I just found your channel and for a first time viewer it really landed well with me so thanks. Listening to Christopher really brings to light the slow moving complexities associated with this field to the point where even an unbiased fresh outlook on this subject is met with roadblocks and obstacles...so let's all keep digging!
Homo juluensis ('big-headed') includes fossils from Xujiayao, Xuchang, Xiahe, Penghu, Denisova, and Tam Ngu Hao 2. That is as close as we can currently get to the enigmatic Denisovans. Thanks to Xiujie Wu and Christopher Bae and team.
Great video, thanks. I’ve heard that India is a somewhat untapped region with great potential for field paleoanthropology, too. I’d love to think that this region gets good focus at some point in the future. I can only imagine there are incredible finds awaiting. Geographically it’s a sure bet that ancient humans spent significant time there, even if only migratory on their way to east Asia or back.
Thank you for this introduction and update on paleoantropology in Asia. Fascinating and opening new perspectives. I just discovered your site and I am sure I shall be become an addict. Highly interested in botany, I found out that it is difficult to get informations about history of botanic studies in Asia and particularly in China. They knew about plants and their use very long ago.... Botanic knooledge already existed before the arrival of Europeans. Any clues ? Catherine from France
Being from the UK, Africa and Europe have had a far more extensive coverage. I suppose it is a natural and relevant way to look at things but it has been interesting to explore more of the Asian populations. I would love to know more about the migration patterns of the different populations. I thought Denisovans was a correct term, though not as long-standing, just as relevant as Neandertals. I didn't think it was a broad term, or even unofficial, within the scientific community.
Always love those knock-down fights among scientists. Reminds me of that early episode of Big Bang Theory where Leonard and Sheldon get into a physical brawl at a physics conference.
Would be interested to know if Dr Bae knows anything of the fossils hominins present in limestone cave in Palau, found by a fisherman and briefly inspected by Dr Lee Berger? Haven't heard about any progress being made with those since they were surveyed briefly, about 10 years ago.
Haeckel 1912 wrote: ""The gorilla comes next to man in the structure of the hand and foot, the chimpanzee in the chief features of the skull, the orang in brain development, and the gibbon in the formation of the chest. None of these existing anthropoid apes is among the direct ancestors of our race; they are scattered survivors of an ancient branch of the Catarrhines, from which the human race developed in a particular direction." So Haeckel's answer in 1912 was 'none of the above'. Please provide a citation for Haeckel's gibbon-human interrelationship reported by Dr Bae.
Recent phylogenetic analysis (not genomic analysis) also nests gibbons with humans and nests Australopithecines with apes, so bipedal by convergence. I did not know that Haeckel reported the same in 1912 (sans Lucy and kin). Question: Who put the kabash on Haeckel's hypothesis? It is currently getting a revival of support.
@@Joe-Przybranowski Having checked his website, he supports a theory by Vaneechoutte et all (2023) which re-examined the skeletons of Australopithicines with modern techniques and were surprised to find that they appear to be more likely the ancestors of chimpanzees than humans (and that Parantrhopus is likely the ancestor of gorillas). That would change the current Last Common Ancestor before Homo from Australiopithicus (~2 - 4 million years) to Ardipithicus or Orrorin (~6 - 4.5 million years), creating an uncertain gap of useful transition fossils between 2.5 - 4.5 million years (currently filled by various Australopithicines) - greatly widening the current 0.5 - 1 million year gap between Ardipithicus and Australopithicus. So by 'apes' it seems Peters is referring to chimps and gorillas, rather than the 'Great Apes' (which also includes orangutans and humans - but not gibbons, the 'Lesser Apes'). The latter is apparently important to him, as another recent theory he supports suggests that gibbons may be more closely related to humans than the 'great' apes - the genetic evidence being difficult to verify due to how massively messed up gibbon chromosomes are. They seem to have been torn apart and rebuilt by some major viral situation several million years ago - to the point that even species known to be closely related can have very different chromosome numbers and even genes scattered widely between chromosomes. (This has also led to widely different results when trying to determine when they diverged from the Great Apes - anywhere from 10 to 25 million years ago.) In this theory, humans evolved from Orrorin (already a suspected human ancestor), but Orrorin evolved from a branch of the gibbon family just prior to their genetic scrambling - thus why human genes more closely resemble that of the Great Apes than modern gibbons. Additional genetic similarities might then be due to hybridization, which may still have been possible as at that time the Great Ape / Orrorin lineages had not yet become too divergent, their chromosome number was likely the same (48), and so forth. It is a interesting theory, but I am not yet convinced. Perhaps modern examinations will eventually disprove it. Or perhaps it will surprise the establishment and overturn the current paradigm (as Peters seems to believe). I think this is also related to Peters' question regarding the earliest mention of the gibbon / human LCA theory.
