Can Homo Naledi Change Our Understanding of Human Origins? Lee Berger Reveals

[@LoriDeMarco]

Thanks for this Seth. I received my AA in Anthropology at 60 years of age because of Dr Berger’s findings. I’d thought the field held too little for me to ever be involved. Now I look at everything around me differently.

[@larryparis925]

Wonderful comment!

[@TheSaxophony]

Your wonderful, you inspire me! Well done!

[@benmetler872]

This gives me hope. I've had a lot of trauma in my adult life and am 30 and feel as tho I'm too late

[@mareegeorge8641]

​@@benmetler872too late at 30?.. I'm in my 50s and I don't feel it's too late 😂

[@mathabelatsikoane280]

This is Mathabela from the Daily Life Of An Explore and The Rising Star Project. I am very impressed by your content and it shows that i still got a lot to learn. Amazing!

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

I know exactly who you are! Thanks so much! If there is anything I can assist with, please let me know!

[@bikeman1969]

As a lay person who is very much interested in this subject, Professor Berger has to me my favorite researcher. He is a great Scientist and such a nice guy. Great Interview!

[@richb2229]

Rising Star cave will revolutionize the science and the understanding of our species.

[@UncommonSense-wm5fd]

No, it will not. If proven true it will change the opinion that a small brain casing doesn't negate the communication skills and funerary behaviour associated with a larger brained hominin, however there is no solid evidence of this in the Naledi deposit. Nor is there solid evidence of fire use. All the claims made by Lee and his team are tenuous at best.

[@sabineb.5616]

​@@UncommonSense-wm5fd, over several years I have watched and read a lot of what Lee Berger has said about homo naledi, as well as some peer reviews. And while I was skeptical at first, I am now willing to accept that over a certain time period several dead bodies of homo naledi have been deliberately placed in fetal positions in that cave and then covered with soil. We may or may not call these activities burials. But if you look thoroughly at alternative explanations, you will see that there are no plausible narratives of how the skeletons could've ended up naturally in their positions. Berger and his co-workers have done their home work. Lee Berger also pointed out that experts have developed a set of criteria which have to be met in order to assume that a body has been buried. Berger said if the bodies in that cave would have been from homo sapiens or from another large brained hominid species, nobody would seriously doubt that they have been deliberately buried in that cave. What we don't know is, who buried these bodies. Were fellow homo naledi responsible for the positions of the skeletons? Or were these small hominids buried by larger hominids who were also present in that area 300 000 years ago? While this is a possibility which cannot be completely excluded, there are also no hints, which support this theory. And wouldn't the story be even crazier if it would turn out that other hominids buried the bodies of homo naledi? However, there are no hints that this happened, and Berger correctly pointed out that the extremely narrow tunnels which need to be crossed in order to reach the caves, make it unlikely that larger hominids brought the bodies of homo naledi into the caves and then buried them there. But the first sentences of your comment are definitely true. The idea that only hominids with a sufficiently large brain may have had certain cognitive capabililities, may be obsolete. That would be exciting. But homo naledi wasn't one of our ancestors. Therefore their discovery doesn't revolutionize our knowledge about the homo sapiens evolution. And because of the discovery of homo floresiensis we already knew that hominids with the brain size of chimps can be far more intelligent than chimps. And the analysis of several brain cases of homo naledi have revealed that the structure lof their brains resembled to a certain extent human brains. Homo naledi may have been far more intelligent than their small brains initially suggested. Interestingly homo naledi's brain was almost as small as the brains of the even tinier homo floresiensis. But it has been widely accepted by now that the ancestors of homo floresiensis weren't so small when they arrived at Flores and started to populate the island. The bodies of subsequent generations of homo floresiensis became smaller and smaller because being large wasn't an evolutionary advantage on that island. And while the brains of homo floresiensis became smaller and smaller as well, the overall organisation of the their brains didn't change drastically. They retained a certain level of intelligence, and homo floresiensis florished on Flores for almost a million years. As far as homo naledi is concerned: right now we only know that they existed 300 000 years ago, and that a few specimen ended up in fetal positions in a cave, and the placement of their skeletons suggests that someone must've placed them there deliberately and then covered them with a layer of soil. And someone with a sufficient intelligence level scratched some pattern into the walls of that cave. This might have been done by fellow homo naledi over a period of time, although it cannot be completely ruled out that the body placements and the wall scratchings have been done by larger brained hominids who also were around at the same time. But so far we don't know anything about the evolutionary history of homo naledi. Have they always been so small? Or have the ancestors of homo naledi - like the ancestors of homo floresiensis - been larger? Island dwarfism isn't the only enviromental condition which may cause body shrinkage. If the ancestors of homo naledi were larger and had bigger brains, the subsequent smaller generations of homo naledi may have retained a certain amount of intelligence and behavioral patterns. I think that the discovery of another small hominid who lived at the same time as other intelligent hominids is just as exciting as the discovery of homo floresiensis! I hope that we will learn more about homo naledi and their evolutionary history in the future.

