I’m impressed with the mastery of big picture ideas Mr. Adams shows, 27:55 and it encourages me that the rigid idea framework that has constrained vision in the history of us is being undermined as the years go by.
I went back to school in my early 60s. Computer science is my major. Now retired, I have the interest and drive and time to pursue my REAL passion. I admire this man for pursuing this very fascinating complex and interesting field!!!!
Mr Gregory's enthusiasm is definitely infectious and love for paleo-anthropology obvious. What also seems obvious now that I think about it is the idea of convergent bipedalism in hominins. I honestly have not heard much about this-- until now! 👏🏼
We know our cats, dogs, and horses can watch others as well as us do things and figure out how to do those things, too, so is it too much to speculate the hominins could observe each other and acquire an ability or a taste for another food.
We know our cats, dogs, parrots, and horses can watch others as well as us do things and figure out how to do those things, too, so is it too much to speculate the hominins could observe each other and acquire an ability to walk bipedaly or a taste for another food.
This is so refreshing. I've always been annoyed by the idea that all of human evolution had to have happened in exactly the areas where fossils happen to be most likely to be preserved. It's like the the story of the drunk looking for his keys under a lamp-post because that's the place with the most light.
We know that gorillas and chimpanzees evolved their 3-legged walk *after* they split from our lineage. They both used different methods for knuckle walking. This raises the possibility that the common ancestor of us, chimpanzees, and possibly gorillas was bipedal. The proposition that H. luzonensis was arboreal was made shortly after the discovery, but it's not really confirmed and there is still debate over it. Given how widely Miocene apes spread it is very likely that a broad range of locomotion strategies evolved, the real question when you go that far back is which branch of these led to us.
IIRC some researchers have advanced the hypothesis that bipedalism, or better a vertical posture, first developed on tree dwelling ancestors. Stretching out arms to reach branches and fruits encouraged standing. Which tbh I find more compelling than the other way around, that is quadrupedal apes getting down of the trees and only then learning bipedalism because they needed to carry stuff around.
Bipedalism developing more than once seems quite possible, even probable. After all, if bipedalism was an evolutionary advantage in certain environments, then it's only logical it could develop in closely related species.
Question for Mr. Adams: Why are you not looking at living gibbons and siamangs? On the ground they walk bipedally. They are gracile and have a small face. They fight with their fists, not their teeth. They don't have fertility swelling. They are pair-bonded. They sing. Young gibbons spend 10 years with their parents before becoming independent at puberty. More to the point, in phylogenetic analysis the lineage of Sahelanthropus > Hylobates,+ Ardipithecus > Oreopithecus > Homo erectus + Homo floresiensis leads to Homo sapiens and moves Australopithecus and Homo naledi between Pongo and Pan + Gorilla. So, YES to convergent bipedalism. Geography, temperature, time, are all important. But phylogenetic analysis will give you the falsifiable evidence you seek. Google: "More gibbon traits: Decide if these seem human-like." for links to cladograms and more details.
Scientist concluded that this cannot be (I am not an expert), Hylobates were the first. Also, shouldn't Oreopithecus be before Ardipitecus? Third, H.erectus is similar to Trachilos footprints, which is before Ardipithecus. We had two concurrent forms of bipedalism, the adducted big toe bipedalism (human-like), and the abducted big toe bipedalism (Ardipithecus). Those existed at the same time. BTW, humans are more like the original state of Pierolapithecus, even compared to hylobates. Long fingers and brachiation evolved later, first it were short fingers, vertical clinging (as far as I could tell).
@@DAVIDPETERS12C Hm, I posted a link to paper, but I don't see it now. The paper is called: "New Middle Miocene Ape (Primates: Hylobatidae) from Ramnagar, India fills major gaps in the hominoid fossil record".
@@MarioPetrinovich Thank you! The cladogram (free online) is missing several of the fossil taxa listed above... and Homo, and Australopithecus. This is common, unfortunately.
@@DAVIDPETERS12C They are missing because it is well established where they belong in this cladogram. You will have to learn more, and have more trust in scientists, they know all the bones, they can place fossils pretty accurately. In some ways your ideas are pretty off in what should be. Each bone evolves, and scientists can see how, and they know those things (along with DNA distance). The fact that some species lives in pair and signs isn't enough. Read about facial orientation, airorhynchy, klinorhynchy, learn about tooth enamel thickness, human lineage has thick enamel.
A terrific interview again. You have a range of guests and cover a range of subjects which keeps things interesting. Though he got himself across clearly, Gregory wasn't as smooth as some who have had much more experience with public presentation but I feel this only served to give him a charm and relatability. Although I've watched a lot of your interviews I haven't watched them all, so you have maybe already covered this. Something about talking about bipedalism sparked a question in me. In opposition to bipedalism, I started to wonder about the biomechanics of tool usage. I would assume that it is more than simply having free hands. Hand shape, forearm-length, wrist and shoulder position as well as the brain development.
No, it is enough to have hand, a lot of primates use tools. Even crows use tools. For tool manufacture, though, you definitely need to have language. For example, tools emerged only when Homo emerged, they weren't here in the time of Australopithecus. Homo and Australopithecus are almost the same, the difference should be in language.
@@MarioPetrinovichI think we should probably hold distinctions between the types of tool use. As you said, crows use tools (as do numerous other species). To my mind, there are three types of tool usages: serendipitous tool use, manufactured tool use, and chemical tool use. A chimp uses a stick to poke into an anthill (or into a monkey) is serendipitous tool use-it found a use for a tool it found. When an ancient hominid uses fire to harden the point of a stick, or uses a strap to throw a rock farther or harder (like a sling), that’s a manufactured tool. (I believe that some chimps will chew on a stick to make the tip sharper; that, too, is mechanical tool use.) The third type of tool use involves using chemical reactions to make or improve a tool. Blending resin with ash and then heating it to create a glue to help attach stone points to wood sticks is a level of tool use that we have yet to see with other species. Another example would be chemically altering hides to tan them into leather; using vegetable matter to tan a hide to make a stronger leather, using brain tissue rubbed into the hide to make buckskin, a softer leather, or using fish oils to make a very soft, absorbent leather. We know that the first two techniques were used in prehistoric times; I have no problem with thinking that prehistoric people found out how to make something akin to chamois leather, although the modern practice dates to the early 18th century. There is no doubt that language is not necessary for the first type of tool use to spread. And arguably language use is not necessary for at least the early stages of mechanical tool use-you don’t need language to communicate how to sharpen a stick with your teeth. But to get to the third type of tool use, I don’t see how it could possibly propagate without language. The changes that are needed for turning X into Y are too complex and time consuming to pass on from individual to individual without language.
