There's actually evidence that the LCA between humans and Chinpanzees were not knuckle walkers, and furthermore, that knuckle walking evolved separately in Gorillas and Chimpanzees, leading to the conclusion that Chimpanzees evolved it after the split between us, meaning Ramidus not being a knuckle walker, and having no transitional features that lead to knuckle walking actually places it closer to us than Chimpanzees. Just felt obligated to provide that bit of knowledge.
It would help if you drew lines from one species to another like an evolutionary chart. When you are not sure of the relationship you could just use a dotted line or cross out the line if you eliminate it. With the number of species names you have it gets confusing if you don't have a chart. Otherwise, I like your content.
Honestly, now that I think of it there are a lot of names and dates that really do need a better visual representation. Thanks for your feedback! I’ll be sure to incorporate this in the future.
@@TheHEAP While we're on topic, I love how you put new words on the screen. Not everyone does that, and also not everyone annunciates clearly in a way that I specifically can understand, so it's super helpful!
Mentioning hitting home runs is kinda funny because it's rarely something that people think of as defining humanity but it is actually true that one of the most noticeable practical effects of our anatomical differences is the human proficiency at throwing and hitting things. The slight differences in muscle placements and sockets means that apes are very bad at throwing while humans can trace out throwing arcs that are basically ballistically optimal and tools like bats can enhance that skill. At the same time we also seem to be the ones best at doing simple ballistics to a degree that's actually kinda unique among animals, like in just pure range humans have the longest accurate throws of any species, and if you've ever actually tried to calculate ballistic trajectories or just literally any kind of classical mechanics you know that this is actually really difficult. So it's in a way very impressive that the human brain is able to pretty accurately calculate these things out to at most a few hundred meters, it wasn't until the 19th century we were able to do the same with math really. And all of that comes with the ability to coordinate hand eye movement and make these kinds of calculations in sometimes less than a second and that's actually something kinda unique to humans. Very few animals at all use projectiles of any kind, the Archerfish and the Bombardier Beetle and some Apes being the only examples I really know of and none managed to get this good nor develop it this effectively. And the history of projectile/ranged weaponry really has defined human history itself, the early developments like throwing spears, Atlatls and bows are kinda seen as basic hallmark of hunter-gatherers and later developments like the recurve bow would end up leading to the rise of horse nomads, the composite bows of the Mongols are seen as an important part of their success, the crossbow ended up defining much of Chinese, European and Middle Eastern medieval history and the development of gunpowder is seen as the very trigger of the Modern period and the development that would lead to our current society. So yeah it actually is really a defining an important feature of humans, the simple fact that we throw stuff.
Some monkeys and apes are surprisingly accurate throwers, but yes! Our ability to throw and how useful that is one of the understated benefits of being bipedal. As for hittin’ dingers. I really love baseball and try to slide references in whenever reasonable.
what intrigues me is, when we split from that common ancestor, were we essentially brothers (same exact species) who then for some reason split up into new habitats which in turn, made us adapt differently and possibly breed with similar species that then lead to us and chimpanzees? I don't see how we can share the same distant grandparent without something like this happening.
Technically I think you're right. Last common ancestor is such a common term now that I think I would be more confusing if I used last common ancestral population.
There is no need to mention population in this term. If they lived in small populations they would, mostly, be closely related to each other. If they lived in bigger populations you can apply mathematics to explain how they were related. Like us, each has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and so on. You dont have to go too many generations back to see they must be all related to some degree. As are we.
@@AbrarManzoor eukaryotic cell engulfed an aerobic bacterium and they formed endosymbiotic relationships. the endosymbionts evolved into organelles of the host cells
Bipedalism was almost certainly a long time in coming with dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus Rex as well as early, prehistoric homo precursors. Those little arms must have "devolved" from the front legs of a series of predecessor species, yeah?
Think of evolution like passing through time. You can’t go back in time so you can’t devolve. Those little arms lost they’re previous usefulness and the trex evolved in a way that made them more suitable. Maybe they had a use or maybe the trex benefited from not putting bodily resources into growing large arms.