[@bluwtrgypsy]

Thank you for this wonderful talk. I saw the incredible docu when Dr Lee was in the cave making this discovery. Amazing. With much gratitude and respect for his tireless work.

[@paintingtracey]

Wow this is terrific!!!!!!!! Thanks so much.

[@sharonhearne5014]

These discoveries are so revolutionary and shocking because the context of the location of the homo naledi material is so rare and unusual that they have to be questioned by their very existence. The fact that these discoveries will upset conventional structures historically long believed to be absolute means they will be questioned extensively in the field and that is good. There may have to be a major shift in the way we understand prehuman development and evolution. So many professionals in this field may be threatened by this new indication that a small brained pre human being might have have a skill set and enough social organization to have accomplished what these discoveries have brought to light. Bravo to this new discovery in ways which would have once seemed unimaginable.

[@carriekelly4186]

It isn't the size,it's what they did with it...😊

[@carriekelly4186]

Thank you so much for having the estimable and sincere Dr.Berger. Allowing him to present the way his team has brought homo Naledi 's scope of experience to light and the importance of presenting the fair and open way the public gets exposure to their findings. Excellent points to be made. Not to mention the mind blowing discoveries themselves! Well done.💯❤

[@TaylorDekar]

Specular interview! Thank you, Seth and Professor Berger. I'm very excited for future publications.

[@dreamerliteraryproductions9423]

Seth, Professor Berger; this interview was absolutely exceptional! Thank you both! I was so interested to hear what Prof. Berger had to say, particularly his remarks on how much ancient man's culture has been lost to us due to the belief that it didn't exist. So profound! I can only hope that future discoveries remedy that.

[@trevorstieger6762]

Would love to meet this man. Thanks professor Lee burger. Legend!

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

Be sure to check out all of the episodes in this series to hear from nearly 50 amazing researchers! This is only the start!

[@larryparis925]

Very informative Q&A. The explanation that Prof. Berger gave about the online journal eLife and the process of peer review during pre-publication, and having that available as open access, is important to know. Many thanks, Seth.

[@redhaze8080]

Yep he straight up lied about it, they made no changes based on peer review during pre-publication. So dodgy.

[@caseyjude5472]

Great interview Seth! 1st edit: I love the comparison to diamonds towards the end. LOVE IT! 2nd edit: DNA, YAY!

[@donkeykong758]

Wow. EVERYBODY should watch this. Especially the last 15 - 20 minutes. It's eye-opening.

[@todkington6656]

I'm deeply impressed and inspired by Dr. Berger's praxis and what he and his team have discovered. It takes extraordinary praxis to make such leaps in discovery and understanding 🔥🙏🏻🔥

[@jillelizabeth1737]

Wonderful conversation. Thanks!

[@NickanM]

Yay! _Thank you sooo much for this gem!_ 💎

[@erikatrueman4507]

What an amazing interview. Thank you, Seth. Thank you, Prof Berger. I could see the twinkle in Prof Berger's eyes when he talked of the molecular discoveries to come. Can't wait to hear details.

[@DaboooogA]

Possibly the most important subject at this current point in human history.

[@CC8CY]

He's an inspiring scientist to listen to. Especially his insights on how to approach science and investigate. Would love to hear more from him again in the future.

[@christopherleelewis21]

So rad, Seth. Great episode and special.

