthals tops at any given time across Eurasia. The fact Sapiens and Neanderthals/Denisovans did bump into each other was a miracle. Once they did meet, they mated, of course. It seems to have taken place on that bottle neck out of Africa which is Egypt/Israel/Syria. Finally: Neanderthals knew the terrain. If they had wanted to avoid humans, who were new and did not know their way as well, they could have done so. Also...Neanderthals had been in Eurasia, coping with the climate for hundreds of thousands of years...and they would have been unable to hunt effectively. My hunch is the following: fertility issues. It seems that Neanderthals seemd to have become less and less fertile. Maybe they had just reached the end of the species'line. At the moment, Sapiens too seems to be facing fertility issues. Maybe our time is up too. All the other living creatures, plants and animals on the planet will breathe a sigh of relief, if they can survive the heat we caused.
I believe the difference in shape of skull is often due to cooked food vs non cooked food. The muscles of every mammal(based on jaw strength) ultimately relieves or flattens the skull. Hence the ability to acquire language 👍
We may be only 1 species but we are wildly diverse looking species. It’s crazy how different individuals in our species look compared to the rest of the animal world.
Yep, they are usually the racist ones. It's their inherited distrust of people that may have replaced them. That's my theory anyway. It's probably a crap one, but a theory nevertheless.
Whoa, hold on. How do we know that was a first generation Neanderthal and Denosovian? Were we able to specify half the chromosomes were denosovian and the other half or neanderthal? Where are we speculated based on a near exact 50/50 split? Maybe it doesn't matter if it's true or how we know it's true but it is intriguing.
You have some genes that always only come from your father and some genes that only come from your mother. Her maternal DNA was Neanderthal and her paternal DNA was "mostly" Denisovan.
@@JohnDoe-420 This is one of several possible explanations. My question is not how can it be determined; it's how did they come to that conclusion. It's possible that they used an unreliable method.
I do have to wonder if we will be the same species as we are 1 million years from now. Will the next humans be digging up our bones and be thinking about why they are the only species of human?
So optimistic to think humanity will last 1 million years, even if that's the case we will be vastly different, I mean looking at the dinosaurs and now
@@pika2031 Humans in some form have been around for 3 million years already, although they are not what you would consider modern humans. Modern human that we know today have been around for about 300,000 years, although this number can be different depending on what data you look at. It may not seem so but humans are one of the most adaptable and resilient animals on the planet. I don't believe anything we do to the planet or anything the planet does to us could wipe us out completely, we are like the cockroaches of mammals. Not that I would like to test that theory. 1 million years may seem like a long time for us given our short lives but really it isn't that long. Dinosaurs where on the planet for 165 million years. I would like to think we can last a least a fraction of the time they did.
@@redstarchrille We can’t built a colony without contact or they will assume we are different. Imagine those islands with no contact see us from cities in our 🌎 will be the same for them.
"Race" may be a triggering word, but I think the question is really, why do we call Denisovians a different hominem than Homosapien, instead of simply a different "race" of them. It seems a pertinent question since the talk started by defining what a "biological species" is, and, according to that definition, Denisovians seem to the same species as Homosapiens.
I think the mating partnership types result in some offspring being infertile. Thats why they are different species like Lions and Tigers can make Ligers that are sterile but can also make tigons if it is a male tiger and lioness.
@@MistyHollowsa low percentage of hybrids must have been able to reproduce again, otherwise, the modern human wouldn't have around 3% of the DNA of other species. I don't understand why biologists are so keen on saying races don't exist, still common sense can see them. They shouldn't be afraid to answer scientifically what a race really is.
@@MistyHollowssure, I see that as an arbitrary rule to define species though. If you take neaderthals instead, reproducing with them did not create infertile offspring yet they are considered different species
Yeah I've never understood this either. Doesn't a northern European share more genetic codes with a Neanderthal than a modern day Sub-Saharan African, for example? Surely that just makes Neanderthals a different race
If a species is different if they don't reproduce does that mean a donkey and a horse are the same species because when they get together you get a mule?
Mules are almost always infertile, and as such are not considered a "successful" pairing. Only very few female mules were able to have more offspring with either a donkey or a horse father, as far as I am aware no male mules have ever been the cause for a successful pregnancy.
i really love the fact that these species were interbreeding so much. like, yes, we're different, but not that different. and thanks to that interbreeding, their dna has survived to today
@@alexanderjackson7815 Similar in which way? What are you measuring, what are your standards and what are the tolerances on these metrics you have used to reach your conclusions.
It turns out nature is much more subtle than we would like. There's still somewhat of an art in working out taxonomic relationships. We've spent a long, long time categorizing similarities and differences between various forms of life. Mostly via anatomical characteristics, and more recently, genetic. You and I are more closely related to trees than a bacterium, I'd hazard a guest you can tell the difference between the three.
I asked myself this very question, almost as an epiphany that we are alone. Because obviously you know it, there are no others that look like us except the apes/chimps & we know them not to be human. But once it sinks in,it’s kinda crazy
I thought homosapiens and neanderthals could successfully breed. Arent we the only human species simply because we decided we were? The definition of species is not concrete and we just decide what is and isnt a different species.
@@geminirox8635 philosophy aside. we don’t decide if we are human, its physical like bipedalism, opposable thumbs, how we process language, make tools etc.
@@geminirox8635sure, that’s how we classified ourselves because it’s unique from other mammals . No different than how we classify cats or lizards but only humans will have the traits I mentioned
"Bonobos and Chimpanzees are 99.6% the same, meaning they're sibling species" "Humans and other humans only differ by 0.4%, so we are all the same and don't have any sibling species" "Why don't we have any sibling species?"
Because two people within the same "race" say Europe can differ more than two people chosen from different "races". You can find a European and Japanese who share more genetic traits (intelligence, blood type, immune system type, a specific rare disease, height etc.) than most other members of their own race. You don't get that with "Bonobos and Chimpanzees".
Humans and other humans only differ by 0.1-0.4% It's a very high percent of uniformity compared to most species on earth. And you are trying to manipulate data.
Yes. Aborigines and Swedes might look very different, but they are genetically very similar, and can, of course, produce fertile offspring if they interbreed. On the other hand, some separate bird species look very similar, but are genetically distinct and can't interbreed.
When people think about "why we are unique species" they tend to forget that we aren't unique in our uniqueness. For instance, there were a lot of kinds of giraffes but there is only one kind left. Similarly, there were a lot of kinds of horses but again - only one of them is still alive, essentially. There were lots of kinds of elephants but only two survived - one in Africa and one in India. So there is nothing unique in our uniqueness. As for us. Usually people think about us and Neanderthals. Ok, look into this. Neanderthals lived in a very harsh climate in a very severe living conditions. Modern estimates give them something like 20 thousands people at most. Maybe slightly more. That's understandable: Neanderthals were predators of the highest level, there can't be many of them. And from some time they confronted with the expansion of us from Africa. And "us" were simply much more. And what's even more important: this expansion was never stopping: new and new Cromagnons got from Africa into Eurasia. Simply for new resources. And sooner or later Neanderthals ended. And not necessarily by war or extermination. By assimilation.
The physical differences among human populations, such as skin color, hair texture, and nose shape, are rather adaptations to the environmental conditions of the regions where those populations lived for long periods. The descendants of those who migrated may change their skin or hair color over time if they live in an area with a different climate.
We could ask . . Why is there only one species of dog ? . What i mean is all dogs are dogs and can all mate with each bread. . Well humans are all humans there are different breads of human but we can still all mate with each other
Note, at 8:36 that slavery wasn't an effect of the belief that we were different spices. The absolute majority of slaves and slave traders and owners through history have been very similar in appearance, ethnicity and not seldom in culture and language too.
I believe we are a hybrid. A hybrid made up of at least 8 other human speices. Some people have more or less dna of a speices than others which is why we have differnt colors and features.
Color is a gene modification as is immunity to certain diseases, height, eye color, finger length, weight etc etc. no 2 people except identical twins have the same genes. You are a hybrid of your siblings as they will get a different set of genes from your parents. You may have different skin tone, hair color size weight, balding etc. genes are complex and show a steady drift between people. It's arbitrary where the species line is drawn
Rally, and *W-h-y* do you -yes You* suppose you yourself to be a hybrid(of what and what?)? You base that supposition on precisely and exactly what evidence that arises from your own direct immediate personal experience or knowledge?
Robin May appeared on the latest episode of our podcast 'Any Further Questions?' to answer all the questions we didn't have time to get to. Listen on Spotify and Apple now!
you forgot the anunnaki dna influence 8 percent of human dna is ALIEN The human genome contains billions of pieces of information and around 22,000 genes, but not all of it is, strictly speaking, human. Eight percent of our DNA consists of remnants of ancient viruses, and another 40 percent is made up of repetitive strings of genetic letters that is also thought to have a viral origin.
