. NEANDERTHALS IN MOST PEOPLES HEADS THANKS TO PROPAGANDA MOVIES AND BOOKS PUSH THEM AS WHITE.... THEY WOULD NOT BE WHITE BUT BLACK. JUST PLAIN OLE AFRICANS THAT MOVED TO EUROPE AND WENT ON TO POPULATE ALL PLACES ON THE EARTH BEFORE ALL OTHER HYBRID SUB GROUPS CAME FROM AFRICANS.
Fossil skulls were described as having jutting jaw, bulging brow, flat face, etc. but you can look around you in a group of 30 modern people and find huge variations. Surely a group of ancient humans had the same variation.
@@CharlieJulietSierra look up Robert Sepehr on UA-cam. You may find some of his stuff interesting. He's jokingly nicknamed the most dangerous anthropologist in the world 😁 because he doesn't subscribe to the out of Africa theory.
Wolves are more similar than modern day dogs from a human point of veiw...All are canines...so it is possible that there wasn't as much variation...and there wouldn't have been so many humans then and they would all be living in the same environment so no need for change...There is also the fact that what we as humans see as major differences in the 'look' of another human is not the same how other species see us and vice versa...
@@lewistaylor1965 Good points, which I considered before I commented. I suppose the farther back you go in the tree the more uniform the skulls and bodies. Modern hominids like Denisovans and Neanderthals surely had variations more like modern man. Thanks for the reply!
The history of mankind, fascinating subject, boggles the mind, this was a most enlightening lectures, I look forward to following your research with interests, thank you, Dr. Shara Bailey, it’s interesting that the creation of the Sahara Desert was likely instrumental for the movement of homo sapients out of Africa, as the ice age was ending, it seems modern civilization is speeding up the demise of earths balance, how different civilizations evolved…the evolution of and possible demise of homo sapients and scientists may be studying us as we are studying our past…
Loved this presentation! It’s amazing what even a single tooth can say about someone. I had no idea that even with us modern humans there’s still variation… I bet this professor would love to visit the Mütter museum in Philly. There are hundreds of skulls to look at. On most of the skulls, there were rings on the teeth due to malnutrition. We’re all very lucky to live in the time that we do!
All of this wonderful evidence, painstakingly collected over 60 years by paleontologists like professor Leaky and his colleagues, dovetails with the more modern DNA evidence, and really is sketching out an accurate map of human origins, and our travels on the earth, over millions of years. Very interesting! As the methods of extracting, and decoding DNA gets better, I will be looking forward to an even more complete picture of where we originated, and how our species populated the world.
That is amazing. I didn't know that you could read old teeth in that way. Great stuff! And hopefully more of our origins secrets will be uncovered with all of your wonderful new tech.
@@elypowell6797 Yes always No tie together nor do these folks mention how they gage time. carbon 14 dating falls apart around 5 to 6000 years useless past that point. and they know what was once thought the time needed to fossilize wood or Bones is way less as in again almost worthless to gage past 3000 years with no way to pinpoint anything. she mentions the Lucy Lunatic conclusions Given they found fragments of bone over a 28 Mile span of a riverbank. none of it was in a single location. and assembled what were most likely Monkey fragments. again so freaking idiot bogus it stinks. .
My main takeaway from this: Beautiful flat faces doesn't necessarily mean big smart brain. Its kinda mindboggling that we had so many different humanoid species at some point. In my mind this means that we had a common ancestor, split up for a pretty long time to evolve quite differently and then merged again. And what treasures lie below the sahara still and around the then biggest freshwater lake of the world.
Homo Antecessor suggests that the common ancestor of Sapiens and Neanderthals had a modern looking face, and that Neanderthal traits were derived, whereas Sapiens faces are more ancient.
There seems to be multiple paths by which we got “here” - where we are today. Some paths ended, some sidetracked, some stalled, some merged, some refined, etc. We appear to have been created, and recreated a lot of times, in a lot of places. Termites, on the other hand, have been unchanged for millions of years. Courtesy of Half Vast Flying
Termites meet or exceed their design criteria, humans on the other hand, not so much? Here's looking forward to the next million milenia or two! Catch ya on the flip side. Fair winds and following seas.
@@jackvoss5841 There are thousands of differences between the "races"...we've been apart long enough to become different species...it's obvious if you look at it objectively. Not just skin color...our anatomy is different, a "bone person" can tell the race by looking at the skeleton. Internally we are different, we suffer different diseases. Intellectually we are very different too. Name a 1st world country that isn't White. Name a 3rd world country that is White. We're different when it comes to violence...70% of all crime is committed by the 13%. The "we're all one" is completely political.
As a non-scientist interested in human evolution I found this incredibly interesting. What I would have appreciated was a few diagrams of teeth morphology and the differences between human species as I got lost when she started talking about the different shapes. But amazing what scientists can now tell about our ancestors who were not so different from us?
We brought my 1 month old son to the Dr for a routine checkup and the Dr says watch this, he sits my son on the table and puts his thumbs in my sons palms, rubs them, then pulls his arms up quickly and my sons hanging, then the Dr swings hiss arms, my sons swining at one month old like he'd been practicing it, it was so natural, i was shocked, it was amazing.
Wow thank you to whom ever is involved, this has answered so many questions that for me needed to be updated……. I was feeling nostalgic memories of the honorable Carl Sagan listening to this fantastic lesson on origins…
Tracing our human ancestry is very important for the future survival of humanity. Africa is the undisputed place for the genesis of mankind. I have followed news reports of Cave Explorations in StilBaai, Humansdorp in the Western Cape and Eastern Cape Coast in South Africa as well as cave exploration at Sibudlu near Tongaat in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Carry on with the work that you are currently engaged with, it is very important.
I’d like to know how, when they built all the Megalithic structures found around the world…and also the elongated skulls (not by cranial deformation) who were these beings ???
planned cranial deformation is the reason for the elongated skulls.. . pretty boring huh? bet you're thinking little green men and a cover up by the "Illuminati"
I think a lot about how the eb and flow of Humid forests and how they grow and contract with climate changes, I don't often hear much about the effects of genetic clines and the powerful macro effects of dominating genetic drift events driven by majority populations within a region. the example i think of is forest dwelling population compared to savannah bush populations; there would be a genetic cline with some populations physically adapting to thick jungle forests while others wander the savannah. During a humid event, arid places decrease and savannahs and forests increase and populations would balloon and large genetic clines would diversify to differing habitats. Than a follow up arid period would aridify huge swaths of territory, pushing forests to contract towards their central humid refuges, while savannahs would do well briefly until aridity dominates to the point of contracting even the savannah bushlands. the question of which populations along the diverse genetic cline, come to dominate the genepool in these contracting events is a very significant one. perhaps at some stages the bush people and their features dominate the tide of genetic drift, while at another point forest populations actually outnumber significantly influence the tide of genetic drift. For certain, it appears that at some point, the populations with technological innovation would create new tidal influences beyond environment, on the drifting genepool.
there is a very real event called the Sahara pump theory, that's when the Sahara is green and lush for several thousands of years (called the pluvial periods)
This lecture is 5 years old. I thought something even newer had been found. I think it is accepted now that modern humans were spread all over Africa not just East Africa.