[@EarthVoiceOnline]

Awesome interview!

[@sonjanordahl3158]

I admire the group self-control, to not charge in and dig up everything. I don't think I could hold myself back.

[@cynthiadugan858]

❤ exciting episode!

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

Thanks!

[@annemarielara1962]

Fabulous interview, thanks Seth! Dr. Berger's work and attitude towards future exploration is always so inspiring!

[@gradualeternallaughterflow7527]

Great interview.

[@kenfalloon3186]

Such an inspiring thinker. I'm blown away. What professor Berger seemed to me to be alluding to though he's too much a scientist to explicitly claim, is in his pointing to the similarities between the Naledi engravings and those of Blombos cave and Gorhams cave, is the possibility of a cultural continuum spanning hundreds of thousands of years. It reminded me of the stylistic similaritiies l noticed between the ice age cave art of southern France, early predynastic Egyptian engravings and Minoan frescos. Thing about culture is that it necessarily involves memory and meaning. These are powerful social glues the capacity for which, once attained must have been unprecedented tools for continuity and communication.

[@UncommonSense-wm5fd]

Anyone can make claims, proving them is much more difficult, Lee and his colleagues have chosen to make connections without eliminating all other variables, this is sloppy and not how scientific research is conducted. Read the peer reviews on Elife to his pre-prints, they tell the whole story.

[@kenfalloon3186]

It is it's true, only Bergers speculation at this point but he has decided to go open access which though no doubt controversial, does give a much broader access to some of the raw data. I personally like the idea of said access not being retricted to peer reviewers. The system does have it's flaws.

[@squish998]

Fantastic episode!

[@Monedgar123]

Awesome!

[@TheSaxophony]

Thank you Seth, fabulous interview, though I must say that on the evidance of it, it does seems that it is easy to have a good interview with Prof Burger. Every single interview I have watched of his is splendid, especially the longer ones.

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

Gee, thanks.

[@jamesmarkum2551]

Cave of Bones and this video has resulted in the first thought my tiny little brain has had in years. Thank you Lee!

[@mobiusd9885]

Thanks Lee and Seth. Very interesting. I find the story of H. Naledi to be thought provoking.

[@brittanyarmstrong2352]

Fascinating video! But next time the professor must wear his fabulous fedora! Nice work on this interview x

[@ecm958]

Don't think it would fit with headphones.

[@brittanyarmstrong2352]

@ecm958 must get smaller headphones then. 🤣🤣🤣

[@dragonstonefirechief]

I love this stuff

[@GuyCruls]

plus, the antelope bones have been carbon-dated as well, returning a date range that coincides pretty much with Home Naledi.

[@rcking4084]

Great interview. Nice to see a scientist who is willing to push back against a system which is stuffy, arrogant and not equipped to make public findings from such a large data set. Get the gatekeepers out of the way of advancement. I love the way he bucks against the wall of assumptions erected by human exceptionalism.

[@drbigmdftnu]

Remarkable stuff

[@Thisiswhywelovesailing]

Did anyone else think that the earliest markings of our forebears have an incredible resemblance to that of their most feared enemies, the claw marks of big cats. The only difference is we carve in stone with tools rather than claws and carve both left to right and right to left rather than downwards. It is not art but an expression of marking one’s territory like other top predators.

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

What? lol

[@raphmaster23]

​@@worldofpaleoanthropologybasically saying our ancestors early rock carvings are the same as big cat claw marks. I think? Lol

[@kenmccarty6229]

If I could have given 2 likes, I would have.

[@bonkersblock]

This is going to rearrange the hierarchy of human evolution! Just be aware of all evangelicals!

[@dwainkitchel1316]

this is the way (thx)

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

Be sure to follow along and check out all of the updates, as well as my unique and well informed opinion on all that is going on! Check out the latest videos on the subject!

[@carlkaufman2429]

I would appreciate a clear definition of "human". The term is fundamental , and when paleoanthropologists disagree about its application, I need a better understanding of the formal, term-of-art definition as opposed to the colloquial definition.

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

That is just it, there is no concise definition that everyone uses!