Because the Women (Egalitarians') Forced 60% of Male genetic diversity in humanity over history of the species not reproduce. 3 factors separate the ability to reproduce. Genius level Intelligence, Status in Community, & Lack of Wealth.
only one species of human? Tell that to anybody who's grown up with a life "enriched" by an abundance of subsaharan africans
humans themselves are a race. the species is called Lyrian.
Evolution cannot be reproduced therefore renders it sudo
What I really love in these science based presentations is that they always say..."maybe", "perhaps", "based on current knowledge".......and so on, unlike some others who claim to know everything, here and now. You know what I mean. ; )
Maybe. With my current knowledge then perhaps.
@@briankelly1240 The point is.....OUR (science community) knowledge, not mine.
Have to agree there, science is about learning more and changes according to the best evidence. If new information arises, hypotheses and theories may change.
Okay Old Timer, let me tell you about the scientific process. First, you observe a thing, then study the thing, create a hypothesis about the thing, create an experiment for the thing, observe the thing again and again. Then after doing this dozens of hundreds of times, a new way to measure or extract data, and you have to repeat the processes in multiple ways across several scientific communities. Then those brain people meet up and concur on a general consensus on the topic until new data is available. So on, and so on. Forever.
Just plausible deniability. The reality is: At least four distinct species of human evolved in Europe. That means, African and European humans are different species.
Why are neanderthals, denisovans and erectus considered seperate species when they could mix and have children with sapiens?
They were not separate species, we have their genes . There was interbreeding and they became us today😃
@@JAMMAJ-cq2blthat is still a theory.
@@VILL4IN-1 =It's not a theory as in an untested hypothesis but is in fact supported by DNA. Not only do humans have a percentage of Neanderthal genomes but in 2016 DNA sequences from multiple sources showed that there was human gene flow into the Neanderthal genome as well. There really isn't a question that humans and Neanderthals interbred, they did. It's often pointed out that chimpanzees and Bonobos are our closest living biological relatives but DNA evidence shows an even closer relationship with Neanderthals.
Homo sapiens are blacks who was used to interbreeding
@@JAMMAJ-cq2bl Neanderthals are generally considered to be a distinct species from modern humans, called Homo neanderthalensis
In my lifetime, there's been sp much advancement of knowledge on the evolution of our and other species.
It's so humbling when someone finds a very distant "ancestor." We're always surprised, too. I find it delightful.
Thank you for this great lecture. I love going to class. ❤
To a certain extent. However much of our new knowledge is based on assumptions, theories, speculation, etc. I mean exactly how many ancestorial remnants have we found? Very few, and it seems like we are making huge assumptions on very little concrete evidence. Lucy is a good example, we found one partial set of bones, we didn't find a hundred or more. Maybe Lucy was a rare offshoot. What if a million years from now they dig up the bones of some NBA players and assume that all the people back then were 7 feet tall and incredible atheletes.
Unfortunately he has made many errors here,, outdated misinformation,
I have ‘watched’ this video but realised it was one of those i played right before sleep. … but the title is actually interesting. So i will watch again, this time for real
Zzzzzzzz
Same. This is my 3rd night watching this video. Finally got to the end awake.
@@nuynobi Congratulations!
What's he talking about. Does ramble.
Fst is as high as .46 between Mbuti and New Guineans which is staggering considering the distinction between two different species like Coyotes and Red Wolves is only .08- .1. It seems a lot of animal 'species' should actually be reclassified as belonging to the same species if we use the same universal standard for judgment.
Edit:
In fact, after doing some more research,
domestic cattle (bos taurus) and buffalo (bison bison) are even more closely genetically related (Fst of at most .368) than those two human groups, even though they aren't even classified as the same genus let alone the same species. Something seems to be screwy with our classification system.
Or different humans classified as different species
No, the second criteria was to be able to produce viable young. Can Coyotes and red wolves do that?
@@zir3ael811of course they can. Lots of coyote Wolf hybrids.
Can the cayote wolf hybrids then breed, is the point, if they can produce offspring that is verile, then same species, if the offspring is infertile, then differnt species@@lacky9320
@@zir3ael811 an alternative would be donkeys and horses producing mules - overwhelmingly infertile unless paired with another horse or donkey
I do have a question about the categorisation of species. You noted that there are different species of butterflies that look very similar but are different species. Is that based on your definition of the same species reproducing together?
The reason I ask is, do we know that these different species of butterfly can’t reproduce, or is it that they won’t reproduce, which I think are very different things.
If they choose not to reproduce with each other but in actual fact could technically reproduce, would they then be the same species? I suppose it’s also very hard to tell because I’m assuming you can’t force two butterflies to reproduce with each other.
I’m assuming that due to them being classified as different species, I would assume that they are too genetically different to successfully reproduce even if they tried. And yes, if they could reproduce and yield genetically viable offspring (which are able to reproduce successfully) then they would be the same species. However it is also possible for the same species to begin to seperate through a change in mating behaviour. The key definition of a species diverging from the original group is when it is no longer capable of producing viable offspring which can successfully have children of their own. I am sorry if I worded this incoherently/ poorly. Hope this helps
It’s not up to them most of the time whether they want to reproduce or not. There’s pre and post zygotic isolations that get in the way. Habitat, Behavior, Temporal, ect
Flutterby is a more accurate description than the margarinized butterfly.
Butterflies capable but unwilling to reproduce become a separate specices. I am separate species to most women I've met. Makes sense actually.
You should know that when you take your first college biology course you will learn about speciation. Speciation is an ambiguous and very broad subject in biology; you can classify species morphologically, phylogenically; biologically, etc. When it comes to humans all of these definitions are not very useful to us, there’s simply not enough differences between humans enough for a human sub-species to exist
This was awesome. I love this format. Very informative and kept my attention. More like this please
I love how he's so clear and humble at the same time.
Dickens'Uriah Heap a hero of yours eh titch?-No surprises there; it is invariably the unctuous and facile that suppose pseudo-humility to be some sort of virtue. Remember that every Heap has his Micawber as his nemesis. You'd be Mrs.Heap I suppose.
Well he is not clear as he says that Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homosapiens are different species and they interbred successfully. Well if they could interbreed successfully then as per his own definition of a species ( those who can interbreed successfully) , they all are one species.
@@nadeemnasir800 That would be because he is taking an outdated definition of "species" and by outdated I mean they knew it was wrong in the 60s . Just off the top of my head, wolves & dogs & coyotes, beluga & narwhals, tigers and lions, plus a lot of bird species can have fertile children (and like so many fish too). Some more consistently healthy than others (such as wolves and their relatives).
.
The problem is, nobody has brought about a better definition so people often go back that one, so the entire basis of whether we are or are not we are the same species is that at least the female hybrids children of sapiens and neanderthals were fertile (since we have no records of neanderthal Y chromosomes in sapien populations). Coincidently, female offspring being the only viable hybrids is the same as with tiger/lion, puma/leopard and a whole stack of others. And I haven't heard anyone claim tigers and lions are the same species, so I think it's fair to just ignore that argument completely.
during the segment about sister species I'm wondering why if bonobos and chimps are considered different species then why wouldn't humans with the same genetic difference of 0.4% also be considered different species?
It's politics, not science. The same rule doesn't apply to any other life on the planet. Just look at the wildly different morphology between the bonobos and chimps and you can see they're different species. But compare a Finn or Swede to a pygmy in the Congo and everyone says they're identical. In Australia, the scientists tell us how all the species were so isolated for so long that they drifted apart from their nearest cousins. Everything, except the humans who spent eons there cut off from the rest of the world. The aborigines in Australia are the exact same species as the eskimos in Alaska and the uncontacted tribes in the Amazon rainforest and the herders in Tibet. How that happened.... is a mystery, but we're sure it happened.
it's funny how they are only desperate to push this kind of neo-marxist dogma in predominantly European societies. almost as though they are the only ones not allowed to form in-group identity preferences.
Because it’s not politically correct. But the fact is that either Chimps and Bonobos are the same species, or races of Humans aren’t.
@@theastrogoth8624 No, because that .1 - .4% difference in DNA occurs across all humans, regardless of population groups, so two Europeans could have a .4% difference, and a European and an African could have a .1% difference. It’s based on individual DNA, not groups of people.
@@alpharius_nox But isn’t it the case that classifications of species are based largely on outwardly visible traits? Of course, we started taxonomy long before we could look at DNA.
We ate the competition.
I originally thought you meant hate the opposition but lol ate is very true!
*We f-ed the competition. Both figuratively and VERY literally
😂😂😂😂
*we refused to recognise human speciation because it's politically incorrect
Ok Dr. Ford.
"Why is there only one species of Human?"
1min 45 secs into the video..."We don't really know why."
Thanks for not waiting until the end of the video to say that.
We are the only human species because we never totally isolated ourselves into reproductively incompatible groups.