@@DneilB007 I will not go that deep into all this. Maybe to give you my few starting positions. The first one, in my view humans aren't intelligent beings, we are just as much intelligent as chimps are, no more than that. In other words, chimps could do everything we can do, intelligence wise. Of course there is a difference in that they evolved living their lives, and we evolved living our lives, our mind evolves (just like anything else), so our views evolved differently, and they suit our way of life. How mental things rely on evolution you can see by language, if you don't acquire speech at the certain age (like a feral kid), you will never learn it properly, no matter how "intelligent" you are. Saying this, I was always the best on intelligence tests, I should know what intelligence is, and humans (including me) don't have it. The second thing, there is obvious difference between us and Australopithecus. In my view we separated from Australopithecus, maybe even 10 mya. During that time we continued to live in environment which promotes development of language (rocky sea shores), so we developed it, while Australopithecus, living inland, didn't develop language. I do believe that Australopithecus could copy us, but not more than that. And, to copy us they shouldn't be in war with us. But we, obviously, were in war (the change from gracile to robust Australopithecus is the consequence of that war), so they couldn't see what and how we are doing, they can only see the aftermath of what we were doing. The third thing, Oldowan tools, simple tools. You mentioned chimps, how they sharpen sticks. In other words, chimp need some stick to push it into anthill, they find stick, they sharpen it, and they push it in. In regards to stone tools, what is important is an sharp edge. We, probably, learnt to use those edges by using about the sharpest things in nature, broken shellfish. The problem is with Oldowan tools, though. They are made out of pebbles. Well, pebbles are about the bluntest things in nature. So, this isn't quite intuitive, just the opposite. And then there is a problem with edge itself. This also isn't intuitive. The things you can do with edge aren't quite natural. While chimps have their fingers to poke with them into anthill, and the stick is just an extension of it, we don't have anything edgy which we would extend the use of with sharp, edgy tool. Well, now, when I think about it, maybe our nails are something like that, but this isn't enough. So, the relevance for our evolution (in my view): - we evolved language during maybe even 10 my of living in environment which promotes articulation of sounds (our babies cry as loud as they can, babies of other animals are quiet, because shouting relieves your position, yes, our babies were forced to relieve their position, if you are interested I can explain why), and which promotes analyzing of sound (the environment was infested by constant noise of waves breaking onto rocky shore) - the huge difference in level of language between Australopithecus and Homo, which affected our relationships
i really enjoyed that. im surprised! i like that you brought a new concept in and by an new guy. he was a bit winded, but enjoyable and i actually appreciated seeing the thought process. i would like to see some more like this. i enjoyed that you gave him the floor and let him run with things. im not saying that i am totally on board, just that i like the thought and the way you/he presented it. some things get a bit rote and dry, his was a bit fumbly but totally enjoyable, as though we were having a friendly discussion.
Thank you everyone for the nice comments. I am flattered. If anyone wants to read the article that I authored it is available at any of my social media accounts linked in the bio. The paper is backed by over 30 references from the world's leading paleoanthropologists. Everything I wrote was cited using credible sources only. There is some slight speculation in the discussion and conclusion (which is standard unless you are writing a book report) that is supported by the referenced material. Some educated speculation is necessary in the scientific community because new hypotheses could not evolve without a little speculation. Please enjoy the read as I enjoyed writing it! Thank you
I think that it is probably accurate that nearly every fossil of 'human ancestors' would be more accurately thought of as 'cousins, many times removed'. Even a lot of the definitely human fossils quite possibly have no living descendants, almost every place to live on this planet has at one point or another been taken over by an invader - and some of those invaders have been quite rude to the previous inhabitants. And in most places this has happened many times since 'those particular bones' were fossilized.
@@ericvulgate Probably they all are, more or less, direct ancestors of all the people, or of a specific race of people. This spreads pretty fast throughout the population, there is no such thing as an direct ancestor. Your own kid will have only 50 % of you, and 50 % of people who have nothing to do with you. In a few thousand years whole your country will have a piece of you, and your "direct" ancestors (means, people who inherited your surname) will be made of whole of your country, not of you. For example, if you take that there wouldn't be intermingling, we all (8 billion people) could have a single ancestor in a time of Jesus, 2,000 years ago, this is how fast this spreads.
@@ericvulgate They're family even if they are not ancestral. Having language and using tools are reflexively my most important criteria - and it seems all of genus homo passes that low bar.
Here's my hypothesis: At the present rate, with our young people exercising their thumb's dexterity on their cellphones, I predict it won't be long before the shape of the human hand changes into one with an unusually large and long thumb and shorter digits to accommodate the advancements of the phone. This in turn, will precipitate the way we do many other actions, how we eat, how we communicate, how we use tools and machinery and more. I hope I'm wrong. The human hand is our "trade mark" as a species.
Nice talk, this is a question I had. I think Dr.Lee Berger has made an incredible discovery. I think because of that, Keep Berger is marketing Lee Berger at the cost of good science... My opinion
A man after my own heart, many thanks for this interview. Of course we don't have sufficient evidence as yet to make a definitive judgement but I've long suspected that bipedalism is the 'primitive condition' among hominins at least. As an example the details of Pan and Gorilla knuckle walking suggest convergence rather than a commonly shared trait. Of course if that really is the case some revaluation of older fragmentary fossils may be needed - being bipedal may not indicate a direct 'human ancestor'. Even more controversial? I think there is enough evidence to ask the question "Are all designated members of 'homo' really part of the same lineage?" I would suggest what we are really dealing with is (at least) two parallel bipedal lineages up until very recently, only one of which led directly to 'us' - the split coming somewhere around the time of 'Habilis', maybe even as far back as 'australopiths'. How so? I would suggest said (at least) two long-term parallel lineages can be primarily distinguished by: a) Large-faced, smaller bipeds with relatively smaller brains adapted for walking and climbing - Naledi, Georgicus, Floresiensis, come to mind. b) Small-faced, larger bipeds with relatively larger brains adapted for walking and running - 'Erectus', Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc.., us! If my suspicion does prove to be the case it could make sense of much of the puzzling evidence that has been coming to light over the last 20-30 years. As an interesting aside our 'tree-walking' cousins would seem to have been barely less 'sophisticated' than peers from our lineage, but with relatively smaller brains they may have had a 'wiring advantage'. One might speculate further that as the likes of Floresiensis lasted until fairly recently what it was that pushed our seeming second cousins off life's stage? Maybe a drying world with fewer trees and more of 'us' became less conducive to 'tree-walkers' in comparison to us 'savannah-runners'..? Rambling...
We are slow relarive to most other mammals our size, but humans are the fastest primates in history....by far. The bipedalism of H sapiens is very different from australipithecines. This is likey reflecting the shift from generalist scavenger to hunting carnivore. As an aside, i am a long time runner AND rock/ mountain climber.
Then you should know that no animal can match humans in rock climbing. Even today. As far as I know, they test zoo moats with humans, if humans cannot climb it, no animal can. Second thing, every bipedalism in hominines is the same, we have strong muscles that go around acetabulum, gluteal muscles. The average top speed of humans is 13 to 20 mph. Patas monkey is the fastest primate, 34 mph. Chimpanzees 25 mph. So, we definitely lose in that department, compared to quadrupedality.
