This man makes me wish I'd been certified as a middle/high school science teacher instead of a social studies one. But you can bet that I'm stealing as much of this as possible.
43:40 LVB was "massively unmusical," falling in the 9th percentile of people with musical skills. Who knew? Robin is hilarious, but how come people don't laugh (or at least giggle) at his quips? Immensely enjoyable, and educational to boot! Thanks.
Would like to refute a point. UK gets much lower UV exposure. Therefore paler skin is an evolutionary advantage and that’s why people living in higher latitudes have relatively lighter pigmentation, primarily to do with Vitamin D utilisation N.B - eskimos is an exception because of reflected UV from snow
No , Eskimos have not had time to adapt. They have not been around that long. Also thet get vitamin D from fish. Only the European farmers had vitamin D deficiency.
Eskimos still hasn’t acquired lighter pigmentation since they have a ready source of vitamin D in the fish. It’s also likely acquiring lighter pigmentation would put them at an evolutionary disadvantage in view of the reflective UV from the snow. However perhaps if fish was not a ready source of vitamin D , natural selection would have determined whether they should have lighter pigmentation to get more vitamin D from the reflective UV. My initial point was Mr. May gave wrong information saying UK has high UV exposure.
I do understand concern of genetic modification leading to less diversity and therefore possibly catastrophic consequences for the humanity in the future when our conditions change but at the same time, surely if we develop the capability of modifing DNA, we will also be able to use it when it happens? Diversity ensures survival of the species but at the expense of many individuals dying. With gene editing, if we ever face new conditions, we can re-edit the genes to suit them. That sounds like a more efficient strategy to me. Besides, I don't really believe in banning research because its goal is unethical. It's not possible to enforce this worldwide and forever. Someone, somewhere at some point will develop it, we're just delaying it and risking that those who do develop it first will be the ones who don't play by the rules (leading to all kinds of catastrophic scenarios). There are millions people on this planet who could benefit from gene editing and have their lives massively improved but won't live to see that day because we're holding this unrealistic hope that it will never be developed. When in reality we're delaying it by what? Decades? Certainly no more than a century.
I read somewhere that due to the availability of caesarian operations (mainly in the west), there is a creeping Lara-Croft-isation of women's physiques, i.e. slim-hipped women who may have died in childbirth in earlier generations are now surviving and passing on their slim-hipped genes. May be absolute nonsense, but comments from slim-hipped women and otherwise are appreciated :-)
You might as well add children that had rather large heads at birth to that equation. And of course the actual reason for most cesarean sections being children trying to come out feet first or with entangled umblical chords.
@@molochi I had a slim-hipped colleague who chose to have all of her three children delivered by c-section. Apparently further pregnancies after a c-section birth can be risky.
I disagree with the idea that violence is pro survival in the future any more than cooperation is. I can easily buy the idea that survivors who are loners survive well but that does not mean violence or cooperation. It just means similar to Neanderthals population could dwindle before we could purposely select (artificially) for the quality of survival that works best. This is at somewhat a past projection by necessity as we cannot see the future directly or imagine better maybe. Surely we could imagine better. I mean it is worth trying to.
Biological evolution is slow and, in the case of humans, heavily influenced by cultural progress. Humans have the unique ability to bend nature to their will, while subjecting themselves to nature's forces only minimally.
50% of the population of today is just the world population 50 years ago. That's actually not such a huge reversal. Hopefully the expected decline of global birth rate would do it on its own within 100-200 years.
We may get two types of human. Rich and poor. The rich will be tall and magnificent and highly intelligent (because they can afford 'perfect' children thanks genetic planning) and an underclass of short, brutish, slaves.
Excellent point. Maybe like the two races described in the H.G. Wells's novel ''The Time Machine''. Regardless, there is already an 'underclass' who cannot afford private dental treatment because the National Health Service has next-to-none NHS dentists on their books. The rich, however, don't need an appointment to see their ''orthodontist'' (just a fancy term to describe a 'cosmetic' dentist). Bottom line here. You're poor, your teeth fall out. You're rich, you can buy a perfect set of pearly-whites.