Because it's a lie. There are obviously multiple species of humans, but that would be wacist if you said that.
@@mosampson8862 which two humans cant successfully reproduce?
@@mosampson8862 You don't know what species means.
@@freddyt55555 "You don't know what species means."
Maybe mosampson is the last one of his species. xD
If the possibility of interbreeding means populations are still the same species then it’s possible that there has only ever been one species of human that has altered it’s gene pool over time due to environmental factors influencing proliferation rates of respective genetic predispositions.
A modern human could likely not interbreed with early human species. Later ones, sure.
Exactly that, but it was not environmental factors, it was a part of the whole "creation"(not talking of "gods" here), therefore the natural degeneration of matter in the MATTER(physical) realm.
"The genetic difference between two very different humans is the same as the genetic difference between bonobos and chimpanzees. 0.4%"
So if it wasn't for the requirement of 'species' to be able to interbreed we would be different species of humans today.
Edit: Then again. Neanderthals were a different species but ancient humans interbred with them.
It is all a little vague.
It's just a political definition. Chimps and bonobos are fully capable of interbreeding, but geographic barriers are significant enough to produce two distinct genetic groups. By that same standard, Africans in the Congo and the Inuit of Alaska (we assume) can successfully interbreed but are clearly separate enough geographically and genetically to be considered different subspecies. Simply put, for any animal species other than modern human, scientists just want the accolades that come with discovering a new species. Discovering a new species within modern humans however would be career suicide.
You have to be able to breed successfully and in restricted/exclusive group. Neanderthals didn't.
Neanderthals were a separate species which successfully created hybrids that could interbreed with humans so I'm not sure what the issue is. Are you saying they had to create their own restricted/exclusive society of hybrids first before getting it on with humans? The definition of 'species' is purely biological so that's the only kind of grouping I'm interested in.@@wecx2375
Humans want to put everything in nice neat, well defined boxes in an attempt to understand things but in terms of evolutionary biology the edges are blurred and overlap. You can't pinpoint the exact generation that one becomes another.
Different plant and animal species of the same genus interbreed with fertile hybrid offspring. The claim that infertile offspring defines a distinct species is rubbish, and curiously that "rule" seems to only apply to humans. The distinction is logically inconsistent.
if we interbred with neandertals and denisovans how are we different species
if less than 50% of the offspring are "viable" then those are different species, as there is no path to their survival as one species.
because the ability to procreate isn't the only determining factor.
when individuals from two distinct species procreate the result is hybrid offspring.
Because species has become a meaningless term. Very old human skeleton that looks slightly different? Must be a different species obviously. Two modern humans with an even greater degree of difference? The same species obviously.
@@marshallscot: "Two modern humans with an even greater degree of difference" White and non-white, you mean, as opposed to sapiens and neandertalensis?
@@stevey5151 it’s only 1-3%, though closer to 1-2%, which is already half of what you were saying. But for European populations, something as high as 2-3% pretty much only occurs in Northern Europe. Are you Scandinavian? Native Americans and certain Asian populations do have higher percentages as well.
That said, Neanderthal DNA was almost identical to human DNA. So if you were 2% Neanderthal, you’d still be 2% of a species that was almost identical to us. So the actual difference between people with and without Neanderthal ancestry is very miniscule.
And the 4% genetic difference between all humans only applies to Indigenous populations in certain areas vs the rest of the world. Most people you’ll ever meet are genetically almost identical to you, whether they look like you or not.
Great lecture.
One thing confuses me though. Early on we choose a definition of species to use. One of the parts of that definition is no successful cross breeding. Yet later we discuss all the interbreeding between the sapiens, neanderthal, and denisovians.
Am I missing something or does the second half of the lecture betray the choice of “best” definition of species?
Nice to see someone was paying attention.
This is answered in the ‘Rethinking Species’ segment
it's post-hoc justification
@@saleelsalam2740 Thanks. I will rewatch because I missed that completely.
You'll never get a straight answer from academics about the inconsistency between species definitions when applied to every other animal besides humans, for fear of mentioning the elephant in the room and getting canceled. It's all very vague and "safe" so they can keep their job and continue getting funding.
We need more mature and brave academics who are able to explore the differences between human races without casting value judgments on the findings. Mature and brave, not "safe" and milquetoast lecturers playing with semantics and mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious.
What a splendid lecturer ! Smart and humorous. So quickly speaking but so well pronounced that he is so easy to comprehend.
Try enunciated rather than pronounced.
Currently, humans are respeciated. Several times throughout history, several groups have, through natural barriers and seplf imposed restriction, have expeciated. Prior to the period of european exploration, it was very common for entire civilizations to be cut off from the rest of the world for centuries. The ability to hybridize and for those hybrid species to continue producing ofspring is how respeciation has occoured. Humans are, after all, just animals, so if we are to define speciation by specific clasification criteria, those same criteria also apply to humans.
I echo comments below by @bernard 2735. By the lecturer's own use of Mayr's biological species theory with his assumption that Sapiens successfully and often interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, it seems most logical to regard all three as members of a single species.
A formation of a species is a long process and how much distinct two species are is a spectrum. In the early stages, interbreeding is still possible but increasingly uncommon and less and less likely to produce fertile offsprings. Later it moves to a theoretically possible and finally ends with actually impossible.
Sometimes people talk about a much larger species with a lot of different subspecies within them. One interesting example of this are birds living around arctic circle, with populations capable of interbreeding with neighbouring populations but not with ones on the other side of this circle.
Based on this video I am 100% certain I am not human because I have been unable to find any human that wants to procreate with me. They ask me occasionally, "Why are you like that?" ..but I have no clue what they mean... I'm definitely not a human if I can not secure mating partners for creation of offspring.
@@jirivegner3711 Spectrum?.. bit of a loose-cannon word outside of the electromagnetic spectrum.
@@straighttalking2090 they're literally just saying that the closer two species are to their branching point, the more likely interbreeding is successful. I don't even want to know what you're insinuating here.
sub species e.g wolf and dog or different species human and chimp or wolf and fox
I would be interested in how the four blood types fit in with the evolution and the migration. The blood type AB is said to be started as less than 1000 yrs ago. Thanks..
There’s a book published called “Eat Right for Your Blood Type” which has a theory of blood type migration, backed by data. Because of this book I believe humans are like butterflies. There are distinct differences between blood types, however, those differences are barely noticed until you understand the markers.
I have a friend who has that book when published and followed it rigidly at first. I need to ask him how he turned out as to his general health or not after all. I didn't like it as much as myself. wasn't that fond of the diet it felt like I should be eating.
@@SmartRob That book has been thoroughly debunked.
It makes no sense to change diet according to blood type, people can have different blood types and highly similar genetics overall (i.e. brothers)
@@AlintraxAika you are correct, however blood type is a differentiation which is at the metabolic level.
Brilliant Lecture watched the whole thing absolutely engrossed
Very interesting and thorough, Thank you very much.
If species is defined by the ability to have viable offspring and modern humans have Neanderthal DNA, then wouldn’t that make Neanderthals the same species as humans?
yea they dont even check their own logic. If a horse and a donkey have an offspring(mule) that mule can't reproduce because the horse and donkey are different species but same group Equidae. So human and neanderthals arent different because we are still here, we were able to reproduce. Neanderthals might just be mutant humans.
No kid... we have parts of Neanderthal DNA and other sapiens...
@@redstarchrille go back to school and learn real science
Yes. They are the same species.
if you skip to 44.31 he speaks about this
How does one distinguish an interbred human (sapiens x denisovan, or sapiens x neanderthalensis) from a human from an intermediate evolutionary branch???
Then you will need some genetic samples from the isolated populations..
Where the instances of hybrids or interbreed were not observed/ reported.
It's not easy I think and I'm just a student.. but you have to follow the haplogroups.
If a population happens to share haplogroups with two distinct species then, it's a case of interbreeding.
Unfortunately, I don't think we have Manny Gen 1 or like 5 hybrids
Who told youthat "human (sapiens x denisovan, or sapiens x neanderthalensis)" ever " interbred and why do you believe them?-Just born as passively credulous as a kindrlander or did you go on course?
Can anybody explain why we don't classify the different groups of humans as sub-species? Aren't we all?
Species is tricky to define, we call brown and polar bears different species, they can breed and make fertile offspring. Why aren't humans all groups of sub-species? Even if only defined by those who do/don't have genes from Neanderthals and Denisovians etc?
Because it’s politically incorrect. Subspecies is another word for race. See where it gets you if you try to say that there are different human races or subspecies. Note that the speaker chose the PC off-ramp and denied their existence. This, despite the fact that there are well known differences in susceptibility to certain diseases between the different races/subspecies of humans.
Government narrative is saying there is only 1....they are not from the world of science but somehow they know.
@@Ouroneacrefarm133 Agree. One human breed always produces a like offspring, not some other breed. Subspecies comes into play for organ transplants, intelligence, physical traits, and reproduction.