@@Aluminata Every aspect of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. From the mathematical impossibility, to the outrageous assumptions made about what the fossil records show, to the fact that changes on the macro level can not happen no matter how much time they are given, to QM showing that none of this material could even come into existence without intelligent design, etc. It's not even a question of science, it's worldview!
I'm very glad to see deeper dates for these Sapiens. It adds a good deal of plausible geology for new analysis around the world. Boehme and David Begun's work also suggests some of what you say here, and I am greatly relieved to see new models replacing exhausted certainties. And I'm also very grateful for the concise technical comparisons of Neanderthal with Sapien dentition. In Bay of Fundy Pre-Hoxnian glacial, and later Dryas deposits, and on the surfaces opened by heavy coastal erosion, I have been seeing very old hominoid heads (often with teeth) in limestone and silicated matrices that are certainly much older than any description of NA humans in the literature. Skulls (and artefacts) are very numerous and various but I won't tax you with my theories about them. The standard maps of Middle Pleistocene Atlantic Canadian glacial conditions are clearly incorrect about the extent of early inhabited coastal land however. Faunal models are also incorrect on the score of the presence of great apes as well. Sapiens and or Neanderthals here carved their petrified heads. Perhaps teeth will settle the matter. This talk was really super. Cheers and all the best. Daniel.
Fascinating lecture. The tooth morphology discussion was an interesting lesson. Our body of knowledge contributing the origins of our species continues to grow!
James Shneider No it doesn't, it is just plain stupid. The key word is "interpreted" evolutionists are willfully ignorant and willfully stupid and being gullible is not a virtue in this area of study.
@@jamesschneider2091 It's common sense. If evolution is true and we supposedly decended from apes,Why are there still Apes?...Evolution is your false religion and Darwin is your weak god.
I've almost always believed this time line for ancient humans. However, it does beg a question: What the heck were these humans doing for 300,000 years? Did it take that long for humans to progress to a Neolithic era? And if so why? I do believe that several ancient cultures existed, but were destroyed by some horrific natural disasters, which left virtually no traces of them.
It depends what you mean by culture. Even the Neanderthals had culture as we now know. What you mean is urban civilisation. This is very rare prior to crop farming, simply because hunter gathering alone cannot support a population of any significant size - you need farming or trade wtih farmers. Livestock farming makes a big difference too, so domestication of wild species of cows, pigs, sheep etc were necessary. All of that took time to develop to a point that it could sustain an urban population leading to the likes of Sumeria and others building the first cities.
@@mnomadvfx My point: This progress should not have taken 300,000 years. We know that anthropology is a huge guessing game, and is far from a hard science, like physics.
@@stephenhill1350 There were a devastating series of calamities, mainly CME's, that reduced civilization to a primitive state. We are about due for another one now,
When something is working it doesn't change. When the environment demands it animals evolve physically and in behavior. Why don't we have writing from 100,000 years ago all the way to 6,000 years ago? That's a long time to be cavemen right? 🤷🏼♂️
As an Australian I'm very interested in any information about Australian Aboriginal peoples origins and what evidence / timeframe there is about this dispersal event / events from Africa to this continent & over what period. I'm no scientist and an absolute novice in this field, but to my eye Aboriginal faces are absolutely fascinating and are vastly different / seem far more ancient than African. Could this be because of their isolation on this continent? That once here there was very little 'mixing' with other modern humans and so they might have stayed truer to the original migration wave 'type'? So, as I understand it, we now know that Aboriginal Australians have been here for at least 70,000 years - which is a phenomenal continuous time line - both genetically & culturally. They are a living modern human & cultural treasure & should be valued as such. You kind of skipped over the Australian history - is that because there isn't much research going on / funded over here compared to the African focus? Or is it merely because it's outside the focus of this presentation? Or both?
Waves of gracile vs robust types in Australia... tribals in southern India a similar people to australoids almost identical to the eye I was amazed at seeing them there...big jaw and tooth common in Java but not in Sulawesi Kalimantan Borneo north of the land bridge archaic peoples walked...
@@colstearn9005 Yes. Very interesting. No expert but you just have to look at the earliest images of Indigenous Australians, and those still in primarily indigenous remote communities to understand that they Must have had a very different lineage. I know the DNA shows intermingling to some extent - and with peoples in southern India also, but if you think about how long this continent has been isolated from the rest... Very VERY different pathways, customs, beliefs, art work etc. etc. from Africans. We are learning more and more about the past. What we DON'T seem to have learned - despite all our 'advances' - is how to stop some alpha males from still killing and taking over other people's territories....
Nice presentation. Takes her more narrow field of dental morphology and applies it to the wider context of modern human evolution.. I must admit, I couldn't discern some of the variation she describes, but to an expert, it sounds like they are obvious. Well done.
My thought is, wouldn’t the teeth be different based on the types of foods eaten? For example, the ridges described, couldn’t they either be or not be worn down? How does that prove anything?
Excellent, very informative. Has anyone got an explanation for why the Jebel Irhoud fossils were in that precise spot? Cave? Occupied? Overhang shelter, now collapsed? Deliberate placing post mortem by relatives? Predator's meal remains? It's wonderful seeing so many different disciplines coming together to produce ever more accurate data.
@M PW What do you mean anthropology is in denial? That makes no sense. It's the anthropologists and fellow researchers excavating the remains in the field, describing the raw data, offering tentative explanations, and giving us their interpretations. There is no denial. Get real.
Yes, this is a fascinating lecture; thorough research on the skeletal remains and the areas where they were found. It's great to hear reporting on more recent species in the evolutionary line. I will question her claim that the Sahara region was not desert as recent as a few hundred thousand years ago. Studies on climate change in the region over millions of years, Saharan dust in areas like the Canary Islands & Spain, as well as the movement of tectonic plates and the loss of the vast majority of the Tethys sea show the desert's origins go back at least several million years.
21:10 Homo Neanderthal didn't necessarily have "primitive" features; other human species had heavy brows, sloping jaws and other what most would call "primitive" features. Homo sapiens simply has more facial neoteny, giving us that "modern" look and a cute little chin to boot.
This is amazing information. I learned a great deal and I can see how all of the research done here was motivated by discoveries that are pretty mind blowing. What I loved most was the information regarding teeth shapes. Who knew I'd be so interested in teeth? Thank you for this.
If we could only see where her remote is pointing to when she explains tooth morphology and the PC analysis... that would greatly assist in understanding. Other than that - wow! - this is highly informative. One of my critiques is to get rid of the "garden of eden" trope (26:48) - it's highly ethnocentric, unnecessary, irrelevant, and there were no talking snakes - it provides no empirical worthiness. The graphic at 29:02 is great, as is the explanation and map of general ecological conditions in Africa around 300,000 years ago at 29:14 , and the absence of geographical barriers to human speciation, which, in other words, allows for genetic exchange among various human populations throughout Africa. There is an interesting part at 31:43 , in which Prof. Bailey describes the presence of modern behavior outside of Africa - but which is only partial ("inklings"), "but not the entire package". That, to me, is signicant - over 90,000 ya, "inklings of modern behavior vs the entire package." As she states toward the end, the evolution of fully modern H. sapiens is not an East African process, or a Southern African process, but a pan-African process. Many thanks to Prof. Shara Bailey and the Leakey Foundation for sharing.
