14:30 I love that story. Musa (the king of Mali) was so rich that he travelled giving people money and that broke the economy, because the poor were no longer poor, so they denied being explored by the rich
I know they briefly mentioned it at 11:04 but it’s crazy to think how recently it was that humans finally settled in Madagascar permanently, despite our earliest ancestors first evolving out of Africa
We got involved in WW2 with supply programs for economic reasons, and general antipathy to German militarism, but the reason we went to war was Pearl Harbor, period. Japan miscalculated, and then Germany miscalculated again by declaring war to solidify the Tripartite Pact.
THIS video was amazing to watch. I don't think the guy makes more of them sadly but it was fantastic. The King of Mali is estimated to have the most gold, but Solomon from Israel is estimated to have had what would be trillions so who knows?
The PBS Eons channel has great illustrated discussions about each of the deep time eras in Earth history, and how a human would relate to them if we could be there.
The sauropsids (the ancestors of reptiles of all sorts) and the synapsids (that’s mammals and their ancestors) share a common ancestor that was a basal amniote. This ancestor split off some time during the Devonian Period, probably between 294 and 323 million years ago. The synapsids went on to evolve into Mammaliaformes such as Tritylodontids and Morganucodontids sometime during the Triassic Period, in the “age of dinosaurs” also known as the Mesozoic Era. Synapsids never evolved scales as far as we know. We’ve found impressions from the hides of some synapsids, and they have an irregular pattern of bumps and pits, not scales. The pits may be the openings of glands, which would be something they had in common with modern mammals such as elephants and rhinos. The synapsids pretty much dominated the Permian Period, evolving into some impressive large forms such as the Lystrosaurus, but then mostly died out during the PT mass extinction. One clade, the cynodonts, survived and were mostly small predators. They evolved some mammal like traits such as a secondary bony palate, fewer bones in the lower jaw (some of the “missing” bones migrated rearward and up, and would later become the ear bones of mammals), and larger brains though still small compared to most modern mammals. As the early dinosaurs became more common and more dominant, the cynodonts shrank. Perhaps they had trouble competing with the dinosaurs and began going nocturnal. They were likey becoming warm blooded to help stop fungal infections due to burrowing and were more comfortable at night. There were most likely a ton of things that simply made life easier as a smaller animal. By the time the late Triassic Period rolls around, it becomes truly academic whether a certain synapsid was a “true” mammal or not. Some of these animals had jaw joints that were precisely in the middle between older synapids’ jaw joints and those of mammals. The teeth could mesh together smoothly to chew food, the cerebellum kept getting bigger, and so on. Mammals have come onto the scene now. Meanwhile, while all this is happening with mammals, the sauropsids that survived the PT extinction start to become the dinosaurs. They evolved and took up the top predator niche. Unlimited food due to higher CO2 levels, massive size, and little to no predators. They were using up all the resources. Nothing new could come about. Only the smallest mammals could survive, and so they did. They thrived as burrowing and scavenging animals. This went on for an extraordinarily long time until the KT extinction event happened. It virtually wiped out the dinosaurs. They would almost reclaim their spot in the top predator niche through the evolution of terror birds, but they ended up dying out too. The remaining reptiles didn't return because their large size could not be supported anymore as oxygen content in the air took a downward dive and as their food, or their foods food, died out. The climate change and continental drift resulted in hyper-specialized dinosaurs being wiped out, and then there were only a handful left. They didn't fare very well either. Large dinosaurs were wiped out as the plants died out. This extinction events major explanations being either volcanoes or meteors (both supported by geological evidence) would have blocked out sunlight, resulting in a nuclear "winter" of sorts that killed off plants. The sauropods were driven to death, no longer being able to support their massive bodies without the trees essential to their lifestyle. Hunting and scavenging dinosaurs fared well for quite a while after this extinction due to the dead sauropods all over. After that food supply ran out, small dinosaurs were the only ones capable of hunting the burrowing mammals of the time, so it gave them enough time to evolve speedily under stress. These would be groups of avian dinosaurs, which would later become modern birds. Back to the mammals, though, as the food chain is wiped and the specialized niches are up for grabs, the mammals took over. They took advantage of everything the dinosaurs had come to take for granted due to that hyper-specialization. Life was great for dinosaurs and scary for mammals, but then the environmental pressures changed. Dinosaurs fell off, and mammals rose up. Let's sum this up. Basal amniotes are the ancestors to both sauropsids and the synapsids. Both of these groups evolve into large animals until the PT extinction comes along. As seen in the video, the main surviving sauropsid, Proterosuchus, would go on to become the dinosaurs. The main surviving synapsid, Lystrosaurus, would go on to become true mammals. The dinosaurs took over as top predators and mammals could not compete, so they became small rodent like animals. When the KT extinction happened and all but some avian dinosaurs were wiped out, the mammals became free of the top predators and then were able to grow themselves.