@@MarioPetrinovich I actually had a friend who was hired to "primate proof" such a moat for the local zoo. A few years ago I got to observe a passing cougar from a rock climb, and felt quite safe. That guy was off like a rocket when he looked up! As far as mobility, humans top out at 27 mph but that is on a track with spiked shoes so gotta give that up to the cousins, though I think the chimps would gas out more quickly. That said, from 100m to 100 miles, I doubt any others come close in collective performance. We are quite mutable as runners (I was a marathoner in my teens and a sprinter now in my late 60s). And the key thing is, after making the distance, long or short, we can throw a projectile with superior force and accuracy. The great knock-on benefit of bipedality.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 I do understand your view, which is a lot under the influence of current thoughts. I would suggest to you to concentrate on cliff climbing. First apes were slow, deliberate climbers (The Cautious Climber Hypothesis). See that our foot revolves around big toe. This is very useful for cliff climbing. If you take that the only meat that we can eat raw is shellfish, if you take that in sea it is salty (the food we are eating has to be salty, which isn't practical at all), and if you find out about Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, which says that we have subcutaneous fat (instead of fur), just like aquatic mammals have. It is enough for us to climb only 14 ft to be safe from jumping predators. Cats can climb trees, but they cannot climb cliffs, cliffs are the safest sleeping place for baboons. The most annoying sound for humans is nails scratching on a school blackboard, in nature, claws of predators trying to climb cliffs. I would say that the most eerie sound for us is the alarm call of rock hyraxes (sounds like Hitchcock's Psycho). Try to hit a stone towards your feet, and you'll experience the sensation when every muscle in your body works exactly for this motion. This is how we fought predators. If cliff is above water, where predator cannot jump, and where he is constrained by water, you can climb just a foot, and hit him with a sharp stone right into head, a kid can do it. Terrestrial predators don't chase prey into water, they are not build to hunt in water. There is no reason for us to run long distances, because we will lose the sight of our prey. Dogs can do it, and we can follow dogs, but we, ourselves, cannot do it. BTW, as a marathon runner (I used to hike for hours) you may know that you cannot wear anything while doing that, because it will rub your skin and very much hurt. I presume that you have protected nipples when you run marathons.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 Ok, I'll give you some inspiration, since you are rock climber, :) : th-cam.com/video/Wy3SuhEQHVg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=S4xkwtUBJZ0IZjS6 th-cam.com/video/88Y2dLvpFHQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=DwGM9wOOjX0Rt-t4 This is our body plan: th-cam.com/video/xAB9-VGIkzM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Xb07NMymvzwxZMpS
@@MarioPetrinovich First of all it may surprise you that I personally consume a pound of raw steak daily....cooking is unnecessary and counterproductive to optimal human nutrition.
This idea is far more intelligent than a basic assertion of sparse forest trees and walking upright, this is too simplistic, the fossil evidence of archaic hands and feet is much more mixed and unclear for a basic simple narrative to be correct, apart from interbreeding a mixed environment of arboreal people returning to the trees and leaving them again is a credible interesting theory ✌️❤️🇬🇧
This suggests that similar selective pressures were acting in multiple places on the globe: an environmental challenge for which bipedalism is the optimal solution for primates.
"Country of Africa", it's very important to remember that there is no African people or African culture because it is a large continent made up of many, very, very different countries including very diverse genetic characteristics, such as skin tone, hair type, nose shape, etc. Also very different languages, culinary traditions, music, clothing, dance, etc....
I thought it was so interesting @7:00 when he discussed the possibility of evolving backwards into tree dwelling apes. Thats such an interesting theory im sure not many people have ever considered.
Here i am again begging you to reconsider the aquatic ape hypothesis. It also could have happened in various places, and at different stages. PLEASE????
I still vividly remember a particular episode of the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV Specials that followed the works & findings of the Leakey Family (Lewis, Mary & son Richard), in which Richard fits his bare Modern Human foot neatly into a hominin footprint preserved in volcanic ash of then-unknowable Eons ago -- complete with 5 aligned- & forward-pointing tarsal phalangies (toes). Apart from the surprise that Leakey (not a small man)'s foot fit so completely within the ancient impression was the realization that this Pre-Human's foot Wasn't 'in the process' of Losing its grasping big toe -- it was 'Long Gone'. What could that mean in the evolution of Human Bipedalism? Could a "Hopeful Monster" with non-grasping feet have survived into breeding age -- and wouldn't the genetics involved have required aligned toes to be a 'Dominant' trait? This video is my first hearing of newly-discovered bipedal footprints in Crete -- dated to more than 7 M.Y.B.P. -- roughly twice as old as the Australopithicus afarensis called "Lucy" -- making clear that the aligned toes & tarsal arch of the "Modern Human Foot" are actually Ancient features. Have geneticists yet looked for/identified the genes which influence/govern the shape(s) of primate hind appendages (their...Our feet) -- to see if those genes conveyed some other benefit(s) which far-outweighed that of four grasping appendages ?
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. After all, aren't whales an example of "reverse" evolution, land mammals that found an advantage in returning to the sea? And so, if there were a plethora of hominins (and recent Chinese fossils imply even more than we have at the moment) then there could well be some form of circular evolution going on here too.
Nice job once again, great interview, I wish it would be more parts. I wonder, how long does nature need to adopt a feet like arboreal ape into a bipedal ape feet, most probably relatively fast. Probably a million or even much less. What do you think
Bipedal ape foot is completely different than quadrumanual (chimpanzee and the rest of apes) ape foot . These are differences: - chimps use feet as hands, so their big toes is rotated aside. Try to put hand on the table, and you'll see what I mean, thumb will not lay flat on the table, but aside. - more important is that the whole foot actually swung towards big toe. For example, put your hand on a table, with abducted thumb. Now, don't move thumb towards other fingers, but move other fingers towards thumb. Of course, you will not be able to do that. Well, exactly this is what happened to our foot, four toes got close to big toe, and not the other way around. - the next thing, now you have four fingers adducted to you thumb. Ok, now cut your four fingers to the length of your thumb. This is what happened to our foot. - now, other apes (I believe other animals too) have center line of a foot going through middle toe. Our center line goes between big toe and long toe. - apes have so called 'midtarsal break' (I believe other animals also have this). This means that their foot breaks in half, in the middle, it isn't stiff. Our foot is stiff. So, I really don't understand how this guy imagines that all this can be reversed. He, obviously, wasn't properly educated, he still has a lot to learn.
@@MarioPetrinovich while I find Mr. Adams presentation somewhat confused I think his argument is that different species in the human family tree may have developed bipedalism independently from each other. Didn’t say that bipedalism got reversed. Also, we didn’t evolve from chimpanzees: we split and took different evolutionary path. That our common ancestor was more similar to a chimp than to us is a popular idea that afaik is not backed by actual evidence. Just recently saw a video from Erika of the Gutsick Gibbon channel, where she showed a skull of an ape (as old as our CA, possibly one) with a relatively flat face, certainly closer to ours than to the very protruding one of adult chimps. Same may apply for the feet. Do we know that we started with a fully opposable big toe? Or is rather chimps that evolved it and it wasn’t there before the split?
@@pansepot1490 Thanks, you may be right, regarding what author said, I will not re-watch it, :). First, regarding the misconception that we evolved from an animal like chimp. This misconception was abandoned when they found Pierolapithecus. It had short fingers, just like we have, and it looks more like humans than like chimps. So, today scientists think that apes evolved from a creature which looks more like us than like other apes, we are closer to the original situation. The guy probably tried to solve the confusion of Danuvius. Recently they found an ape, Danuvius, which was bipedal, and which is 11.6 my old. Now, either Danuvius was us, and bipedality is that much old (at least), or bipedality emerged several times. So, the guy, simply, said that bipedality emerged several times. But I am claiming for more than 20 years that we were bipedal, certainly, during Vallesian crisis, 9.7 mya, (so, even before than that). So, Danuvius fits nicely into my scenario, but it doesn't fit at all into all those scientific scenarios which say that we split from chimps 4 mya, or something like that. This molecular clock is completely wrong, and always has been wrong, I really don't know why scientists, who should use as much precise instruments as they can, use such ridiculously imprecise "clock". So, Danuvius just confirms my scenario. I am claiming that humans were the source of fire that produced Vallesian crisis, and I have excellent arguments for this.