Yes it stands to reason that evolution can occur faster if several individuals/groups carry different beneficial mutations and eventually meet up, interbreed and their offspring benefit from these multiple sources likely affected differently by the process of natural selection depending on the specifics of the environment the mutations appeared in and the selection pressure caused by those specific factors. I think it would do much better for people to commonly think of evolution in the same way as cross pollinating plants than the way it is often presented as a more linear process - sort of like an evolution web rather than an evolution chain.
I am curious about how the faunal assemblage, which was also employed as an age estimate, appears to be consistent with the other dating rather than the new date. That seems to be a problem.
I’m a layman and just love to listen to all this, and I’ve been wondering for years: were there tremendous tectonic plate shifts on earth during the 300000+ existence of man? If so, would it be enough to shed light on migration patterns of early humans? Ie; maybe Australia was much closer to South Africa than archaeologists realize?
I am curious about how such distinctions between people's teeth based on their geographic derivation plays into modern notions about there not being such a thing as "race." What do current commentators mean when they say that there is no such thing as "race?" Are they merely suggesting that the term itself is out-dated? If so, what term or terms are we to replace it with?
All humans interbreed. We are all the same species. So there is no basis for differentiating people on the basis of superficial characteristics like skin or eye colour or curliness of hair. Cultural differences are more important than these superficial types of physical differences, but they are just cultural differences that aren't connected to any physical or cognitive differences.
The basic concept is ‘population.’ Scientists are concerned with the frequency of a gene within a population or the frequency of a phenotypic trait within a population. For example, the percentage of a population that can digest milk into adulthood because of a gene that produces lactase into adulthood. But usually different genes can be and are inherited separately from one another and thus their frequency in a population can fluctuate differently from one another. The same goes for the phenotypic traits caused by genes. Thus the frequency of one gene/trait usually has nothing to do with the frequency of another gene/trait. The ability to digest milk, for instance, has nothing to do with skin color, blood type, ear lobe shape, etc. A ‘race’ is simply a folk category based on an arbitrarily selected set of traits which are (falsely) assumed to go together. Like skin color and eye color. In actuality there is no necessary bond between the traits. Until recently, Europeans had dark skin but blue eyes. The concept of ‘race’ adds nothing to the scientific explanation of gene/trait frequencies in different populations.
It's ideological, mostly. They have of confessing and confirming diversity inside the human species is "threatening". As if that would challenge the idea of human dignity.
I’ve noticed many fine specimens that resembles early Homo sapiens at my local Walmart. Perhaps scientists need not travel too far to study human evolution.
Just watched this which brings in naledi later. Four points. 1. That frontal lobe development is separate from modern facial characteristics of the flat face and different teeth. (Vital idea.) 2. That development took place all over Africa. 3. That bead making happened in a less 'developed' society (brain morphology) in Israeli dig. And possibly most original thought of mine - 4. look at that map at the end. Like saharan split today or the San in the kalahari, naledi are sidelined in a desert region of southern Africa while the Sahara did not exist at that time. But could they have been the ones more developed in terms of their frontal lobe. Also one might think in terms of size of an area of brain not being the key. For instance our current brain seems to be more efficient in the necessary areas of cognition. (A teenager learns by narrowing down and focusing on the more important things.) And brain size in less violent more efficient populations actually decreases. Of course birds can have incredible levels of intelligence despite having much smaller brains. (There's a new area of study explaining this that I can dig out for you if you like.) And women have smaller brains but are not less cognitively able as far as I'm aware. (Body size simply translates into larger brain size in men.)
Amazing knowledge of ancient teeth. Have you had a chance to investigate the teeth from the elongated skulls that have been found in Peru. The skulls have a larger brain capacity than ours. I would like to hear your opinion on these discoveries.
Anytime somebody says rewrite I become highly skeptical. Half of science is P2P. I see it every day. People should think for themselves. Science is new religion. I am a scientist.
Thankfully, USAnthropology, anthropology, and DNA-Bioinformatics have gone three separate ways. We have at least 4 species of humans, but for the support of biblical theories, still remains the out of Africa theory. PS. Rhesus, cranial analogies, and the list goes on and on.
I remember when Barack Hussein Obama was running for POTUS and it was in the news that his own Grandmother said she saw him being born in a hut in Kenya. Does anybody else remember, or has that also been swept under the rug?
Yes keyword...."rewriting"....its a never ending dialogue....dialog.... what happens when you believe in a Darwinian paradigm...."ever learning but never coming into the knowledge of the truth"...
Those new fossils had the tidy gene. Everything looks better organised now. Ha! Flatter faces means smaller teeth? Smaller teeth means less chewing? Less chewing means more meat? More meat means smaller stomachs? Smaller stomachs mean faster runners? Compound change should speed up evolution? How would you choose between a Denisovan skeleton or Naledi DNA?
Recent research puts focus on a number of new information, not mentioned in this presentation. Mutation resulting in speech development 80,000+, Toba eruption 74,000 bp(resulting in mass extinction), ice age drying up of the Red Sea once 125,000 bp and again around 60,000 bp, led to migration out of Africa and along Arabian peninsula to Baluchistan to Gujrat sheds new light to a mass extinction and regeneration of population in India, from where there seems to have been a migration of people 45,000 bp, shedding light on migration into China (and into Americas) and south east Asia, with the Important Gauda culture of Bengal. These are perspectives that should be included in any new exposer. Migrations from India to the west explains for example the Indo-European languages (the only rational explanation to date), implying lack of a bigger picture.
@@sonarbangla8711 would there be a source on that? I'm planning to do up a timeline for my own amusement and to keep the contents of my brain in order.
Neanderthal teeth are NOT all the same! If you want to find "Neanderthal" teeth in modern humans, talk to some dentists in Saudi Arabia! The Taurodont molars found in Neanderthals will also often be found in the children of Bantu & Melanesians crosses. If you get the right mix of modern human genes you will get "Neanderthal" teeth. And it was primarily the teeth that Germans declared to be so different that they must be a separate species.
Highly interesting and informative. I am sure there are laser pointings in this lecture that we are not seeing, such as in the comparison between neanderthal and sapien's teeth and skulls. That's a pity.
Interesting - north Africa has a ton to offer for human evolution but that's going to be difficult due to the altered climate and horrible political conditions. No cranial capacity figures ? that's the most important thing you omitted. Great discovery !
Our data show that, 300,000 years ago, brain size in early H. sapiens already fell within the range of present-day humans. Brain shape, however, evolved gradually within the H. sapiens lineage, reaching present-day human variation between about 100,000 and 35,000 years ago.
@@TheShootist Studies show the average brain volume of Homo sapiens has decreased by roughly 10 percent in the past 40,000 years. Is there a theoretical explanation or is it statistically insignificant?