Just an FYI, im about to use improper capitalization just for the convenience of reading and keeping along with the names of things. You're right that we didn't "come from monkeys." As you said, we evolved from a common ancestor. Monkeys fall into two groups, the Old World monkeys and the New World monkeys. Apes and Old World monkeys are more closely related to one another than either is to New World monkeys. There are similarly the Great Apes, Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Humans, as well as the Lesser Apes, or Gibbons. The last common ancestor of a Chimp or Gibbon and a Baboon or Macaque would have struck an observer as an Old World Monkey but would not have belonged to any modern "monkey" genus or species. "Monkey” is not a scientific term. In science, there are rules that govern what things are. This is called taxonomy. Evolution works via a population adapting over time to better fit environmental pressures. It's not a cat becoming a dog. In biology, you never outgrow your ancestors. You are what your ancestors were. You can never leave your order, only further specialize. So you belong to the taxonomic groups that your ancestors belong to, and if two species belong to a taxonomic group, then their last common ancestor must also belong to that group. This is called a nested hierarchy. "Monkey” violates the rules of taxonomy as it exludes some members of its order, that being primates. Apes are excluded here, and that is a violation. In science, we use the term “simian” to refer to this proper group instead. “Simiiforme” essentially means all monkeys, including the apes, beaucse they must be included according to the rules of taxonomy. Apes evolved from earlier simiiformes. So, according to taxonomy, apes are simiiformes. Since “simian” is the scientific term for “monkey”, you could informally say that apes are monkeys and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but it wouldn't necessarily be right either. If we trace back generations between humans and chimps until we reach our common ancestor, that animal was an ape, not any modern species, but it was absolutely an ape. Humans absolutely evolved from apes. Humans and our fellow apes share a common ancestor, and that exact same pattern works with apes and monkeys. If you trace back generations between apes and monkeys until you reach our common ancestor, that creature was a "monkey." It was not a monkey of any current species, but it was absolutely a monkey. Apes absolutely evolved from monkeys. Apes and monkeys share a common ancestor. If you trace back generations of monkeys and lemurs until you reach a common ancestor, that creature probably didn’t look enough like a lemur to be considered a lemur, but thats because it is their common ancestor. Lemurs didn't exist yet, and this is very early primate evolution. It looked much more like a treeshrew and was likely similar to the plesiadapiforms. So this pattern does change to some degree, but looks only play a small part in identifying a creature. After the K-T extinction event, the small mammals who survived adapted to life in various different environments as they took over the world. Jungle habitats are where primate evolution starts. The earliest primate ancestor we know of is Purgatorius, and it looked much more like a treeshrew than anything else or any of the other early rodant like forms mammals had. These then specialized even more for arboreal life into Plesiadapiforms, as I mentioned. So you can simplify evolution only to a degree before it becomes too simple and dulled down to be factually correct. It is hard to explain easily because of that. So when we look back on the line of descent, it goes like this. You have basal primates like plesiadapiforms split into haplorhines and strepsirrhines. Strepsirrhines continue to do their own thing and further specialize in their own way. Haplorhines split into simiiformes(Monkeys and Apes) and tarsiiformes(Tarsiers). Tarsiiformes continue to do their own thing and split into their own specialized groups. Basal simiiformes end up in different ecosystems, and due to different pressures, they split into platyrrhines(the New World Monkeys) and catarrhines. The New World Monkeys continue to do their own thing and further specialize in their own way. The basal catarrhines end up in different ecosystems, and due to different pressures, they split into cercopithecoidea(the Old World Monkeys) and hominoidea(Apes). Hominoidea then further split into hylobatidae(Lesser Apes) or Gibbons and hominidae(Great apes). Gibbons are like our third cousins. The hominids split into homininae(African Apes) and ponginae(Asian Apes), which is what would later become Gigantopithecus and Orangutans who are like our second cousins. Homininae split into Gorillini, which is what would become Gorillas, who are the next to split and like our first cousins and hominini. Hominini would would beocme the ancestor of Humans and our siblings/sister group, the Panins(Chimps and Bonobos). Sahelanthropus tchadensis is what we currently believe to be the last common ancestor we shared with Panins 6-7 million years ago. It lived at the right time, it had the right characteristics, and it lived in the African Rift Valley when it would be split into a savanna. This is what would cause the split into Panins and our line. They would become Ardipithecines, Australopithecines, Paranthropines, and Homo among other things. Hopefully, I didn't make that too confusing, but trying to simply explain how we can simplify evolution education is already confusing enough. I can answer any questions I might have caused if that helps.