For some reason UA-cam removed my comment? Must have been an algorithm glitch. Anyway, here it is again: Having checked Peters' website, he supports a theory by Vaneechoutte et all (2023) which re-examined the skeletons of Australopithicines with modern techniques and were surprised to find that they appear to be more likely the ancestors of chimpanzees than humans (and that Parantrhopus is likely the ancestor of gorillas). That would change the current Last Common Ancestor before Homo from Australiopithicus (~2 - 4 million years) to Ardipithicus or Orrorin (~6 - 4.5 million years), creating an uncertain gap of useful transition fossils between 2.5 - 4.5 million years (currently filled by various Australopithicines) - greatly widening the current 0.5 - 1 million year gap between Ardipithicus and Australopithicus. So by 'apes' it seems Peters is referring to chimps and gorillas, rather than the 'Great Apes' as a whole (which also includes orangutans and humans - but not gibbons, the 'Lesser Apes'). The latter is apparently important to Peters, as another recent theory he supports suggests that gibbons may be more closely related to humans than the 'great' apes - the genetic evidence being difficult to verify due to how massively messed up gibbon chromosomes are. They seem to have been torn apart and rebuilt by some major viral situation several million years ago - to the point that even species known today to be closely related can have very different chromosome numbers and even genes scattered widely between chromosomes. (This has also led to widely different results when trying to determine when they diverged from the Great Apes - anywhere from 10 to 25 million years ago.) In this theory, humans evolved from Ardipithicus / Orrorin (already suspected human ancestors), but that lineage would have evolved from a branch of the gibbon family just prior to their genetic scrambling - thus why human genes more closely resemble that of the Great Apes than modern gibbons. Additional genetic similarities might then be due to hybridization, which may still have been possible as at that time the proto- Great Ape lineages had not yet become too divergent, their chromosome number was likely the same (48), and so forth. It is a interesting theory, but I am not yet convinced. Perhaps modern examinations will eventually disprove it. Or perhaps it will surprise the establishment and overturn the current paradigm (as Peters seems to believe). I think this is also related to Peters' question regarding the earliest mention of the gibbon / human LCA theory.
Im glad someone is fighting to not change names and history over current temporary 'ethical' concerns. Scientists should be focused on science not politics and revisionism.
What we think we know now is not all the knowledge out there in the world. There is a need to identify the hominin fossils in Asia, which have been simply referred to as "archaic Homo"
@@jamestodd2323 or perhaps that was the only point they found to criticize, as it really seemed unrelated to the rest of the presentation (and stated as a given rather than the presenter opinion). I think your comment which disregards the actual mentioned observation, comes off as very alienating. Especially if you'd notice this was not the only commenter it bothered (looking at other comments).
@@MI-wc6nk there were plenty of comments about this, all from people who are obviously perfectly ok with racism. Many of those appeared to have been retracted.
No doubt he is not in favor of any of that behavior. But his work is in Asia. If his scientific work required altering the name of an Asian fossil, then he probably would. He is not required to boycott China altogether.
@@streetwisetacticsSo in order to call out racism in one place you have to call out racism in all places at all times or the observation is not valid?
I just found your channel and for a first time viewer it really landed well with me so thanks. Listening to Christopher really brings to light the slow moving complexities associated with this field to the point where even an unbiased fresh outlook on this subject is met with roadblocks and obstacles...so let's all keep digging!
Welcome aboard!
Hey, me too- this is already fascinating 🎉
well done again
this whole collection is a real pleasure to see+hear
Thanks , good info .Great program
Captivating, thank you so much.
I just love super smart people...they can make me feel smart...now that's truely an amazing talent in ones ability to explain oneself 😂❤
Homo juluensis ('big-headed') includes fossils from Xujiayao, Xuchang, Xiahe, Penghu, Denisova, and Tam Ngu Hao 2. That is as close as we can currently get to the enigmatic Denisovans. Thanks to Xiujie Wu and Christopher Bae and team.