@@pansepot1490 Ok, I'll write my arguments. I don't think that you are that much into paleoanthropolgy to understand what I am talking about, but anyway. Scientists know that Vallesian crisis (which is a major faunal turnover) is produced by fire, and they think that this fire is produced by climate. They say that Himalayas rose up (I think that later they figured out that the timeline of this doesn't fit), which produced so-called 'Monsoon climate', which, in turn, produced an excess of lightning, which burnt the vegetation. Well, this doesn't fit, since the change in vegetation was too patchy for climate to do this. But, there is much better argument against this. So, the change of vegetation started at north Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and spread to south Mediterranean after 8 mya. So, it spread all over the Mediterranean, and the whole Mediterranean was affected by this. Well, not the whole, in the middle of Mediterranean Sea you had large island, Tusco-Sardinian island, which wasn't affected by this at all. If climate was in question this island, which sits right in the middle of the affected area, would also be affected. Now, this island touched the mainland 6.5 mya, and immediately after it touched the mainland the change occurred. This means that the change came on foot, not by air. Of course, I can support this with my scenario which says that humans never ate raw terrestrial meat, because, simply, we cannot eat it, we don't have carnassials, we always ate meat prepared on fire, this is the only way we can eat it. Wherever humans came into the New World, areas previously not inhabited by humans, Australia, Siberia, Americas, always the same thing happened, humans burned the whole continents. There was evidence for this in Australia, recently it was established that in Siberia happened the same, and just two weeks ago (28th of August) paper was issued which claims that the same thing happened in Americas, as well.
It is hard to say considering different species face different levels of adversity in their surroundings. Crocodiles have not changed hardly at all over the last 200 million years! But! I love this question because I have pondered the same thing, Extreme examples excluded, I feel like it takes about a half million years on average for a species to adapt real significant changes that would begin to classify a species as a new or separate species. I find that on average a quarter million years begins to allow for sub-species type adaptations where variations have begun to sink into the gene pool enough where significant differences, like the opposing styles of feet, would begin to take form. My own term for this is an "evolutionary unit", or rather a significant unit of change that switches the classification from sub-species to separate species. These quantified estimations are primarily based on hominin evolution. Other animal types probably have different sizes, or time frames of evolutionary units. Awesome Question! Thank you!
You mean, because climate becomes warmer? Well, climate was warmer when we became bipedal (2 to 3 C warmer), it was before Ice Age, today we are living in Ice Age. Ice Age works in 100,000 years cycles, you have something like 80,000 cold climate, and in between something like 20,000 years warmer. Now we are in warm period, actually, it looks like this one is very warm. But soon it will be very cold again (5 C colder than today), which will stop ice to evaporate on the poles, and glaciers will spread. During Ice Age there is 3 to 4 km thick ice sheet over Scandinavia and Canada, 1.5 km over Scotland, most of the UK (Wales, Midlands) is covered in ice, Chicago, New York. Trust me, I am really glad that I live in warm period.
...why do I get the impression, @@MarioPetrinovich, that you've spent much of the last Forty Years "Whistling-past the Climatic Graveyard" -- smugly 'assuring' others (desperate to convince yourself) that 4 decades-worth of cumulative data from essentially Every branch of the Natural Sciences which cross-verify the finding that Earth's Climate has warmed more- & more sharply in the last ~200 years than in Any Non-Catastrophic-Event timespan of Earth history.... Anthropogenic Climate Change is REAL, AND it is Accelerating.
Pity about the booming sound quality that made this video intolerable to listen to, for me at least. Surely these days people can make sure they have an adequate mike?
The layman tends to think of Hominin evolution as being comprised of discrete steps; the standard, unchanging model of a named species that is based on the set of bones used to describe the species in the first place. But evolution never stops. That particular set of bones is only a snapshot in time. For example, we differentiate Homo habilis as being distinct from Homo erectus. But it may be possible that H. habilis slowly evolved into H. erectus, blurring the definition of a Hominin species. An even better example is Homo erectus. We believe that H. erectus arose ~2 million years ago and then died out only a couple hundred thousand years ago. H. erectus fossils have been found from the Middle East/Caucasus all the way to Java. Over that ~1.8 million year timespan it is inconceivable that H. erectus did not evolve. The so-called "Dragon Man" found in NE China could very well be an evolved descendent of H. erectus. We just don't have the evidence yet. East Africa has been dubbed the cradle of humanity, possibly starting with "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis). But, in reality, the cradle extends all the way from East Africa, through southern Europe to East Asia.
You are correct. I do appreciate the correction. It is closer to Greece than Italy which even further substantiates the claim that those footprints may have been left by El Graeco! Thank you for your comment.
Scientists don't believe in Aquatic Ape Theory because they are measuring bones (which makes them pretty good tailors), and in aquatic theory there is nothing to measure. Whoever isn't in the tailoring industry (and sees that emperor wears no clothes) believes in Aquatic Ape Theory.
Why? Makes more sense than 'reaching for low hanging fruit, or must be on all fours to cross savannah.' this was a MAJOR evolutionary change that made pregnant women carry their babies in a way that is still exhausting, not to mention making them a target for predators, use both arms to carry squiggly babies on sweaty bodies, not to mention the NUMEROUS skeletal issues that all humans across the planet suffer. Aquatic environment would have allowed bipedalism to come about so slowly, it wouldn't even need mutations. Give it a shot at least. The whole hair on the head thing protecting us from the sun only holds true for maybe three hours a day...the rest of the time it's hitting our bodies full on. Not one thing about Savannah theory makes sense, and SCIENTISTS should have OPEN minds. ( Not that I'm passionate about this theory or anything.😊)
@@stevemartin6042 Big brain isn't for intelligence, there are sub-species of Homo with small brain (H.floresiensis, H.naledi), which are just as intelligent as big brained sub-species.
Did I say country? I'll have to go back and listen, I am sure I probably did misspeak there. You are correct, it is a continent. Thank you for the correction.
I’m impressed with the mastery of big picture ideas Mr. Adams shows, 27:55 and it encourages me that the rigid idea framework that has constrained vision in the history of us is being undermined as the years go by.
I went back to school in my early 60s. Computer science is my major. Now retired, I have the interest and drive and time to pursue my REAL passion. I admire this man for pursuing this very fascinating complex and interesting field!!!!
Mr Gregory's enthusiasm is definitely infectious and love for paleo-anthropology obvious. What also seems obvious now that I think about it is the idea of convergent bipedalism in hominins. I honestly have not heard much about this-- until now! 👏🏼
We know our cats, dogs, and horses can watch others as well as us do things and figure out how to do those things, too, so is it too much to speculate the hominins could observe each other and acquire an ability or a taste for another food.
We know our cats, dogs, parrots, and horses can watch others as well as us do things and figure out how to do those things, too, so is it too much to speculate the hominins could observe each other and acquire an ability to walk bipedaly or a taste for another food.
This is so refreshing. I've always been annoyed by the idea that all of human evolution had to have happened in exactly the areas where fossils happen to be most likely to be preserved. It's like the the story of the drunk looking for his keys under a lamp-post because that's the place with the most light.
Right!