[@carlkaufman2429]

@worldofpaleoanthropology I am fascinated by paleoanthropology. I have started listening to authoritative videos. I have a hard science background - Astronomy. I am frankly a bit shocked that a credible field of science would have a fundamental term ill-defined. I would hope that the community of paleoanthropologists would tackle gaining a consensus definition. Of course, listening to this discussion makes it very clear that the egos in the field are a major obstacle. I would find it valuable, and I think it would serve to highlight and perhaps move the discussion forward, if each presenter providesd the definition he or she is using.

[@dragonstonefirechief]

Chances we see gene 🧬 flow?

[@bookwizards]

I have gone to E Life and read the articles on Naledi and I must say in my opinion this is the way it should be done, in E Life you can read the article and then read the critical reviews and the responses and then you can decide and make your own decisions on the evidence presented and the reviews of that evidence and the responses to the reviews. A big thumbs up for the future of scientific papers. I also agree with Lee that in the future AI will play a large role in this process due to the massive amount of material that needs this process and the limited number of expert reviewers and the limited amount of time that they can devote to producing these critical reviews.

[@tamjammy4461]

Ta Seth....and ta professor.Lee Berger. I find the criticisms of the teams publishing methodsake me not only sad., but more than a little angry. Yes, peer review is important , and there were, in pre internet days especially, good reasons for how rhe whole publication sustem developed. But most of those reasons are no longer valid. We live in a world where everyone is open to scritiny . In science,if not in all fields, thats a good thing. But the criticisms have woder implications. Scientists in general,(and Im a fan of science ) have spent far too long having their work hidden from public view. The result is that when it comes to something important which affects us all, like covid or climate change, they expect the public to suddenly start listening to them and are surprised when they do not.Instead the public chooses to lusten to other vouces. Why? Because those people have been talking to them all along. Science must try to emgage with the public better. Sure, theres been the odd exception .Carl Sagan springs to mind. Bill Nye, David Attenborough ( not even a scientist ...but still a hero). Lee is breaking down the barriers which seperate the ordinary people from the science. More power to him and the whole Rising Star team. Sorry, had to get that out of my system . The news from Rising Star is amazing. Both H.Erectus and Floriensis reached Flores. That took boats, and that means culture. If we are surprised to find that other species have culture ,that says a lot about us , and nothing about them. Great show.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it 55:03

[@jackwt7340]

The Scots look different from the English because the Scots originated from the north of the North Sea and the English originated from the south of the North Sea.

[@TambriaMoore]

I love open access in combination with peer review. More science needs to choose transparency. So informational! I would also like to hear more female scientists voices from this site.

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

The field itself could be better, and I approach men, women, and people of other genders at a rate of equal opportunity, not to mention any researcher can approach me. Please be sure to check out all the videos on the channel.

[@rdklkje13]

@@worldofpaleoanthropologyIs Lee Berger the only person from the Naledi team who does interviews for the general public? Maybe I just don’t know where to look, but I haven’t seen any of the cavers speak this past month, for instance. Do we get to hear from different team members in the Netflix documentary you mentioned?

[@xxthreedaysgrace2xx]

​@@rdklkje13 Then you are simply not looking at my channel, as I have already said, where plenty of underground astronauts have been interviewed. Yes, plenty of women are and other people are in the documentary. Wouldnt be much of a documentary otherwise, would it?

[@robertmccarrick8410]

Scientists submit paper for peer review prior to publication

[@sonjanordahl3158]

I feel Professor Berger and the other people working with him are taking great steps to move paleoanthropology from a soft science to a hard science.

[@UncommonSense-wm5fd]

No, they are not, not when you don't follow the correct path to support the assertions. The null hypothesis for the Naledi discovery should have been a natural deposit, no sediment was tested to confirm this nor were samples taken from the engravings. Not enough evidence supports the claims, and it appears that the pre-prints were rushed due to an upcoming Netflix documentary. This does not bode well for Lee nor for the Paleo community. Far more research needs to be done and the pre-prints should be retracted.

