Promo-SM

The long life in social sciences and the humanities of tired old Soviet terminology like "monopoly capitalism".... What's the reason for that? Inbreeding? Intellectual laziness? Or, more probably, the thorough-going ideological basis for the discipline itself?

If you're interested in indirect colonialism in action there's a wide field in Africa, Latin America and Asia to study in which China is building an indirect colonial empire as we speak. It's not merely a matter of history.

"Knowledge production" is one of those really annoying trendy academic terms.

at 40:20. What is happening with this slide? I can't figure out a pattern to these views. How many individuals are we looking at and what is their relationship to each other? Far Upper left: is this a side view? Are the center left upper and lower skulls the same skull? Are the upper and lower skulls of each column the same skulls? If so, then why do we have side and top views on the left, but top and rear views on the right? What are we supposed to be comparing? Aargh. Edit: on review of video I see that my confusion may result from not being able to see the laser pointer.

This is an interesting subject but the speaker needs to sit down with a professional speaker and completely revise the talk. For example, the long-winded introduction (10 minutes) needs to be eliminated. A thirty minute talk would get a much better reception.

As this lecture illustrates, climate change cycles have been going on for thousands of years. They have impacted where and how people live. Do we blame that on the ancients? Yes, we have warming now. But in the past decades active volcanoes, and heat vents under both polar ice caps are putting out much heat effect. Yet we rarely, frankly never, hear these huge polluters mentioned as major sources, or even significant contributors to the current climate change. Why, one wonders? Could it be that no one benefits from making these factors known?

I beg to differ update because mistakes misinformation and deception so bring what you like

all we need is a good volcano and this global w arming thing will reverse ... would be worse than the global warming trend nothing like a good ice age....to shake things up

These creatures could have been intellectually progressive even though they had small heads, because the size of their brain is RELATIVE! Many of our relatively recent ancestors were pretty small. Just 200-300 years ago, people were much smaller. Many tiny versions of our ancestors have been geniuses. It’s the way one’s brain is wired that make the difference, especially since it is said we only use 10-20% of our brains!Modern geniuses don’t have giant heads! African pygmies aren’t idiots, and they have small heads.

Even when anthropologists find 100,000 years old skeleton of humans near Canaan, they think they found the skeleton of a Jew.

Another "Homo" which is really just an Australopithicine. Note the shoulder girdle, forearms, hand, all australopithicine. Then there is the little chimp brain and the short bandy legs. No.

Starts with some informal conversation, introductions and talk starts three minutes in.

This is incredibly interesting, but isn't there evidence of dwarfism in a species of rhino and and an extinct giant island owl?

he is in a room by himself and he wears a mask and apologizes for taking it off to an online audience

These are great basic tips for anyone looking for a job. I love your enthusiasm and how you were open not only networking, but trying new careers and therefore finding passions and skills you didn’t know you had! Like creating curriculum for kids. This was just an overwhelming inspiration to hear about your journey!

kzbin.info/www/bejne/n6PNcq2kdr6mntU

Christians demand ownership of the narrative: We are all gods, children of the highest god. The ultimate vanity is declared, as they make a scene in the temple. Christians are the wolves in sheep's clothing, weighing in on whatnot as if Earth had gravity-free zones, would-be dictators suggesting we must all travel together, as if we all prefer leadership with one foot in fantasyland.

The audio for this is atrocious.

Very interesting! I give a talk about early humans in Indonesia on cruises I lecture on in Indonesia and this video has cleared up a few things I was confused about e.g. use of fire. Odd how floresiensis may not have used fire but made stone tools, whereas naledi may have used fire, but there is no evidence it made stone tools.

Data from India is not included in this video

Well that was very interesting! Speaking for myself, when H. Floresiensis first appeared I thought "Well, we're now looking for something smaller-bodied than H. Erectus that left Africa about the same time or before." My bet would be a 'very late' Australopithecus or 'early' Homo, so was quite surprised with the debate over what it may be but accepted more expert opinion than mine; "Island dwarfed Erectus." This makes me wonder if I should have trusted my 'gut' more. Further: I'm not a paleoanthropologist, but a medical doctor with an interest in the subject. So on the one had I'm a very long way from an expert, but on the other I do have a very good 'feel' for what constitutes normal variation within a population and what pathology looks like. With that in mind: -I remain flabbergasted that the idea H. Floresiensis is 'pathological' or any kind of 'modern' Homo got any traction - it's such obvious nonsense. -I was slightly surprised the consensus landed in a dwarfed Erectus... but then I'm no expert, so fair enough. Then Luzonensis and even Dmanisi + Naledi came along and I thought "Surely a rethink..?" There are, of course, other 'funny fossils' that don't neatly fit the 'All descendants of an Erectus' narative. -A prediction: We will continue to find evidence for a lineage of smaller-bodied 'Homo' of the kind H. Floresiensis is one example, concurrent with ours but more adapted for walking and climbing than walking and running. At a guess these will be found scattered both outside Africa and within, and the 'split' with our line will most likely be early Homo or possibly very late Australopithecus.

The hobbit was speaking? 😅😊

"I measured 10,000 rat femoral heads." That, ladies and germs, is why they call science a discipline.

This could be an interesting subject...but this presentation was literally nothing but reading....zero personality....the data/statistics don't get a second of explanation....then "claims" from 1700 are presented as "fact" like they had a mechanism of unbiased, professional way of collecting statistics. A very poor presentation that with a couple changes could actually be really interesting...I will also never understand how science could be presented in the view of "feminism" without being biased towards data confirming your ideology. I have no issue with feminism. I just don't understand how you COULDN'T be incredibly biased to interpret data, history and science to confirm the ideology. What about comparison of the "evil victorian way of medical childbirth" with other cultures and their outlooks and cultural issues surrounding child birth?

ALWAYS going to listen a presentation when the anthropological research is presented using Evolutionary theory... Thanks.

Hobit

Very interesting and eloquent presentation. I'm obsessing over the letter spacing in the powerpoint.

homo floresiensis is NOT human.. it is NOT prehuman.. it may be a hominin but probably is a hominid.. it has NO RELATIONSHIP to homo sapien sapiens HUMANS.. homo sapien sapiens are the ONLY HUMANS.. everything else is hominoids with ZERO provable dna connections.. case closed. dr johnny phd vmd

No such thing as "latin X" and a kid from Dallas doesn't know squat about growing up and living in new mexico, imagine taking anything this urbanite weirdo says seriously when he has a "he / him" title, Bruh we can see your spotty estrogen beard.

UNLV. how you doing?, Than you, beautiful view!=)