@@gusgrizzel8397intelligence was shown to differ based on the culture rather than the genetic
@@Astral-Cosmonaut actually the statistics show genetics as the base of intelligence. Various cultures have developed because the peoples were intelligent.
Whenever one of these lectures posts, I get a big grin on my face and figure out how to carve some time for great presentations and education. Can't wait for the next one!
Based on this video I am 100% certain I am not human because I have been unable to find any human that wants to procreate with me. They ask me occasionally, "Why are you like that?" ..but I have no clue what they mean... I'm definitely not a human if I can not secure mating partners for creation of offspring.
Watch Star Trek
@@reasonerenlightened2456Why are you pretending breeding is the only goal of a species. If it were, homosexuality wouldn’t exist. It was more important before we were the dominant species, but with over eight billion people on the planet, it’s much more likely evolution has created more forms of natural birth control.
The natives of Tierra del Fuego were probably thinking the same about Darwin.
Thank you for a very interesting lecture, though I have a question about the definition of species. You define a species as a group of individuals that can reproduce successfully together. I understand that enough H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis interbred that many of us carry some of their genetic material. Does that mean that the definition is incorrect or is H. neanderthalensis better characterised as H. sapiens neanderthalensis? Note, I am not a zoologist so forgive any glaring misunderstanding 😊
At the same time, how sensible is it to assume that Neanderthals a) are extinct, that b) approximately 2% of the genes within a subset of the human gene pool can be traced directly back to them [Sorry, my misunderstanding: The 2% do not refer to the gene pool but are the average amount of genes within individuals of the subset] and c) at the same time describe them as separate species?
I think that it is necessary to avoid the "species" category in order to meaningfully deal with the evolutionary development of different traits. The fact that we associate the term "Neanderthal" with the idea of a person whose characteristics no longer appear today is because some of these characteristics no longer occur. But others can still be observed in people living today... It would therefore make sense not to assume that the Neanderthal species is extinct, but rather that some characteristics that led to them being categorized as Neanderthals are no longer inherited today.
I agree, @bernard2735. Using Mayr's biol9gucal species definition, it seems more logical to regard Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans as a single species.
@@jrellis11so a dog a wolf and a coyote are the same species but they aren’t the same so why do humans feel the need to pretend we have no differences that make us behave so differently?
@@SuperWiz666
*_"Both Neanderthals and Denisovans still exist."_*
Absolute poppycock.
{:o:O:}
@@pcatful thank you - that’s very helpful.
So if we were to juxtapose the evolutionary chart at 44:05 vs. his claim that "there is no genetic difference whatsoever between different races", then that should mean that the normal evolutionary process had completely stopped for humans ~60,000 years ago. Yet, he doesn't explain what might have caused this evolutionary diversification to _stop._
Politics?
@@f104G To be more precise: political correctness and fear of getting "cancelled".
@@gintasvilkelis2544Belief that humans had stopped obviously evolving predates political correctness and fear of cancellation. If there was a general belief that humans are still evolving, there could be no concept of a pure, unevolving master race.
@@hwgray It's fundamentally impossible for _any_ species (incl. humans) to stop evolving, because significant genetic variations take place at the individual level every time an egg is fertilised.
But there is nothing about evolution that mandates it to always progress in the direction of _improvement,_ and a very persuasive argument could be made that at this point, esp. in the materially-prosperous parts of the world, evolution is progressing in the direction of _lowering_ the average IQ, because the high IQ part of the population tends to prioritise their personal careers over procreation, while the lower IQ are the ones making most of the children, whose rearing then gets paid for by the taxes, paid by the high-income low-birthing high-IQ families.
The movie "Idiocracy" seems to portray the current situation (and the likely longer-term consequences of it) rather well. I highly recommend you watch it.
The claim there's no genetic difference whatsoever between human races is pure nonsense. It's apparent by appearance alone. Phenotypical expression being informed by...yes, genetics. Anyone whose telling you no genetic drift occurs during 60,000+ years of separation between populations is a charlatan.
Let's make this a real, honest science summer, no more of these constant snivelling conceits and lies.
Finally, a reputable source who acknowledges the existence of the Annunaki.
Why is it assumed that 'out of Africa' is a one-direction process? As nomads they would be likely to have cyclical territories, retaining contacts with their relatives in the lands they had migrated from. This would include cross breeding, and there is no reason why, for example, Neanderthal mutations and technologies would not find their way back into Africa.
Coastal lands are rich in resources and would support large human populations. Flooding at the end of ice ages would destroy or make inaccessible all the potential archaeological sites in those areas, so the survival bias in the sites we do have must paint an incomplete picture.
Out of africa is being challenged by dna evidence
My understanding is that it is not an assumption: there is next to no evidence of neanderthal Dna in African populations except those recent arrivals from Europe.
Well they did creep back; thats how we find Neanderthal genes in human populations in the top part of Africa and even the odd place or two in sub-Saharan Africa.
You posted a comment on UA-cam
Retaining contacts how, by mail?
It would interesting to get a DNA sample from an individual from North Sentinel Island to how development has varied compared to the rest of us if at all
That might be very hazardous ⚠️ 😅
Maybe, but I would suggest the aboriginal of Australia,
They ve been isolated for over 50 thousands years.
I would honestly be more interested in the sleep cycle of the people than their dna.
You'd get a genetic result similar to Australian aboriginals, they used to be the main inhabitants of the Indonesian archipeligo, Australia, the Philippines and Taiwan. Before the southward migration of Asians.
Is is interesting enough to risk your life?
I absolutely LOVED that lecture. The subject is fascinating and Robin May is a really engaging presenter. I would definitely like to hear more from him. Loved it.
I watched the whole lecture (Gen Z 23 y.o. here!) It’s just so fascinating that there were different species of humans! I searched up this question on google and it took me here, best video ever!
thoroughly enjoyed that, thanks
It starts by defining that a biological species is a group of individuals capable of producing successfully together.
Then proceeds to claim that different species of humans were sustainably and consistently producing offsprings together.
We certainly have to revise the definition as it was contradicted within the same lecture.
Based on genetics and the DNA variation described in the lecture, we also can't be sure that bonobos and chimps are different species, perhaps they're different groups of the same species that have different habits and culture.
It starts by saying that is ONE way biologists define the word species
How do you distinguish between race and species?
Das wacist!
This is a controversial question, but it shouldn’t be. Nazi’s employed anthropology to further their cause, and ever sense certain questions cannot be asked. In the case of other animals,, we don’t talk about race. We talk about species and hybrids. I genuinely what to know how that concept relates to humans. In the animal world, there’s no such thing as pure species. They are mostly hybrids, specifically in case of migratory animals. Why would this be different in the case of humans?
@@AA-rc4zr Maybe you were lied to about the Nazis.
There are sometimes you immediately know that what you are about to say is a controversial thought. But I'll shear them anyway.
I have problem of understanding the percentages (%) of DNA similarities. How is it possible to have a 0,1-0,4% diversity in our species but at the same time someone can have 100% H Sapient genome and someone else 96% o H Sapient because 4% is from Denisovans? 0,1% is even more orders of magnitudes smaller than 4% comparing to the 0,1-0,4% to 2% here [10:18 to 10:54]
And I have a second question. If Bonobos and Chimpanzees, who have 0,4% genome differences, are considered different, sister species and some humans have 0,4% genome differences, does that means that we could say we are a mixture of different sister species? I know that this will easily and immediately would be peeked up by some people to justify the "superiority of their species" and probably that's the reason he avoided to talk about it and just brushed over it [11:09] . But isn't it cool to think that we have such a fascinating history? We were keep separating, we were beginning to diversify and, later on, finding our cousins and became one again.
Anyway. I really enjoyed the lecture and probably will watch more of you guys
It seems to me the human capacity for intentional travel has had the consequence of halting speciation which was already underway 100,000 years ago.
I would guess if, as a thought experiment, geologically separate populations of humans were left to themselves on separate continents for another million years, some of those populations would not be regarded as recognizably human by the end of this epoch.
Not everywhere. There is an entire continent where people existed alone for 50,000 years. Earlier species have been found and carbon dated but they won't allow further research. I'm not sure but many ancient species evolved and later went extinct in that period. Even large mammals like the smilodon.
@@grannyannie2948 50 000 years is not long enough.
@@annepoitrineau5650 The earlier species go back over 100,000 years ago.
@@grannyannie2948 The earlier species of what? I think you are missing a couple of zeros. Neanderthals started around 800 000 0r 500 000 years ago (research disagrees). Sapiens about 300 000. Sapiens left Africa about 80 000 year ago. Neanderthal ceased to exist un-mixed about 30 000 yearss ago.
If you listened to the video, it did mention that you need over 100 000 years apart ot differentiate properly, if you are human. Some other animals might do it faster: it is a question of how quickly generations follow each other. Humans need about 17 to 25 years. 100 000 years is only 4000 generations. For all we know, we might be evolving...but we don't/can't notice it.
