Blondes and redheads go back a million years.

People were created and didn't evolve into existence.

Hello, First time viewer here. I enjoyed listening to this diverse group of minds framing in the topic through different disciplines.

Where is the direct common ancestor where humans and Apes stemmed from?

What do u think of spenoid flexion idea that drives evolution?

curious to whether Homo erectus was closer to chimpanzees or closer to Homo sapiens with Down syndrome, especially in language ability

Houston needs to clean this up, people don't understand

Says nothing

Borderline unlistenable. Need mixing board

This whole Archive series is amazing. Thank you so much for sharing. Can't wait for the Q&A with Fossey and Goodall!

Audio was on one channel only and the video was missing the end of the very interesting lecture.

THE ALBINISM GENE IN EUROPEANS Contrary to popular belief, those dark to so called black skinned hunter-gatherers, Neolithic farmers and their descendants in Europe didn’t “turn white” or “change color”, due to lack of sun or cold weather, that’s not how it works… So called whites have sought to explain their pale skin by declaring that they became "cold adapted” humans owing to their adaptation to the Northern climate… However, the so called white man’s true homeland (Central Asia / Pontic Steppe) is not an extreme environment, it has a moderate UV index (5) and moderate winters with hot summers… Also, Central Asia was UNAFFECTED by the last "Ice age" Therefore there was NO ENVIORMENTAL NEED for the so called white man to become "Cold Adapted" or “white” These so called whites in Central Asia had plenty of sunshine, in Kazakhstan, for eight months of the year, the average UV intensity is level 8 out of a maximum 11... Thus there was no reason to turn white there… There are still many whites that’ll declare that pale skin developed in whites because of a lack of vitamin "D" There is no significant correlation between skin pigmentation (whether dark or light) and the increase in vitamin D after UVB exposure… Studies suggest that skin pigmentation does not significantly affect the efficiency of vitamin D production once UVB exposure occurs, contrary to what has traditionally been believed… The traditional theory suggests that lighter skin evolved in northern latitudes to enhance vitamin D production due to weaker UVB radiation… However, new studies suggest that skin pigmentation may not be a determining factor in how much vitamin D a person can produce from UVB exposure… Skin lightening happened as late as 5000 years ago through immigration of lighter pigmented populations from the Russian steppe but not via evolutionary pressure for vitamin D synthesis… The key takeaway is that the change in skin pigmentation in Europe was primarily driven by gene flow (Yamnaya migration) rather than strong evolutionary selection for vitamin D synthesis due to low UV levels… SOURCES; (onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/exd.14142) (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19812604/) “Mutations in TYR, OCA2, TYRP1, and SLC45A2 are mainly responsible for causing oculocutaneous albinism. Recently, two new genes SLC24A5 and C10orf11 are identified that are responsible to cause OCA6 and OCA7, respectively” SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are the genes responsible for depigmentation (pale skin) in so called whites today… SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 are albinism genes… “Specifically, the gene SLC24A5 turns out to be critical for the production of melanin, the predominant dark pigment of the skin and hair…100 percent of Europeans have a mutation in SLC24A5 that impairs the function of the protein” SOURCE; (Francis Collins, ‘The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalised Medicine’; 2010, p.150) So called white or pale skinned people exist as a result of so called black and brown skinned people "MAKING" them, these people are called albinos… Black and brown people have a "P" gene... The “P” gene, also known as the OCA2 gene, plays a critical role in pigmentation… It is one of the genes involved in the production and storage of melanin… The OCA2 gene provides instructions for making the P protein, which is involved in melanin production within melanocytes (the cells that produce pigment) Healthy functioning of this gene leads to a normal range of pigmentation in skin, hair, and eyes, commonly seen in people of African and Asian ancestries… Mutations in the OCA2 gene can impair melanin production, leading to oculocutaneous albinism type 2 (OCA2) “All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them” - Tacitus There are currently SEVEN types of Oculocutaneous Albinism scientifically defined: OCA1, OCA2, OCA3, OCA4, OCA5, OCA6, OCA7 Blue or green eyed, blonde or red haired, with pale skin... This makes them susceptible to sun burn and skin cancers... In modern medicine, this is called Oculocutaneous albinism type-2 (OCA-2) Oculocutaneous Albinism type 2 (OCA2), is defined by colored hair: often blonde, and colored eyes: often blue... And contrary to many false definitions, with the ability to tan… People with this form of albinism often have light yellow, blond, or light brown hair; pale or white skin; blue or green eyes...