[@trevorstieger6762]

Would u ever come to kzn to do a talk

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

Please read the peer reviews given to Dr. Berger and the team- elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89106/reviews

[@plopdoo339]

Paleontologists need to team up with some geneticists. I believe KhoiKhoi and San people have traced their paternal human lineage back to 300,000 years. Living in the same areas these homo naledi fossils have been found. To me, it sounds like the ancestors of KhoiKhoi San people may have been related in some way to these Homo Naledi fossils.

[@GoateWalker]

The only thing that has slowed down more progress is old racial mindsets.

[@erico5865]

Peer reviews of Berger and crew's findings are savage. Have you seen them? This guy is nothing but a self-promoting narcissist spinning a self-promoting yarn of BS... For example: Stating as fact that Naledi performed funerary ceremonies, or made stone tools, or had command of fire, etc.... Berger's team hasn't even dated the fire pits in the cave system! How can they rule out H. Sapien activity, post H. Naledi? Hawks i just as bad if not worse.

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

Please watch follow up videos

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

A lot sure has changed, with two sets of Peer Reviews coming out, both claiming “No Scientific Evidence!: Big Homo Naledi Updates! New Paper! "No Evidence!" kzbin.info/www/bejne/ipuakGaoZ7yamc0

[@terrywallace5181]

Lee Burger is amazing scientist.

[@user-ej5gx7ph7q]

I think Naledi is a bit of a marketing charade and it is too bad Berger needs funding so bad, because it is a one of a kind, find, without the padding

[@Davemmmason]

Carbon date the hearths

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

They have, and are not releasing the dates - rumor has it they are very young! And unrelated to naledi!

[@trevorstieger6762]

Dna dna dna.

[@UncommonSense-wm5fd]

Well, this hasn't tracked well, clearly Lee has taken too many liberties in providing sufficient evidence to back his claims whilst not testing the obvious null hypothesis, not enough due diligence was undertaken by his team, his claims about Naledi are tenuous at best. The lesson to learn here is don't publish unfinished findings because you have a documentary releasing soon after. Thankfully his peers have highlighted this, maybe not a blatantly as I have but the suggestion is certainly there. I hope Lee learns from this and it doesn't taint the reputation of the profession. His claims may turn out to be valid however that doesn't excuse the glaring short cuts he took. This is not how scientific research should be conducted, his team should be ashamed of themselves for publishing the pre- prints in their current state.

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

Absolutely!

[@peterloichtl4512]

Nonsense dribble

[@UncommonSense-wm5fd]

@@peterloichtl4512 What is? Clarify please.

[@saveriosalemme5366]

Man…. Chum Lee sure has changed since Pawn Stars.🤔

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

What a stupid comment and waste of your time. So glad you don’t have better things to do….

[@saveriosalemme5366]

@@worldofpaleoanthropology It’s called a joke buddy not an insult. Relax, I’m pretty sure Prof. Berger will allow an occasional break from the stress of academia. If you feel I have insulted you in any way I apologize. I truly enjoy your work but the resemblance is uncanny.

[@lyle1157]

Every single comment in here is completely uncritical praise of Berger and anything he says. That alone should illustrate just how catastrophic exchanging robust peer review from high-quality journals into a swamp of emotional and uneducated lay opinions really is. Berger didn’t go to eLife because he’s an open science crusader, he went there because Nature and Science sent him through a dozen or more rounds of revision on the first Rising Star papers before they finally pulled the submissions and paid to publish in eLife. This is a huge step backwards for paleoanthropology in terms of scientific objectivity and freedom from ego and ulterior motives. And to pretend like somehow this stuff ending up in a Netflix documentary makes it unique is insane. There are untold amounts of public-facing documentaries about all manners of discovery from anthropology, primatology, etc. But they went through robust snd rigorous pathways of review first! Berger should look at Jane Goodall if he wants a role model for public communication of science, because right now this feels a lot more like an Elon Musk PR sprint. Look at how he keeps saying things like “what we’re interpreting as a burial”. Why the weird language? Well, it’s because the stratigraphic evidence actually presented in this papers is almost nonexistent, and I invite everyone to actually check out the included figures. It’s basically a single digital image with an unexplained black bar covered a big section of the supposed disturbed layer, an angle of view that makes it impossible to actually see the alleged discontinuity, etc. It’s incredible this even made it into a submitted manuscript. Where is the dating on the cave marks? Where is the dating on the sootmarks? Why is he handwaving the potential of other, later hominins making these marks as impossible but perfectly happy to presume naledi is burying dead individuals there? Etc. This is a mountain of unfounded assumptions and it’s heart-wrenchingly irresponsible to be shouting them through NatGeo and Netflix-funded megaphones.