@@DaveLL500 so? the cranial dome is much higher in Sapians. Neander had a flat head. We don't know yet what Denisovan skulls looked like however if you look at Homo Longi (which might be a denisovan) skull it is also long and flat. 1/2 posts. I am going to post a link (and sometimes links are censored) to a photo of sapiens and neander's skulls for comparison. Neander is 5'6" to 5'8" AND his skull is the size of andre the giants (you would never mistake a Neanderthal for a modern human if you met him on the street
I am always surprised we don't consider human beings as a coastal species. I read Desmond Morris's book "The Naked Ape" in 1967. Morris postulates a number of modern human traits are supremely adept for hunting and foraging in the littoral zone. Our back hair grows towards the spine, our finger nails are flat and wide, we walk upright and are decent swimmers for an ape. The TV series Alone demonstrates how the lake or sea shore provides a plentiful food supply, far more survivable than either the forest or the open plains. Changes in sea levels are bound to have destroyed the evidence of this era of our evolution. The Neanderthal cave in the cliffs of Gibraltar once overlooked a wide coastal plain where now lies the Mediterranean sea. The idea Europe was colonised via the fertile crescent has very little to recommend it if you consider we at least had mastered rafts and were probably capable of swimming the straights of Gibraltar during the past 300,000 years.
So the child jaw wasn’t dated directly, as you first said. The dating was also based on a presumption about what layer it belonged to! This kind of sketchy thinking and use of labels is what creates all the noise in science. If for example nobody had sought and found basis for a more precise dating, the first sloppy error would gradually have taken on the weight of fact, even though it started out as an estimate.
Really good point....I will add that once an initial error is made the media will cement it into place especially if there are political gains to be had from it. The truth would actually come out over time with further research but oftentimes the media has already decided what the truth is. Michael Mann's hockey stick is one example...It's pretty much been shown to be bunk but you can't criticize it or you'll get called a "denier".
@@Hallands......Hi Hallands.. I have much respect for you and anybody else who wants to get at the real truth. Sometimes the first theory to explain something is right and sometimes it's wrong. The media perpetuates what they want the truth to be instead of what real science is telling them. In my opinion the media is pretty much worthless
One other thing...your comment was second from the top and after I commented your initial comment got moved way down. Do you think UA-cam had something to do with that? Illustrates my point.
@@jamesesselman283 I think the MSM are highly toxic and by now outright dangerous in America. China and Russia never had a free press and were always totalitarian. But our press and media moved gradually from slanted coverage in the late 80s on to heavy, unapologetic, even aggressive propaganda and deliberate lies, and are by now completely useless, even should they decide to tell the truth, because you’d have to check all the facts anyway. I stopped listening in 2004. Big Tech is almost as destructive with their reckless censorship and so are most politicians who can’t seem to make their minds up whether censorship is most convenient for themselves or a deadly blight clouding the hope and spirit necessary for life. The main problem is that the prime movers rely solely on technology and money for progress. They plum forgot all the living beings, without whom all is for naught, and are well in their way to recreate totalitarianism, suppression and enslavement in a new, horrible form And money is killing education and health-care by cutting corners for profit and forgetting real care. Instead of care we have »supranational institutions« gradually taking lawmaking out of the hands of our elected representatives - oh, and who control these monsters? The biggest foundations, of course, which strangely has begun to function as tax-havens as well! And guess how that came about… The truth cannot be owned. It can’t even be proven, because by the time all the facts are in, it has already changed. This is why we must be truthful and say we "hope, think, believe and assume« unless a high degree of well tested certainty has emerged. But most have lost the ability to distinguish between habits and knowledge in all fields of science. True science must never be swayed by profits. All true science-progress must by now rely on open collaboration. The subjects have become too large to handle otherwise. But the CEOs and the politicians tend to rely on AI to fix that and gradually supplant human research. They’re in for a ghastly setback if they do take that step, but three trying impatiently, investing ginormous amounts of money into developing AI and »quantum computing«.
RIP Dr. Richard Leakey, and many thanks for your tireless efforts to uncover human origins.
I was a grad student of his in 1977-78 at OSU!
I wish Leakey could have finished his work at Calico.
I6ikiiik8 hi 98.5
. NEANDERTHALS IN MOST PEOPLES HEADS THANKS TO PROPAGANDA MOVIES AND BOOKS PUSH THEM AS WHITE.... THEY WOULD NOT BE WHITE BUT BLACK. JUST PLAIN OLE AFRICANS THAT MOVED TO EUROPE AND WENT ON TO POPULATE ALL PLACES ON THE EARTH BEFORE ALL OTHER HYBRID SUB GROUPS CAME FROM AFRICANS.
Fossil skulls were described as having jutting jaw, bulging brow, flat face, etc. but you can look around you in a group of 30 modern people and find huge variations. Surely a group of ancient humans had the same variation.
Oh don't question the Darwinism! Don't even hint at the fact that it's total bullshit.
@@CharlieJulietSierra look up Robert Sepehr on UA-cam. You may find some of his stuff interesting. He's jokingly nicknamed the most dangerous anthropologist in the world 😁 because he doesn't subscribe to the out of Africa theory.
@@IosuamacaMhadaidh ua-cam.com/video/Y0xoLNp8m2A/v-deo.html
Wolves are more similar than modern day dogs from a human point of veiw...All are canines...so it is possible that there wasn't as much variation...and there wouldn't have been so many humans then and they would all be living in the same environment so no need for change...There is also the fact that what we as humans see as major differences in the 'look' of another human is not the same how other species see us and vice versa...
@@lewistaylor1965 Good points, which I considered before I commented. I suppose the farther back you go in the tree the more uniform the skulls and bodies. Modern hominids like Denisovans and Neanderthals surely had variations more like modern man. Thanks for the reply!
I find this kind of discussion absolutely fascinating . Thank you.
The history of mankind, fascinating subject, boggles the mind, this was a most enlightening lectures, I look forward to following your research with interests, thank you, Dr. Shara Bailey, it’s interesting that the creation of the Sahara Desert was likely instrumental for the movement of homo sapients out of Africa, as the ice age was ending, it seems modern civilization is speeding up the demise of earths balance, how different civilizations evolved…the evolution of and possible demise of homo sapients and scientists may be studying us as we are studying our past…
Loved this presentation! It’s amazing what even a single tooth can say about someone. I had no idea that even with us modern humans there’s still variation… I bet this professor would love to visit the Mütter museum in Philly. There are hundreds of skulls to look at. On most of the skulls, there were rings on the teeth due to malnutrition. We’re all very lucky to live in the time that we do!
All of this wonderful evidence, painstakingly collected over 60 years by paleontologists like professor Leaky and his colleagues, dovetails with the more modern DNA evidence, and really is sketching out an accurate map of human origins, and our travels on the earth, over millions of years. Very interesting! As the methods of extracting, and decoding DNA gets better, I will be looking forward to an even more complete picture of where we originated, and how our species populated the world.
Truly fascinating talk.
Edit: But just as a side thought can't wait till one day science comes up with a laser pointer that shows up on our screens.
😂
I thought Chinese people were brainwashed I guess I was wrong
Thank you, Ma'am. You've cast light into dark corners, much appreciated.
Thank you very much for your presentation, this is absolutely amazing what you've figured! Best of luck with your further research ;)
Fascinating presentation!
That is amazing. I didn't know that you could read old teeth in that way. Great stuff! And hopefully more of our origins secrets will be uncovered with all of your wonderful new tech.
ua-cam.com/video/2AvepssBwzY/v-deo.html🚜
Mine are in a jar mostly. Lol.. no matter.
@@elypowell6797 Yes always No tie together nor do these folks mention how they gage time. carbon 14 dating falls apart around 5 to 6000 years useless past that point. and they know what was once thought the time needed to fossilize wood or Bones is way less as in again almost worthless to gage past 3000 years with no way to pinpoint anything.
she mentions the Lucy Lunatic conclusions Given they found fragments of bone over a 28 Mile span of a riverbank. none of it was in a single location. and assembled what were most likely Monkey fragments. again so freaking idiot bogus it stinks.