We know that gorillas and chimpanzees evolved their 3-legged walk *after* they split from our lineage. They both used different methods for knuckle walking. This raises the possibility that the common ancestor of us, chimpanzees, and possibly gorillas was bipedal.
The proposition that H. luzonensis was arboreal was made shortly after the discovery, but it's not really confirmed and there is still debate over it.
Given how widely Miocene apes spread it is very likely that a broad range of locomotion strategies evolved, the real question when you go that far back is which branch of these led to us.
IIRC some researchers have advanced the hypothesis that bipedalism, or better a vertical posture, first developed on tree dwelling ancestors. Stretching out arms to reach branches and fruits encouraged standing. Which tbh I find more compelling than the other way around, that is quadrupedal apes getting down of the trees and only then learning bipedalism because they needed to carry stuff around.
Very interesting and thought provoking ideas. Graduate school level work imo.
This is all very important information.
Thanks for spelling it out.
Mr. Gregory's ideas are fascinating.
You guys are the best. Thank you for your continued support! Let's print the article on vinyl!, audiobook style! 😀
Bipedalism developing more than once seems quite possible, even probable. After all, if bipedalism was an evolutionary advantage in certain environments, then it's only logical it could develop in closely related species.
Lovely interview
Question for Mr. Adams: Why are you not looking at living gibbons and siamangs? On the ground they walk bipedally. They are gracile and have a small face. They fight with their fists, not their teeth. They don't have fertility swelling. They are pair-bonded. They sing. Young gibbons spend 10 years with their parents before becoming independent at puberty. More to the point, in phylogenetic analysis the lineage of Sahelanthropus > Hylobates,+ Ardipithecus > Oreopithecus > Homo erectus + Homo floresiensis leads to Homo sapiens and moves Australopithecus and Homo naledi between Pongo and Pan + Gorilla. So, YES to convergent bipedalism. Geography, temperature, time, are all important. But phylogenetic analysis will give you the falsifiable evidence you seek. Google: "More gibbon traits: Decide if these seem human-like." for links to cladograms and more details.
Scientist concluded that this cannot be (I am not an expert), Hylobates were the first. Also, shouldn't Oreopithecus be before Ardipitecus? Third, H.erectus is similar to Trachilos footprints, which is before Ardipithecus. We had two concurrent forms of bipedalism, the adducted big toe bipedalism (human-like), and the abducted big toe bipedalism (Ardipithecus). Those existed at the same time.
BTW, humans are more like the original state of Pierolapithecus, even compared to hylobates. Long fingers and brachiation evolved later, first it were short fingers, vertical clinging (as far as I could tell).
@@MarioPetrinovich citation please? I know the tradition. Taxon exclusion is often the problem, which can be readily resolved by adding taxa.
@@DAVIDPETERS12C Hm, I posted a link to paper, but I don't see it now. The paper is called: "New Middle Miocene Ape (Primates: Hylobatidae) from Ramnagar, India fills major gaps in the hominoid fossil record".
@@MarioPetrinovich Thank you! The cladogram (free online) is missing several of the fossil taxa listed above... and Homo, and Australopithecus. This is common, unfortunately.
@@DAVIDPETERS12C They are missing because it is well established where they belong in this cladogram. You will have to learn more, and have more trust in scientists, they know all the bones, they can place fossils pretty accurately. In some ways your ideas are pretty off in what should be. Each bone evolves, and scientists can see how, and they know those things (along with DNA distance). The fact that some species lives in pair and signs isn't enough. Read about facial orientation, airorhynchy, klinorhynchy, learn about tooth enamel thickness, human lineage has thick enamel.
Loved it. Smart guy.
A terrific interview again. You have a range of guests and cover a range of subjects which keeps things interesting. Though he got himself across clearly, Gregory wasn't as smooth as some who have had much more experience with public presentation but I feel this only served to give him a charm and relatability. Although I've watched a lot of your interviews I haven't watched them all, so you have maybe already covered this. Something about talking about bipedalism sparked a question in me. In opposition to bipedalism, I started to wonder about the biomechanics of tool usage. I would assume that it is more than simply having free hands. Hand shape, forearm-length, wrist and shoulder position as well as the brain development.
No, it is enough to have hand, a lot of primates use tools. Even crows use tools. For tool manufacture, though, you definitely need to have language. For example, tools emerged only when Homo emerged, they weren't here in the time of Australopithecus. Homo and Australopithecus are almost the same, the difference should be in language.
@@MarioPetrinovichI think we should probably hold distinctions between the types of tool use. As you said, crows use tools (as do numerous other species).
To my mind, there are three types of tool usages: serendipitous tool use, manufactured tool use, and chemical tool use. A chimp uses a stick to poke into an anthill (or into a monkey) is serendipitous tool use-it found a use for a tool it found. When an ancient hominid uses fire to harden the point of a stick, or uses a strap to throw a rock farther or harder (like a sling), that’s a manufactured tool. (I believe that some chimps will chew on a stick to make the tip sharper; that, too, is mechanical tool use.)
The third type of tool use involves using chemical reactions to make or improve a tool. Blending resin with ash and then heating it to create a glue to help attach stone points to wood sticks is a level of tool use that we have yet to see with other species. Another example would be chemically altering hides to tan them into leather; using vegetable matter to tan a hide to make a stronger leather, using brain tissue rubbed into the hide to make buckskin, a softer leather, or using fish oils to make a very soft, absorbent leather. We know that the first two techniques were used in prehistoric times; I have no problem with thinking that prehistoric people found out how to make something akin to chamois leather, although the modern practice dates to the early 18th century.
There is no doubt that language is not necessary for the first type of tool use to spread. And arguably language use is not necessary for at least the early stages of mechanical tool use-you don’t need language to communicate how to sharpen a stick with your teeth. But to get to the third type of tool use, I don’t see how it could possibly propagate without language. The changes that are needed for turning X into Y are too complex and time consuming to pass on from individual to individual without language.
@@DneilB007 I will not go that deep into all this. Maybe to give you my few starting positions.
The first one, in my view humans aren't intelligent beings, we are just as much intelligent as chimps are, no more than that. In other words, chimps could do everything we can do, intelligence wise. Of course there is a difference in that they evolved living their lives, and we evolved living our lives, our mind evolves (just like anything else), so our views evolved differently, and they suit our way of life. How mental things rely on evolution you can see by language, if you don't acquire speech at the certain age (like a feral kid), you will never learn it properly, no matter how "intelligent" you are. Saying this, I was always the best on intelligence tests, I should know what intelligence is, and humans (including me) don't have it.
The second thing, there is obvious difference between us and Australopithecus. In my view we separated from Australopithecus, maybe even 10 mya. During that time we continued to live in environment which promotes development of language (rocky sea shores), so we developed it, while Australopithecus, living inland, didn't develop language. I do believe that Australopithecus could copy us, but not more than that. And, to copy us they shouldn't be in war with us. But we, obviously, were in war (the change from gracile to robust Australopithecus is the consequence of that war), so they couldn't see what and how we are doing, they can only see the aftermath of what we were doing.