Humans and non humans, Follow the Neanderthal DNA trail. Only Africans are 100 Human,!!

Great episode, good to have some background info. I would like to learn more about the 300 other individuals ascribed to Australopithecus afarensis, I wasn't aware that there were so many. Thank you for your work!

Love this. Thank you.

Your "origin story" will always be incomplete, which means untrue, until women are everywhere in it.

I came here to hear about Lucy, not Johanson.

wonderful, absolutely wonderful.

you're laughingstock : I"nequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports. As an example, some endurance-running events allow the use of professional runners called pacesetters to help competitors perform their best. Men are not permitted to act as pacesetters in many women's events because of the belief that they will make the women "artificially faster," as though women were not actually doing the running themselves."

you're total idiot: "If you follow long-distance races, you might be thinking, wait-males are outperforming females in endurance events! But this is only sometimes the case. Females are more regularly dominating ultraendurance events such as the more than 260-mile Montane Spine foot race through England and Scotland, the 21-mile swim across the English Channel and the 4,300-mile Trans Am cycling race across the U.S. Sometimes female athletes compete in these races while attending to the needs of their children. In 2018 English runner Sophie Power ran the 105-mile Ultra-Trail du Mont-Blanc race in the Alps while still breastfeeding her three-month-old at rest stations." Women’s long distance swimming record: 132km (82.5 miles) Men’s long distance swimming record: 238 km (147.88 miles)

I found a human fossil in Austin Texas. No one cared. That’s because there is a great deception taking place and there’s a paid army of liars who will not look at any evidence that contrasts with the theory of evolution. You all know that the pelvis of Lucy was modified to make it appear bipedal. You don’t even put any disclaimers on the things you say. “Everything that has been said in this talk is very specifically a theory that is an atheistic interpretation of reality.” You don’t even warn people you’re operating from a nihilistic origin story.

Word on the street is that Berger has made some slightly reckless assumptions about why the fossils are in this cave sediment

I almost gave up on this, but the ending - a pan African genesis - is worth the wait. Thank you

REST IN PEACE 🕊️✌️🙏💕💞DIAN FOSSEY, your research and love for the MOUNTAIN GORILLAS has kept going you were one of my female heroes. CARING not just for humans but animals of the earth 🌍🙏