.
Get "Lone Survivors" by Chris Stringer. He gives a good description of the process. I was as stunned and delighted as you when I first read it.
@@elypowell6797 Show some evidence of your claim.
My main takeaway from this: Beautiful flat faces doesn't necessarily mean big smart brain. Its kinda mindboggling that we had so many different humanoid species at some point. In my mind this means that we had a common ancestor, split up for a pretty long time to evolve quite differently and then merged again. And what treasures lie below the sahara still and around the then biggest freshwater lake of the world.
had so many different hominin species...there still are several different hominin species around
@@bmr4566 exactly right
Homo Antecessor suggests that the common ancestor of Sapiens and Neanderthals had a modern looking face, and that Neanderthal traits were derived, whereas Sapiens faces are more ancient.
@@bmr4566 you're thinking of hominids, which there are several of today. There is only one extant hominin living today; Homo sapiens.
@@HighlyCompelling that is clear from their ancestors.
There seems to be multiple paths by which we got “here” - where we are today. Some paths ended, some sidetracked, some stalled, some merged, some refined, etc. We appear to have been created, and recreated a lot of times, in a lot of places.
Termites, on the other hand, have been unchanged for millions of years.
Courtesy of Half Vast Flying
Termites meet or exceed their design criteria, humans on the other hand, not so much? Here's looking forward to the next million milenia or two! Catch ya on the flip side. Fair winds and following seas.
Like
There are still 3 major species today...don't let their politically motivated classification fool you.
@@johnbaldwin2948 G’day, John. Please explain? I’m curious.
Thanks,
Courtesy of Half Vast Flying
@@jackvoss5841 There are thousands of differences between the "races"...we've been apart long enough to become different species...it's obvious if you look at it objectively. Not just skin color...our anatomy is different, a "bone person" can tell the race by looking at the skeleton. Internally we are different, we suffer different diseases. Intellectually we are very different too. Name a 1st world country that isn't White. Name a 3rd world country that is White. We're different when it comes to violence...70% of all crime is committed by the 13%. The "we're all one" is completely political.
As a non-scientist interested in human evolution I found this incredibly interesting. What I would have appreciated was a few diagrams of teeth morphology and the differences between human species as I got lost when she started talking about the different shapes. But amazing what scientists can now tell about our ancestors who were not so different from us?
Thank you for your clear and concise presentation. I enjoyed the new facts that emerged from the research.
facts?
We brought my 1 month old son to the Dr for a routine checkup and the Dr says watch this, he sits my son on the table and puts his thumbs in my sons palms, rubs them, then pulls his arms up quickly and my sons hanging, then the Dr swings hiss arms, my sons swining at one month old like he'd been practicing it, it was so natural, i was shocked, it was amazing.
Fascinating insights on the processes involved
Excellent, clear, no-gimmicks presentation! 😀
Really great summary and update presentation, thank you.
ua-cam.com/video/2AvepssBwzY/v-deo.html🐱👈
I almost gave up on this, but the ending - a pan African genesis - is worth the wait. Thank you
Wow thank you to whom ever is involved, this has answered so many questions that for me needed to be updated…….
I was feeling nostalgic memories of the honorable Carl Sagan listening to this fantastic lesson on origins…
Carl Sagan was a true prophet
Tracing our human ancestry is very important for the future survival of humanity. Africa is the undisputed place for the genesis of mankind.
I have followed news reports of Cave Explorations in StilBaai, Humansdorp in the Western Cape and Eastern Cape Coast in South Africa as well as cave exploration at Sibudlu near Tongaat in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Carry on with the work that you are currently engaged with, it is very important.
"Africa is the undisputed place for the genesis of mankind" - really
Not quite but nice try
Yup. enjoyed that. I think the last words Shara said are important. "the out of Africa model is more widespread than a single place event"
Great job of alienating part of your audience as soon as possible. Click
Great presentation. I presume there are other lectures covering different developments.
Anyway, more please.
Wonderful presentation - thank you ! 👍👍
"when he told me that, I literally had to pick my jaw up off my desk." When did "literally" come to mean "figuratively"?
I question her thinking. Even Barack Obama's grandmother said he was born in Ghana. She said I know this because I was there 🤦🏻♂️
"New fossils" ... I like that. I think I'm going to enjoy this one; and now, back to the show.
I’d like to know how, when they built all the Megalithic structures found around the world…and also the elongated skulls (not by cranial deformation) who were these beings ???
planned cranial deformation is the reason for the elongated skulls.. . pretty boring huh? bet you're thinking little green men and a cover up by the "Illuminati"
Absolutely riveting presentation. Thank you!
Excellent, thank you very much!
I think a lot about how the eb and flow of Humid forests and how they grow and contract with climate changes, I don't often hear much about the effects of genetic clines and the powerful macro effects of dominating genetic drift events driven by majority populations within a region. the example i think of is forest dwelling population compared to savannah bush populations; there would be a genetic cline with some populations physically adapting to thick jungle forests while others wander the savannah. During a humid event, arid places decrease and savannahs and forests increase and populations would balloon and large genetic clines would diversify to differing habitats. Than a follow up arid period would aridify huge swaths of territory, pushing forests to contract towards their central humid refuges, while savannahs would do well briefly until aridity dominates to the point of contracting even the savannah bushlands. the question of which populations along the diverse genetic cline, come to dominate the genepool in these contracting events is a very significant one. perhaps at some stages the bush people and their features dominate the tide of genetic drift, while at another point forest populations actually outnumber significantly influence the tide of genetic drift. For certain, it appears that at some point, the populations with technological innovation would create new tidal influences beyond environment, on the drifting genepool.
there is a very real event called the Sahara pump theory, that's when the Sahara is green and lush for several thousands of years (called the pluvial periods)
Excellent! I can't wait for Ken Ham's YEC teams' rebuttal.. it will be hilarious. 😂
This lecture is 5 years old. I thought something even newer had been found. I think it is accepted now that modern humans were spread all over Africa not just East Africa.
Scary to think people with such retarded thinking processes, as Ken exhibits, can, almost effortlessly, go out and buy guns.
@@Aluminata What's truly scary is that you don't even question this bullshit.
@@CharlieJulietSierra What part is the most questionable?
@@Aluminata Every aspect of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. From the mathematical impossibility, to the outrageous assumptions made about what the fossil records show, to the fact that changes on the macro level can not happen no matter how much time they are given, to QM showing that none of this material could even come into existence without intelligent design, etc. It's not even a question of science, it's worldview!
“In Hawaii” laughed so hard. Cleaver cleaver you!
Greatest presentation ever, thank you for your knowledge and your time.
lies, propaganda & guessing .....
@@garyschultz7768 At least two of those are projecting.