@@TheHEAP Yes. I didn't think the armlets were on rewind through time. I suppose they didn't devolve so much as they continued to evolve, but towards uselessness. When I first heard the theory that whales were the evolutionary decedents of wolf-like land creatures who re-entered the seas on a permanent basis it really illuminated the subject for me. As creatures who don't even live a century, human minds are not equipped to comprehend the oceans of time involved in these processes. This leads to "manageable ideas' such as the universe and Earth being 6,000 years old per the Holy Bible. We can't even really, personally comprehend 6,000 years much less 13 or 14 billion.
Your presentation is excellent but why the music? Totally unnecessary when presenting information. Do professors play background music when they are giving their classes? I'm sure you will agree it would be needless distraction..
This video reminding me I need to look up the definition "Obligatory Biped". Like, I know that us humans obviously have a bipedal walk but there are animals such as a lot of theropods where I can't imagine they had much ability to move quadrupedally. Whereas, if I chose to, I could walk on my hands and knees. I'm not saying it would be efficient or comfortable, but offer me a million dollars and I'm CERTAIN I could make that my new mode of movement. I mean even just using the "walking on hind legs but darting away on all fours" example, I don't know if you've ever seen you've children (or, hell, me, after a long day) go up stairs but..... So in some sense it feels like we are not so much obligatory as, I don't know, "physically built in such a way it's the most comfortable mood of transportation to an extent where they have largely dropped other movements, though they are easily achievable". I obviously understand what they mean, I guess it just makes me wonder. Because it seems to me there is a world of difference between us and Carnisorous, a creature that's only options would appear to be bipedal or "belly wriggle!" Maybe... Obligatory With Options.
If we found the fossils of a child ape that looked like an ancestor of both chimps and humans, we'd still have to rule it out as being the common ancestor -- because it died before reproducing. Maybe one of its brothers or sisters was a common ancestor.
It is simply impossible to point out a single individual since it is all about populations that gradually lost their ability to reproduce with each other, thus getting little by little more different in physionomy and etiology. One line eventually morphing to chimps and the other to humans.
Yes. Monophyllecically, you cannot grow out of your ancestry. We are still Apes in the same way that birds are still Dinosaurs, bats are still Mammals and iguanas are still lizards.
@@grahamwinston3692 Mammals and birds (Dinosaurs) plus other reptiles share a common ancestor that was an early Amniote in the Pennsylvanian Period known as Sauropsids.
I lost the source on this, but I once read that we have 30% the same DNA as a chicken, or a cockroach. I'm not sure which one. I think it was 57% for a chicken and 30% for cockroach, or something like that. 😆
@@TheHEAP It's not so strange. We actually do have an ancestor in common with both the roach and the chicken! This was long before the dinosaurs though.
I mean the idea that Ardi's species just being a branch closely related to the one that leads to us isn't far out. Evolution is never linear, and if you think about it the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees probably speciated into a couple linages that just died out, leaving our genus Homo and the chimp genus Pan as the only two left. Ardipithecus could have just be one of those extinct lineages that was closely related to Australopithecus, but who knows.
We might be " brothers " , but that's in DNA only ! I mean , sure our closest LIVING relative , from a comparison of DNA , are those furry apes shorter than 4 ft . in height that are too powerful physically to control but which are just smart enough to be diabolical . If you haven't guessed , yes I'm terrified of chimpanzees . But when Svante Paabo managed to map the complete genome of the Neanderthal people , this was very gratifying because comparing the DNA we humans are much more closely related to our DECEASED relative , which we suspected all along , than to chimpanzees . Hence we are on the right track with discovering our origins . But with armies of dedicated scientists and their enthusiastic helpers , I have confidence that enough of the other puzzle pieces will be unearthed so that just maybe , we'll discover that remote and common ancestor linking humans and chimpanzees .