Unbelievable that in every debate or discussion of this topic, not a single one scientist/researcher mentions the Neurobiology of Sexual Identity. Why no one mentions the studies made by Dr. Louis Gooren, or Zhou, or the Stanford series by Dr. Robert Sapolsky? (sadly, he's changing his scientific findings to fit the actual political narrative, dodging and avoiding to talk about brain sex dymorphism). They all focus either on the feelings, or the phenotype, but NEVER in the sex of the brain. It's Neuroscience folks, and I'm sorry, sex is not about the chromosomes, these affect only the Phenotype and many other secondary sex characteristics, but NOT the sex of the brain. That's the reason why the intersex women mentioned in the blog identified as female, because, despite her chromosomes were XY, she has the brain of a female and she never had suspicions of being a male (see how the neurobiology of sex works here?). It's not so difficult to understand. I always ask people: ¿do you _feel_ female/male, or do you just know it? ¿It is just a _feeling_, or is it a knowledge? The Queer Hypothesis claims that sex should be considered a social construct, but they did never offered any scientific evidence to claim that. Just politic, Foucalt's ideas, and philosophic statements. The real scientists, OTOH, focus only on the PHENOTYPES, e.g., the bones, the appearance, giving evidences, but never doing mention of the subjacent Identity that relies on the brain. So, both groups are continuously avoiding and dodging to address the old fact (almost 40 years of studies) the Neurobiology of human Identity. Remember the experiment John Money did onto the Reimer brothers, David and Bruce. He wanted to prove that sexual identity comes from nurturing (social construct), opposed to nature (brain). The experiment was a success, but in the sense that it proved all the contrary: David Reimer always KNEW he was a boy, raised as a girl, given estrogen therapy and genital surgery. He was artificially induced to experiment gender dysphoria. He wasn't transsexual, he was forced to transition to female because he was a baby. This also proves that gender dysphoria is experimented only by those who are born with a condition that creates the mismatch between their brain sex, and their phenotype. It is NOT elective, it is NOT induced by nurturing or social pressure. It's inborn. For those who claim ''brain has no sex'', please, can you give the final hard evidence of that? I know you want to ''debunk'' brain sex, but sadly, there YES are evidences of sex dymorphism in the brain. Mostly in the Hypothalamus. Not definitive yet, but there's at least some clear evidences. You have NOTHING, just claims based on political ideologies. And last of all, I am a (fully transitioned) transsexual female myself, so let me say that I talk from the REAL LIFE experience itself, and know ''a little bit'' about this topic. I stick to Science, not politics.

Brilliant speaker; a really necessary educational topic, but quite scary …

I remember the amazing orangutan story being reported. You brought up interesting points that are really worth considering: how did the ape know what to do to treat his injury? Where did this knowledge come from? How can he appreciate the delayed results from his ministrations? Great questions that require more research!

This is amazing. Could it be instinctive behaviour? Could instinctive behaviour be inherited? I’ve been watching a lot of Denis Noble.

Wow 🎉

I thought the 172 average frequency efficiency for running was informative. Can anyone direct me to similar info on walking efficiency?

Fabulous

from nothing basically to Dian fowssey legcy that save mountain Gorilllas for all and forever. RIP Dian amongst those you know best.😥😀

So yoúre saying we became white, via evolution (improved) so our skin could absorb Vitamin D more effectively?

She has an elegance that translates throughout her presentation.😊

I missed it live but have a question, if anyone knows the answer... What is the process of a female joining another group? It sounds like groups fight when they come in contact.

Would have been better if this was not live, but rather had been edited afterwards to take out the parts that none of us wanted, like the 5 min silent intro or where the audio stopped working. Sorry but I could not watch any further. We need polished presentations if you truely want your audience to watch, listen learn and engage. The amatuer production just turns viewers off. Sorry about the negativity, but you need to do better on this.

Time to leave the apes alone. Enough studying.

It is sad, that the black community has to discoveries by whites, because they have few achievements of their own.

I stumbled onto this channel by chance and boy am I glad I did, I have never enjoyed such an informative lecture as much as I enjoyed this one

Hello, from Tanzania

I found your lecture very interesting - thank you for doing it. I look forward to more.

Love it

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.

Charlton Heston - Planet of the Apes time travel. "Get your hands off me you stinking apes!!"

I learned information in the first 40 minutes of the lecture that was a delightful addition to levels of my understanding of the source of varieties of skin tone. I feel like I gained a few arrows for my quiver in discussions with people who hold antiquated notions of race. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that old white Europeans in the 1700s got our modern notions of race rolling. But it could have been done in a minute and a half. By spending 20 minutes presenting slavery as a unique phenomena, as if it was exclusive to Western European culture, you went quite a ways toward delegitimizing the positive effect your work could have in ending racial tensions. I think the efforts of people like Morgan Freeman carry more weight.