The third thing, Oldowan tools, simple tools. You mentioned chimps, how they sharpen sticks. In other words, chimp need some stick to push it into anthill, they find stick, they sharpen it, and they push it in. In regards to stone tools, what is important is an sharp edge. We, probably, learnt to use those edges by using about the sharpest things in nature, broken shellfish. The problem is with Oldowan tools, though. They are made out of pebbles. Well, pebbles are about the bluntest things in nature. So, this isn't quite intuitive, just the opposite. And then there is a problem with edge itself. This also isn't intuitive. The things you can do with edge aren't quite natural. While chimps have their fingers to poke with them into anthill, and the stick is just an extension of it, we don't have anything edgy which we would extend the use of with sharp, edgy tool. Well, now, when I think about it, maybe our nails are something like that, but this isn't enough.
So, the relevance for our evolution (in my view):
- we evolved language during maybe even 10 my of living in environment which promotes articulation of sounds (our babies cry as loud as they can, babies of other animals are quiet, because shouting relieves your position, yes, our babies were forced to relieve their position, if you are interested I can explain why), and which promotes analyzing of sound (the environment was infested by constant noise of waves breaking onto rocky shore)
- the huge difference in level of language between Australopithecus and Homo, which affected our relationships
i really enjoyed that. im surprised! i like that you brought a new concept in and by an new guy. he was a bit winded, but enjoyable and i actually appreciated seeing the thought process.
i would like to see some more like this. i enjoyed that you gave him the floor and let him run with things. im not saying that i am totally on board, just that i like the thought and the way you/he presented it. some things get a bit rote and dry, his was a bit fumbly but totally enjoyable, as though we were having a friendly discussion.
you're a smart fellow think. Thanks for making the time mr.Soup
Liked and subscribed. Thanks again
Thank you everyone for the nice comments. I am flattered. If anyone wants to read the article that I authored it is available at any of my social media accounts linked in the bio. The paper is backed by over 30 references from the world's leading paleoanthropologists. Everything I wrote was cited using credible sources only. There is some slight speculation in the discussion and conclusion (which is standard unless you are writing a book report) that is supported by the referenced material. Some educated speculation is necessary in the scientific community because new hypotheses could not evolve without a little speculation. Please enjoy the read as I enjoyed writing it! Thank you
I think that it is probably accurate that nearly every fossil of 'human ancestors' would be more accurately thought of as 'cousins, many times removed'. Even a lot of the definitely human fossils quite possibly have no living descendants, almost every place to live on this planet has at one point or another been taken over by an invader - and some of those invaders have been quite rude to the previous inhabitants. And in most places this has happened many times since 'those particular bones' were fossilized.
It's neat to think though that one of the fossils we have discovered could be an actual direct ancestor to someone's alive today.
@@ericvulgate Probably they all are, more or less, direct ancestors of all the people, or of a specific race of people. This spreads pretty fast throughout the population, there is no such thing as an direct ancestor. Your own kid will have only 50 % of you, and 50 % of people who have nothing to do with you. In a few thousand years whole your country will have a piece of you, and your "direct" ancestors (means, people who inherited your surname) will be made of whole of your country, not of you. For example, if you take that there wouldn't be intermingling, we all (8 billion people) could have a single ancestor in a time of Jesus, 2,000 years ago, this is how fast this spreads.
@@ericvulgate They're family even if they are not ancestral. Having language and using tools are reflexively my most important criteria - and it seems all of genus homo passes that low bar.
Another great video...thanks...love the passion.
Here's my hypothesis: At the present rate, with our young people exercising their thumb's dexterity on their cellphones, I predict it won't be long before the shape of the human hand changes into one with an unusually large and long thumb and shorter digits to accommodate the advancements of the phone. This in turn, will precipitate the way we do many other actions, how we eat, how we communicate, how we use tools and machinery and more.
I hope I'm wrong. The human hand is our "trade mark" as a species.
He is right! Its now obvious! Old views no longer support the entirety of human evolution
I really like your channel. The topic was awesome, and please have Mr. Gregory Adams on again.
Is Mr. Adams thesis online ? It would be fascinating to read.
Yes, you can find the article posted to my social media accounts listed in the bio. Thank you
As bipedalism spread, I think eventually the bipedal individuals left the population and began more migration between forests
Nice talk, this is a question I had.
I think Dr.Lee Berger has made an incredible discovery. I think because of that, Keep Berger is marketing Lee Berger at the cost of good science... My opinion
A man after my own heart, many thanks for this interview.
Of course we don't have sufficient evidence as yet to make a definitive judgement but I've long suspected that bipedalism is the 'primitive condition' among hominins at least. As an example the details of Pan and Gorilla knuckle walking suggest convergence rather than a commonly shared trait. Of course if that really is the case some revaluation of older fragmentary fossils may be needed - being bipedal may not indicate a direct 'human ancestor'.
Even more controversial?
I think there is enough evidence to ask the question "Are all designated members of 'homo' really part of the same lineage?" I would suggest what we are really dealing with is (at least) two parallel bipedal lineages up until very recently, only one of which led directly to 'us' - the split coming somewhere around the time of 'Habilis', maybe even as far back as 'australopiths'.
How so?
I would suggest said (at least) two long-term parallel lineages can be primarily distinguished by:
a) Large-faced, smaller bipeds with relatively smaller brains adapted for walking and climbing - Naledi, Georgicus, Floresiensis, come to mind.
b) Small-faced, larger bipeds with relatively larger brains adapted for walking and running - 'Erectus', Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc.., us!
If my suspicion does prove to be the case it could make sense of much of the puzzling evidence that has been coming to light over the last 20-30 years.
As an interesting aside our 'tree-walking' cousins would seem to have been barely less 'sophisticated' than peers from our lineage, but with relatively smaller brains they may have had a 'wiring advantage'. One might speculate further that as the likes of Floresiensis lasted until fairly recently what it was that pushed our seeming second cousins off life's stage? Maybe a drying world with fewer trees and more of 'us' became less conducive to 'tree-walkers' in comparison to us 'savannah-runners'..?
Rambling...
We are slow relarive to most other mammals our size, but humans are the fastest primates in history....by far. The bipedalism of H sapiens is very different from australipithecines. This is likey reflecting the shift from generalist scavenger to hunting carnivore.
As an aside, i am a long time runner AND rock/ mountain climber.
Then you should know that no animal can match humans in rock climbing. Even today. As far as I know, they test zoo moats with humans, if humans cannot climb it, no animal can.
Second thing, every bipedalism in hominines is the same, we have strong muscles that go around acetabulum, gluteal muscles.
The average top speed of humans is 13 to 20 mph. Patas monkey is the fastest primate, 34 mph. Chimpanzees 25 mph. So, we definitely lose in that department, compared to quadrupedality.
@@MarioPetrinovich I actually had a friend who was hired to "primate proof" such a moat for the local zoo. A few years ago I got to observe a passing cougar from a rock climb, and felt quite safe. That guy was off like a rocket when he looked up!
As far as mobility, humans top out at 27 mph but that is on a track with spiked shoes so gotta give that up to the cousins, though I think the chimps would gas out more quickly. That said, from 100m to 100 miles, I doubt any others come close in collective performance. We are quite mutable as runners (I was a marathoner in my teens and a sprinter now in my late 60s).