The Zallinger Projection or the "March of Progress" has done quite a bit of damage in the understanding of evolution in education. It was never meant or made to represent evolution accurately but rather simply show major changes in forms from past ancestors. Unfortunately, it became a major talking point creationists latched on to in attempts to try and discredit the single most proven and supported things in all of science despite them blatantly showing that they totally misunderstand evolution in the process.
20:00: If blaming Germany (and let's be real: That war happened because Germany wanted it and quite literally started it) was the catalyst for World War 2, then why did it take TWENTY YEARS for WW2 to happen? Sorry, that's just plain wrong. And what Germany did to France after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 was just as bad per capita. Germany brought it upon itself and deserved it. Sorry, you have been misinformed by pro-German propagandists. (America and France, for example, cannot be said to "share blame" since neither wanted war and American didn't join for YEARS and France was invaded and had no choice in the matter (nor did Belgium, obviously.)
And if we had REALLY put Germany in the ground like we should have after WW1, WW2 would never have happened and 90 million people wouldn't have been slaughtered thanks to Germans. Our mistake was not putting our foot on Germany's neck and keeping it there. Telling them WW1 wasn't their fault and letting them off only would have accelerated, encouraged Germans, who were pissed that they didn't have all the overseas territories that England, Spain and France had. Unfortunately you have a lot to learn about history before you start making pronouncements to the rest of us about how to handle the aftermath of a "total war."
Gold is only worth want someone is willing to pay fore masa Muna is suppose to be worth an imaginary number that I'm sure no one actually counted the reason gold became value is it's easy to manipulate and it's not rare who ever invented the lie that it's rare forgot people know how much the ancients had, gold doesn't decay it excisted then and now
14:30 I love that story. Musa (the king of Mali) was so rich that he travelled giving people money and that broke the economy, because the poor were no longer poor, so they denied being explored by the rich
I know they briefly mentioned it at 11:04 but it’s crazy to think how recently it was that humans finally settled in Madagascar permanently, despite our earliest ancestors first evolving out of Africa
great video brother, greetings from Australia
I learned more from this single video than I did in ANY of my history classes throughout my life
We got involved in WW2 with supply programs for economic reasons, and general antipathy to German militarism, but the reason we went to war was Pearl Harbor, period. Japan miscalculated, and then Germany miscalculated again by declaring war to solidify the Tripartite Pact.
THIS video was amazing to watch. I don't think the guy makes more of them sadly but it was fantastic. The King of Mali is estimated to have the most gold, but Solomon from Israel is estimated to have had what would be trillions so who knows?
I love this video and the reaction was excellent. Just subbed.
thank you!
The PBS Eons channel has great illustrated discussions about each of the deep time eras in Earth history, and how a human would relate to them if we could be there.
Can believe they didn’t mention Leif Erickson smh
The sauropsids (the ancestors of reptiles of all sorts) and the synapsids (that’s mammals and their ancestors) share a common ancestor that was a basal amniote. This ancestor split off some time during the Devonian Period, probably between 294 and 323 million years ago. The synapsids went on to evolve into Mammaliaformes such as Tritylodontids and Morganucodontids sometime during the Triassic Period, in the “age of dinosaurs” also known as the Mesozoic Era. Synapsids never evolved scales as far as we know. We’ve found impressions from the hides of some synapsids, and they have an irregular pattern of bumps and pits, not scales. The pits may be the openings of glands, which would be something they had in common with modern mammals such as elephants and rhinos.
The synapsids pretty much dominated the Permian Period, evolving into some impressive large forms such as the Lystrosaurus, but then mostly died out during the PT mass extinction. One clade, the cynodonts, survived and were mostly small predators. They evolved some mammal like traits such as a secondary bony palate, fewer bones in the lower jaw (some of the “missing” bones migrated rearward and up, and would later become the ear bones of mammals), and larger brains though still small compared to most modern mammals. As the early dinosaurs became more common and more dominant, the cynodonts shrank. Perhaps they had trouble competing with the dinosaurs and began going nocturnal. They were likey becoming warm blooded to help stop fungal infections due to burrowing and were more comfortable at night. There were most likely a ton of things that simply made life easier as a smaller animal.