"Life could not shut down just for a mother to take care of a child. They still had to move, they still had to aquire resources, they still had to evade predators. All of these things. And we see that in the wilds still today. A pregnant lioness does not just stop hunting. A new mother lioness might stop hunting for a very very short period of time, right before during and after labor and delivery, but she is gonna go right back out there to get calories to breastfeed her offspring." Dr. Ocobock, why are you presenting these absolute incorrect statements as facts? First, comparing a Lioness to a human is somewhat dishonest, because a lioness only has a gestation period of about 110 days. Humans have a gestation period of 280 days. This creates completely different conditions, especially when you consider the weight of the offsprings. Secondly your statements about the hunt are outright false claims. Pregnant lioness' do hunt during early pregnancy, but only out of loyalty to the pride. They will stop hunting and rely on the pride during late term. And they will seperate themselves from the pride for up to THREE MONTHS during labor and to care for their cubs. This has multiple reasons: 1. to protect her cubs from male lions (a lot of male animals kill cubs so that the female stops nursing and gets ready for new(their) offsprings) 2. to secure that her milk goes to her cubs, because normally all lactating lioness nurse in a group and the strongest cubs get the milk. Due to the seperation she secures the milk for her own offsprings till they are strong. Lions don't have to eat every day, it can be perfectly normal to go without food for 3 days and its normal that a new mother will leave her cubs every fourth day to get some food for herself. (spoiler, thats one of the reasons baby cats are born with their eyes closed. So they don't wander off in these periods when the mother actually has to leave for a short time). So please answer me why you describe 3-4 months of pause as a "very very short period of time". Your hypothesis' are riddled with these inaccuracies and logical fallacies. For example your hypothesis about the wider hips in female enable a longer stride and longer stride=better runner. So when a longer stride is better, then why do you ignore the fact that males have longer legs on average, enabling a longer stride while you ignore that the wider hips angle the female legs differently and therefore the muscles form differently. There are enough studies about this topic, considering running performance and greater risk of joint/knee injuries for females. And scientist are pretty sure that the longer and stronger legs in males are evolutionairy BECAUSE of the hunt. Same goes for the claim that a woman would go hunting with their infant. Yes you stated that you don't have children, but were you ever around one? They aren't really that silent. Its a totally counterproductive idea. Especially if the hunt goes wrong and a hunting party gets wiped out. It would be catastrophic to lose infants that way. Same goes for the claim about the long distance "hunt". While your claims about the muscle fiber and chemistry are true, your scenarios are outlandish. 65+km runs, hunting/chasing prey, thats the distance when females outperform males? firstly going by modern times 42-50 km is an ultra marathon. Thats no normal hunting distance! (and even though you fight the results with lack of participant numbers, males outperforme females on every running distance) But that is called "persistence hunting" and rarely any tribes relied on this form of hunting because the chances of success were 30-74% lower than conventional running hunting. Although it preserves more energy (up to 30%) which is a pro to women, it takes twice as long as the conventional hunt. So just stating "women are the better hunter" is such cheap tactic, while you should've stated "prehistorc women might be better at persistence hunting, while man were better at conventional hunting". Just for the audience: conventional hunt was sneaking up or ambushing prey, quickly chasing and killing it. Persistence hunting was the act of chasing the prey slowly to the point it collapses. Some hunters would injure the prey during these hunts to shorten the chase. It is true that humans were generally the best suited animal for this kind of hunt due to anatomy. But as said, this form of hunting had a low success rate and was very time consuming. Additionally it only worked with prey with escape reflex. You won't walk down a mammoth. Secondly prehistoric hunter-gatherer travelled 6-16 km per day! ( males max 15-18 km and women max 12-15) The hunting distance wasn't that vast, it doesn't even seem possible when you consider that these tribes usually hunted/foraged for 2,8-7 hours per day. At the same time you focus on hunting as the only source for survival that you completely ignore that the early humans in the paleolithic age(3.3million years b.c.) had already evolved teeth because of their plant-based diet. A lot of tribes around the world even had a mostly plant-based diet at that time(i.e. in isreal). Hunting was not the primary source of food, it was a supplement with a lot, or even most tribes. Scavenging and gathering was way more calorie efficient and a lot safer. Your evidence of a female buried with a spear 9000 b.c. falls so flat, because in 9000 b.c. humans already cultivated plantations for food. (which doesn't mean that these women weren't hunters! Its absolutely believable that they were, but that hunter status was something completely different at that time.) A lot of tribes in that time already had fortified settlements with agricultural communities! And animal husbandry possibly started in 9000 b.c. too! The evidence of domestication of dogs, goats and sheeps are dated shortly after that time. You pick and choose your arguments so your overall hypothesis makes sense, but if you go into (honest and scientific) detail on most of the single points, it all falls appart until barely anything is left except the studies of others who were just applying them to sports. And this is somewhat sad, because I honestly believe that your research on female body chemistry is very important and something that got neglected often in our history, especially in medicine! And its absolutely plausible that females have higher endurance and even pain limits due to their body chemistry basically working wonders to help them endure the worst pains! But your brilliant and important work gets dragged down due to those agenda driven headlines like "Prehistoric women hunted as often as men and were better suited for it, scientists say". Especially when most of it is so easily refuted by hard evidence and you getting caught in lies/false claims. Even though its easy to believe that there were enough tribes were females also hunted, especially in earlier time periods. There are enough scenarios where this is absolutely plausible, but jumping to outrages claimes for headlines is sad. It is clearly to say that you want to take the accumulated scientific studies like "Running Endurance in Women Compared to Men: Retrospective Analysis of Matched Real-World Big Data " et al. and spin it into something new and controverse, but it seems that every new aspect that you have added is already refuted by other studies, evolution and history.

