A 300,000-Year History of Human Evolution - Robin May
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 фев 2024
- The species we recognise as our own - anatomically modern humans - has existed for only 300,000 years, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. And yet during that time our species has been shaped by strong evolutionary forces, often unwittingly as an indirect result of human activities.
In this lecture, we’ll find out how disease outbreaks, the rise of civilisation and even the invention of agriculture have left their traces in our DNA.
This lecture was recorded by Robin May on 7th February 2024 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London
Robin is Gresham Professor of Physic.
He is also Chief Scientific Adviser at the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Professor of Infectious Disease at the University of Birmingham.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/h...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
After leaving my old religion, I developed a voracious appetite for lectures like this, I immensely enjoyed the lecture and the question and answer that follows. Thank you for posting this. Will be binging more lectures. Thank you again.
Why do you believe in evolution?
Do you know what you call a belief in something that you cannot see?
Blind faith.
Stella, so this new religion of Evolution fits your style better?
@@elguapo2831Evolution is not in question. Neither is gravity. Or the germ theory of disease. The evidence for evolution is so massive, so clear, that it would be perverse to deny it. Modern medicine relies heavily on our knowledge of evolution.
@@statutesofthelordEvolution is reality. You can see it. The evidence is massive.
Oh hey funny seeing you here did you take a look at the 5 seperate times I linked a paper giving your exact question a pretty concise and undeniable answer? Or did you do what your type of person tends to do, which is close your eyes after reading the first line of the abstract and just imagine it says what you want to hear.
@@elguapo2831
There is a significant impact of grandparents on their grandchildren’s lives.
A truly excellent lecture. Many thanks for posting this. Looking forward to more from Prof. May.
This was a wonderful lecture to listen to. I enjoyed its interesting content as well as the very fair and engaging professor.
Professor Robin May is star. Thank you.
Very enlightening, hugely informative, excellent lecture. Many thanks!
26:15
Dogs helped us learn how to keep and domesticate other animals
Thank you very much for this such an informative video .
I cannot get enough of Robin May. Truly captivatint speaker.
captivatint - now THERE'S a new word for you.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServicescaptivatnik? lol
He certainly has no clue about the dates he bandies about.
Perhaps I ought to have checked my spelling there. Maybe I was just too captivated? 😂
Very interesting, thank you
There are several species who have grandmothers in important roles that are important to the survival and training of babies. They include elephants, humans, orcas and three species of whales.
Amazing lecture
Incredibly interesting and enlightening!!!
Wonderful talk. I can't wait for the upcoming lectures by Prof. May!
Great video. Thanks!
Absolutely Fabulous - so stimulating and thought provoking. Loved it.
Awesome. Even the slightest change in people is evolution .
A wonderful presentation. Thanks, Prof. Robin May
Thanks for another excellent talk.
It is my understanding that I have around 4% Neanderthal DNA, including the OAS gene which is related to immune response and indeed I got my covid shots, but got covid anyway, with a reaction of a very mild head cold. But this beneficial gene comes with a down side of immune responses that can be actually damaging. I have arthritis which is unpleasant, but not until after reproductive age. My oldest son died from an auto-immune disease at age 6 and my youngest daughter developed lupus at about age 5 which was unpleasant, but not anything that would interfere with reproduction and she lived to age 50.
"It is my understanding that I have around 4% Neanderthal DNA, ..." - Maybe. I may have too. It has nothing to do with biological evolution since Neanderthals were humans like us.
Great informative lectures but could you please state if they are repeats
The graph at 33:21 looks very interesting. I didn't find its exact source, does anyone have the article reference ?
Grandparents can make a difference to the survival of their grandchildren.
Ohhh! The conclusion around 44:00 just explained why my dad is the way he is. Born in London, to Londoners, and has rheumatoid arthritis.
Although I'm sure the other half of my genetic mix being from Yorkshire is why I don't have arthritis by now. All the joint trouble is environmental, because I'm prone to falling off things.
It was a little concerning to hear Robin May's ringing endorsement of the MRNA technology and his pronouncement that the genetic material in these injections does not combine with or affect the cellular DNA. Aside from the simian DNA contaminants, it is not clear what effect the MRNA is having when it enters cells.
Was this taken down? Why is it uploaded again?
oh ,i didnt see the first one , i am glad i can listen to this ,,old,, one
@@safsult It is a presentation, you can watch it! Barring a vision impairment.
A key aspect of evolution is reproductive success in he face of environmental challenges. Modern human society has significantly reduced the impact of our environment on reproductive success. What would be the avenue for evolution in this scenario?
"A key aspect of evolution is reproductive success in he face of environmental challenges." - There is no scientifically proven evolution. There is only scientifically proven intraspecific adaptive variation which can't generate evolution. There is also speciation. Speciation neither can generate evolution.