@@annepoitrineau5650 Well something strange was happening here. In the 1960s several whole skeletons of what appeared to be a different species was discovered, the skeletons carbon dated 100,000 years ago. When the indigenous people who had lived here for 50,000 (at that time 30,000) years ago, realised the implications that demanded that scientists hand the remains to them. And they have been shy about any archeologist research ever since. Hmm.
These people were separated from the world for 50,000. I have read their average IQ was 62. Whilst species take longer to evolve, Dr Edward Dutton has written several books on how IQ can rise and fall in mere centuries. Is a universal change in IQ an evolutionary change?
I did listen to it. I now realise I was very sick though, within hours I was in hospital.
There used to be many hominids.
The ice ages caused mass movement towards the tropics and sub tropics multiple times which caused the hominids to interbreed and reach what we consider anatomically modern humans
Yeah. This is what I was thinking the whole time and something I felt he was intentionally ignoring. There USED TO be several distinctly subspecies of Humans... then they all mixed together and we only have one species now.
But this is not true the first modern humans are the san people, they have no genes other other hominids.
it seems Europeans and east Asian were already the way they are now, when they mix with other hominids.
mixing with other hominids did not change them in any way because the hominids population was very small compare to modern humans.
Do you have sources? I'm interested
@@Bunnidove what nonsense modern humans existed before the ice age, they wee in Africa but other hominids like neathandlal already existed.
There is no physical evidenced of these being other, Europeans only have neathandlal genes.
Unfortunately, that does not match the extensive DNA evidence that is known today.
It feels that our ability to interbreed with Neanderthals muddies the whole theory a little.
A lot, actually. It invalidates it.
Maybe listen to the end…
@@tapewerm6716 not really. he prefaced it saying that there is no clear definition of what defines a species. generally its a lack of ability to interbreed but there are many exceptions
so the whole video is a waste of time? thanks for the heads up, i can do better stuff with one hour@@TobyDubs
@@cobruh836it's not a waste of time, since it gets you get started on the path towards understanding complex issues and look at things from a scientific issue.
So what is it about the 0.4% difference that makes it a "sister" species in one case, and a "variance" in another case? What, on top of the "closeness", do we need to get to a "sister" species?
The Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010. From this it has been determined present day humans have Neanderthal DNA. Therefore, present day humans and Neanderthals were able to mate and produce fertile offspring. So they are the same species by Ernst Mayr's definition of "species". Right? Same goes for Golden Retrievers and wolves.
...and lion and tigers, horses and donkeys ... the guy is a scam.
Actually, same species different subspecies. but it's a matter of definition. No definition of species is absolute in biology.
@@dv8ughorses and donkeys don't get fertile offspring. Mules are infertile.
So horses and donkeys ARE different species.
The biological species concept isn't as simple as you were taught in middle school, sorry to say. But it's a lot more complicated then that. A LOOOT more. American paddlefish and siberian sturgeons can interbreed despite the over 120 chromosome difference and the wildly different morphologies and genetics between them and produce perfectly viable offspring. And they're a different genera altogether.
ere is no such thing as “the” human (or Neanderthal)genome. Every human genome isdifferent. Otherwise we would all be identical. It is the endless recombinations of our
genomes-each nearly identical, but not quite-that make us what we are, both as individualsand as a genus.
Africa has the highest levels of genetic diversity on the planet. While the out of Africa theory is well proven the inner African human evolution story has never been researched. Continual references to Europe and Asia makes no sense because you're only getting a fraction of the story. Surely if human life started in Africa it would make more sense to focus research on that part of the world. This avoidance is a deliberate one. What are they hiding?
"They" are skirting around the hard truth that Sub-Saharan populations are distinct subspecies which interbred with older archaic humans while the rest of humanity interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, and colonized all the other continents. The "genetic diversity" of Sub-Saharan Africa merely means that the populations have been bottlenecked there long enough to form many distinct groups, as opposed to the relatively closely related humans that colonized the rest of the world. Remember, truly indistinguishably modern humans (as opposed to "anatomically modern") are first seen in Morocco and Southern Europe, not in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Have you considered that perhaps it’s very difficult to do these studies in many parts of Africa?
no one is actively looking for fossiles early humans. it happens thr other way around. people find parts randomly (often in mining or construction) and then the archeologists start looking closer in that specific area.
so, the reason we know a lot less about early african humans is mostly because there were either 1. less random findings (which can be related to geograohy because by far most fossils do not survive the centuries) or 2. the funding for archeologists when things were found was not available. this also includes the budget to stop construction or mining operations when stuff is found.
Not much. The Bantus wrecked other African peoples, but they are still around in reduced numbers. There is not much more to it than that. Africa having the highest levels of genetic diversity is exactly what you'd expect in an out of Africa scenario, in fact it is one of the smoking guns that support the theory.
@@LordJordanXVIISlant? Do we need to determine slant first before we can continue?😂
We always bring violence, disease and the ability to extract all resources from an area--No kumbaya. And there is a bias to look for inter mating--which I believe is rare. Two things alike doesn't mean they are related.
Based on this video I am 100% certain I am not human because I have been unable to find any human that wants to procreate with me. They ask me occasionally, "Why are you like that?" ..but I have no clue what they mean... I'm definitely not a human if I can not secure mating partners for creation of offspring.
That's just men, women don't start wars
I think the definition of species makes it so we don't have multiple species of humans, in modern times.
Why don't regional traits cause different species? Like high altitude adaptations?
Could the florensians be denisovians stuck on an island, becomome small because of that, since they were on that side of th Wallace line?
For most of history, boats were the main way that humans travelled long distance. Before we invented decent quality roads, it would have been easier for example to travel from London to Edinburgh by boat than over land, and indeed in fairly recent history we built a canal network to make it easier to travel around the country by boat.
So I don't think the Wallace Line would have been much of a barrier for humans.
You mean like the extinct dwarf elephants on the greek islands?
The real answer is because scientists chose to classify it that way. There are absolutely enough phenotypic differences between ethnic groups that you could classify them as different species in the same way as polarbears/grizzlybears are classified as different species. It's all perfectly arbitrary. The speaker talks about race not being a distinguishing factor because of people at the fringes of a phenotypical average (because our splitting points for races are arbitrary), but these same trait overlaps would apply to the aforementioned bears if you had enough of them or started to interbreed them without creating new distinctions along lines. Nothing fundamental changes in that case.
So which one is the dominate. Lol.
Polar bears and grizzly bears are different species with observably distinct behavior, reproductive patterns, etc.
Human ethnicities/phenotypes are more analogous to breeds of cats or horse.
@couchgrouches7667 Talking about behavioral differences seems pretty silly to me when human behavioral differences vary widely too. Lots of behavioral modes are going to change with environment and I doubt we've really ran a lot of experiments involving rearing grizzly bears in the Arctic.
And btw, cat behavior varies significantly across breed too. I'd say a lot of how we categorize dogs and cats as different breeds rather than different species is arbitrary too.
Yeah fair point
Relation with in race can be further in distance than relation outside of race in terms of DNA. This isn’t true of polar bears grizzlies
I could never be a biologist. It drives me nuts that there is no concrete definition of species, and even rules in the most widely used definition are broken all the time. Bonobos and Chimps are 99.6% genetically identical and can reproduce, and they're separate sister species, but humans that are 0.4% different are the same species? People say it's because Bonobos and Chimps became isolated from each other, but Native Americans were isolated for thousands of years and we still consider all of us the same species. That's frustrating to me. (disclaimer: I'm not campaigning to have different races classified as different species here, just stating that the lack of consistency would drive me insane if I was a biologist.)
Humans are considered the same species purely for social / political reasons. The macro races : Black, White, Australoid, Far East Asians, and Amerindian could easily be considered different species or at least sub species.
There is no logical way to define species anyhow, you have to draw an arbitrary line between two organisms.
I guess thousands of years is not enough for evolving into different species. But yeah I get you, it's frustrating for me too
It’s because when different ethnicities of human breed we don’t create sterile hybrids. Ligers, Mules, etc can exist but they’re sterile.
There is an easy answer to that: evolution does not evolve at a constant speed for all species. Some species once separated will drift very quickly, some won't. Many factors are at play. The main one is the time lapse between generations. E.g: A covid virus replicates thousands of times in one day, which multiplies exponentially the mutation opportunities, and they are simple organisms with simple requirements=a lot of mutations will be viable. This is why we had one mutant after the other. This is why we have bacterial antibiotic resistance.
Humans, elephants reproduce slowly. That gives fewer opportunities for mutations to evolve. We are very complex, so not all mutations can be passed on, so there is a selection process which is also slow. This means we do not see evolution work in our life time, or even in the space of 100 000 years. And then, it seems some species are evolution prone (cats), while others are not (sharks). I am sure we will discover one day that some DNA is very plastic (cat), and some not (sharks), and we will understand why and how.