And the key thing is, after making the distance, long or short, we can throw a projectile with superior force and accuracy. The great knock-on benefit of bipedality.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 I do understand your view, which is a lot under the influence of current thoughts. I would suggest to you to concentrate on cliff climbing. First apes were slow, deliberate climbers (The Cautious Climber Hypothesis). See that our foot revolves around big toe. This is very useful for cliff climbing. If you take that the only meat that we can eat raw is shellfish, if you take that in sea it is salty (the food we are eating has to be salty, which isn't practical at all), and if you find out about Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, which says that we have subcutaneous fat (instead of fur), just like aquatic mammals have. It is enough for us to climb only 14 ft to be safe from jumping predators. Cats can climb trees, but they cannot climb cliffs, cliffs are the safest sleeping place for baboons. The most annoying sound for humans is nails scratching on a school blackboard, in nature, claws of predators trying to climb cliffs. I would say that the most eerie sound for us is the alarm call of rock hyraxes (sounds like Hitchcock's Psycho). Try to hit a stone towards your feet, and you'll experience the sensation when every muscle in your body works exactly for this motion. This is how we fought predators. If cliff is above water, where predator cannot jump, and where he is constrained by water, you can climb just a foot, and hit him with a sharp stone right into head, a kid can do it. Terrestrial predators don't chase prey into water, they are not build to hunt in water.
There is no reason for us to run long distances, because we will lose the sight of our prey. Dogs can do it, and we can follow dogs, but we, ourselves, cannot do it. BTW, as a marathon runner (I used to hike for hours) you may know that you cannot wear anything while doing that, because it will rub your skin and very much hurt. I presume that you have protected nipples when you run marathons.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 Ok, I'll give you some inspiration, since you are rock climber, :) :
th-cam.com/video/Wy3SuhEQHVg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=S4xkwtUBJZ0IZjS6
th-cam.com/video/88Y2dLvpFHQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=DwGM9wOOjX0Rt-t4
This is our body plan:
th-cam.com/video/xAB9-VGIkzM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Xb07NMymvzwxZMpS
@@MarioPetrinovich First of all it may surprise you that I personally consume a pound of raw steak daily....cooking is unnecessary and counterproductive to optimal human nutrition.
This idea is far more intelligent than a basic assertion of sparse forest trees and walking upright, this is too simplistic, the fossil evidence of archaic hands and feet is much more mixed and unclear for a basic simple narrative to be correct, apart from interbreeding a mixed environment of arboreal people returning to the trees and leaving them again is a credible interesting theory ✌️❤️🇬🇧
This suggests that similar selective pressures were acting in multiple places on the globe: an environmental challenge for which bipedalism is the optimal solution for primates.
It's certainly logical.
"Country of Africa", it's very important to remember that there is no African people or African culture because it is a large continent made up of many, very, very different countries including very diverse genetic characteristics, such as skin tone, hair type, nose shape, etc. Also very different languages, culinary traditions, music, clothing, dance, etc....
I am sorry for misspeaking there. You are correct, it is a continent, not a country. I appreciate the correction. Thank you for your comment.
I thought it was so interesting @7:00 when he discussed the possibility of evolving backwards into tree dwelling apes. Thats such an interesting theory im sure not many people have ever considered.
Here i am again begging you to reconsider the aquatic ape hypothesis. It also could have happened in various places, and at different stages. PLEASE????
To believe humans are a creation of a god is delusional we are a creation of the evolution of nature
Interesting stuff.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched 00:01
His theory of convergent theory on human evolution would definitely be peer reviewed...
I still vividly remember a particular episode of the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC TV Specials that followed the works & findings of the Leakey Family (Lewis, Mary & son Richard), in which Richard fits his bare Modern Human foot neatly into a hominin footprint preserved in volcanic ash of then-unknowable Eons ago -- complete with 5 aligned- & forward-pointing tarsal phalangies (toes).
Apart from the surprise that Leakey (not a small man)'s foot fit so completely within the ancient impression was the realization that this Pre-Human's foot Wasn't 'in the process' of Losing its grasping big toe -- it was 'Long Gone'.
What could that mean in the evolution of Human Bipedalism? Could a "Hopeful Monster" with non-grasping feet have survived into breeding age -- and wouldn't the genetics involved have required aligned toes to be a 'Dominant' trait?
This video is my first hearing of newly-discovered bipedal footprints in Crete -- dated to more than 7 M.Y.B.P. -- roughly twice as old as the Australopithicus afarensis called "Lucy" -- making clear that the aligned toes & tarsal arch of the "Modern Human Foot" are actually Ancient features.
Have geneticists yet looked for/identified the genes which influence/govern the shape(s) of primate hind appendages (their...Our feet) -- to see if those genes conveyed some other benefit(s) which far-outweighed that of four grasping appendages ?
Matted dreadlock...love it!
LOL - matted dreadlock
😁
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. After all, aren't whales an example of "reverse" evolution, land mammals that found an advantage in returning to the sea? And so, if there were a plethora of hominins (and recent Chinese fossils imply even more than we have at the moment) then there could well be some form of circular evolution going on here too.
Nice job once again, great interview, I wish it would be more parts. I wonder, how long does nature need to adopt a feet like arboreal ape into a bipedal ape feet, most probably relatively fast. Probably a million or even much less. What do you think
Bipedal ape foot is completely different than quadrumanual (chimpanzee and the rest of apes) ape foot . These are differences:
- chimps use feet as hands, so their big toes is rotated aside. Try to put hand on the table, and you'll see what I mean, thumb will not lay flat on the table, but aside.
- more important is that the whole foot actually swung towards big toe. For example, put your hand on a table, with abducted thumb. Now, don't move thumb towards other fingers, but move other fingers towards thumb. Of course, you will not be able to do that. Well, exactly this is what happened to our foot, four toes got close to big toe, and not the other way around.
- the next thing, now you have four fingers adducted to you thumb. Ok, now cut your four fingers to the length of your thumb. This is what happened to our foot.
- now, other apes (I believe other animals too) have center line of a foot going through middle toe. Our center line goes between big toe and long toe.
- apes have so called 'midtarsal break' (I believe other animals also have this). This means that their foot breaks in half, in the middle, it isn't stiff. Our foot is stiff.
So, I really don't understand how this guy imagines that all this can be reversed. He, obviously, wasn't properly educated, he still has a lot to learn.
@@MarioPetrinovich while I find Mr. Adams presentation somewhat confused I think his argument is that different species in the human family tree may have developed bipedalism independently from each other. Didn’t say that bipedalism got reversed.
Also, we didn’t evolve from chimpanzees: we split and took different evolutionary path. That our common ancestor was more similar to a chimp than to us is a popular idea that afaik is not backed by actual evidence. Just recently saw a video from Erika of the Gutsick Gibbon channel, where she showed a skull of an ape (as old as our CA, possibly one) with a relatively flat face, certainly closer to ours than to the very protruding one of adult chimps. Same may apply for the feet. Do we know that we started with a fully opposable big toe? Or is rather chimps that evolved it and it wasn’t there before the split?
@@pansepot1490 Thanks, you may be right, regarding what author said, I will not re-watch it, :).
First, regarding the misconception that we evolved from an animal like chimp. This misconception was abandoned when they found Pierolapithecus. It had short fingers, just like we have, and it looks more like humans than like chimps. So, today scientists think that apes evolved from a creature which looks more like us than like other apes, we are closer to the original situation. The guy probably tried to solve the confusion of Danuvius. Recently they found an ape, Danuvius, which was bipedal, and which is 11.6 my old. Now, either Danuvius was us, and bipedality is that much old (at least), or bipedality emerged several times. So, the guy, simply, said that bipedality emerged several times.
