Really liked part one and two. It's a fascinating topic, to know when we and Chimps split. With all the names and directions of ancestry, I think a visual would be helpful. A timeline or something. Thanks for doing all the research so I don't have to!
It's nice to see a description of the evidence presented in a "we don't know everything yet" manner. Not to mention that significant "evolution" videos on YT are primarily targeted at debunking Creationists rather than logically presenting the evidence for human evolution. Subscribed, and feel free to make these longer. Fifteen or twenty minute bites are perfect for online viewing.
Thanks for the kind words. I honestly hate reading certainty when it’s not warranted. If anything, not knowing a complete picture makes for a good mystery, and who doesn’t like those? I aim for 8-15 minutes in run time. That range seems to have the best balance between creation time and youtube performance. The goal right now is to consistently produce at least 16 minutes of video each month, and move up from there. Still work to be done before i can hit those targets.
@@AbrarManzoor It would be good to point out "At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project The genes were quite human at the time of fusion.
I've seen so much conflicting and contradictory information about Sahelanthropus... it's bipedal or it isn't, it's hominin or it isn't, it's before the split or after the split, it's possibly the ancestor of gorillas, it's possibly the ancestor of chimps, etc. It's really hard for me as a lay person interested in the topic to understand these things when the paleontologists themselves can't seem to come to conclusions about it.
I'll die on the hill that bipedalism predates knuckle-walking and evolved from the walking necessary for brachiation (like how gibbons walk when on land).
Convergent evolution between Orrorin's dentition and that of Australopithecus? And what about Homo habilis?? Possible big brained Australopith convergent c Homo??? I still have too many questions, but I understand that there are limits s DNA :-(> Then there's Homo erectus and whomever is between them and Homo sapiens. Homo bodoensis? Homo heidelbergensis??
If we see a fossil of a three-year old, it's pretty certain that this is not an ancestor of the human lineage. His brother or sister -- maybe -- but not _him_.
9:17 PM. What is the most distant bipedal erects that modern humans can mate with and produce viable offspring, that can continue on creating offspring humans? That would be the most ancient human to me.
The issue is your entire argument *and world view rely *on an axiomatic presupposition of probability. The fact is in the back of your mind* when making a judgement on the matter you are presupposing the unlikely hood of life originating independent of each other. That is organisms having similar traits yet not at all due to common ancestry. Because the naturalist materialist presupposes that it is improbably that more than one life formed, they relate everything back to that one life, in effect pressuppsing all living organisms coming from one single original organism justified by similarity. I'm not going to get into a God created it argument here although that is the fact of the matter, rather I will say that if life formed in such a way for one organism to become a monkey, similar origins can be also presumed for every other living thing. This would mean that nothing is necessarily from a common ancestor even if they have matching DNA sequences at various strand segments. İt's like urea. You can get it organically, or you can make it through in materials. Under the microscope they will look the same but they will not be from a common ancestor rather from common elements and process . Common ancestry is a presupposition based on naturalistic probabilistic frame work and is such due to the atheist lacking the confidence that probilistically such an event could occur naturally more than once. Here's a news flash... That first life cannot have come about how the naturalist presupposes anyway ... İt already starts off with an impossible Explanation.
@Dennis Feenstra any educated person knows as a matter of fact that evolutionists and atheists are presuppositionalists. You have not at all dealt with that. Why on earth would I let you drag this conversation to the gutter. You either have a response to that or you don't. You might also get an education and agree with me . These are the options.
Endogenous retrovirus in the DNA of all the great apes and humans prove beyond doubt that we share a common lineage. Period. Now stop believing fairy tales and grow up.
@@nookymonster1 you're absolutely beyond any doubt wrong that ERV prove common ancestry. It's just another assumption based on an assumption based on the other assumption. A story that supposedly fits. (But it doesnt. Because the whole entire claim is absurd) this thing they call evolution and one species coming from another for the entirety of living organisms by means of random mutations and natural selection, over billions of years is an absolutly ridiculous proposition. Unrealistic and against all probability.
Umm, ok lets put our tinking caps on....apes, an alledgedly lower life form evolved out of man. Ok now, go back to yur cartoons. And remember, always, jesus loves you.
Really liked part one and two. It's a fascinating topic, to know when we and Chimps split. With all the names and directions of ancestry, I think a visual would be helpful. A timeline or something. Thanks for doing all the research so I don't have to!
Thank you! The show needs more visuals for sure. Trying to find new ways to incorporate more with each episode
It's nice to see a description of the evidence presented in a "we don't know everything yet" manner. Not to mention that significant "evolution" videos on YT are primarily targeted at debunking Creationists rather than logically presenting the evidence for human evolution.
Subscribed, and feel free to make these longer. Fifteen or twenty minute bites are perfect for online viewing.
Thanks for the kind words. I honestly hate reading certainty when it’s not warranted. If anything, not knowing a complete picture makes for a good mystery, and who doesn’t like those?
I aim for 8-15 minutes in run time. That range seems to have the best balance between creation time and youtube performance. The goal right now is to consistently produce at least 16 minutes of video each month, and move up from there. Still work to be done before i can hit those targets.