Great video, thanks. I’ve heard that India is a somewhat untapped region with great potential for field paleoanthropology, too. I’d love to think that this region gets good focus at some point in the future. I can only imagine there are incredible finds awaiting. Geographically it’s a sure bet that ancient humans spent significant time there, even if only migratory on their way to east Asia or back.
Thank you for this introduction and update on paleoantropology in Asia. Fascinating and opening new perspectives. I just discovered your site and I am sure I shall be become an addict. Highly interested in botany, I found out that it is difficult to get informations about history of botanic studies in Asia and particularly in China. They knew about plants and their use very long ago.... Botanic knooledge already existed before the arrival of Europeans. Any clues ? Catherine from France
Love The Soup !!! This especially was an EXCELLENT video !
Being from the UK, Africa and Europe have had a far more extensive coverage. I suppose it is a natural and relevant way to look at things but it has been interesting to explore more of the Asian populations. I would love to know more about the migration patterns of the different populations. I thought Denisovans was a correct term, though not as long-standing, just as relevant as Neandertals. I didn't think it was a broad term, or even unofficial, within the scientific community.
Oo! Oo! Cladistics fight!!
🦧💀
Always love those knock-down fights among scientists. Reminds me of that early episode of Big Bang Theory where Leonard and Sheldon get into a physical brawl at a physics conference.
Would be interested to know if Dr Bae knows anything of the fossils hominins present in limestone cave in Palau, found by a fisherman and briefly inspected by Dr Lee Berger? Haven't heard about any progress being made with those since they were surveyed briefly, about 10 years ago.
It will be interesting to see what genetics has to say on all these fossils if there is enough viable DNA available in them.
Denisovans are the truth
What does this statement mean?
"All Denisovans are liars" some Denisovan, probably
Haeckel 1912 wrote: ""The gorilla comes next to man in the structure of the hand and foot, the chimpanzee in the chief features of the skull, the orang in brain development, and the gibbon in the formation of the chest. None of these existing anthropoid apes is among the direct ancestors of our race; they are scattered survivors of an ancient branch of the Catarrhines, from which the human race developed in a particular direction."
So Haeckel's answer in 1912 was 'none of the above'.
Please provide a citation for Haeckel's gibbon-human interrelationship reported by Dr Bae.
Recent phylogenetic analysis (not genomic analysis) also nests gibbons with humans and nests Australopithecines with apes, so bipedal by convergence. I did not know that Haeckel reported the same in 1912 (sans Lucy and kin). Question: Who put the kabash on Haeckel's hypothesis? It is currently getting a revival of support.
HUMANS ARE APES
@@Joe-Przybranowski Having checked his website, he supports a theory by Vaneechoutte et all (2023) which re-examined the skeletons of Australopithicines with modern techniques and were surprised to find that they appear to be more likely the ancestors of chimpanzees than humans (and that Parantrhopus is likely the ancestor of gorillas). That would change the current Last Common Ancestor before Homo from Australiopithicus (~2 - 4 million years) to Ardipithicus or Orrorin (~6 - 4.5 million years), creating an uncertain gap of useful transition fossils between 2.5 - 4.5 million years (currently filled by various Australopithicines) - greatly widening the current 0.5 - 1 million year gap between Ardipithicus and Australopithicus.
So by 'apes' it seems Peters is referring to chimps and gorillas, rather than the 'Great Apes' (which also includes orangutans and humans - but not gibbons, the 'Lesser Apes').
The latter is apparently important to him, as another recent theory he supports suggests that gibbons may be more closely related to humans than the 'great' apes - the genetic evidence being difficult to verify due to how massively messed up gibbon chromosomes are. They seem to have been torn apart and rebuilt by some major viral situation several million years ago - to the point that even species known to be closely related can have very different chromosome numbers and even genes scattered widely between chromosomes. (This has also led to widely different results when trying to determine when they diverged from the Great Apes - anywhere from 10 to 25 million years ago.)
In this theory, humans evolved from Orrorin (already a suspected human ancestor), but Orrorin evolved from a branch of the gibbon family just prior to their genetic scrambling - thus why human genes more closely resemble that of the Great Apes than modern gibbons. Additional genetic similarities might then be due to hybridization, which may still have been possible as at that time the Great Ape / Orrorin lineages had not yet become too divergent, their chromosome number was likely the same (48), and so forth.
