Crystal clear! He's a very gifted teacher who knows how to bring things down to "brass tacks" while maintaining the audience's attention. Very nice interview!
Listening to Chris for the first 10 minutes made it so much clearer to me what kind of skull was actually found and how it fits in with other hominid species than I'd gotten from reading multiple articles on this discovery. Not that I stopped at 10 minutes! I'm just sayin'.....thanks for doing the interview, Seth!
I think this was an issue on Chris' side, unfortunately, he was not on his usual setup and was using his partner's computer, so settings could be off. Hope you can still hear and understand!
@@worldofpaleoanthropology I've heard this sound problem - volume too low - on other videos where the interviewer was face to face with Chris Stringer.
The introgression of Sapiens with Neanderthals and Denisovians puts back by 10’s of 1,000’s of years the invention of alcohol and the phenomenon of beer goggles. They were the proverbial yetis in knickers.
@@worldofpaleoanthropology Minor issue 😁. Absolutely love the content! I've been reading about the subject since I was 8 and still can't get enough, so more please? 😁😍❤️
@@marier7336 Prof. Stringer is a great friend of the show, and as soon as there is new information concerning this find, I will be sure to be reporting on it =) We do have more coverage on our website as well in various areas, so be sure to explore that too!
@@worldofpaleoanthropology DNA says that denisovans are older than neanthertals. The paper he mentioned says the opposite based on morphology. Unless Harbin is a new and younger branch of denisovans, which technically changed definition of denisovans
Firstly, there is no such species called Denisovans. We don’t have enough fossils to do that. It has not met that requirement yet. Secondly, they are not older than Neanderthals, they existed at the same time. Thirdly morphology can vary over region and times they don’t have to always correlate.
Doesn't it seem logical that as our common ancestor evolved: Neanderthals left Africa first ( retaining the ape-like forward projecting facial features), Denisoven lineage left 2nd (retaining skull/ brow ridge features but having evolved the less projecting face), and we moved out of Africa last, with something similar to our modern features, and then interbred with the 2 earlier 'travelers'?
Neanderthals and Denisovans evolved in Europe and Eurasia after their common ancestor, going back millions of years to Homo erectus, is who they evolved from when they left Africa. What you are talking about is the more multi regional model, which most anthropologist, and I say most because there are some who disagree, will go with the Recent African Origins Model, aka out of Africa, vs. what you are kind of describing. Make sense?
@@worldofpaleoanthropology Yes, this makes perfect sense. I didn't realize that Neanderthals and Denisovans evolved from Homo Erectus AFTER our common ancestor left Africa. Thanks for this clarification. I study these things out of a deep personal interest, but have no formal training whatsoever, so it's a kind of 'piecemeal' approach that I have been taking.
@@mathewfines8727 Glad to clear things up, it’s what I’m here for! If you have any questions about your interest, as I know there is just so much to cover, email me at worldofpaleoanthropology@gmail.com! Thanks!
We have some DNA and some bone we think is Denisovan. If you’re that convinced by so little evidence that you can deem what an entire species is, you’re not going to like this field of research because that’s not how things tend to work.
@@worldofpaleoanthropology My impression is that there is a strong interest of most scientists in this field to name their own spiecies. A tradition founded by the Leakys. The only logical reason not to make DNA analysis on these specimens is that it could prove the unwanted result that they are all the same in which case all of them would be homo daliensis. But Denisovan is such a good brand, how could anyone dare to destroy it. Speaking about destruction. It is a pretext not to make DNA analysis because it is destructive to the specimen. There is enough material and the benefit of a genetic analysis is far beyond the damage done to the bones.
Has all life on earth been extinct? So why not use living creatures to support the theory of evolution? Point out some living creatures that are genuinely evolving instead of animations, photoshopped images, and fossils of creatures that never even existed.🙉🐒😂
@@benjaminfalzon4622 "Fossils of creatures that never even existed." Yup, makes perfect sense...When I die, my rotting skeleton will prove that I never existed.
I could listen to these lectures for hours! I love the new species discoveries and never tire of learning about our ancestors!
This isn't a lecture
Crystal clear! He's a very gifted teacher who knows how to bring things down to "brass tacks" while maintaining the audience's attention. Very nice interview!
Listening to Chris for the first 10 minutes made it so much clearer to me what kind of skull was actually found and how it fits in with other hominid species than I'd gotten from reading multiple articles on this discovery. Not that I stopped at 10 minutes! I'm just sayin'.....thanks for doing the interview, Seth!
Thanks Seth and Prof Chris Stringer, fascinating!
Love me some Stringer facts. Thanks for your upload my fellow hominid.
This dude was massive. His eyes alone were twice as big as modern homosapiens.
Can you do anything to "normalize" the sound? The up and down sound level is very disconcerting.
I think this was an issue on Chris' side, unfortunately, he was not on his usual setup and was using his partner's computer, so settings could be off. Hope you can still hear and understand!
It's a free concert.