I like this rhyme game, your turn next
I'm very glad to see deeper dates for these Sapiens. It adds a good deal of plausible geology for new analysis around the world. Boehme and David Begun's work also suggests some of what you say here, and I am greatly relieved to see new models replacing exhausted certainties. And I'm also very grateful for the concise technical comparisons of Neanderthal with Sapien dentition. In Bay of Fundy Pre-Hoxnian glacial, and later Dryas deposits, and on the surfaces opened by heavy coastal erosion, I have been seeing very old hominoid heads (often with teeth) in limestone and silicated matrices that are certainly much older than any description of NA humans in the literature. Skulls (and artefacts) are very numerous and various but I won't tax you with my theories about them. The standard maps of Middle Pleistocene Atlantic Canadian glacial conditions are clearly incorrect about the extent of early inhabited coastal land however. Faunal models are also incorrect on the score of the presence of great apes as well. Sapiens and or Neanderthals here carved their petrified heads. Perhaps teeth will settle the matter. This talk was really super. Cheers and all the best. Daniel.
Great presentation. Very edifying on a complex subject. Thank you.
ua-cam.com/video/2AvepssBwzY/v-deo.html🎓🗿
Fascinating lecture. The tooth morphology discussion was an interesting lesson. Our body of knowledge contributing the origins of our species continues to grow!
James you are high lol.
Great lecture!
James Shneider No it doesn't, it is just plain stupid. The key word is "interpreted" evolutionists are willfully ignorant and willfully stupid and being gullible is not a virtue in this area of study.
@@TheMickeymental Your psychosis is acute religion toxicity - your prognosis - terminal.
@@jamesschneider2091 It's common sense. If evolution is true and we supposedly decended from apes,Why are there still Apes?...Evolution is your false religion and Darwin is your weak god.
I've almost always believed this time line for ancient humans. However, it does beg a question:
What the heck were these humans doing for 300,000 years? Did it take that long for humans to progress to a Neolithic era? And if so why? I do believe that several ancient cultures existed, but were destroyed by some horrific natural disasters, which left virtually no traces of them.
It depends what you mean by culture.
Even the Neanderthals had culture as we now know.
What you mean is urban civilisation.
This is very rare prior to crop farming, simply because hunter gathering alone cannot support a population of any significant size - you need farming or trade wtih farmers.
Livestock farming makes a big difference too, so domestication of wild species of cows, pigs, sheep etc were necessary.
All of that took time to develop to a point that it could sustain an urban population leading to the likes of Sumeria and others building the first cities.
@@mnomadvfx My point: This progress should not have taken 300,000 years. We know that anthropology is a huge guessing game, and is far from a hard science, like physics.
@@stephenhill1350 There were a devastating series of calamities, mainly CME's, that reduced civilization to a primitive state.
We are about due for another one now,
@@perihelion7798 no it’s not lol . It shouldn’t have taken that long base on what …
When something is working it doesn't change. When the environment demands it animals evolve physically and in behavior. Why don't we have writing from 100,000 years ago all the way to 6,000 years ago? That's a long time to be cavemen right? 🤷🏼♂️
Wonderful presentation.
Thank you.
Excellent. Thank you.
Thank you for this. Excellent presentation and information
Out of Africa I called my son.
As an Australian I'm very interested in any information about Australian Aboriginal peoples origins and what evidence / timeframe there is about this dispersal event / events from Africa to this continent & over what period. I'm no scientist and an absolute novice in this field, but to my eye Aboriginal faces are absolutely fascinating and are vastly different / seem far more ancient than African. Could this be because of their isolation on this continent? That once here there was very little 'mixing' with other modern humans and so they might have stayed truer to the original migration wave 'type'?
So, as I understand it, we now know that Aboriginal Australians have been here for at least 70,000 years - which is a phenomenal continuous time line - both genetically & culturally. They are a living modern human & cultural treasure & should be valued as such. You kind of skipped over the Australian history - is that because there isn't much research going on / funded over here compared to the African focus? Or is it merely because it's outside the focus of this presentation? Or both?
Waves of gracile vs robust types in Australia... tribals in southern India a similar people to australoids almost identical to the eye I was amazed at seeing them there...big jaw and tooth common in Java but not in Sulawesi Kalimantan Borneo north of the land bridge archaic peoples walked...
@@colstearn9005 Yes. Very interesting. No expert but you just have to look at the earliest images of Indigenous Australians, and those still in primarily indigenous remote communities to understand that they Must have had a very different lineage. I know the DNA shows intermingling to some extent - and with peoples in southern India also, but if you think about how long this continent has been isolated from the rest... Very VERY different pathways, customs, beliefs, art work etc. etc. from Africans.
We are learning more and more about the past.
What we DON'T seem to have learned - despite all our 'advances' - is how to stop some alpha males from still killing and taking over other people's territories....
Thank you. How much changed since high school. I was the class of 2000.......
Well done. Thank you. 🌹
Nice presentation. Takes her more narrow field of dental morphology and applies it to the wider context of modern human evolution.. I must admit, I couldn't discern some of the variation she describes, but to an expert, it sounds like they are obvious. Well done.
My thought is, wouldn’t the teeth be different based on the types of foods eaten? For example, the ridges described, couldn’t they either be or not be worn down? How does that prove anything?
In complete , the controversial issues are avoided, the Canon is maintained and the dislocation from reality is persisted with.
Royal I R Feel free to fill in the gaps, raise the controversial issues and bring us all back to reality (In your mind, anyway).
Care to expand on the "Controversial issues"? and while you're at, feel free to discourse on the "Dislocation from reality" while you're at it...
For me as a Dentalhygienist the Part about Dental Morphologie was very interesting!
Well presented. Thank you.
Wonderful lecture, i ejoyed it very much, thank you.
I would think that humans would have walked all over the Earth even 300k years ago.
Very interesting approach. It'll be interesting to see how well it hold up in the future.
about 200 years in the future because it will never be final, always a new and different thought on it, I also think its a never ending story.
Excellent, very informative.
Has anyone got an explanation for why the Jebel Irhoud fossils were in that precise spot?
Cave? Occupied?
Overhang shelter, now collapsed?
Deliberate placing post mortem by relatives?
Predator's meal remains?
It's wonderful seeing so many different disciplines coming together to produce ever more accurate data.
@M PW What do you mean anthropology is in denial? That makes no sense. It's the anthropologists and fellow researchers excavating the remains in the field, describing the raw data, offering tentative explanations, and giving us their interpretations. There is no denial. Get real.
@M PW what is your take 9n the origins of man,,is jebel being exaggerated in it's importance.
@M PW This is a normal iterative process of learning based in improvements in evidence, not 'debunking'.
@M PW Would you like to give an example of the bunkum?
ua-cam.com/video/2AvepssBwzY/v-deo.html☔👓
seriously? Leaky Foundation? I'm dealing with exactly that at the moment. Thank god it's insured.
Yes, this is a fascinating lecture; thorough research on the skeletal remains and the areas where they were found. It's great to hear reporting on more recent species in the evolutionary line. I will question her claim that the Sahara region was not desert as recent as a few hundred thousand years ago. Studies on climate change in the region over millions of years, Saharan dust in areas like the Canary Islands & Spain, as well as the movement of tectonic plates and the loss of the vast majority of the Tethys sea show the desert's origins go back at least several million years.
Thank you & R.I.P. Dr. Richard Leakey
21:10
Homo Neanderthal didn't necessarily have "primitive" features; other human species had heavy brows, sloping jaws and other what most would call "primitive" features.
Homo sapiens simply has more facial neoteny, giving us that "modern" look and a cute little chin to boot.
