This was a frank, honest confrontation of some deeply unsettling questions presented by the seeming outliers, Florensis and Naledi. Warmest compliments. Thank you.
input from dr. chatbot: When considering brain size proportionately, Homo naledi's brain size may not seem as small relative to their body size. Homo naledi was indeed smaller in stature, with an estimated height of about 4.5 to 5 feet and a body mass of around 100 pounds, more comparable to a preadolescent Homo sapiens. Proportionally, their brain size relative to their body size would be closer to that of young Homo sapiens. It's a fascinating perspective, showing that while absolute brain size is one metric, the brain to body size ratio and the cognitive capabilities are equally important to understand the complexities of different human ancestors.
Talking points from creationist websites, its been debunked. Anatomically naledi has characteristics consistent with archaic non human hominids. Some creationists say its an ape some say its a human, the quintessential missing link.
If my information is correct ,isn't it a fact that neanderthals had larger brain capacity then homo sapians ?" But ,that species died out as a distinct branch of the homo sapian family tree ?" We know that their DNA is carried as a trace remnant in many modern humans obviously due to cross breeding , But if brain size is the ultimate yardstick in our perception of what constitutes an advanced species ,then we " homo sapian sapians fall short !" I think more research should be done on the structure of the brain and how that contributed to intelligence . After all ,even in our modern understanding of brain development ,we have to admit that some animals have larger brains than us today , yet because of body ratio to brian capacity ,and environment along with morphology , they don't show evidence of them being more intelligent than humans !" Latent ability has to also include the brain structure ,not just size to explain the anomalies we find in our human ,and human related family tree .
The fossil record bearing on the ancestry of Pleistocene Homo is poor. However, the more we learn about early Homo, the less compelling is the case that an adaptive shift can be read from currently documented skull and skeletal anatomy as a ‘major transition’ from generalized Australopithecus precursors. To classify we are thus left with secondary traits - physical attributes, social behavior and tool use.
Yesterday I saw a TH-cam video of a woman with a cute little bunny on her chest; she nodded her head three times, and then the bunny then did the same. We mock dogs because, while they seem to be able to press buttons to express emotions and needs, but they seem unable to guess how long they will be denied your company. "The Brain Clock. The brain has different 'clocks' for different time scales. One is formed by a dopamine-generated neuronal circuit that runs between the substantia nigra the basal ganglia, and the prefrontal cortex. Each 'cycle' of the cock creates a single 'packet' of subjective time." - The Human Brain Book by Rita Carter. I noticed my ability to multi-task started to decline at about 60. Now I have to write down my grocery list or I will forget an item. The size of the prefrontal cortex, (along with the implied complexity of its interaction with the rest of the brain AND the complexity of neural electro/chemistry), implies, not JUST short term memory, but a whole range of social and survival behaviors. I'm all in on the gradual development of what it means to be human.
Yes, that and the fact, that different amphetamines work different on especially bloodsugar, in different genomica. Both facts are basics of neural brain science, but there were basics before that base came together, did I make myself clear or is this to complicated to inrange?
@@DAlienzombie Well, I think you are saying that the H Sapience brain takes an inordinate amount of energy compared to earlier versions of genus homo and the conversion of (or to) glucose to provide that energy is related to, and less efficient in, early genetic versions of us. Or, brain volume is less important than the brain chemistry in providing enough energy in later versions of H. Sapience. So my point is brain organization and yours is that chemistry underlies organization. I can see that.
@@marvinegreen Mucho Gusto, Gracias. As I am a bum and not an intellectual, please go on. I may just intermedia something, sometimes. The thing about the organisation is, that it may vary to change in future offspring, and can sometimes not change back.
Neanderthals, they were rough around the edges okay? Not primitive. They were too specialized to adapt. Trauma and extreme adversity do hinder neuroplasticity. Their DNA was just compatible enough however to make the cut 😅 H. Naledi, h. Florsiensis - premodern lineages that didn’t make the cut. Neanderthals - or part of that genome - merged back into the sapien branch. Assuming Naledi and Flores remained isolated lineages when they died out. BUT, then you have the ghost lineages - were they the earliest “humans” who merged back into the line? In our development, how many times did offshoots evolve independently and re-mix? How many were too far removed to move back? And why did our early ancestors essentially hump everything? So many questions.
I have a small head (a bucket hat for 7 -11 yo fits me) and I guess therefore small brain. Does that mean I'm not human? If I'm not human, my parents and ancestors were not human - and that means that there are/were hominins that are equally intelligent despite of not belonging to group of homo, despite of their small brains. Also, ravens have pretty small brains, yet they are proven to be quite intelligent.
Almost 11 pm, getting ready for bed and - Neanderthals? Yes please, this odd fascination with archaic lineages. Did Neanderthals stay up late I wonder? What did they dream of by ancient campfires?
In my mind I think of Homo Erectus as being almost human, almost like us. But all those who came before Erectus I do not consider to be human, just too primitive.