Yeah. Evolution simply doesn't care about our desire to organize and categorize.
Maybe the term "species" is just leading our minds astray?
If the different human-like species were capable of interbreeding successfully over a long period of time.. wouldn't they all then be considered the same species?
The fact that mixed race children have major problems when health issues arise, and neither parent are able to be donors etc, tells a story in itself.
I thought the reverse was the case, that mixed race people had an advantage in terms of health. Are you sure of your assertion?
@@johndavies9589 both are true in their own right... mixed race kids have very few genetic issues... But they sometimes get the weakest of both worlds. As a whole mixed race kids are healthier on average...
its a question of geographical/genetic differences, ancestrally nearby people who are different mixing tends to do better than 'exotic' mixes @@johndavies9589
@@EgoShredder mixed race people are actually genetically more diverse and are better equipped to fight disease. and if they are the same blood type etc as their parent then they can indeed be a recipient. you literallly get your blod type from your PARENTS.
But if they were interbreeding, doesn't that mean we aren't distinct species?
It takes more then one gene from a parent to form a child...
Yes.
At least by the most common definition. I think this is just an example of us wanting to glorify ourselves.
There's also some clout attached to discovering and naming a new species, so there are incredibly strong incentives to classify anything and everything as a separate species.
No, they actually had difficulty, but still managed to breed. Neanderthals are not the same species as homosapiens
@@nikkin.9206
If Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens could interbreed, and had viable offspring, then they were, by the most common definition, NOT different species.
If you want to claim Neanderthals were a different species, then you need a different definition for what it means to be a different species, and that gets messy. More likely than not, your definition would allow us to call Asians and Caucasians different species.
Of course, we just make all this up as we go along, which is why ultimately, you can claim whatever you want.
Nature and biology are messy. They do NOT care about our desire for clean classifications or urges to separate into in- and out groups.
That was the first question asked in the video
If you want to get into Darwin and positive seelection and a sister species, alls you have to do is look at the fact Neanderthals from certain areas were heterozygous for what became Rh negative and it was protective against Toxoplasmosis Gondii. Hence, there WAS Natural selection for the pre-cursor to Rh negative, and, like sickle cell anemia, the positive selection resulted in homozygotes who actually had Rh negative blood type. The Rh negative blood type is a reproductive barrier, and signifies a speciazation event. Many Autistic people are Rh negative blood type. Most Neurotypical "humans" are not.
Why is there only one species of human ? Because we barely tolerate one another.
I would be curious of your thoughts of future human species when people get specialized for living on the moon and mars. Will our adaptation create separate species especially if radiation may play a dominate play in those that will live there.
From the original definition of species in this video, surely you could make the argument that sub-species already exist through geographic separation of population centres throughout the majority of human history.
275,000 years of isolation isn't enough to speciate apparently
@@notallowedtobehonest2539 This is true, The modern human is very young, seen historicly
How long does a (humanoid) species need to be isolated from others (approximately) until it is considered to be a new species? 10 kya? 20 kya? 40 kya? (Are there statistics for this?)
Are there examples of species, where typ A can have kids successfully with typ B, and also Typ B with Typ C, but not Typ A with Typ C?
I've wondered exactly the same thing, about whether or not fertility or survivability of the offspring between all of the existing human groups on Earth today has been fully tested. We may be surprised that some of these pairings may result in infertile offspring, like a mule, or worse.
About 5 generations of smart phone users will do
Australian Aboriginals were isolated for more than long enough....... hmmmmmmmmm
@@jeroen3657 About 25 generations looking daily constantly into newspapers did the pre-work for that.
@@Moe_Posting_Chadthey were close becoming a own race but they star mixing with humans seven thousand years ago. The same time the Dingo (Dog) came to australia and purged the wildlife.
Smart people take their time to answer questions and I can tell the presenter is intelligent.
Not like in "I know my stuff" sense but in his ability to evaluate questions and make logical conclusions.
Human intelligence is an amazing driver and result of evolution.
Also this lecture didnt even go into the several other ghost species which our evolution even more complicated
46:48 "Biologically race is completely meaningless. Doesn't mean anything at all."
Different races have different susceptibility to certain diseases. This is basic knowledge to all medical practitioners for effective diagnosis. Sickle cell, alpha-thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, SMA, beta-thalassemia, gaucher diseases, tay-sachs disease, fam. dysautonomia, canavan disease, just to name a few.
Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits - Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario 2001
"Despite 150 years of evidence that the races differ in brain size, and that brain size is related to intelligence, this research is often claimed to be inconclusive or to reflect little more than personal bias Brody, in press, Gould, 1996, Graves, 2002, Kamin & Omari, 1998, Lieberman, 2001. The change in view from Darwin's time to today did not occur because of more and better data or methods of analysis, but because of changes in the political climate. This began when Franz Boas (1938) and his students chipped away at traditional “hierarchical” thinking throughout the 1920s and 1930s, rejecting an evolutionary explanation of IQ and instead championing the omnipotence of culture."
Sickle cell anaemia was also found in Europe when malaria was rife in Europe.
That would be like saying that "black" people are a race. Populations near the equator trend dark in skin tone and populations away from the equator trend light. So taking a trait, even a suite of traits, and lumping people together into a "race" based on them can be falacious.
@@spitfire184 you know no one uses "black" to reference the skin tone no matter how dark brown the person is. Black is used exclusively to talk about the three black races (congoids, australoids and Khoisan).
@@christiano9693 What is a race?
If the HLA gene is associated with denosovians and a mutation in the HLA gene is associated with many autoimmune diseases, could i then blame denosovians for my Crohns disease?
Probably not enough breastfeeding for a healthy gut biome.
@carissafisher7514 ah yes, an internet stranger with no credentials who knows more about my autoimmune disease than I do
11:26 this cladogram confuses me. From what I gather . A change occured ro make a proto/bonobo-chimp and then a second mutation to create a seperate bonobo and chimp spp. So the second change created a great DNA change in bonobo than chimp so that chimps have retained more DNA that would be in that human line. It goes against parsimony, yes? Id love another view on this
How do you determine that a person is 2% neanderthal if they shared so many trait / genetics with us already? Can't i inherit from say my Neanderthal parent, some of the exact same traits i would of inherited from my Modern Human parent?
Neanderthals were also humans. They looked more different than modern people between two different “races” but they really weren’t all that different. Some scholars debate whether Neanderthals and Denisovans are different species or simply subspecies of modern humans.
Excellent point.
@@TheGrindcorps Sounds like neanderthal propaganda. They didn't make art. Crowmagnon did. To call the two one species is beyond laughable.
Professor, in the definition of species, is it that they "can't" reproduce, genetically, or do they just not breed with the other group because a mountain range or island prevents it?
While it may be true that a mountain range prevents reproduction, the definition refers to being incapable of producing viable offspring. Such as how a donkey and a horse could have offspring, but that offspring would be sterile.
It has to be separation, imo. There are currently 3 species of Fox that have evolved on the continent of Africa, and 6 subspecies of lion. Somehow, they are isolated from each other enough that they were able to establish enough difference to be classified as they have. Not being "thinking" creatures like us, it's entirely possible that they simply don't interbreed because they don't recognize the mating signals of the different groups.
That's almost a philosophical question ... if they can interbreed succesfully (so that offspring can also reproduce) one could argue it's the same species even if behaviorally they avoid each other or are separated physically. One could also make an argument they are different species (as many biologists do).
Geographically isolated groups that could potentially reproduce with each other are called subspecies. We are only different species if we can't produce offspring with each other. So, there are dozens of human subspecies, but only one human species.
that is not the definition of species. there are many different related species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, there are hundreds of prominent examples.
Very articulate, well spoken. An Absolutely outstanding communicator.
Are you ABSOLUTELY certain of that? 🤨
Except at 52:33 when he called Denisovans "Denis-AY-vans" .
In the ocean we have Fish but there is different species of fish (Shark, Dolphin, etc); On land we have Birds but there are different species (Owl, Eagle, etc). Humans have different species (Whites, Indians, Blacks, Colored, Khoisan, etc)
Comment section highly reminiscent of meal conversation in a mental hospital.
So, just from looking at that map, do Australian Aboriginal people also have higher proportions of Devonian DNA?
They seem to have genetic introversion of an archaic hominid, which most probably is H. floresiensis. No smoking gun until we have H. flores.’s genome.
Yes, up to 12% same as many SEA and indigenous Philipinos and some Native Americans. Aborigines also don’t share the same Rna as everyone else on the planet!
I suspect there is not full candour on ancient Mungo man bones.
He conveniently leaves that one out since Australian aborigines are distinct enough genetically and taxonomically to be a separate subspecies by any objective evaluation.
nope. @@marshallscot
"far more differences within groups than between groups". What are groups then?