By the time the late Triassic Period rolls around, it becomes truly academic whether a certain synapsid was a “true” mammal or not. Some of these animals had jaw joints that were precisely in the middle between older synapids’ jaw joints and those of mammals. The teeth could mesh together smoothly to chew food, the cerebellum kept getting bigger, and so on. Mammals have come onto the scene now. Meanwhile, while all this is happening with mammals, the sauropsids that survived the PT extinction start to become the dinosaurs. They evolved and took up the top predator niche. Unlimited food due to higher CO2 levels, massive size, and little to no predators. They were using up all the resources. Nothing new could come about. Only the smallest mammals could survive, and so they did. They thrived as burrowing and scavenging animals. This went on for an extraordinarily long time until the KT extinction event happened. It virtually wiped out the dinosaurs. They would almost reclaim their spot in the top predator niche through the evolution of terror birds, but they ended up dying out too. The remaining reptiles didn't return because their large size could not be supported anymore as oxygen content in the air took a downward dive and as their food, or their foods food, died out. The climate change and continental drift resulted in hyper-specialized dinosaurs being wiped out, and then there were only a handful left. They didn't fare very well either. Large dinosaurs were wiped out as the plants died out. This extinction events major explanations being either volcanoes or meteors (both supported by geological evidence) would have blocked out sunlight, resulting in a nuclear "winter" of sorts that killed off plants. The sauropods were driven to death, no longer being able to support their massive bodies without the trees essential to their lifestyle. Hunting and scavenging dinosaurs fared well for quite a while after this extinction due to the dead sauropods all over. After that food supply ran out, small dinosaurs were the only ones capable of hunting the burrowing mammals of the time, so it gave them enough time to evolve speedily under stress. These would be groups of avian dinosaurs, which would later become modern birds. Back to the mammals, though, as the food chain is wiped and the specialized niches are up for grabs, the mammals took over. They took advantage of everything the dinosaurs had come to take for granted due to that hyper-specialization. Life was great for dinosaurs and scary for mammals, but then the environmental pressures changed. Dinosaurs fell off, and mammals rose up.
Let's sum this up. Basal amniotes are the ancestors to both sauropsids and the synapsids. Both of these groups evolve into large animals until the PT extinction comes along. As seen in the video, the main surviving sauropsid, Proterosuchus, would go on to become the dinosaurs. The main surviving synapsid, Lystrosaurus, would go on to become true mammals. The dinosaurs took over as top predators and mammals could not compete, so they became small rodent like animals. When the KT extinction happened and all but some avian dinosaurs were wiped out, the mammals became free of the top predators and then were able to grow themselves.
Just an FYI, im about to use improper capitalization just for the convenience of reading and keeping along with the names of things.
You're right that we didn't "come from monkeys." As you said, we evolved from a common ancestor. Monkeys fall into two groups, the Old World monkeys and the New World monkeys. Apes and Old World monkeys are more closely related to one another than either is to New World monkeys. There are similarly the Great Apes, Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Humans, as well as the Lesser Apes, or Gibbons. The last common ancestor of a Chimp or Gibbon and a Baboon or Macaque would have struck an observer as an Old World Monkey but would not have belonged to any modern "monkey" genus or species. "Monkey” is not a scientific term. In science, there are rules that govern what things are. This is called taxonomy.
Evolution works via a population adapting over time to better fit environmental pressures. It's not a cat becoming a dog. In biology, you never outgrow your ancestors. You are what your ancestors were. You can never leave your order, only further specialize. So you belong to the taxonomic groups that your ancestors belong to, and if two species belong to a taxonomic group, then their last common ancestor must also belong to that group. This is called a nested hierarchy. "Monkey” violates the rules of taxonomy as it exludes some members of its order, that being primates. Apes are excluded here, and that is a violation. In science, we use the term “simian” to refer to this proper group instead. “Simiiforme” essentially means all monkeys, including the apes, beaucse they must be included according to the rules of taxonomy. Apes evolved from earlier simiiformes. So, according to taxonomy, apes are simiiformes. Since “simian” is the scientific term for “monkey”, you could informally say that apes are monkeys and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but it wouldn't necessarily be right either. If we trace back generations between humans and chimps until we reach our common ancestor, that animal was an ape, not any modern species, but it was absolutely an ape. Humans absolutely evolved from apes. Humans and our fellow apes share a common ancestor, and that exact same pattern works with apes and monkeys. If you trace back generations between apes and monkeys until you reach our common ancestor, that creature was a "monkey." It was not a monkey of any current species, but it was absolutely a monkey. Apes absolutely evolved from monkeys. Apes and monkeys share a common ancestor. If you trace back generations of monkeys and lemurs until you reach a common ancestor, that creature probably didn’t look enough like a lemur to be considered a lemur, but thats because it is their common ancestor. Lemurs didn't exist yet, and this is very early primate evolution. It looked much more like a treeshrew and was likely similar to the plesiadapiforms. So this pattern does change to some degree, but looks only play a small part in identifying a creature.