Brain size varies, but we have studied existing brains enough to understand the range of that variation. Compared to chimpanzees or the early potential ancestors in this video, even the smallest healthy human brains are much much bigger.
Teenagers have interest in science? Please, 5:05 is definitely out of pocket, please don't degrade young people like that, clearly no reason for it. Minors get enough bs and are thrown in boxes ladled "shallow" "stupid" "less-worthy" enough as it is, it does contribute to academic gatekeeping.
Definitely could have written that section better, but my main point there was that I don’t care if she make little mistakes with the material, I’m just happy that she has an interest.
You've got style and flair, but, come on, we don't want just a talking head. There are so many points in the video where a visual would really clear things up - and I don't mean a picture of Fenway Park. You should really go back and add in illustrations. There are 3 minute + stretches where you don't have a illustration (eg. 6:40 - 10 min mark) . I zone out if I'm watching a talking head, so please take advantage of the medium. Show us some primate family trees, some maps, some artist's renditions, etc, It would vastly improve what is a really solid account.
• The placental saber-tooth cat (which is actually closer to a kangaroo) and the marsupial saber-tooth cat look almost the same anatomically. Yet, they don't have common ancestor. This homoplasy is yet more clear evidence against common ancestry. • Bats and dolphins both have the same echolocation genes even though they do not share common ancestor. This is genetic similarity. But it shouldn't be so if common ancestry is true. This homoplasy is actually clear evidence against common ancestry. • Pac6 genes (for eye development) exist in both fruit flies and humans, yet they don't have common ancestor. This homoplasy is yet more clear evidence against common ancestry. Why do evolutionists ignore such evidence? Existence of homoplasy is evidence against common ancestry, which the evolutionists try to twist and turn to explain it away. The Convergent Evolution Theory & homoplasy (which is similarities without common descent). Homoplasy exists at the genetic, physical, and biochemical levels. This clearly challenges common ancestry or common descent. Homology actually contradicts homoplasy. Both exist naturally. Therefore, one cannot be used to establish common ancestry while ignoring the other. Moreover, homology assumes common ancestry or descent is true, which leads to circular reasoning!
I'm curious as to why there are so few bones of ancient chimpanzees? 🤔 Is it because there's a lack of interest, or just fewer bones? I don't see why there should be fewer bones of chimps, except for human arrogance. But if there's another reason, that would be interesting. I'll bet they cannibalize their dead.
Chimpanzees rarely swim or go in caves and tropical environments are really bad for both fossilization and excavation. I’m sure we’ll eventually find some, but it’s a surprisingly difficult thing to do.
Forests are particularly bad for fossilizing animal remains and the rain forests most chimps inhabit are the worst type of forest for preservation. The soft tissue is very quickly consumed by animals and insect activity and the bones are then dispersed. Even skeletal remains decay away fairly quickly in such a wet, decomposer-filled environment. Once our ancestors moved out into the bushland and dry grassland, the conditions were exponentially better for fossilization, creating a bias in the fossil record. It doesn't mean we'll never find any, just that it's much rarer.
This stuff is complicated, i wish there was no music and MUCH less side comments / jokes. I am not sure why TH-cam presenters feel such great need to be comedians and entertainers instead of educators.
Thanks, but totally outdated on ape & australopith & Homo evolution... 😞 Curiously, in Africa, the fossil-hunters find everywhere in Africa "*human* ancestors"... 😀 Didn't bonobos & common chimps & lowland & highland gorillas have ancestors?? For modern biological-comparative insights in ape+human evolution, google e.g. - aquarboreal - Verhaegen GondwanaTalks English
@@claudelebel49 All good fair tales start with millions of years ago, and "we don't know" as outlined in opening statement of video. What modern day science and studies have shown is that there is no inter-genetic relationship among species. Stoeckle & Thaler, largest DNA study that published objective evidence in the HUman Evolution Journal. You realize when there are a few million differences in DNA between chimps and humans?
@@theoryz4432 A scientific theory is a well-tested, broad explanation of a natural phenomenon. In everyday life, we often use the word theory to mean a hypothesis or educated guess, but a theory in the context of science is not simply a guess-it is an explanation based on extensive and repeated experimentation.