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

The fervor over the media has become the exact problem that science communicators feared would happen. Everyone is taking what the documentary says on face value, in complete disregard for the lack of evidence. I fully support the potential for naledi, but as it stands the evidence is not there and more research needs to be done. The public has already been wounded by this.

[@lyle1157]

@@worldofpaleoanthropologyCompletely agree. I think it’s incumbent upon researchers with publicly facing work to be abundantly transparent with the limitations of their data and the claims they’re making. Is it fair to them? No, not really. Many of them are dreamers and it’s cruel to demand they bottle that up. They aren’t at all to blame for the sensationalizing of pop science, but as cliche as it sounds, life isn’t always fair, and in this scenario the right thing to do is difficult and lackluster. What I wish Berger would realize (or perhaps rediscover) is that human evolution is absolutely fraught with opportunity for our own biases to distort the observations. Like, how awesome would it be if it really was naledi burying their deceased loved ones and using fire to make art! It would blow open the doors of what it means to be human and paint the first bits of a beautiful picture of diverse and intelligent hominin species around Paleolithic Africa. I can guarantee that image is as amazing to me as it is to Berger, but it’s just that: an image. Beauty does not make a thing real. The last thing the public wants to hear is that we’re looking through ten thousand keyholes and hoping a dim light might be left on in a few of the adjacent rooms, but that’s exactly what needs to be emphasized.

[@lyle1157]

@@worldofpaleoanthropology just going back through this again and watching him call peer review broken BECAUSE his work wasn't able to get through Nature and Science is insanity. Like Trump levels of goalpost shifting. A flat earther paper wouldn't make it through peer review, does that mean peer review is broken? Obviously not. If he has some illuminating insight as to WHAT is broken within anthropological peer review then why doesn't he just lay it out? It's been a decade since Nature and Science rejected his work, and frankly if you look at some of the public peer review in the eLife submissions they're on the order of what someone would say to a grad student. Not just procedural corrections for citations or minor statistical mishaps, he is making tons of elaborate claims without any substantiation whatsoever, not to mention using methodology without credit (Harold Dibble's son Flint put out an excellent video covering Berger's use of Harold's work without any credit given). It is super disappointing.

[@roanora7853]

Woke academia is worried about the implications

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

That makes literally no sense He is woke academia

[@roanora7853]

@@worldofpaleoanthropology sure, even he is reticent to take things to their logical end.. His detractors however are preempting the inevitable conclusions that will be drawn.

[@redhaze8080]

WTF, the paper is a train wreak and riddled with basic errors. Undergrads get chewed up for for the same things. How could you be this soft on him?

[@worldofpaleoanthropology]

Love it when someone’s calls out others mistakes while making their own.

[@redhaze8080]

@@worldofpaleoanthropology A you tube comment is not a science paper mate. How could you be so soft on him? That was a pathetic effort of an interview. Also he straight up said things that are at best false, and you said nothing to challenge him. That was hard to watch. The guy had less citations than authors on his paper, and many of the citation are in error including ones where they are citing their own work?! Lick arse much bro?

[@redhaze8080]

@worldofpaleoanthropology Also you let him say he had made the changes suggested by the first journal that rejected the paper. That is clearly not true or he would have fixed the citations as you well know. WTF bro?

[@redhaze8080]

@@worldofpaleoanthropology Also he has very skilled peeps like John Hawks working on this paper. The burial work is super dodgy and Hawks has explained how to do this work correctly to the public in his outreach... why did you not ask him what the hell is going on there?

[@redhaze8080]

That bit where you asked him why his papers are getting slammed for being unfit to publish and he said that he was moving fast so he did not "Embarrass" other scientists that are criticising his work because he has a big team and are finding lots of stuff. WTF. Wow. Messed up he has such a low opinion of you that he actually said that out loud on your show, and shame on you for accepting such utter nonsense.