But I am claiming for more than 20 years that we were bipedal, certainly, during Vallesian crisis, 9.7 mya, (so, even before than that). So, Danuvius fits nicely into my scenario, but it doesn't fit at all into all those scientific scenarios which say that we split from chimps 4 mya, or something like that. This molecular clock is completely wrong, and always has been wrong, I really don't know why scientists, who should use as much precise instruments as they can, use such ridiculously imprecise "clock".
So, Danuvius just confirms my scenario. I am claiming that humans were the source of fire that produced Vallesian crisis, and I have excellent arguments for this.
@@pansepot1490 Ok, I'll write my arguments. I don't think that you are that much into paleoanthropolgy to understand what I am talking about, but anyway.
Scientists know that Vallesian crisis (which is a major faunal turnover) is produced by fire, and they think that this fire is produced by climate. They say that Himalayas rose up (I think that later they figured out that the timeline of this doesn't fit), which produced so-called 'Monsoon climate', which, in turn, produced an excess of lightning, which burnt the vegetation. Well, this doesn't fit, since the change in vegetation was too patchy for climate to do this. But, there is much better argument against this. So, the change of vegetation started at north Mediterranean, 9.7 mya, and spread to south Mediterranean after 8 mya. So, it spread all over the Mediterranean, and the whole Mediterranean was affected by this. Well, not the whole, in the middle of Mediterranean Sea you had large island, Tusco-Sardinian island, which wasn't affected by this at all. If climate was in question this island, which sits right in the middle of the affected area, would also be affected. Now, this island touched the mainland 6.5 mya, and immediately after it touched the mainland the change occurred. This means that the change came on foot, not by air.
Of course, I can support this with my scenario which says that humans never ate raw terrestrial meat, because, simply, we cannot eat it, we don't have carnassials, we always ate meat prepared on fire, this is the only way we can eat it. Wherever humans came into the New World, areas previously not inhabited by humans, Australia, Siberia, Americas, always the same thing happened, humans burned the whole continents. There was evidence for this in Australia, recently it was established that in Siberia happened the same, and just two weeks ago (28th of August) paper was issued which claims that the same thing happened in Americas, as well.
It is hard to say considering different species face different levels of adversity in their surroundings. Crocodiles have not changed hardly at all over the last 200 million years! But! I love this question because I have pondered the same thing, Extreme examples excluded, I feel like it takes about a half million years on average for a species to adapt real significant changes that would begin to classify a species as a new or separate species. I find that on average a quarter million years begins to allow for sub-species type adaptations where variations have begun to sink into the gene pool enough where significant differences, like the opposing styles of feet, would begin to take form. My own term for this is an "evolutionary unit", or rather a significant unit of change that switches the classification from sub-species to separate species. These quantified estimations are primarily based on hominin evolution. Other animal types probably have different sizes, or time frames of evolutionary units. Awesome Question! Thank you!
Walking on two legs is also more energy efficient than walking on four legs. Less energy means less production of excess heat.
his comments make me wonder if there will be new adaptations emerging with climate change.
You mean, because climate becomes warmer? Well, climate was warmer when we became bipedal (2 to 3 C warmer), it was before Ice Age, today we are living in Ice Age. Ice Age works in 100,000 years cycles, you have something like 80,000 cold climate, and in between something like 20,000 years warmer. Now we are in warm period, actually, it looks like this one is very warm. But soon it will be very cold again (5 C colder than today), which will stop ice to evaporate on the poles, and glaciers will spread. During Ice Age there is 3 to 4 km thick ice sheet over Scandinavia and Canada, 1.5 km over Scotland, most of the UK (Wales, Midlands) is covered in ice, Chicago, New York. Trust me, I am really glad that I live in warm period.
...why do I get the impression, @@MarioPetrinovich, that you've spent much of the last Forty Years "Whistling-past the Climatic Graveyard" -- smugly 'assuring' others (desperate to convince yourself) that 4 decades-worth of cumulative data from essentially Every branch of the Natural Sciences which cross-verify the finding that Earth's Climate has warmed more- & more sharply in the last ~200 years than in Any Non-Catastrophic-Event timespan of Earth history....
Anthropogenic Climate Change is REAL, AND it is Accelerating.
Pity about the booming sound quality that made this video intolerable to listen to, for me at least. Surely these days people can make sure they have an adequate mike?
I went back at 56
The layman tends to think of Hominin evolution as being comprised of discrete steps; the standard, unchanging model of a named species that is based on the set of bones used to describe the species in the first place. But evolution never stops. That particular set of bones is only a snapshot in time. For example, we differentiate Homo habilis as being distinct from Homo erectus. But it may be possible that H. habilis slowly evolved into H. erectus, blurring the definition of a Hominin species. An even better example is Homo erectus. We believe that H. erectus arose ~2 million years ago and then died out only a couple hundred thousand years ago. H. erectus fossils have been found from the Middle East/Caucasus all the way to Java. Over that ~1.8 million year timespan it is inconceivable that H. erectus did not evolve. The so-called "Dragon Man" found in NE China could very well be an evolved descendent of H. erectus. We just don't have the evidence yet. East Africa has been dubbed the cradle of humanity, possibly starting with "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis). But, in reality, the cradle extends all the way from East Africa, through southern Europe to East Asia.
@@MarioPetrinovich Yes, that makes sense. Perhaps punctuated evolution being stimulated by environmental changes like the Milankovitch Cycle?
You know, krete is a greek island
You are correct. I do appreciate the correction. It is closer to Greece than Italy which even further substantiates the claim that those footprints may have been left by El Graeco! Thank you for your comment.
Gibbons and Siamangs are bipedal
Darn, not a fan of the aquatic ape hypothesis.
Scientists don't believe in Aquatic Ape Theory because they are measuring bones (which makes them pretty good tailors), and in aquatic theory there is nothing to measure. Whoever isn't in the tailoring industry (and sees that emperor wears no clothes) believes in Aquatic Ape Theory.
Why? Makes more sense than 'reaching for low hanging fruit, or must be on all fours to cross savannah.' this was a MAJOR evolutionary change that made pregnant women carry their babies in a way that is still exhausting, not to mention making them a target for predators, use both arms to carry squiggly babies on sweaty bodies, not to mention the NUMEROUS skeletal issues that all humans across the planet suffer. Aquatic environment would have allowed bipedalism to come about so slowly, it wouldn't even need mutations. Give it a shot at least. The whole hair on the head thing protecting us from the sun only holds true for maybe three hours a day...the rest of the time it's hitting our bodies full on. Not one thing about Savannah theory makes sense, and SCIENTISTS should have OPEN minds. ( Not that I'm passionate about this theory or anything.😊)
There is not a nitch. It is niche.
I agree with Gregory and have thought this myself. Just because they havent found proof does not mean it did not happen. Its all theory.
4 hands evolved to 2hands!
4 hands in a tree for vegan ,2 hands and 2feet on the ground for omnivores then bigger brains could be developed.
@@stevemartin6042 Big brain isn't for intelligence, there are sub-species of Homo with small brain (H.floresiensis, H.naledi), which are just as intelligent as big brained sub-species.
Africa a country?
Did I say country? I'll have to go back and listen, I am sure I probably did misspeak there. You are correct, it is a continent. Thank you for the correction.
Poor sppeaker slow thinker. Not a real Ph.D.
Your opinion is your right. I never claimed to have a Ph D.