A Matter of Time
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 гру 2024
- Time is often used in palaeoanthropology as a replacement for morphology and anatomy where understanding human evolution is concerned. In this lecture, Prof. Berger explores the use of the absolute age of fossils in questions of phylogeny, and where the age of a fossil is important, and where it is not so important in interpreting and understanding human evolution.
To watch the previous lectures in the series go here:
When Were There Giants?
• When Were There Giants?
The Context of Fossil Hominid Discoveries in Africa
• The Context of Fossil ...
Visiting the Taung Child
• Visiting the Taung Chi...
Rise of Prometheus
• Rise of Prometheus
The muddle in the middle Pleistocene
• The muddle in the Midd...
Exploring the Fossil Hominid Vault at the University of the Witwatersrand
• Exploring the Fossil H...
Introduction to Sterkfontein
• Introduction to Sterkf...
Species concepts in Palaeoanthropology
• Species Concepts in Pa...
For more Wits research news
www.wits.ac.za/....
For more Wits research videos
www.youtube.co....
More Wits research stories in Wits’ research magazine, Curios.ty
www.wits.ac.za...
What an incredibly dynamic discipline this is.
Yeah, so dynamic they willfully ignore the simplest, most plausible, most evidence-based idea on bipedal origins for decades in order to continue the myth that outsiders like Elaine Morgan were wrong.
Elaine Morgan was a brave and exciting thinker. As a person from a Welsh family I am naturally proud of her contribution and agree she holds a place in the history of human evolutionary debate... but times have moved along and paleoanthropology has taken huge strides including the analysis of paleo-environments and hominin diet.I believe that hominins evolved in a forest/savannah environment. Scientists must, by definition, relinquish their favourite paradigms when the weight of emerging evidence taps them on the shoulder. It is no insult to Elaine that she is now viewed as a valuable contributor, but that her aquatic ape ideas, though popular in their time, have probably had their day.
Dr Berger is the best. Unlike a lot of his contemporaries, he rigorously applies the scientific method and doesn't present speculation as fact, nor does he engage in technically unsupported anthropomorphism. He unabashedly lays out the shortcomings of the fossil record and the difficulties in arriving at any hard and fast conclusions, while presenting the possibilities for what they are: possibilities. Too many of these guys are more intent on making the next news cycle with totally unsubstantiated, nearly hysterical claims (e.g., "Naledi buried their dead!") than taking a cold-eyed look at the scant evidence. Of course, that's how they try to scare up grants, as well as by creating false controversies with others in their field who benefit as well (the veritable self-licking ice cream cone). Keep the science coming Dr. Berger!
Very interesting and thought provoking about there not being a definitive progress of evolution in time 🤔
These lecture never get old. There are so many more discoveries to be made. Dr. Berger shares his wealth of knowledge and discoveries in such a wonderful way. If only we could go back in time to meet all our relatives! I would love to gaze upon their faces!
Another awesome video. I loved the analogy and then the fossils filled out in the chart.
Wonderful animations! Really helped me understand better. Thanks for this series.
Thank you - I really enjoy these
wow, video and sound editing also by prof.berger...
Awesome presentation. Thank you Dr. Berger.
I think dating is critical to trace geneolgies, but doesn’t define them. What species or subspecies or hybridization isn’t explained by the date. But to know they existed at that time is to me very advantageous to addressing morphology. Our acceptance that multiple variants carried on with considerably less developed traits is only indicative because it is dated.
Now the critical aspects of studying morphology is not linear. That was wrong. It was branching and both isolating as well as overlapping. Widely varying traits among them and far greater diversity.
I totally agree that erectus has been largely misclassified. By current standards we would differentiate considerably. Dating caused the inclusive perceptions of one distinct species in linear theories we used to accept more widely, but were wrong. Thanks to people like you who research morphology and refer to those dates, we move forward with far better understanding.
Dating by itself reveals nothing. Examination does. Dates are something critical to examine, but no more important than physiology, location, artifacts and strata.