If we only consider the expertise in the genetics field as it is now, the tools and ability to deploy the knowledge will slowly become cheaper and more accessible (think cars, flat screen TVs, different kinds of medical procedures). The way middle-class folks live in the Western world today would look unimaginably lavish to those living 50-75 years ago, what with all the electronics and appliances, but it's because the tech became more efficient and cheaper to make and the knowledge easier to deploy. Assuming these patterns continue, the lower classes aren't going to be left here in the first half of the 21st century, while the rich exponentially accelerate in tools and medicine over the next few centuries. The "less new" new techs and procedures will diffuse down while the elites keep advancing. The elites always take 2 steps forward for every 1 of the lower class, but I think it would take a dedicated eugenics program to really keep the lower classes down in the way this comment suggests
@@noahwinberry2475 It'll happen more organically. The rich will not breed with the poor, and worse, will be able to produce exponentially more exceptional children. Perhaps with expensive electronic chips that perfectly balance their diets, help choose their romantic partners and screen for the early signs of disease. No eugenics programmes required. It'll be the haves and the have nots - like we have now - except the haves will have access to an awful lot more. At a price only they can afford. Two types of humans emerge
Pretty depressing picture for human evolution. Our medical care keeps most alive through the breeding ages. The more successful (in a technology age) are not breeding to any extent. Firstly due to education demands and then career aspirations. I suspect those without education/careers are breeding at a higher rate. I read that IQ is in a downward trend which does not bode well for the long term. Perhaps intelligence is no longer a requirement for the species......
IQ is a terrible metric and has no association with intelligence. Though IQ has had to be deflated over the course of the last century due to everybody getting smarter from public education. A downward trend in IQ would only mean a horribly mismanaged government and many policy failures leading to people not being given the chance to be smart.
This man makes me wish I'd been certified as a middle/high school science teacher instead of a social studies one. But you can bet that I'm stealing as much of this as possible.
It's not stealing; it's horizontal cultural transmission-something humans are almost uniquely skilled at.
My favorite lecturer!❤
he’s sooo hot
I loved the Evolution series. Robin May is just brilliant. I'm looking forward to hearing more from him
the brightest lecturer at Gresham
Always make my day enjoy every minute of it❤
43:40 LVB was "massively unmusical," falling in the 9th percentile of people with musical skills. Who knew? Robin is hilarious, but how come people don't laugh (or at least giggle) at his quips? Immensely enjoyable, and educational to boot! Thanks.
Would like to refute a point. UK gets much lower UV exposure. Therefore paler skin is an evolutionary advantage and that’s why people living in higher latitudes have relatively lighter pigmentation, primarily to do with Vitamin D utilisation
N.B - eskimos is an exception because of reflected UV from snow
No , Eskimos have not had time to adapt. They have not been around that long. Also thet get vitamin D from fish. Only the European farmers had vitamin D deficiency.
Eskimos still hasn’t acquired lighter pigmentation since they have a ready source of vitamin D in the fish. It’s also likely acquiring lighter pigmentation would put them at an evolutionary disadvantage in view of the reflective UV from the snow. However perhaps if fish was not a ready source of vitamin D , natural selection would have determined whether they should have lighter pigmentation to get more vitamin D from the reflective UV. My initial point was Mr. May gave wrong information saying UK has high UV exposure.
This is the most popular theory, but there are arguments against it, and alternative theories exist. This is still an unsettled question.
This was great
Evolution is super slow, we're always in the present aren't we?
I do understand concern of genetic modification leading to less diversity and therefore possibly catastrophic consequences for the humanity in the future when our conditions change but at the same time, surely if we develop the capability of modifing DNA, we will also be able to use it when it happens? Diversity ensures survival of the species but at the expense of many individuals dying. With gene editing, if we ever face new conditions, we can re-edit the genes to suit them. That sounds like a more efficient strategy to me.
Besides, I don't really believe in banning research because its goal is unethical. It's not possible to enforce this worldwide and forever. Someone, somewhere at some point will develop it, we're just delaying it and risking that those who do develop it first will be the ones who don't play by the rules (leading to all kinds of catastrophic scenarios). There are millions people on this planet who could benefit from gene editing and have their lives massively improved but won't live to see that day because we're holding this unrealistic hope that it will never be developed. When in reality we're delaying it by what? Decades? Certainly no more than a century.