It is a interesting theory, but I am not yet convinced. Perhaps modern examinations will eventually disprove it. Or perhaps it will surprise the establishment and overturn the current paradigm (as Peters seems to believe). I think this is also related to Peters' question regarding the earliest mention of the gibbon / human LCA theory.
For some reason UA-cam removed my comment? Must have been an algorithm glitch. Anyway, here it is again:
Having checked Peters' website, he supports a theory by Vaneechoutte et all (2023) which re-examined the skeletons of Australopithicines with modern techniques and were surprised to find that they appear to be more likely the ancestors of chimpanzees than humans (and that Parantrhopus is likely the ancestor of gorillas). That would change the current Last Common Ancestor before Homo from Australiopithicus (~2 - 4 million years) to Ardipithicus or Orrorin (~6 - 4.5 million years), creating an uncertain gap of useful transition fossils between 2.5 - 4.5 million years (currently filled by various Australopithicines) - greatly widening the current 0.5 - 1 million year gap between Ardipithicus and Australopithicus.
So by 'apes' it seems Peters is referring to chimps and gorillas, rather than the 'Great Apes' as a whole (which also includes orangutans and humans - but not gibbons, the 'Lesser Apes').
The latter is apparently important to Peters, as another recent theory he supports suggests that gibbons may be more closely related to humans than the 'great' apes - the genetic evidence being difficult to verify due to how massively messed up gibbon chromosomes are. They seem to have been torn apart and rebuilt by some major viral situation several million years ago - to the point that even species known today to be closely related can have very different chromosome numbers and even genes scattered widely between chromosomes. (This has also led to widely different results when trying to determine when they diverged from the Great Apes - anywhere from 10 to 25 million years ago.)
In this theory, humans evolved from Ardipithicus / Orrorin (already suspected human ancestors), but that lineage would have evolved from a branch of the gibbon family just prior to their genetic scrambling - thus why human genes more closely resemble that of the Great Apes than modern gibbons. Additional genetic similarities might then be due to hybridization, which may still have been possible as at that time the proto- Great Ape lineages had not yet become too divergent, their chromosome number was likely the same (48), and so forth.
It is a interesting theory, but I am not yet convinced. Perhaps modern examinations will eventually disprove it. Or perhaps it will surprise the establishment and overturn the current paradigm (as Peters seems to believe). I think this is also related to Peters' question regarding the earliest mention of the gibbon / human LCA theory.
It’s a little known fact that Neanderthals were German citizens however ancient which accounts for their thrifty nature.
Im glad someone is fighting to not change names and history over current temporary 'ethical' concerns.
Scientists should be focused on science not politics and revisionism.
Gotta love that you put ethical in scare quotes. Says it all.
It would be great if paleoanthropologists stopped putting new species names on their fossils
What we think we know now is not all the knowledge out there in the world. There is a need to identify the hominin fossils in Asia, which have been simply referred to as "archaic Homo"
I worry about politics in the analysis of human evolution!! It always seems that political issues small and large distort the data!
Such a shame that you feel the need to bring modern politics into ancient history. This stuff should not be political at all.
Im glad I am not alone in this thank you.
@@Joe-PrzybranowskiSo out of this entire presentation, the only thing you've come away with is that you're annoyed that he briefly called out racism.
@@jamestodd2323 or perhaps that was the only point they found to criticize, as it really seemed unrelated to the rest of the presentation (and stated as a given rather than the presenter opinion).
I think your comment which disregards the actual mentioned observation, comes off as very alienating. Especially if you'd notice this was not the only commenter it bothered (looking at other comments).
@@23mMICHAELJORDAN it doesn't matter to those who don't give a crap about racism. If it somehow pertained to you, you would then give a crap.
@@MI-wc6nk there were plenty of comments about this, all from people who are obviously perfectly ok with racism. Many of those appeared to have been retracted.
he doesn't have any ethical concerns going to China but worries about colonialism... what are they teaching these people??
Why would travelling to China to give a talk on ancient humans have any bearing on calling out racism and colonialism?
@@bloodfamily6258 because of the Uyghur Muslims, and remember Tibet ?
No doubt he is not in favor of any of that behavior. But his work is in Asia. If his scientific work required altering the name of an Asian fossil, then he probably would. He is not required to boycott China altogether.
@@bloodfamily6258 I doubt it… hypocrisy… to be so passionate about past racism and turn a blind eye to present genocide… just be consistent
@@streetwisetacticsSo in order to call out racism in one place you have to call out racism in all places at all times or the observation is not valid?