Natural multivariable clusters.
Though it can be contrived groups as well, after all, originally it's all contrived until you figure out natural clusters.
Shhhh - it's about humans, you can't say r a c e.. You can talk about it in regard to any species you like - but one... Like the apple of knowledge in the garden of Eden - DON'T TOUCH IT! AAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!
Timestamp?
@@straighttalking2090Was most certainly not an apple and it was forbidden to eat, not to touch.
@@lynninpain You are talking about what was written in a fairy story - I was just having a laugh and making my own point..
When you start learning about taxonomy you learn that what defines a "species" vs a "clade" is totally subjective, and it just goes to show you how humans feel about themselves when the way we treat ourselves taxanomically differs so dramatically from any other animals. It also belies the dogmatic and self contradictory nature of organized academia.
Well, recently it goes by last common ancestor. Currently decided by genetics.
By this definition you’re a fish and a monkey. Just a very strange fish.
Minor correction: there are some distinct biological/genetic differences between what could be considered racial groups, in that expression of certain alleles/genotypes of genes display a distinct spectrum between groups of ethnicities. I specifically refer to the ABCC11 gene, which controls earwax consistency (waxy v. flaky, with waxy being the default and dominant allele) and axillary sweat gland composition (which affects whether or not the sweat smells or not). East Asians, notably Koreans, northern Chinese, and to a lesser extent the Japanese (lesser probably because of historic and prehistoric admixture with Ainu and other Pacific islander populations in the primary Japanese population), are almost completely ABCC11-recessive (i.e. flaky earwax, no armpit sweat odor), whereas other ethnic groups are nowhere near this distribution (in the Indian subcontinent the percentage of ABCC11-recessive individuals is something like 55%, whereas in Western Europe this is less than 2%).
He stated there is minor differences, like your point.
His point more so that there isn't enough difference if we pulled you up in 150years you'd be more or less identical to myself.
We are the same species regardless of race.
Yeah, you can also find similar differences inside what you consider racial groups (but your instinct wouldn’t tell you to classify them differently, would it?). Doesn’t matter because small genetic differences do exist between all living things, but DNA-wise, we are almost all exactly identical.
Yes, but there are also differences which are socially and civilizationally consequential. This is what the deniers repress all discussion of. Not earwax consistency.
@@justinfleming5119 Seething racist~
@rxw5520 It’s all social construct. One problem with these discussions is that we forget that we’re determining scale. Whether or not a difference is consequential is based on whether we feel it is so. And as the other commenter mentioned, when they dig bones up 1000 years from now, those differences won’t be enough to matter, if they can be determined at all.
Thete is not only 1 species of hominids
Odd that as broad as the human species is, a scientist can get a ladybug with an extra dot it’s own species.
It's because these relationships are often resolved genetically, not morphologically. Morphology complements genetics, but can be misleading alone.
@@screee5783 And resolving confusion about human morphology using genetics will get your career as a scientist cut short.
@@screee5783 oh there is genetic difference, you just arent going to be told about it in the west. i say the west because some place like china this would be taken as obvious.
We know there are genetic differences.
I was being sarcastic. The defining point is usually when two samples no longer have successful reproduction, then we can declare a new species.
As alluded to, defining a species is a complex task in biology and there are several factors that scientists consider when doing so. He mentioned some, but for those who might be interested (maybe you're watching this video to research for a paper or something) more such factors include, but surely aren't limited to:
Morphological Characteristics: Physical traits such as size, shape, coloration, and other observable features. This traditional method of species identification relies on visual cues.
Genetic Variation: Examination of genetic differences between individuals within a population or group. DNA analysis, particularly through techniques like DNA sequencing, can reveal genetic diversity and help distinguish between species.
Reproductive Isolation: Species are often defined as groups of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring within their own group but cannot do so with individuals from other groups. This concept is known as the Biological Species Concept.
Ecological Niche: The role an organism plays within its ecosystem, including its habitat, behavior, and interactions with other species. Species may occupy distinct ecological niches, which can contribute to their differentiation.
Evolutionary History: Consideration of the evolutionary relationships between organisms, including their ancestry and the divergence of traits over time. This is often studied through methods like phylogenetics and cladistics.
Geographic Distribution: The geographic range in which a species is found. Populations of the same species are often connected by a continuous distribution, although geographic barriers can lead to isolation and speciation.
Behavioral Characteristics: Behavioral traits such as mating rituals, communication methods, and social structure can also play a role in defining species boundaries, especially in organisms where these behaviors are highly specific.
Hybridization: Instances where individuals from different species interbreed and produce viable offspring can complicate species boundaries, especially in cases of recent divergence or ongoing gene flow.
To conclude, these factors are often considered together and different species concepts may prioritize certain factors over others depending on the organisms being studied and the goals of the research. Additionally, the definition of a species is not always clear-cut and can vary depending on the context and the specific organisms involved.
@@worldsend69 It didn't come directly from a website, it's just some of the most common sense factors that are considered. There are definitely more though. It's funny to think that something seemingly so simple could get so complex in reality, but when you sit to think about it, lots of thought actually is required.
Many of those things indicate we are a different species, more than not.
@@benfubbs2432 Well, yeah, obviously lol humans are definitely a different species from others. Not sure what you think you've discovered to say such a thing, but great! hahaha :)
@@GagnierA Those things you list would indicate some groups of humans are a different species to other groups of humans which contradicts the premise of the video. I'm not saying I made a discovery I am saying that your definition doesn't align with the premise of the video. Perhaps you could reconcile this?
@@benfubbs2432 It's easy enough to reconcile by saying what I've already said in the closing statement (since I took the more formal route in case serious readers stumbled upon it)...and that is, it's an incomplete list.
However, it can be debated that the different races of humans could be considered sub-species scientifically speaking. Much like there are different breeds of dogs and cats (and other animals/creatures), which are sub-species of those classifications in some cases, we aren't going to call different human types "breeds" or "pedigrees", or even "sub-classes" -- race is a polite term reserved for humans in replacement of that to be politically correct and compassionate.
Even though we're all the same physiologically (while acknowledging injuries, accidents, surgical modifications or genetic abnormalities), things like skin color, hair color, environmental temperature tolerance/comfort, cultural differences, size variation and many other factors could all be considered points of classification. Instead, since we're human and politically correct in the words we use to describe each other, we call that demographics instead.
This is very interesting! Thanks for a great lecture, really fascinating!
Thank you so much for this, I loved it from the very beginning to the very end and for once to get a much clearer overview of how things came to be maybe perhaps….. seriously, excellent
Another reason why we did not eradicate Neanderthals: Eurasia was huge...3000 sapiens got out of Africa. Being hunter gatherers they did not reproduce exponentially, as farmers did, but much more slowly. Then it has been calculated that there were 50 000 Neanderthals tops at any given time across Eurasia. The fact Sapiens and Neanderthals/Denisovans did bump into each other was a miracle. Once they did meet, they mated, of course. It seems to have taken place on that bottle neck out of Africa which is Egypt/Israel/Syria.
Finally: Neanderthals knew the terrain. If they had wanted to avoid humans, who were new and did not know their way as well, they could have done so. Also...Neanderthals had been in Eurasia, coping with the climate for hundreds of thousands of years...and they would have been unable to hunt effectively.
My hunch is the following: fertility issues. It seems that Neanderthals seemd to have become less and less fertile. Maybe they had just reached the end of the species'line.
At the moment, Sapiens too seems to be facing fertility issues. Maybe our time is up too. All the other living creatures, plants and animals on the planet will breathe a sigh of relief, if they can survive the heat we caused.
Thanks for a very interesting and informative lecture!
How can you see what is clearly a denisovan in papua and claim there’s only one species?
I believe the difference in shape of skull is often due to cooked food vs non cooked food. The muscles of every mammal(based on jaw strength) ultimately relieves or flattens the skull. Hence the ability to acquire language 👍
Interesting.
@@straighttalking2090 Hence the ability to acquire language (I’m speculating mother to infants, cooing then articulating)
Not the only species. Scientific evidence is there but not investigated.
@@maureenhumphries8607 it just takes money lol
@@maureenhumphries8607 if the other human species preferred their diet “in-the-raw” it would explain a lot, no?
We may be only 1 species but we are wildly diverse looking species. It’s crazy how different individuals in our species look compared to the rest of the animal world.
I’ve met a few neanderthals, who thought they were homosapiens.
😂😂
Yep, they are usually the racist ones.
It's their inherited distrust of people that may have replaced them.
That's my theory anyway.
It's probably a crap one, but a theory nevertheless.
Think they knew how to use commas properly?
@@wootemi …they thought they were English professors, and apparently missed the point.
Whoa, hold on. How do we know that was a first generation Neanderthal and Denosovian? Were we able to specify half the chromosomes were denosovian and the other half or neanderthal? Where are we speculated based on a near exact 50/50 split? Maybe it doesn't matter if it's true or how we know it's true but it is intriguing.