I can't follow this. Too many digressions on what was for lunch and utterly inconsequential asides. By the time she gets back to the point I cant remember wtf she was originally talking about.

this Simpsons character is right

This talk is super interesting! It's too bad that there have been so many bitter controversies re: the discovery of homo naledi, and Lee Berger's and his team's allegedly faulty methods and tall claims. This has raised a veritable sh.t storm in the science community. But some of the harsh bashings smell of sour grapes, and we should remember that so far none of Berger's ideas have been conclusively disproven. However, it's also true that Berger may have speculated a bit too much for his own good, and he didn't come up with enough hard evidence for his sensational claims. He also seems to have neglected to collect more evidence which could've helped to assess this case. That said, the discovery of a new homo species which lived at the same time as other more advanced hominids, is spectacular, and the situation which was discovered in that cave, is absolutely weird. There is no easy explanation. It helps a lot to see actual fotos of that cave and the tight squeezes which have to be navigatedq! I am very slim, but l don't think that l would have been willing to enter that last chamber of the cave! I get claustrohobic by just looking at the pictures of that cave and it's tunnels! I think that Lee Berger is right when he said that these homo naledi have not ended up in that chamber accidentally, and floods can be ruled out, too, because except for a baboon skeleton there were only naledi in the cave. Floods aren't that selective! However, if this was a group of naledi, who got lost, they wouldn't have crawled into the most remote chamber of the cave and then remained there until they died. There was a bigger and more comfortable chamber after all, and it's hard to believe that they found that chamber but couldn't find the exit anymore. This cave isn't a labyrinth. On the other hand, if the naledi wanted to dispose the dead bodies of their fellow naledis in that cave because the smelly corpses of their people could become a health hazard and might attract dangerous predators - why did the naledi crawl into a pitch dark chamber which is even for smaller people difficult to access? Even if these bodies have been just dumped without any ceremonial burial rites, it needs to be explained why whoever put these bodies into that cave, has chosen to drag the bodies into the most remote chamber of that cave instead of using the bigger chamber! And it's very important to find out if it can be excluded that there may have been another entrance back then which would have made it a lot easier to access that chamber. If that would have been the case, it would change the case completely! There' something uncanny about this conundrum, and l cannot blame Lee Berger and his team that they may have speculated a bit too much. All explanation attempts seem to lack important pieces of this puzzle. This is a mystery for detectives - and maybe that is the best way to approach that case. If this would've happened in our times and cave enthusiasts would discover a chamber full of human remains, they would call the police. Detectives would try to solve the case, while scientists like Lee Berger's team would assist the investigators, and the detectives would ask for a competent CSI-team which would consist only of petite women. It would be a wonderful case for Kathy Reichs 😊 But seriously this is a case where speculations and out-of-the-box thinking might be helpful in order to develop a range of plausible theories which can then be tested and narrowed down. Especially one group of theories has not been sufficiently explored IMO: after the remains of the naledi had been dated we learned that at the time when the naledis died, other higher developed hominids were definitely around in the larger area. l wonder if more advanced humans had something to do with this case. Some people have speculated that the corpses of the naledi might've been buried by another more intelligent homo species with whom the naledis had contact. We bury our dogs and cats sometimes with a little ceremony. I have always wrapped my cats and dogs into my best silk scarves. But no archeologist who would dig up my garden many centuries later