So which identifying feature of an animal do you NOT have? Which identifying feature of a vertebrate, or a tetrapod, or a mammal, or a primate, or an old world monkey, or an ape, do you NOT have? Do you think the branch of a tree disappears because it grows a new shoot?
Why do some people get offended when they realize humans are related to apes (which we are). Yes, we are our own species and yes, we did not come from chimpanzees. However, they are technically, our cousins. Just like birds (crows and chickens) are cousins to the Tyrannosaurus Rex.
@@Dr.IanPlect Okay, all of the hominids were pilfered from mass graves that had human AND ape bones in them. No surprise that the famous Lucy was altered in order to make her a better hominid; just watch the NOVA special on her. It's all a farse that was invented by Charles Lyell who knew that deep time was a lie, and his aim was to draw people away from God, as stated in a private letter that he wrote, which his sister later published. Like I said, false. And there's plenty of actual science to falsify evolution; a veritable cornucopia.
If you had any evidence for your make-believe claim, I might have some reason to think that you aren't deliberately and intentionally lying. First of all, perhaps you could begin with evidence that either primate was _"created"_ as you have claimed.
Face it, dude. You're one of us Apes. Our family tree is rich with lots of fascinating characters, from Neanderthals, over to Homo erectus, first with fire, on down to Hobbitts ( Homo floresiensis). There are over 25 species of Homo known throughout the ages. Welcome to the Addams Family
Have a look at ERVs or our fused chromosome and THEN try and tell us God created a bunch of kinds.... which if you also believe the flood myth from 4,500 years ago, required the different 'kinds' to experience light speed evolution to explain the huge variety of species we see today.
There's actually evidence that the LCA between humans and Chinpanzees were not knuckle walkers, and furthermore, that knuckle walking evolved separately in Gorillas and Chimpanzees, leading to the conclusion that Chimpanzees evolved it after the split between us, meaning Ramidus not being a knuckle walker, and having no transitional features that lead to knuckle walking actually places it closer to us than Chimpanzees.
Just felt obligated to provide that bit of knowledge.
Ha. Made that comment a *little* early.
You got a subscriber for this video friendo
Great videos and looking forward to more!!!
your channel is phenomenal!
It would help if you drew lines from one species to another like an evolutionary chart. When you are not sure of the relationship you could just use a dotted line or cross out the line if you eliminate it. With the number of species names you have it gets confusing if you don't have a chart. Otherwise, I like your content.
Honestly, now that I think of it there are a lot of names and dates that really do need a better visual representation. Thanks for your feedback! I’ll be sure to incorporate this in the future.
@@TheHEAP While we're on topic, I love how you put new words on the screen. Not everyone does that, and also not everyone annunciates clearly in a way that I specifically can understand, so it's super helpful!
lining up fossils and drawing lines doesn't make it so.
Mentioning hitting home runs is kinda funny because it's rarely something that people think of as defining humanity but it is actually true that one of the most noticeable practical effects of our anatomical differences is the human proficiency at throwing and hitting things. The slight differences in muscle placements and sockets means that apes are very bad at throwing while humans can trace out throwing arcs that are basically ballistically optimal and tools like bats can enhance that skill. At the same time we also seem to be the ones best at doing simple ballistics to a degree that's actually kinda unique among animals, like in just pure range humans have the longest accurate throws of any species, and if you've ever actually tried to calculate ballistic trajectories or just literally any kind of classical mechanics you know that this is actually really difficult. So it's in a way very impressive that the human brain is able to pretty accurately calculate these things out to at most a few hundred meters, it wasn't until the 19th century we were able to do the same with math really. And all of that comes with the ability to coordinate hand eye movement and make these kinds of calculations in sometimes less than a second and that's actually something kinda unique to humans. Very few animals at all use projectiles of any kind, the Archerfish and the Bombardier Beetle and some Apes being the only examples I really know of and none managed to get this good nor develop it this effectively. And the history of projectile/ranged weaponry really has defined human history itself, the early developments like throwing spears, Atlatls and bows are kinda seen as basic hallmark of hunter-gatherers and later developments like the recurve bow would end up leading to the rise of horse nomads, the composite bows of the Mongols are seen as an important part of their success, the crossbow ended up defining much of Chinese, European and Middle Eastern medieval history and the development of gunpowder is seen as the very trigger of the Modern period and the development that would lead to our current society.