@@worldofpaleoanthropology I've heard this sound problem - volume too low - on other videos where the interviewer was face to face with Chris Stringer.
The introgression of Sapiens with Neanderthals and Denisovians puts back by 10’s of 1,000’s of years the invention of alcohol and the phenomenon of beer goggles. They were the proverbial yetis in knickers.
Search marula fruit on YT.
😂
Enjoyed this very much. First time I've seen Chris speak. I have his book, "Lone Survivors." But, Seth....I think you need a new webcam!
My wishlist is public on Amazon 😁😘
Lovely! But, Seth's voice is extremely loud while Stringer's is quiet 🙃
Unfortunately we will just have to blame bad mics on this one! Sorry!
@@worldofpaleoanthropology Minor issue 😁. Absolutely love the content! I've been reading about the subject since I was 8 and still can't get enough, so more please? 😁😍❤️
@@marier7336 Prof. Stringer is a great friend of the show, and as soon as there is new information concerning this find, I will be sure to be reporting on it =) We do have more coverage on our website as well in various areas, so be sure to explore that too!
Well done. Is heidlebergensis done now with the new DNA information?
This is nice 👏🏾
That is interesting. Prof Stringer coauthored a paper saying the Harbin is close to homo sapiens. But he also suggest that it is a denisobianm. Weired
Why can’t it be both?
@@worldofpaleoanthropology DNA says that denisovans are older than neanthertals. The paper he mentioned says the opposite based on morphology. Unless Harbin is a new and younger branch of denisovans, which technically changed definition of denisovans
Firstly, there is no such species called Denisovans. We don’t have enough fossils to do that. It has not met that requirement yet. Secondly, they are not older than Neanderthals, they existed at the same time. Thirdly morphology can vary over region and times they don’t have to always correlate.
I finally have time! Hot dog but I’ve been running in so many circles my mind is even more absent than usual!
Doesn't it seem logical that as our common ancestor evolved: Neanderthals left Africa first ( retaining the ape-like forward projecting facial features), Denisoven lineage left 2nd (retaining skull/ brow ridge features but having evolved the less projecting face), and we moved out of Africa last, with something similar to our modern features, and then interbred with the 2 earlier 'travelers'?
Neanderthals and Denisovans evolved in Europe and Eurasia after their common ancestor, going back millions of years to Homo erectus, is who they evolved from when they left Africa. What you are talking about is the more multi regional model, which most anthropologist, and I say most because there are some who disagree, will go with the Recent African Origins Model, aka out of Africa, vs. what you are kind of describing. Make sense?
@@worldofpaleoanthropology Yes, this makes perfect sense. I didn't realize that Neanderthals and Denisovans evolved from Homo Erectus AFTER our common ancestor left Africa. Thanks for this clarification. I study these things out of a deep personal interest, but have no formal training whatsoever, so it's a kind of 'piecemeal' approach that I have been taking.
@@mathewfines8727 Glad to clear things up, it’s what I’m here for! If you have any questions about your interest, as I know there is just so much to cover, email me at worldofpaleoanthropology@gmail.com! Thanks!
@@worldofpaleoanthropology Thank you very much! I really appreciate your kind offer. I just may take you up on it!
I wish they would try to get DNA so we’d know for certain if it’s Denisovan
Ancient DNA is not the most easy to deal with, I am sure the team is working on it =)
They haven't got approval to do so
As it is a destructive method with low success rate
I think the word "Speciation" is the proper term, rather than Evolutionary change. I hope the word catches up with the modern world.
They are Denisovan, obviously.
Oh, so you know that for sure?
@@worldofpaleoanthropology If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
We have some DNA and some bone we think is Denisovan. If you’re that convinced by so little evidence that you can deem what an entire species is, you’re not going to like this field of research because that’s not how things tend to work.
@@worldofpaleoanthropology My impression is that there is a strong interest of most scientists in this field to name their own spiecies. A tradition founded by the Leakys. The only logical reason not to make DNA analysis on these specimens is that it could prove the unwanted result that they are all the same in which case all of them would be homo daliensis. But Denisovan is such a good brand, how could anyone dare to destroy it. Speaking about destruction. It is a pretext not to make DNA analysis because it is destructive to the specimen. There is enough material and the benefit of a genetic analysis is far beyond the damage done to the bones.
kudos but it's actually a bigfoot
Yeah ok.
Has all life on earth been extinct? So why not use living creatures to support the theory of evolution? Point out some living creatures that are genuinely evolving instead of animations, photoshopped images, and fossils of creatures that never even existed.🙉🐒😂
I’m not even sure what to say to that….the lack of logic is astounding…
@@worldofpaleoanthropology there's isn't much you can say. I've already said it for you!
Sure….let’s go with that.
@@benjaminfalzon4622 "Fossils of creatures that never even existed." Yup, makes perfect sense...When I die, my rotting skeleton will prove that I never existed.
But I've never seen any genuine fossils. All I've seen are just animations, and photoshopped images.
Where are the genuine fossils?🐒