My question is, what would Robert Sepehr say? 🤔
This is amazing information. I learned a great deal and I can see how all of the research done here was motivated by discoveries that are pretty mind blowing. What I loved most was the information regarding teeth shapes. Who knew I'd be so interested in teeth? Thank you for this.
Wish they would include a date of posting like they used to, because who know in two weeks or years what they could find
If we could only see where her remote is pointing to when she explains tooth morphology and the PC analysis... that would greatly assist in understanding. Other than that - wow! - this is highly informative. One of my critiques is to get rid of the "garden of eden" trope (26:48) - it's highly ethnocentric, unnecessary, irrelevant, and there were no talking snakes - it provides no empirical worthiness. The graphic at 29:02 is great, as is the explanation and map of general ecological conditions in Africa around 300,000 years ago at 29:14 , and the absence of geographical barriers to human speciation, which, in other words, allows for genetic exchange among various human populations throughout Africa. There is an interesting part at 31:43 , in which Prof. Bailey describes the presence of modern behavior outside of Africa - but which is only partial ("inklings"), "but not the entire package". That, to me, is signicant - over 90,000 ya, "inklings of modern behavior vs the entire package." As she states toward the end, the evolution of fully modern H. sapiens is not an East African process, or a Southern African process, but a pan-African process. Many thanks to Prof. Shara Bailey and the Leakey Foundation for sharing.
Yes it stands to reason that evolution can occur faster if several individuals/groups carry different beneficial mutations and eventually meet up, interbreed and their offspring benefit from these multiple sources likely affected differently by the process of natural selection depending on the specifics of the environment the mutations appeared in and the selection pressure caused by those specific factors.
I think it would do much better for people to commonly think of evolution in the same way as cross pollinating plants than the way it is often presented as a more linear process - sort of like an evolution web rather than an evolution chain.
@Bobb Grimley Not to uninitiated to any of this. Not all viewers here are professional.
@Bobb Grimley But this isn't a podcast. Her information was presented in a graphic format.
Excellent presentation of a difficult substance.
I am curious about how the faunal assemblage, which was also employed as an age estimate, appears to be consistent with the other dating rather than the new date. That seems to be a problem.
She dealt with that at 23m 48s into the lecture.
Thank you very much!
I’m a layman and just love to listen to all this, and I’ve been wondering for years: were there tremendous tectonic plate shifts on earth during the 300000+ existence of man?
If so, would it be enough to shed light on migration patterns of early humans? Ie; maybe Australia was much closer to South Africa than archaeologists realize?
Not only tectonic plate shifts, but hundreds of feet difference in sea levels (even just in the last 30,000 years).
Remarkable and of course, most interesting.
I am curious about how such distinctions between people's teeth based on their geographic derivation plays into modern notions about there not being such a thing as "race." What do current commentators mean when they say that there is no such thing as "race?" Are they merely suggesting that the term itself is out-dated? If so, what term or terms are we to replace it with?
All humans interbreed. We are all the same species. So there is no basis for differentiating people on the basis of superficial characteristics like skin or eye colour or curliness of hair. Cultural differences are more important than these superficial types of physical differences, but they are just cultural differences that aren't connected to any physical or cognitive differences.
ua-cam.com/video/2AvepssBwzY/v-deo.html♐
The basic concept is ‘population.’ Scientists are concerned with the frequency of a gene within a population or the frequency of a phenotypic trait within a population. For example, the percentage of a population that can digest milk into adulthood because of a gene that produces lactase into adulthood. But usually different genes can be and are inherited separately from one another and thus their frequency in a population can fluctuate differently from one another. The same goes for the phenotypic traits caused by genes. Thus the frequency of one gene/trait usually has nothing to do with the frequency of another gene/trait. The ability to digest milk, for instance, has nothing to do with skin color, blood type, ear lobe shape, etc. A ‘race’ is simply a folk category based on an arbitrarily selected set of traits which are (falsely) assumed to go together. Like skin color and eye color. In actuality there is no necessary bond between the traits. Until recently, Europeans had dark skin but blue eyes. The concept of ‘race’ adds nothing to the scientific explanation of gene/trait frequencies in different populations.
It’s very outdated and problematic but populations is more sound
It's ideological, mostly. They have of confessing and confirming diversity inside the human species is "threatening". As if that would challenge the idea of human dignity.
"Lies Exposed & Truth Revealed" is a must read for all Christians along with your Bibles
I’ve noticed many fine specimens that resembles early Homo sapiens at my local Walmart. Perhaps scientists need not travel too far to study human evolution.
Homerus Walmartensis?
Just watched this which brings in naledi later. Four points. 1. That frontal lobe development is separate from modern facial characteristics of the flat face and different teeth. (Vital idea.) 2. That development took place all over Africa. 3. That bead making happened in a less 'developed' society (brain morphology) in Israeli dig. And possibly most original thought of mine - 4. look at that map at the end. Like saharan split today or the San in the kalahari, naledi are sidelined in a desert region of southern Africa while the Sahara did not exist at that time. But could they have been the ones more developed in terms of their frontal lobe. Also one might think in terms of size of an area of brain not being the key. For instance our current brain seems to be more efficient in the necessary areas of cognition. (A teenager learns by narrowing down and focusing on the more important things.) And brain size in less violent more efficient populations actually decreases. Of course birds can have incredible levels of intelligence despite having much smaller brains. (There's a new area of study explaining this that I can dig out for you if you like.) And women have smaller brains but are not less cognitively able as far as I'm aware. (Body size simply translates into larger brain size in men.)
Your opening statement destroyed all credibility that you might be objective as true science requires.
Her attempt at humor has no bearing on the value of her presentation.
Thanks for sharing this 👍😀
Amazing knowledge of ancient teeth. Have you had a chance to investigate the teeth from the elongated skulls that have been found in Peru. The skulls have a larger brain capacity than ours. I would like to hear your opinion on these discoveries.
Fascinating - thank you!
Anytime somebody says rewrite I become highly skeptical. Half of science is P2P. I see it every day. People should think for themselves. Science is new religion. I am a scientist.
" Science is new religion. I am a scientist."- I don't believe you.
Excellent …. May I have some more please.
Thankfully, USAnthropology, anthropology, and DNA-Bioinformatics have gone three separate ways. We have at least 4 species of humans, but for the support of biblical theories, still remains the out of Africa theory. PS. Rhesus, cranial analogies, and the list goes on and on.
Fascinating!
I love how people get mad 😡, when they are told they have African origins lol. It's like their whole world crumbles before their eyes 😢. Love it.
Yup. Snowflakes melting. Haha.
@stranger Feel free to demonstrate the truth of any of those claims.
Presentation was done very well
I remember when Barack Hussein Obama was running for POTUS and it was in the news that his own Grandmother said she saw him being born in a hut in Kenya. Does anybody else remember, or has that also been swept under the rug?
Fascinating. I can't help thinking about what the religious people are saying and the arguments they would come up with.
Yes keyword...."rewriting"....its a never ending dialogue....dialog.... what happens when you believe in a Darwinian paradigm...."ever learning but never coming into the knowledge of the truth"...
Correction: not everyone has neanderthal dna. Those with 100% African ancestry have no neanderthal DNA.
Excellent presentation. Very understandable. Thank you.
Wow 😳😳😳 she really danced with the issue of BLACKNESS. Western Science is so substandard. I'll move on.