So yeah it actually is really a defining an important feature of humans, the simple fact that we throw stuff.
Some monkeys and apes are surprisingly accurate throwers, but yes! Our ability to throw and how useful that is one of the understated benefits of being bipedal.
As for hittin’ dingers. I really love baseball and try to slide references in whenever reasonable.
@@TheHEAP I actually have no idea what a dinger is but I mean given that baseball is an example of both throwing and tool use its very appropriate.
10/10. Would read comment again.
(Which is to say I really appreciated this additional view point and the information presented.)
Wow!
Well done. Good luck with your channel.
I’m a new sub!
Thank you!
what intrigues me is, when we split from that common ancestor, were we essentially brothers (same exact species) who then for some reason split up into new habitats which in turn, made us adapt differently and possibly breed with similar species that then lead to us and chimpanzees? I don't see how we can share the same distant grandparent without something like this happening.
"the human pelvis is bullshit" now hold on just a minute
😆🤣😂 I heard the same thing
Now I can’t unhear it. Glad the subtitles work.
Great channel, keep up the fantastic work!! I'm definitely a new sub :)
If there is no first human rather a population then what is point in saying common ancestor shouldnt we say last common ancestral population?
Technically I think you're right. Last common ancestor is such a common term now that I think I would be more confusing if I used last common ancestral population.
@@TheHEAP Does darwinism explain how cellular organelles had came about in eukaryotes?
@@AbrarManzoor Afraid that's beyond my knowledge.
There is no need to mention population in this term. If they lived in small populations they would, mostly, be closely related to each other. If they lived in bigger populations you can apply mathematics to explain how they were related. Like us, each has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and so on. You dont have to go too many generations back to see they must be all related to some degree. As are we.
@@AbrarManzoor eukaryotic cell engulfed an aerobic bacterium and they formed endosymbiotic relationships.
the endosymbionts evolved into organelles of the host cells
What about Sahelanthropus?
Bipedalism was almost certainly a long time in coming with dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus Rex as well as early, prehistoric homo precursors. Those little arms must have "devolved" from the front legs of a series of predecessor species, yeah?
Think of evolution like passing through time. You can’t go back in time so you can’t devolve. Those little arms lost they’re previous usefulness and the trex evolved in a way that made them more suitable. Maybe they had a use or maybe the trex benefited from not putting bodily resources into growing large arms.
@@TheHEAP Yes. I didn't think the armlets were on rewind through time. I suppose they didn't devolve so much as they continued to evolve, but towards uselessness. When I first heard the theory that whales were the evolutionary decedents of wolf-like land creatures who re-entered the seas on a permanent basis it really illuminated the subject for me. As creatures who don't even live a century, human minds are not equipped to comprehend the oceans of time involved in these processes. This leads to "manageable ideas' such as the universe and Earth being 6,000 years old per the Holy Bible. We can't even really, personally comprehend 6,000 years much less 13 or 14 billion.
I'd be curious to know when we deviated enough from chimps that we lost the ability to procreate and make offspring with them
Yes same here
Your presentation is excellent but why the music? Totally unnecessary when presenting information. Do professors play background music when they are giving their classes? I'm sure you will agree it would be needless distraction..
The music is quiet and it doesn't dominate the narration
My understanding a homonym is when they worked with stone tools made it fire
Who birthed the first human being?
It's mother
Eve
The first human being did.
and who birthed LUCA ?