would conclude that domesticated cats and dogs intentionally buried their dead comrades. These future archeologists would probably conclude that there was a local cat cult 😊 And l guess that JK Rowling's wizards buried their house elves. We know that at least Dobby got a very decent burial. If his grave would be discovered later by archeologists, they would conclude that the masters of the house elves buried their servants 😊 But l disgress. Back to the real-life naledi conundrum: why would these hypothetical other hominids drag the bodies of the naledis into the most remote chamber if they wanted to bury members of another homo species? Could there have been religious or supersticious reasons? But when we speculate that another more intelligent human species was somehow involved in this case, l wonder if the relationship with the naledi was so amicable that these other humans helped to bury dead naledis in such a laborious way. If history teaches us anything, we have to assume it’s unlikely that the naledi were the closest friends or at least beloved pets of other more advanced humans. It’s far more likely that these humans regularly hunted naledis and ate them, and it probably wouldn't even have been seen as cannibalism! Chimps and gorillas have always been hunted and eaten by humans who live near the habitats of great apes, and while it's illegal to hunt them, apes are still on the menu. They are called bush meat. Isn't it possible that the naledi were bush meat for more advanced humans? If that was the case, there is another interesting scenario: could the group of naledi have tried to hide themselves in the cave because more advanced humans hunted them?. They could've crawled into that last almost inaccessible chamber because they could do that, while their hunters may have been too big? The naledi might've been safe for a while in that cave. But if their hunters guarded the cave entrance, they would've cornered their prey and the naledi were trapped. Eventually they would've died because they had no water. I know that this scenario has a lot of holes, too. But I think that the participation of more advanced humans should be considered! So far we only know that the excavation didn't find any traces of another human species in that cave. But that doesn't mean that we can exclude the involvment of more advanced humans. But let's look one more time at Lee Berger's ideas: if the cave was a naledi cemetary, shouldn't there have been burials in the bigger chamber, too? Wouldn't there have been kids and old people down there as well? One would expect to find a variety of age groups and sexes in a burial ground. But l heard that there was very little variety. It’s seems to be a very uniform naledi group. If that's true, a singular event becomes more likely. What about Berger's claims that the naledis buried their dead in that cave and decorated the walls with cave art? If they really did this, they must've used fire for illuminating the cave. This theory has been vehemently rejected by most experts. They argued that the naledis were not intelligent enough. But is that really a viable argument? The naledi could have simply learned from their more advanced cousins how to use fire, and that it's a good idea to bury dead bodies. They didn't need to invent this stuff. And we know that we can teach chimps to do all sorts of things which they would never do without human intervention. But many chimps are very capable, and we know that they are able observe and copy humans. The naledi may have been copy cats😊 This is a very looong comment 😊 But l wanted to point out that there are so many scenarios which can explain how and why a group of naledis ended up in the very hard to access dead end of a cave. Berger et al. have been harshly criticized. He may have made some mistakes and neglected to retrieve more evidence. But there's a genuine super interesting mystery, and scientists should get together and brainstorm what could've happened to these enigmatic creatures! And we should thank Lee Berger for making the bones available for other scientists. Unlike most other scientists he didn’t squirrel away these bones for a very long time. But he and his team should carefully re-assess their findings and collect more evidence if that's still possible.

Finally a video of someone who actually knows what they’re talking about