I read somewhere that due to the availability of caesarian operations (mainly in the west), there is a creeping Lara-Croft-isation of women's physiques, i.e. slim-hipped women who may have died in childbirth in earlier generations are now surviving and passing on their slim-hipped genes. May be absolute nonsense, but comments from slim-hipped women and otherwise are appreciated :-)
Lara Croft has an hour glass figure but usual hips.
You might as well add children that had rather large heads at birth to that equation. And of course the actual reason for most cesarean sections being children trying to come out feet first or with entangled umblical chords.
@@molochi I had a slim-hipped colleague who chose to have all of her three children delivered by c-section. Apparently further pregnancies after a c-section birth can be risky.
Where did you read that, in The Sun?
@@SirAntoniousBlock No, I checked. It was a BBC article from 2016. Search for "Caesarean births 'affecting human evolution".
I disagree with the idea that violence is pro survival in the future any more than cooperation is. I can easily buy the idea that survivors who are loners survive well but that does not mean violence or cooperation. It just means similar to Neanderthals population could dwindle before we could purposely select (artificially) for the quality of survival that works best.
This is at somewhat a past projection by necessity as we cannot see the future directly or imagine better maybe. Surely we could imagine better. I mean it is worth trying to.
28:30
29:48 genetic markers for violence?
41:35 music
Wouldn't genetic hyper reactive immune system also increase the prevalence of allergies?
Que sera, sera.
Biological evolution is slow and, in the case of humans, heavily influenced by cultural progress. Humans have the unique ability to bend nature to their will, while subjecting themselves to nature's forces only minimally.
50% of the population of today is just the world population 50 years ago. That's actually not such a huge reversal. Hopefully the expected decline of global birth rate would do it on its own within 100-200 years.
KOJIMA
Bad democratization. Over-simplified to the poi t that fundamental facts are obscured.
See work by Denis Noble.
With 8 billion people on earth now, shouldn't their be more mutations than before?
Slow down and take a breath.
We may get two types of human. Rich and poor. The rich will be tall and magnificent and highly intelligent (because they can afford 'perfect' children thanks genetic planning) and an underclass of short, brutish, slaves.
I guess that might be the dream of some.
Excellent point. Maybe like the two races described in the H.G. Wells's novel ''The Time Machine''. Regardless, there is already an 'underclass' who cannot afford private dental treatment because the National Health Service has next-to-none NHS dentists on their books. The rich, however, don't need an appointment to see their ''orthodontist'' (just a fancy term to describe a 'cosmetic' dentist).
Bottom line here. You're poor, your teeth fall out. You're rich, you can buy a perfect set of pearly-whites.
@@bazsnell3178 🎯
If we only consider the expertise in the genetics field as it is now, the tools and ability to deploy the knowledge will slowly become cheaper and more accessible (think cars, flat screen TVs, different kinds of medical procedures). The way middle-class folks live in the Western world today would look unimaginably lavish to those living 50-75 years ago, what with all the electronics and appliances, but it's because the tech became more efficient and cheaper to make and the knowledge easier to deploy.
Assuming these patterns continue, the lower classes aren't going to be left here in the first half of the 21st century, while the rich exponentially accelerate in tools and medicine over the next few centuries. The "less new" new techs and procedures will diffuse down while the elites keep advancing. The elites always take 2 steps forward for every 1 of the lower class, but I think it would take a dedicated eugenics program to really keep the lower classes down in the way this comment suggests
@@noahwinberry2475 It'll happen more organically. The rich will not breed with the poor, and worse, will be able to produce exponentially more exceptional children. Perhaps with expensive electronic chips that perfectly balance their diets, help choose their romantic partners and screen for the early signs of disease. No eugenics programmes required. It'll be the haves and the have nots - like we have now - except the haves will have access to an awful lot more. At a price only they can afford.
Two types of humans emerge
Pretty depressing picture for human evolution. Our medical care keeps most alive through the breeding ages. The more successful (in a technology age) are not breeding to any extent. Firstly due to education demands and then career aspirations. I suspect those without education/careers are breeding at a higher rate. I read that IQ is in a downward trend which does not bode well for the long term. Perhaps intelligence is no longer a requirement for the species......
IQ is a terrible metric and has no association with intelligence. Though IQ has had to be deflated over the course of the last century due to everybody getting smarter from public education. A downward trend in IQ would only mean a horribly mismanaged government and many policy failures leading to people not being given the chance to be smart.