Albino u miss me ur long time no see father
This video reminding me I need to look up the definition "Obligatory Biped". Like, I know that us humans obviously have a bipedal walk but there are animals such as a lot of theropods where I can't imagine they had much ability to move quadrupedally. Whereas, if I chose to, I could walk on my hands and knees. I'm not saying it would be efficient or comfortable, but offer me a million dollars and I'm CERTAIN I could make that my new mode of movement.
I mean even just using the "walking on hind legs but darting away on all fours" example, I don't know if you've ever seen you've children (or, hell, me, after a long day) go up stairs but.....
So in some sense it feels like we are not so much obligatory as, I don't know, "physically built in such a way it's the most comfortable mood of transportation to an extent where they have largely dropped other movements, though they are easily achievable". I obviously understand what they mean, I guess it just makes me wonder. Because it seems to me there is a world of difference between us and Carnisorous, a creature that's only options would appear to be bipedal or "belly wriggle!" Maybe... Obligatory With Options.
If we found the fossils of a child ape that looked like an ancestor of both chimps and humans, we'd still have to rule it out as being the common ancestor -- because it died before reproducing. Maybe one of its brothers or sisters was a common ancestor.
It is simply impossible to point out a single individual since it is all about populations that gradually lost their ability to reproduce with each other, thus getting little by little more different in physionomy and etiology. One line eventually morphing to chimps and the other to humans.
Are we still part of the ape family?
Yes.
Monophyllecically, you cannot grow out of your ancestry.
We are still Apes in the same way that birds are still Dinosaurs, bats are still Mammals and iguanas are still lizards.
We are Great Apes.
@@grahamwinston3692
Mammals and birds (Dinosaurs) plus other reptiles share a common ancestor that was an early Amniote in the Pennsylvanian Period known as Sauropsids.
We are primates.
hell yeah
Good stuff 😀 thank you for sharing.
Thanks for watching!
I lost the source on this, but I once read that we have 30% the same DNA as a chicken, or a cockroach. I'm not sure which one. I think it was 57% for a chicken and 30% for cockroach, or something like that. 😆
It probably is something like that. I wouldn’t be surprised. Dna is strange like that.
@@TheHEAP It's not so strange. We actually do have an ancestor in common with both the roach and the chicken! This was long before the dinosaurs though.
@@SciHeartJourney Not sure about the cockroach considered they are not vertebrates, but I can confirm the chicken one (personally I find it hilarious)
australopithecus was much closer to modern humans than our last common ancestor with chimps and it shows.
I mean the idea that Ardi's species just being a branch closely related to the one that leads to us isn't far out. Evolution is never linear, and if you think about it the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees probably speciated into a couple linages that just died out, leaving our genus Homo and the chimp genus Pan as the only two left. Ardipithecus could have just be one of those extinct lineages that was closely related to Australopithecus, but who knows.
4 minutes into the video and still don't who the last common ancestor was.
Proconsul was a last common ancestor.
Subscribed 👍
We aren't related to the Australopithecines.
"We aren't related to the Australopithecines"
- Explain that...
Dam I'm getting an urge for a banana
We might be " brothers " , but that's in DNA only ! I mean , sure our closest LIVING relative , from a comparison of DNA , are those furry apes shorter than 4 ft . in height that are too powerful physically to control but which are just smart enough to be diabolical . If you haven't guessed , yes I'm terrified of chimpanzees . But when Svante Paabo managed to map the complete genome of the Neanderthal people , this was very gratifying because comparing the DNA we humans are much more closely related to our DECEASED relative , which we suspected all along , than to chimpanzees . Hence we are on the right track with discovering our origins . But with armies of dedicated scientists and their enthusiastic helpers , I have confidence that enough of the other puzzle pieces will be unearthed so that just maybe , we'll discover that remote and common ancestor linking humans and chimpanzees .
New channel
Says who?
I struggle to believe all modern humans have big brains.
Brain size varies, but we have studied existing brains enough to understand the range of that variation. Compared to chimpanzees or the early potential ancestors in this video, even the smallest healthy human brains are much much bigger.