A natural public speaker.
Those new fossils had the tidy gene. Everything looks better organised now. Ha!
Flatter faces means smaller teeth? Smaller teeth means less chewing? Less chewing means more meat? More meat means smaller stomachs? Smaller stomachs mean faster runners? Compound change should speed up evolution? How would you choose between a Denisovan skeleton or Naledi DNA?
Exactly
@M PW Man, you are desperate for these people to fail.
Recent research puts focus on a number of new information, not mentioned in this presentation. Mutation resulting in speech development 80,000+, Toba eruption 74,000 bp(resulting in mass extinction), ice age drying up of the Red Sea once 125,000 bp and again around 60,000 bp, led to migration out of Africa and along Arabian peninsula to Baluchistan to Gujrat sheds new light to a mass extinction and regeneration of population in India, from where there seems to have been a migration of people 45,000 bp, shedding light on migration into China (and into Americas) and south east Asia, with the Important Gauda culture of Bengal. These are perspectives that should be included in any new exposer. Migrations from India to the west explains for example the Indo-European languages (the only rational explanation to date), implying lack of a bigger picture.
Multiple possible explanations including randomness.
@@sonarbangla8711 would there be a source on that? I'm planning to do up a timeline for my own amusement and to keep the contents of my brain in order.
Fascinating.
Neanderthal teeth are NOT all the same! If you want to find "Neanderthal" teeth in modern humans, talk to some dentists in Saudi Arabia! The Taurodont molars found in Neanderthals will also often be found in the children of Bantu & Melanesians crosses. If you get the right mix of modern human genes you will get "Neanderthal" teeth. And it was primarily the teeth that Germans declared to be so different that they must be a separate species.
I think they messed up the presentation of the teeth graphics on purpose so the average viewer wouldn't know what she was talking about.
@@watermelonlalala She doesn't know what she is talking about!
awesome discoveries
Highly interesting and informative. I am sure there are laser pointings in this lecture that we are not seeing, such as in the comparison between neanderthal and sapien's teeth and skulls. That's a pity.
Thank you; great detective work!
Interesting - north Africa has a ton to offer for human evolution but that's going to be difficult due to the altered climate and horrible political conditions.
No cranial capacity figures ? that's the most important thing you omitted. Great discovery !
Our data show that, 300,000 years ago, brain size in early H. sapiens already fell within the range of present-day humans. Brain shape, however, evolved gradually within the H. sapiens lineage, reaching present-day human variation between about 100,000 and 35,000 years ago.
@@TheShootist Studies show the average brain volume of Homo sapiens has decreased by roughly 10 percent in the past 40,000 years. Is there a theoretical explanation or is it statistically insignificant?
@@DaveLL500 so? the cranial dome is much higher in Sapians. Neander had a flat head. We don't know yet what Denisovan skulls looked like however if you look at Homo Longi (which might be a denisovan) skull it is also long and flat.
1/2 posts. I am going to post a link (and sometimes links are censored) to a photo of sapiens and neander's skulls for comparison. Neander is 5'6" to 5'8" AND his skull is the size of andre the giants (you would never mistake a Neanderthal for a modern human if you met him on the street
@@DaveLL500 it appear hyperlinks are disabled.
trying again
@Scott McCloud - thanks for the additional data, that's surprising and remarkable.
I am always surprised we don't consider human beings as a coastal species.
I read Desmond Morris's book "The Naked Ape" in 1967. Morris postulates a number of modern human traits are supremely adept for hunting and foraging in the littoral zone.
Our back hair grows towards the spine, our finger nails are flat and wide, we walk upright and are decent swimmers for an ape.
The TV series Alone demonstrates how the lake or sea shore provides a plentiful food supply, far more survivable than either the forest or the open plains.
Changes in sea levels are bound to have destroyed the evidence of this era of our evolution.
The Neanderthal cave in the cliffs of Gibraltar once overlooked a wide coastal plain where now lies the Mediterranean sea.
The idea Europe was colonised via the fertile crescent has very little to recommend it if you consider we at least had mastered rafts and were probably capable of swimming the straights of Gibraltar during the past 300,000 years.
Wow!! This lady is validating the nephilum!🌞💥
Wow. How?
@@hammalammadingdong6244 , keep 🧐 and you will find.
No short cuts for you.🌞
@@raynshyn7160 - so, it’s beginning to sound like you have no idea.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 , no not at all.🌞 Go back to your witch doctor 🤪👍😊
@@raynshyn7160 - I don’t think you even watched this video.
Fascinating TORRO MIRRDA LOLOLO
So the child jaw wasn’t dated directly, as you first said. The dating was also based on a presumption about what layer it belonged to! This kind of sketchy thinking and use of labels is what creates all the noise in science. If for example nobody had sought and found basis for a more precise dating, the first sloppy error would gradually have taken on the weight of fact, even though it started out as an estimate.
Really good point....I will add that once an initial error is made the media will cement it into place especially if there are political gains to be had from it. The truth would actually come out over time with further research but oftentimes the media has already decided what the truth is. Michael Mann's hockey stick is one example...It's pretty much been shown to be bunk but you can't criticize it or you'll get called a "denier".
@@jamesesselman283 My brother! 🤗
@@Hallands......Hi Hallands.. I have much respect for you and anybody else who wants to get at the real truth. Sometimes the first theory to explain something is right and sometimes it's wrong. The media perpetuates what they want the truth to be instead of what real science is telling them. In my opinion the media is pretty much worthless
One other thing...your comment was second from the top and after I commented your initial comment got moved way down. Do you think UA-cam had something to do with that? Illustrates my point.
@@jamesesselman283 I think the MSM are highly toxic and by now outright dangerous in America. China and Russia never had a free press and were always totalitarian.
But our press and media moved gradually from slanted coverage in the late 80s on to heavy, unapologetic, even aggressive propaganda and deliberate lies, and are by now completely useless, even should they decide to tell the truth, because you’d have to check all the facts anyway. I stopped listening in 2004.
Big Tech is almost as destructive with their reckless censorship and so are most politicians who can’t seem to make their minds up whether censorship is most convenient for themselves or a deadly blight clouding the hope and spirit necessary for life.
The main problem is that the prime movers rely solely on technology and money for progress. They plum forgot all the living beings, without whom all is for naught, and are well in their way to recreate totalitarianism, suppression and enslavement in a new, horrible form
And money is killing education and health-care by cutting corners for profit and forgetting real care. Instead of care we have »supranational institutions« gradually taking lawmaking out of the hands of our elected representatives - oh, and who control these monsters? The biggest foundations, of course, which strangely has begun to function as tax-havens as well! And guess how that came about…
The truth cannot be owned. It can’t even be proven, because by the time all the facts are in, it has already changed. This is why we must be truthful and say we "hope, think, believe and assume« unless a high degree of well tested certainty has emerged.
But most have lost the ability to distinguish between habits and knowledge in all fields of science.
True science must never be swayed by profits.
All true science-progress must by now rely on open collaboration. The subjects have become too large to handle otherwise.
But the CEOs and the politicians tend to rely on AI to fix that and gradually supplant human research. They’re in for a ghastly setback if they do take that step, but three trying impatiently, investing ginormous amounts of money into developing AI and »quantum computing«.
Thank you.