After the K-T extinction event, the small mammals who survived adapted to life in various different environments as they took over the world. Jungle habitats are where primate evolution starts. The earliest primate ancestor we know of is Purgatorius, and it looked much more like a treeshrew than anything else or any of the other early rodant like forms mammals had. These then specialized even more for arboreal life into Plesiadapiforms, as I mentioned. So you can simplify evolution only to a degree before it becomes too simple and dulled down to be factually correct. It is hard to explain easily because of that.
So when we look back on the line of descent, it goes like this. You have basal primates like plesiadapiforms split into haplorhines and strepsirrhines. Strepsirrhines continue to do their own thing and further specialize in their own way. Haplorhines split into simiiformes(Monkeys and Apes) and tarsiiformes(Tarsiers). Tarsiiformes continue to do their own thing and split into their own specialized groups. Basal simiiformes end up in different ecosystems, and due to different pressures, they split into platyrrhines(the New World Monkeys) and catarrhines. The New World Monkeys continue to do their own thing and further specialize in their own way. The basal catarrhines end up in different ecosystems, and due to different pressures, they split into cercopithecoidea(the Old World Monkeys) and hominoidea(Apes). Hominoidea then further split into hylobatidae(Lesser Apes) or Gibbons and hominidae(Great apes). Gibbons are like our third cousins. The hominids split into homininae(African Apes) and ponginae(Asian Apes), which is what would later become Gigantopithecus and Orangutans who are like our second cousins. Homininae split into Gorillini, which is what would become Gorillas, who are the next to split and like our first cousins and hominini. Hominini would would beocme the ancestor of Humans and our siblings/sister group, the Panins(Chimps and Bonobos). Sahelanthropus tchadensis is what we currently believe to be the last common ancestor we shared with Panins 6-7 million years ago. It lived at the right time, it had the right characteristics, and it lived in the African Rift Valley when it would be split into a savanna. This is what would cause the split into Panins and our line. They would become Ardipithecines, Australopithecines, Paranthropines, and Homo among other things.
Hopefully, I didn't make that too confusing, but trying to simply explain how we can simplify evolution education is already confusing enough. I can answer any questions I might have caused if that helps.
The Zallinger Projection or the "March of Progress" has done quite a bit of damage in the understanding of evolution in education. It was never meant or made to represent evolution accurately but rather simply show major changes in forms from past ancestors. Unfortunately, it became a major talking point creationists latched on to in attempts to try and discredit the single most proven and supported things in all of science despite them blatantly showing that they totally misunderstand evolution in the process.
There are quite a few similar history videos on the Oversimplified channel that you might enjoy (and which would probably attract new subscribers.)
20:00: If blaming Germany (and let's be real: That war happened because Germany wanted it and quite literally started it) was the catalyst for World War 2, then why did it take TWENTY YEARS for WW2 to happen? Sorry, that's just plain wrong. And what Germany did to France after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 was just as bad per capita. Germany brought it upon itself and deserved it. Sorry, you have been misinformed by pro-German propagandists. (America and France, for example, cannot be said to "share blame" since neither wanted war and American didn't join for YEARS and France was invaded and had no choice in the matter (nor did Belgium, obviously.)
And if we had REALLY put Germany in the ground like we should have after WW1, WW2 would never have happened and 90 million people wouldn't have been slaughtered thanks to Germans. Our mistake was not putting our foot on Germany's neck and keeping it there. Telling them WW1 wasn't their fault and letting them off only would have accelerated, encouraged Germans, who were pissed that they didn't have all the overseas territories that England, Spain and France had. Unfortunately you have a lot to learn about history before you start making pronouncements to the rest of us about how to handle the aftermath of a "total war."
Gold is only worth want someone is willing to pay fore masa Muna is suppose to be worth an imaginary number that I'm sure no one actually counted the reason gold became value is it's easy to manipulate and it's not rare who ever invented the lie that it's rare forgot people know how much the ancients had, gold doesn't decay it excisted then and now