Thankyou Mr Hawks for these videos. I'm just a standard British man with no University education or such like. Yet I find these lectures very informative and relatively easy to follow on a subject I've allways had a strong interest in. So yeah as I say thankyou and good luck in your future projects.
Shared on D. Spencer Wells Facebook like page on a comment. I have seen multiple videos of prof. Hawks. Although I am majoring in biotechnology in a Northern Italian university, I discovered new important concepts.
As an insignificant scientist with a bachelor degree in Chemistry, no PhD, it gives me hope in mankind to see that there are peoole like this guy in the world, doing what he does on UA-cam just for the sake of informing as many people as possible about the recent discoveries in the understanding of human evolution supported by evidence on the (bio)molecular level... We might have a hope. Man will only be better after he's shown what he really is (and thus, what he isn't)
It would be very interesting to hear a lecture from this bright professor about theories on the origings of Neanderthals and also from Denisovans. Theories or hypothesis
I watched several of the videos from this channel and I enjoyed them very much. The more I find out about this subject though the more I wonder when the lines are drawn concerning defining a species. We were apparently able to breed with Neandertals, Denisovans and other species. To what extent? Was there limitations in how much we could breed with each other? Today we can't breed with any other primates, so at what point are we not able to interbreed anymore? When do we decide when we have become yet another species yet? Are we likely to do that any time soon?
Love watching the discoveries in paleo anthropology. Neanderthal genetics contained polymorphisms that were adapted to their environment. I wonder if AMH realized that fact and deliberately sought Neanderthal mates to gain that genetic advantage. That would effectively assimilate Neanderthal populations. Once the additional genetic advantages were acquired, the hybrids would quickly replace the previous population. I suppose this is obvious, but it shows the advantage of periodically isolating populations to allow differentiation.
I recall a conversation in my high school humanities class about evolution. I said that there are three distinct groups, Asians, Europeans and Africans, that is, yellow people, white people and black people. Everything else is a mixture of these three master races. That's what I am hearing here about the layering effect.
Chad Waldron , watch the whole video. He doesn't say that there are three separate groups. He said that the ancestors of all homosapiens, neanderthals, and denisovians came out of Africa.
Remember the Nazis? They THOUGHT they were a master race. There has never been a master race. I’m sorry but that term makes my blood boil though if ever ever there was such a thing as subhuman the Nazis define it.
Where does Chad ever mention master race or say that one race is better than another???? I don't agree with Chad in that there are 3 distinct groups, I do agree with Kimberly in what John Hawks is saying.
@@dbprice100 , Chad mentions "three master races". That's a slippery slope into deciding that one "master race" is superior to the other two "master races", which racists will be too glad to go to. Like Dona Burns, the "master races" reference makes me cringe. Chad needs to study the Y chromosome and how it's passed from father to son to grandson to etc. There's a UA-cam video on that subject.
Ok, thanks Kimberly, I see where she was going with this and yes "master race" is a disturbing term. I didn't interpret his post as implying the slippery slope that you mention. There was a time back when I was in school that science did teach racial categories and there were only the three he mentions. I'm old enough to remember those bad old days.
raw data ! c3 c4 ,,what c is the sea ,algea kelp an sea cucumbers? oh and leafs got two ways to do photosynthesis, a newish blue green photoreactive element .it should strongly indicate ,plants grown in shade.
Had to stop watching after he made the nutty claim that our count of ancestors doubles with each generation. Considering how small many population groups were, and how rare distant travel was until recently, it can be assumed that considerable inbreeding meant a smaller increase in forebears, especially after the 3rd generation, by which point incest seemed a lesser problem to most people.
Then you stopped watching too soon. He follows that comment up by explaining that, of course, our ancestors couldn't double with every generation and then goes on to discuss inbreeding.
Thankyou Mr Hawks for these videos. I'm just a standard British man with no University education or such like. Yet I find these lectures very informative and relatively easy to follow on a subject I've allways had a strong interest in. So yeah as I say thankyou and good luck in your future projects.
Shared on D. Spencer Wells Facebook like page on a comment. I have seen multiple videos of prof. Hawks. Although I am majoring in biotechnology in a Northern Italian university, I discovered new important concepts.
Very good. He takes advanced concepts and explains in laymen's terms so all can understand.
John...love your lectures. Keep posting please..!
As an insignificant scientist with a bachelor degree in Chemistry, no PhD, it gives me hope in mankind to see that there are peoole like this guy in the world, doing what he does on UA-cam just for the sake of informing as many people as possible about the recent discoveries in the understanding of human evolution supported by evidence on the (bio)molecular level... We might have a hope. Man will only be better after he's shown what he really is (and thus, what he isn't)
Intelligence deniers will not let that happen, for the good or the bad 😢
Impressively clear explanation of a very complex subject. Superb commentary.