A new glory hog in genetic research replaces carbon dating. Both in what we can extract and extrapolate from increasing older samples as well as the genomes of sapiens and Neanderthal etc. homo erectus is on that bucket list to extract dna and they did exist into the timelines we have extracted. Could even be enough to complete a genome for them. The hitches. It’s amalgamated and fairly recent comparatively. Example is Neanderthal genome. Its just a model. It’s as theoretical as morphology as multiple samples from multiple places and times piece together what is in truth a sort of generalized chimera of the species. It does though indicate admixtures and common ancestries. Not the uncommon ones. Nonetheless I think very promising to add to examinations. Erectus will probably be divided in that process and reveal anomalies that are not erectus but someone else.
You do a great job communicating with enthusiasm and relaying to people like me that are dependent upon you for our generalized perceptions of archaic humanity in all its forms. Enjoy the content very much. Thank you.
more of this kind of videos, love it
Excellent content.
we should keep in mind there was always introgression between these various species, muddying the waters even further.
It would seem that if paleogenetics is ever able to find DNA in any of these ancient fossils, it might be a relevant indicator of progression. Just a thought. It seems that the linear evolution theories of the past are just not applicable. Especially considering there are so few fossils and no way to determine the time line of their existences. Also, because we are realizing, now, that there were so many species occupying the same time periods and hybridization very likely may have occurred. Fascinating and mind boggling!
Lee uses the word "species" so much in this talk a listener might assume we knew what a species was. The truth is it's blurry to define even in extant forms, let alone from tiny fragments of skeletal remains from millions of years ago.
Perhaps a little scepticism on the well-known vanity-driven classification of fossils rather then the relatively precise dating of them might be in order.
I've found a fossil in my yard......what's really cool about it is it has a tooth mark deep into it.....which is why it took me a while to figure yo it was an end of a bone a little distorted but a bone...... It looks real familiar but I don't have a great deal of experience with human bones......how can I go about determining human or other?
depending on the law of your state/country. you are maybe required to report your find to the goverment.
which contacts relevant people to determine what did you find. if its one of the kind find, they could take it from you for further examination and exhibition in museum.
if its something common you will probably be able to keep it after proper documentation is done.
every state/country has different law on things like this.
i reccomend you look up yours
I don’t think the Chinese have any difficulty believing they share the planet with several primitive subspecies of humanoid.
Carbon dating is only accurate in our atmosphere. Before the universal worldwide flood. We had a different atmosphere, we had more oxygen levels.
Or S and H could both be ancestral to X.
The offspring of , Satan , and the , falling angels. , the giants ,and the Nephillim ,in genesis ,and the book of Enoch
No thats all just myth
@@yeetman4953 you believe in what a man tells instead of the word of God. That’s interesting to me.
@@EmotionsRTemporary ideals are what i follow not men
@@yeetman4953 The Bible is history book that no man alone could create. If you truly have read it and broke it down correctly, you would understand. I’m not here to convince, just my opinion.
@@EmotionsRTemporary no man could create?
The flood story was plagarised
Ardi, Ardi...are you there, lol.
What is al666?
AL 666-1, a maxilla that dates to 2.33 Mya, discovered at Hadar.
...if that was the case, there would be no apes now.
Called the Nephillim
What's funny is I can collect rocks line them up and say this rock is releated to this rock and this one is releated to this one and so forth, in reality they are made the same but a rock that looks similar or the same can be completely different just have the same characteristics and not be related so what you are saying and doing is putting things into categories that are similar but not the same all completely different just similar in appearance with no way to prove they are changing into modern day humans. Lol lol lol.
Lol something is wrong with you buddy. Facts are facts cheers
@@mattmatty4670 you know anything about geology or genes?
@@mattmatty4670 I don't think you do huh
@@007jamesellis9 re max planck institute in Germany? If that's what you mean
@@007jamesellis9 svente paabo if you want help in DNA ect ect ?
This guy is on team Satan. Satans definition is adversary, against God. Jesus is Lord.
God made man and woman period. that's where we all came from is God !!! Not apes or anything else
but humans are apes.
No Proof Grow up
What a bunch of hogwash .