I had learned a lot from your videos keep making videos about the theory of evolution with a critical and unbiased approach.
Glad you’re enjoying them! I hope to be doing this for the foreseeable future.
@@TheHEAP Please also made videos on human endogenous retrovirus and chromosome 2 fusion theory.
@@AbrarManzoor It would be good to point out "At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project
The genes were quite human at the time of fusion.
I've seen so much conflicting and contradictory information about Sahelanthropus... it's bipedal or it isn't, it's hominin or it isn't, it's before the split or after the split, it's possibly the ancestor of gorillas, it's possibly the ancestor of chimps, etc. It's really hard for me as a lay person interested in the topic to understand these things when the paleontologists themselves can't seem to come to conclusions about it.
I'll die on the hill that bipedalism predates knuckle-walking and evolved from the walking necessary for brachiation (like how gibbons walk when on land).
Fascinating short series.
You've earned another subscriber. Very easy to follow, not dry but not over the top. Let's just say both parts felt less than 10 minutes for me XD
Thank you! I actually put a lot of thought into the tone of the show, glad to hear I chose the right approach!
Bipedal walking began in horizontal branches, thus Primus, been saying that awhile, has merit, since experts now agree
Convergent evolution between Orrorin's dentition and that of Australopithecus?
And what about Homo habilis?? Possible big brained Australopith convergent c Homo???
I still have too many questions, but I understand that there are limits s DNA :-(>
Then there's Homo erectus and whomever is between them and Homo sapiens.
Homo bodoensis?
Homo heidelbergensis??
Homo rudolfensis?
Homo antecessor?
Did we even get those species right?
I love a good mystery.
According to my research his name was "Steve"
I sure hope so!
You look like Jeff Bridges in the Dude movie. Otherwise very well done documentaries.
What is the background music called?
If we see a fossil of a three-year old, it's pretty certain that this is not an ancestor of the human lineage. His brother or sister -- maybe -- but not _him_.
9:17 PM. What is the most distant bipedal erects that modern humans can mate with and produce viable offspring, that can continue on creating offspring humans? That would be the most ancient human to me.
I think the last common ancestor to the chimpanzee is the British working class? Well they keep voting the Tories in.
How do you go from bi ped to humans and chimps share a common ancestor?
Your uncle has hair a bit. No matter. We accept you as a human.
HOW did life start on a barren planet.
The issue is your entire argument *and world view rely *on an axiomatic presupposition of probability.
The fact is in the back of your mind* when making a judgement on the matter you are presupposing the unlikely hood of life originating independent of each other.
That is organisms having similar traits yet not at all due to common ancestry.
Because the naturalist materialist presupposes that it is improbably that more than one life formed, they relate everything back to that one life, in effect pressuppsing all living organisms coming from one single original organism justified by similarity.
I'm not going to get into a God created it argument here although that is the fact of the matter, rather I will say that if life formed in such a way for one organism to become a monkey, similar origins can be also presumed for every other living thing.
This would mean that nothing is necessarily from a common ancestor even if they have matching DNA sequences at various strand segments.
İt's like urea. You can get it organically, or you can make it through in materials.
Under the microscope they will look the same but they will not be from a common ancestor rather from common elements and process .
Common ancestry is a presupposition based on naturalistic probabilistic frame work and is such due to the atheist lacking the confidence that probilistically such an event could occur naturally more than once.
Here's a news flash... That first life cannot have come about how the naturalist presupposes anyway ... İt already starts off with an impossible
Explanation.
@Dennis Feenstra any educated person knows as a matter of fact that evolutionists and atheists are presuppositionalists.
@Dennis Feenstra any educated person knows as a matter of fact that evolutionists and atheists are presuppositionalists.
You have not at all dealt with that. Why on earth would I let you drag this conversation to the gutter. You either have a response to that or you don't. You might also get an education and agree with me . These are the options.
@Dennis Feenstra you're asserting that without evidence.
Endogenous retrovirus in the DNA of all the great apes and humans prove beyond doubt that we share a common lineage. Period. Now stop believing fairy tales and grow up.
@@nookymonster1 you're absolutely beyond any doubt wrong that ERV prove common ancestry. It's just another assumption based on an assumption based on the other assumption. A story that supposedly fits. (But it doesnt. Because the whole entire claim is absurd) this thing they call evolution and one species coming from another for the entirety of living organisms by means of random mutations and natural selection, over billions of years is an absolutly ridiculous proposition. Unrealistic and against all probability.
Umm, ok lets put our tinking caps on....apes, an alledgedly lower life form evolved out of man.
Ok now, go back to yur cartoons.
And remember, always, jesus loves you.
You can be a Christian and still believe in evolution like myself, check this out th-cam.com/video/pwnerL8M1pE/w-d-xo.html
I don’t think you could be ruder ☺️ I loved this video! :) hope he keeps making them!!! ❤️
Arrogant viewpoint.
@@characterblub it's a theory, not mine.