Both are correct. The quadline 'Homo' holds different genomica, until they hybrid to different forms of Upper Class 'Homo Sapiens', and become 'Homo Sapiens Sapiens' in about the Neolithikum.
If is for absolute brain size... well then some aquatic mammals are clearly more intelligent than human sapiens are... plus gets hard to explain the intelligence of birds etc... but yeah maybe they do deserve a new genus (not paranthropos)...
If they were primitive humans, they were still human. Maybe not homo sapiens (we need much more evidence and studies before we could even think of calling that), but possibly homo naledi and homo floresiensis as is the current designation. Homo sapiens has the nasty habit of calling other species non homo or non homo sapiens before all the evidence is in.
These stereocillia need to repair over time when bent too far. We need the genetic opportunity for this repair, then my father could have heard as well as in his youth before rock drilling. This would desperately help those exposed to cannon fire on the artillery pad.
This is just because modern humans don’t want to admit we came from apes. These apes survived, used tools, developed societies and relationships. We’re lucky they survived and we are from them.
If so, then how come all different "races" are named "homo sapiens". Yes, different sets of humans formed different ethnic groups, but we still retain the same genetic composition. It's the reason why "mixed-race" people exist, as humans of different "races" (with the term "race" itself being an arbitrary term) intermingle and produce children with mixed appearances who are themselves given ability to reproduce with other humans, whether of similar/differing ethnicities.
What is "Human"?
What is a woman
It appears that only humans ponder over that question, and not many of them at that.
What is hu
@@darcymoon2109 "Hu" is the name of my Korean born pediatrician. Doctor Hu.
hyoid bone + FOXP2 gene?
This was a frank, honest confrontation of some deeply unsettling questions presented by the seeming outliers, Florensis and Naledi. Warmest compliments. Thank you.
Using fire instead of running from it was the tipping point into being human.
Good book about that, catching fire. It obviously changed diet through cooking too
The first fire was probably lightening then very clever hominids learnt how to make it and cook with it. 😊
If you're making spearheads and arrowheads you are human.
You had mentioned that you were going to cover this particular debate. Thank you.
input from dr. chatbot:
When considering brain size proportionately, Homo naledi's brain size may not seem as small relative to their body size. Homo naledi was indeed smaller in stature, with an estimated height of about 4.5 to 5 feet and a body mass of around 100 pounds, more comparable to a preadolescent Homo sapiens.
Proportionally, their brain size relative to their body size would be closer to that of young Homo sapiens. It's a fascinating perspective, showing that while absolute brain size is one metric, the brain to body size ratio and the cognitive capabilities are equally important to understand the complexities of different human ancestors.
Talking points from creationist websites, its been debunked. Anatomically naledi has characteristics consistent with archaic non human hominids. Some creationists say its an ape some say its a human, the quintessential missing link.
I always enjoy and look forward to your postings. This one is particularly well done, organized and sourced. Good job!
Your content has been exceptional as of late - great work
If my information is correct ,isn't it a fact that neanderthals had larger brain capacity then homo sapians ?" But ,that species died out as a distinct branch of the homo sapian family tree ?" We know that their DNA is carried as a trace remnant in many modern humans obviously due to cross breeding , But if brain size is the ultimate yardstick in our perception of what constitutes an advanced species ,then we " homo sapian sapians fall short !" I think more research should be done on the structure of the brain and how that contributed to intelligence . After all ,even in our modern understanding of brain development ,we have to admit that some animals have larger brains than us today , yet because of body ratio to brian capacity ,and environment along with morphology , they don't show evidence of them being more intelligent than humans !" Latent ability has to also include the brain structure ,not just size to explain the anomalies we find in our human ,and human related family tree .
th-cam.com/video/Lx6fXDlrD4Q/w-d-xo.html
The fossil record bearing on the ancestry of Pleistocene Homo is poor. However, the more we learn about early Homo, the less compelling is the case that an adaptive shift can be read from currently documented skull and skeletal anatomy as a ‘major transition’ from generalized Australopithecus precursors. To classify we are thus left with secondary traits - physical attributes, social behavior and tool use.
And environmental compounds. Bacteria IE
Yesterday I saw a TH-cam video of a woman with a cute little bunny on her chest; she nodded her head three times, and then the bunny then did the same. We mock dogs because, while they seem to be able to press buttons to express emotions and needs, but they seem unable to guess how long they will be denied your company. "The Brain Clock. The brain has different 'clocks' for different time scales. One is formed by a dopamine-generated neuronal circuit that runs between the substantia nigra the basal ganglia, and the prefrontal cortex. Each 'cycle' of the cock creates a single 'packet' of subjective time." - The Human Brain Book by Rita Carter. I noticed my ability to multi-task started to decline at about 60. Now I have to write down my grocery list or I will forget an item. The size of the prefrontal cortex, (along with the implied complexity of its interaction with the rest of the brain AND the complexity of neural electro/chemistry), implies, not JUST short term memory, but a whole range of social and survival behaviors. I'm all in on the gradual development of what it means to be human.
Yes, that and the fact, that different amphetamines work different on especially bloodsugar, in different genomica.