Extremely interesting!
Thank you !
🙋🏼♀️💕
I always like when I come across a good teacher.
john hawks you are my hero! greetings from greece. Keep it up!
excellent, informative lecture. . thank you! D.A., J.D. NYC
Such a good teacher!
I am from Africa :) . We are one people . The person who reads this is my cousin
thanks çuz!
Very informative.
As I am of a nomad ancestry from E Africa, This makes more sense! People are a mixture and yet diverse out from the past!
Thank you for the Lecture
It would be very interesting to hear a lecture from this bright professor about theories on the origings of Neanderthals and also from Denisovans. Theories or hypothesis
He has a clip on each of those subjects - (in case you haven't seen them yet)
I'm an IT lecturer .. hard audience. Well done :-)
I watched several of the videos from this channel and I enjoyed them very much. The more I find out about this subject though the more I wonder when the lines are drawn concerning defining a species. We were apparently able to breed with Neandertals, Denisovans and other species. To what extent? Was there limitations in how much we could breed with each other? Today we can't breed with any other primates, so at what point are we not able to interbreed anymore? When do we decide when we have become yet another species yet? Are we likely to do that any time soon?
Thank you!
very helpful. tHANKYOU.
Hi John it would be nice if you would keep this channel as your platform ,, i for one highly appreciated your vidies ,, !*_*)
this topic is so fascinating
Love watching the discoveries in paleo anthropology.
Neanderthal genetics contained polymorphisms that were adapted to their environment. I wonder if AMH realized that fact and deliberately sought Neanderthal mates to gain that genetic advantage. That would effectively assimilate Neanderthal populations. Once the additional genetic advantages were acquired, the hybrids would quickly replace the previous population.
I suppose this is obvious, but it shows the advantage of periodically isolating populations to allow differentiation.
there would be more evidence of interbreeding in our genome if assimilation were true.
We are one as ancient teachings have always said.
This lecture reminds me about that strange ancient (>350.000 years) Y-chromosome present in the Nigerian Mbo tribe. Did they find the source yet?
University of Wisconsin, Madison, I hope, my school. I will hunt for local talks. He's great; I don't recall my professors being this interesting.
OK, JUST IN 7 MIN MY MIND BOOMMMMMMMM!
Wait. Where's the Neanderthal or Denisovian mitochondria DNA in modern human populations? What happened to it?
it's in modern human populations look at other videos.
Damn you are good
Define "very small"
I recall a conversation in my high school humanities class about evolution. I said that there are three distinct groups, Asians, Europeans and Africans, that is, yellow people, white people and black people. Everything else is a mixture of these three master races. That's what I am hearing here about the layering effect.
Chad Waldron , watch the whole video. He doesn't say that there are three separate groups. He said that the ancestors of all homosapiens, neanderthals, and denisovians came out of Africa.
Remember the Nazis? They THOUGHT they were a master race. There has never been a master race. I’m sorry but that term makes my blood boil though if ever ever there was such a thing as subhuman the Nazis define it.
Where does Chad ever mention master race or say that one race is better than another???? I don't agree with Chad in that there are 3 distinct groups, I do agree with Kimberly in what John Hawks is saying.
@@dbprice100 , Chad mentions "three master races". That's a slippery slope into deciding that one "master race" is superior to the other two "master races", which racists will be too glad to go to. Like Dona Burns, the "master races" reference makes me cringe. Chad needs to study the Y chromosome and how it's passed from father to son to grandson to etc. There's a UA-cam video on that subject.
Ok, thanks Kimberly, I see where she was going with this and yes "master race" is a disturbing term. I didn't interpret his post as implying the slippery slope that you mention. There was a time back when I was in school that science did teach racial categories and there were only the three he mentions. I'm old enough to remember those bad old days.
raw data ! c3 c4 ,,what c is the sea ,algea kelp an sea cucumbers? oh and leafs got two ways to do photosynthesis, a newish blue green photoreactive element .it should strongly indicate ,plants grown in shade.
Had to stop watching after he made the nutty claim that our count of ancestors doubles with each generation. Considering how small many population groups were, and how rare distant travel was until recently, it can be assumed that considerable inbreeding meant a smaller increase in forebears, especially after the 3rd generation, by which point incest seemed a lesser problem to most people.
Then you stopped watching too soon. He follows that comment up by explaining that, of course, our ancestors couldn't double with every generation and then goes on to discuss inbreeding.