You have some genes that always only come from your father and some genes that only come from your mother. Her maternal DNA was Neanderthal and her paternal DNA was "mostly" Denisovan.
@@JohnDoe-420 This is one of several possible explanations. My question is not how can it be determined; it's how did they come to that conclusion. It's possible that they used an unreliable method.
@@TRayTV I just told you the method!
@@JohnDoe-420 I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were on the team.
@@TRayTV Instead of making snide "speculations", you can read the paper.
I do have to wonder if we will be the same species as we are 1 million years from now. Will the next humans be digging up our bones and be thinking about why they are the only species of human?
So optimistic to think humanity will last 1 million years, even if that's the case we will be vastly different, I mean looking at the dinosaurs and now
@@pika2031 Humans in some form have been around for 3 million years already, although they are not what you would consider modern humans. Modern human that we know today have been around for about 300,000 years, although this number can be different depending on what data you look at.
It may not seem so but humans are one of the most adaptable and resilient animals on the planet. I don't believe anything we do to the planet or anything the planet does to us could wipe us out completely, we are like the cockroaches of mammals. Not that I would like to test that theory.
1 million years may seem like a long time for us given our short lives but really it isn't that long. Dinosaurs where on the planet for 165 million years. I would like to think we can last a least a fraction of the time they did.
Humans who went to space will be coming back to dig us out while coming up with wild conclusions.
@@Farhan917
@@redstarchrille We can’t built a colony without contact or they will assume we are different. Imagine those islands with no contact see us from cities in our 🌎 will be the same for them.
This video is insightful and honest. I am surprised it has not received more likes to date.
"Race" may be a triggering word, but I think the question is really, why do we call Denisovians a different hominem than Homosapien, instead of simply a different "race" of them. It seems a pertinent question since the talk started by defining what a "biological species" is, and, according to that definition, Denisovians seem to the same species as Homosapiens.
I think the mating partnership types result in some offspring being infertile. Thats why they are different species like Lions and Tigers can make Ligers that are sterile but can also make tigons if it is a male tiger and lioness.
@@MistyHollowsa low percentage of hybrids must have been able to reproduce again, otherwise, the modern human wouldn't have around 3% of the DNA of other species.
I don't understand why biologists are so keen on saying races don't exist, still common sense can see them. They shouldn't be afraid to answer scientifically what a race really is.
@@MistyHollowssure, I see that as an arbitrary rule to define species though. If you take neaderthals instead, reproducing with them did not create infertile offspring yet they are considered different species
Yeah I've never understood this either. Doesn't a northern European share more genetic codes with a Neanderthal than a modern day Sub-Saharan African, for example? Surely that just makes Neanderthals a different race
@@joshhoppring5051 that is incorrect. Modern Europeans are by far more similar to subsaharan africans than they are to neaderthals
Really loved watching this video and learning more about evolution. Thank you and Robin May for the lecture and ability to watch it!
If a species is different if they don't reproduce does that mean a donkey and a horse are the same species because when they get together you get a mule?
Mules are almost always infertile, and as such are not considered a "successful" pairing. Only very few female mules were able to have more offspring with either a donkey or a horse father, as far as I am aware no male mules have ever been the cause for a successful pregnancy.
Really Enjoyed that Lecture.......Many Thanks 🤘
i really love the fact that these species were interbreeding so much. like, yes, we're different, but not that different. and thanks to that interbreeding, their dna has survived to today
Not that different? Living under a rock I presume?
@@FSboy70similar he means
@@alexanderjackson7815 Similar in which way?
What are you measuring, what are your standards and what are the tolerances on these metrics you have used to reach your conclusions.
Was he saying that the different human species were more or less different from us, than other human groups?
The entire concept of species, is a human construct, and also very subjective.
It turns out nature is much more subtle than we would like. There's still somewhat of an art in working out taxonomic relationships.
We've spent a long, long time categorizing similarities and differences between various forms of life. Mostly via anatomical characteristics, and more recently, genetic. You and I are more closely related to trees than a bacterium, I'd hazard a guest you can tell the difference between the three.
I asked myself this very question, almost as an epiphany that we are alone. Because obviously you know it, there are no others that look like us except the apes/chimps & we know them not to be human. But once it sinks in,it’s kinda crazy
I thought homosapiens and neanderthals could successfully breed. Arent we the only human species simply because we decided we were? The definition of species is not concrete and we just decide what is and isnt a different species.
Neanderthal were human
@@Trentberkeley86 a different species of human...
@@geminirox8635 philosophy aside. we don’t decide if we are human, its physical like bipedalism, opposable thumbs, how we process language, make tools etc.
@@Trentberkeley86 who do you think decided what it means to be human? Humans did.
@@geminirox8635sure, that’s how we classified ourselves because it’s unique from other mammals . No different than how we classify cats or lizards but only humans will have the traits I mentioned
"Bonobos and Chimpanzees are 99.6% the same, meaning they're sibling species"
"Humans and other humans only differ by 0.4%, so we are all the same and don't have any sibling species"
"Why don't we have any sibling species?"
you are not supposed to notice this
OY VEY THIS IS ANTISEMITISM!!!!!
Because two people within the same "race" say Europe can differ more than two people chosen from different "races". You can find a European and Japanese who share more genetic traits (intelligence, blood type, immune system type, a specific rare disease, height etc.) than most other members of their own race. You don't get that with "Bonobos and Chimpanzees".
"tal" aviv 175? @@tal_175
Humans and other humans only differ by 0.1-0.4%
It's a very high percent of uniformity compared to most species on earth. And you are trying to manipulate data.
so ur telling me that abbo's and swedish people are the same species - yet birds with a slightly different plumage are completely different?
Yes. Aborigines and Swedes might look very different, but they are genetically very similar, and can, of course, produce fertile offspring if they interbreed. On the other hand, some separate bird species look very similar, but are genetically distinct and can't interbreed.
@@nickgold8534 you should try breeding with a walrus, look pretty genetically similar imo.
When people think about "why we are unique species" they tend to forget that we aren't unique in our uniqueness. For instance, there were a lot of kinds of giraffes but there is only one kind left. Similarly, there were a lot of kinds of horses but again - only one of them is still alive, essentially. There were lots of kinds of elephants but only two survived - one in Africa and one in India. So there is nothing unique in our uniqueness. As for us. Usually people think about us and Neanderthals. Ok, look into this. Neanderthals lived in a very harsh climate in a very severe living conditions. Modern estimates give them something like 20 thousands people at most. Maybe slightly more. That's understandable: Neanderthals were predators of the highest level, there can't be many of them. And from some time they confronted with the expansion of us from Africa. And "us" were simply much more. And what's even more important: this expansion was never stopping: new and new Cromagnons got from Africa into Eurasia. Simply for new resources. And sooner or later Neanderthals ended. And not necessarily by war or extermination. By assimilation.
The physical differences among human populations, such as skin color, hair texture, and nose shape, are rather adaptations to the environmental conditions of the regions where those populations lived for long periods. The descendants of those who migrated may change their skin or hair color over time if they live in an area with a different climate.
The pressure this man is under is palpable 😂😂
"The pressure this man is under is palpable"
That is the nature of pressure; it is palpable.
@@thomasmaughan4798 really?
Don't think I've ever looked at the definition of palpable tbf,
When you see what happened to Charles Murray for publishing data, is it any wonder?
@@eccehomer8182u mean the pseudo scientist?
We could ask . . Why is there only one species of dog ? . What i mean is all dogs are dogs and can all mate with each bread. . Well humans are all humans there are different breads of human but we can still all mate with each other
So you postulate that different breeds can be associated or identified by the types of bread they bake?
@@randyp7735 lol
Dogs have a lot more varying shapes sizes teeth temperament hair length etc
@@carissafisher7514 as for humans . 😆 🤣 😂
I think perhaps you mean or meant breeds rather than breads, but well said.Man is a genus *not* a species of anything
Very interesting and informative video. Thank you.
Note, at 8:36 that slavery wasn't an effect of the belief that we were different spices. The absolute majority of slaves and slave traders and owners through history have been very similar in appearance, ethnicity and not seldom in culture and language too.
I believe we are a hybrid. A hybrid made up of at least 8 other human speices. Some people have more or less dna of a speices than others which is why we have differnt colors and features.
Color is a gene modification as is immunity to certain diseases, height, eye color, finger length, weight etc etc. no 2 people except identical twins have the same genes. You are a hybrid of your siblings as they will get a different set of genes from your parents. You may have different skin tone, hair color size weight, balding etc. genes are complex and show a steady drift between people. It's arbitrary where the species line is drawn
Rally, and *W-h-y* do you -yes You* suppose you yourself to be a hybrid(of what and what?)? You base that supposition on precisely and exactly what evidence that arises from your own direct immediate personal experience or knowledge?