Both facts are basics of neural brain science, but there were basics before that base came together, did I make myself clear or is this to complicated to inrange?
@@DAlienzombie Well, I think you are saying that the H Sapience brain takes an inordinate amount of energy compared to earlier versions of genus homo and the conversion of (or to) glucose to provide that energy is related to, and less efficient in, early genetic versions of us. Or, brain volume is less important than the brain chemistry in providing enough energy in later versions of H. Sapience. So my point is brain organization and yours is that chemistry underlies organization. I can see that.
@@marvinegreen Mucho Gusto, Gracias.
As I am a bum and not an intellectual, please go on. I may just intermedia something, sometimes.
The thing about the organisation is, that it may vary to change in future offspring, and can sometimes not change back.
I learn so much from your videos.
Excellent
Neanderthals, they were rough around the edges okay? Not primitive. They were too specialized to adapt. Trauma and extreme adversity do hinder neuroplasticity. Their DNA was just compatible enough however to make the cut 😅
H. Naledi, h. Florsiensis - premodern lineages that didn’t make the cut.
Neanderthals - or part of that genome - merged back into the sapien branch. Assuming Naledi and Flores remained isolated lineages when they died out.
BUT, then you have the ghost lineages - were they the earliest “humans” who merged back into the line?
In our development, how many times did offshoots evolve independently and re-mix? How many were too far removed to move back? And why did our early ancestors essentially hump everything?
So many questions.
I have a small head (a bucket hat for 7 -11 yo fits me) and I guess therefore small brain. Does that mean I'm not human? If I'm not human, my parents and ancestors were not human - and that means that there are/were hominins that are equally intelligent despite of not belonging to group of homo, despite of their small brains.
Also, ravens have pretty small brains, yet they are proven to be quite intelligent.
Almost 11 pm, getting ready for bed and - Neanderthals? Yes please, this odd fascination with archaic lineages.
Did Neanderthals stay up late I wonder? What did they dream of by ancient campfires?
History is tangled and complex.
This is a great review
This is starting to sound more like a DEI exercise than real science 😂
They were proto-Democrats
And the problem is?
@ZedPM7 Newscum+Bass+Biden ( WHERE IS FEMA????)
@@ZedPM7 Only the body size evolved
Schade um die gute Doku mit solchen Schund--Titelbildern!!!
In my mind I think of Homo Erectus as being almost human, almost like us. But all those who came before Erectus I do not consider to be human, just too primitive.
Sub Saharan Africans are all between 2% and 19% DNA Homo Erectus so Erectus is fully part of modern humans.
You said "erect."
This content is invaluable
They were as human then as we are now
Sure 😄
@dkmma3312 sure what?
Hi
How many groups of homos are there in sapiens?🤔
"sapiens" is in "Homo", not your way around.
Both are correct.
The quadline 'Homo' holds different genomica, until they hybrid to different forms of Upper Class 'Homo Sapiens', and become 'Homo Sapiens Sapiens' in about the Neolithikum.
Interesting.
Who or what writes this? Answers on a postcard!
So was Lucy human?
No
I belong to the "hetero" genus.
If is for absolute brain size... well then some aquatic mammals are clearly more intelligent than human sapiens are... plus gets hard to explain the intelligence of birds etc... but yeah maybe they do deserve a new genus (not paranthropos)...
Fact. But easy to explain if we combine sciences instead of compell expertism from one stucking bribe.
Could Homo Naledi be hybrid of early Homo Sapiens wirh Homo Erectus?
Nope! _Homo ergaster,_ the African _Homo erectus_ died out in Africa about half a million years before the coming of _Homo sapiens_
The title illustration kinda resembles the Geico caveman
If they were primitive humans, they were still human. Maybe not homo sapiens (we need much more evidence and studies before we could even think of calling that), but possibly homo naledi and homo floresiensis as is the current designation. Homo sapiens has the nasty habit of calling other species non homo or non homo sapiens before all the evidence is in.
No discusses the biological genetic aspects of these groups.
These stereocillia need to repair over time when bent too far. We need the genetic opportunity for this repair, then my father could have heard as well as in his youth before rock drilling. This would desperately help those exposed to cannon fire on the artillery pad.
This is just because modern humans don’t want to admit we came from apes. These apes survived, used tools, developed societies and relationships. We’re lucky they survived and we are from them.
Why get hung up on category at all.? Because humans love to class everything in a clean box. Not happening here.
Some are cleary apes not human
No, I’m not having any fun I’m not getting anything of living😊
Well, Human can't seem to define "woman" not really a surprise
The races are different species. With different origins.
If so, then how come all different "races" are named "homo sapiens". Yes, different sets of humans formed different ethnic groups, but we still retain the same genetic composition. It's the reason why "mixed-race" people exist, as humans of different "races" (with the term "race" itself being an arbitrary term) intermingle and produce children with mixed appearances who are themselves given ability to reproduce with other humans, whether of similar/differing ethnicities.
Nope, with different evolutions. Same ancestors.
Humans were created by an unobservable genius. There is no controversy.