Teenagers have interest in science? Please, 5:05 is definitely out of pocket, please don't degrade young people like that, clearly no reason for it. Minors get enough bs and are thrown in boxes ladled "shallow" "stupid" "less-worthy" enough as it is, it does contribute to academic gatekeeping.
Definitely could have written that section better, but my main point there was that I don’t care if she make little mistakes with the material, I’m just happy that she has an interest.
You've got style and flair, but, come on, we don't want just a talking head. There are so many points in the video where a visual would really clear things up - and I don't mean a picture of Fenway Park. You should really go back and add in illustrations. There are 3 minute + stretches where you don't have a illustration (eg. 6:40 - 10 min mark) . I zone out if I'm watching a talking head, so please take advantage of the medium. Show us some primate family trees, some maps, some artist's renditions, etc, It would vastly improve what is a really solid account.
Great
• The placental saber-tooth cat (which is actually closer to a kangaroo) and the marsupial saber-tooth cat look almost the same anatomically. Yet, they don't have common ancestor. This homoplasy is yet more clear evidence against common ancestry.
• Bats and dolphins both have the same echolocation genes even though they do not share common ancestor. This is genetic similarity. But it shouldn't be so if common ancestry is true. This homoplasy is actually clear evidence against common ancestry.
• Pac6 genes (for eye development) exist in both fruit flies and humans, yet they don't have common ancestor. This homoplasy is yet more clear evidence against common ancestry.
Why do evolutionists ignore such evidence? Existence of homoplasy is evidence against common ancestry, which the evolutionists try to twist and turn to explain it away.
The Convergent Evolution Theory & homoplasy (which is similarities without common descent). Homoplasy exists at the genetic, physical, and biochemical levels. This clearly challenges common ancestry or common descent.
Homology actually contradicts homoplasy. Both exist naturally. Therefore, one cannot be used to establish common ancestry while ignoring the other. Moreover, homology assumes common ancestry or descent is true, which leads to circular reasoning!
At the start you have placental and marsupial the wrong way round. The rest is wrong as well.
@@x42brown33yeah well your talking to a young earth creationist....
We were RUNNING ape ,became RUNNING MAN
this is a common misconception. we are equally related to Bonobos and Chimpanzees.
we came from dinosaurs
I'm addicted to the pigger nussy 😻
Mammals have a different ancestor from dinosaurs
I'm curious as to why there are so few bones of ancient chimpanzees? 🤔
Is it because there's a lack of interest, or just fewer bones?
I don't see why there should be fewer bones of chimps, except for human arrogance. But if there's another reason, that would be interesting. I'll bet they cannibalize their dead.
Chimpanzees rarely swim or go in caves and tropical environments are really bad for both fossilization and excavation. I’m sure we’ll eventually find some, but it’s a surprisingly difficult thing to do.
Forests are particularly bad for fossilizing animal remains and the rain forests most chimps inhabit are the worst type of forest for preservation. The soft tissue is very quickly consumed by animals and insect activity and the bones are then dispersed. Even skeletal remains decay away fairly quickly in such a wet, decomposer-filled environment. Once our ancestors moved out into the bushland and dry grassland, the conditions were exponentially better for fossilization, creating a bias in the fossil record. It doesn't mean we'll never find any, just that it's much rarer.
@@Len124 Thank you! Mystery solved.
This stuff is complicated, i wish there was no music and MUCH less side comments / jokes. I am not sure why TH-cam presenters feel such great need to be comedians and entertainers instead of educators.
Thanks, but totally outdated on ape & australopith & Homo evolution... 😞
Curiously, in Africa, the fossil-hunters find everywhere in Africa "*human* ancestors"... 😀
Didn't bonobos & common chimps & lowland & highland gorillas have ancestors??
For modern biological-comparative insights in ape+human evolution, google e.g.
- aquarboreal
- Verhaegen GondwanaTalks English
HOW DID LIFE BEGIN ON A BARREN PLANET, HOW DID EVOLUTION MAKE THE HUMAN BRAIN?????????????????????????????
Trial and error, anytime something worked god saw it was good and said go forth and multiply
Chimp Jesus
Chimps and humans have a different number of chromosomes.
Indeed, did you have a point behind that?
@@Dr.Ian-Plect A slow reader, a slow typist or just slow?
@@Dr.Ian-Plect Not a native English speaker?
@@Dr.Ian-Plect Is your channel image from kindergarten or adult craft classes at the home.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect Why the empty account?
so we came from chimps lol explains why we are all psychopathic A holes 🤣
Where do you get the idea that we came from chimps?
😂😂
@@IWillHaveThePastaThanksI do not get it
@user-sl1ec2mf6r Whoops! Sorry if I missed that your post was a joke. (I can be a bit slow on the uptake.)
Why do you ignore the science and spew fairy tales as truth?
Enlighten us Fred.
@@claudelebel49 All good fair tales start with millions of years ago, and "we don't know" as outlined in opening statement of video.
What modern day science and studies have shown is that there is no inter-genetic relationship among species. Stoeckle & Thaler, largest DNA study that published objective evidence in the HUman Evolution Journal.
You realize when there are a few million differences in DNA between chimps and humans?
No such creature ever existed.
Theory, presumptions does not contain truth. What is being discussed here is faith on something.
What’s a theory?
@@TheHEAP you mean, "what is a theory? If yes, you can see its meaning on any prominent dictionary.
@@theoryz4432 A scientific theory is a well-tested, broad explanation of a natural phenomenon. In everyday life, we often use the word theory to mean a hypothesis or educated guess, but a theory in the context of science is not simply a guess-it is an explanation based on extensive and repeated experimentation.
@@thegameranch5935 "well-tested", "repeated experimentation"? What and where are they based on tbe topic(s) of the channel?
@@theoryz4432 what are you talking about?
Humans are humans animals are animals stop taking shit
So which identifying feature of an animal do you NOT have? Which identifying feature of a vertebrate, or a tetrapod, or a mammal, or a primate, or an old world monkey, or an ape, do you NOT have? Do you think the branch of a tree disappears because it grows a new shoot?
Why do some people get offended when they realize humans are related to apes (which we are). Yes, we are our own species and yes, we did not come from chimpanzees. However, they are technically, our cousins. Just like birds (crows and chickens) are cousins to the Tyrannosaurus Rex.
@@texanman7191 lots of people look down on non-human animals, maybe that's why?
False.
make a substantive point
@@Dr.IanPlect Okay, all of the hominids were pilfered from mass graves that had human AND ape bones in them. No surprise that the famous Lucy was altered in order to make her a better hominid; just watch the NOVA special on her. It's all a farse that was invented by Charles Lyell who knew that deep time was a lie, and his aim was to draw people away from God, as stated in a private letter that he wrote, which his sister later published. Like I said, false. And there's plenty of actual science to falsify evolution; a veritable cornucopia.
Humans and chimpanzees were separately created. The last common ancestor never existed.
if so, why are we both apes
If you had any evidence for your make-believe claim, I might have some reason to think that you aren't deliberately and intentionally lying. First of all, perhaps you could begin with evidence that either primate was _"created"_ as you have claimed.
False, no evidence of this special creation, we share 96% of our genome with them and hundreds of thousands of endogenous retroviruses.
Face it, dude.
You're one of us Apes.
Our family tree is rich with lots of fascinating characters, from Neanderthals, over to Homo erectus, first with fire, on down to Hobbitts ( Homo floresiensis). There are over 25 species of Homo known throughout the ages.
Welcome to the Addams Family
Have a look at ERVs or our fused chromosome and THEN try and tell us God created a bunch of kinds.... which if you also believe the flood myth from 4,500 years ago, required the different 'kinds' to experience light speed evolution to explain the huge variety of species we see today.
All life is not related. Its just a theory. Maybe your wrong
You should be concerned about presenting proper grammar, then widen to educate yourself on this subject.