Darwinists use the word "evolution" while they in fact are talking of speciation. It seems like the neo-Darwinists have forgotten their "Universal Common Ancestor". Darwinian evolution would've needed mind blowing variety of genes in UCA for producing future changes in the basic anatomical structure of innumerable species during the history of life. The idea of speciation being a road to evolution is ridiculous.
Speciation normally happens in some isolated population, when natural selection (elimination!) favors certain genes and eliminates individuals with less profitable genes. This leads to gene loss and one-sidedness in the gene pool of that population. It is useful for a while but may lead to a catastrophe if the living conditions change. If speciation gets far enough, a subspecies appears. A subspecies is as far as the speciation ever can get. It is also the dead end.
All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to evolution i.e. to a new taxonomic genus or new taxonomic family. Why do you think over 90% of world's original species has gone extinct? Answer is speciation.
1. We might still face significant environmental changes (think climate change)
2. Instead of physical evolution, we might be going through a cultural evolution where ideas attached to people are what drive the way we change (take for instance cultural expectations about how many children to have, diets, exercise routines …)
@@abenezer_ Climate change will not affect reproductive success. Darwinian evolution depends on the ability of beneficial genetic mutations out-competing other variants through reproductive efficiency. I don't see this happening unless there is a major step backward in human civilization. In fact, we are at a stage where both advantageous and disadvantageous genetic variations have the potential to persist, as selective pressures have diminished.
Cultural evolution, however, is likely to progress, driven by the relentless force of technological innovation that continues to mold our societies.
I have twin sons. They are English, Irish and German for the most part. They were born with celiacs dease/lactose intolerance. This is a very difficult condition to survive eating a Western Diet. They almost died. I attribute this condition to having a limited genetic pool to come from. After learning about their condition and modifying the diet, they started to thrive. Our conclusion was that they should NOT marry a causation and told them this and why. Both sons married from a gene pool as far from New England as they could get, They married mainland Chinese. My grandson was tested for celiacs and was negative. Neither he or his cousin show any signs of this genetic defect. Both are very intelligent and express superior qualities from the general population. This confirms that hybrid breeding within the species is the best for the entire population.
Excellent lectures but the new intro with the interruption near the beginning is really annoying.
Good lecture.
Are we at risk by over using antibiotics, that we might be creating an evolutionary arms race that we will likely lose?
The best tasting garlic species are sterile; almost completely dependent on human cultivation
What's this guy on about! 6 year old kids running around with beards would be awesome!
“Decimate” means the removal of one in ten (10%). 😊
Yes and no. That's the original meaning of the word (specifically as a form of group punishment for rebellious legions), but since we no longer use decimation the meaning of the term has changed in common usage.
Fascinating indeed!
50,000 Nianderthal mix
40:30
541. Plague of Justinian
1359. Balck Death
I remember hearing about how the Romans interacted with foreign gods during their conquests and how they would adopt the gods of other societies because they saw those gods as personally beneficial. Sounds like this process.
Most East Asian cultures don't drink milk or have developed cheese making. One of the exceptions is the Mongolian tribes. I there any evidence that acceptance of milk products could come from the Denisovans?
Not all hunter gatherer societies were nomadic.
Yes, and fortunately for all of us, it has taken place without any interference or input from you!
Old upload/We have alread seen this lecture. This even seems in a lower video quality.
Link to the higher quality original?
It's maybe not currently practical, but I'm wondering about the gene that protects from Covid. Could people have their DNA scanned for this gene, and that could help them decide whether or not to be vaccinated.
there's about zero guarantee that any virus wouldn't adapt to an antibody
It’s very unlikely a single gene is responsible for some people being less affected by COVID infection. Even if there is a combination of genes that gives one higher resistance to COVID, I don’t know how one could determine what they are. And doing a DNA scan on every person in the world before deciding which vaccines would be of limited value for them seems unworkable.
Queston: Humans at one time didn't use language. Now we use language heavily and have developed regions in the brain specifically to process language. Is there any genetic change that corresponds to this change?
He mentions this in the video where at least one of those changes are.
45:00
Inject inactivated, killed plague antigens to alleviate rheumatoid arthritis??
@19:55
Could this be part of the reason that African Americans have had a more difficult history dealing with COVID-19?
Im using my brain watching this
22:50 i remember in the pandemic them blaming differential outcomes between ethnic groups on racism. I said it was likely genetics and vitamin D.
I was called a racist, they will never apologise
I thought quantum mechanics and radio frequency communications was hard, we got it easy compared to this.
13:00 could these retained genes from the Neanderthals have any influence upon behavior or cognitive function?
The ice finished
10:21
We've had many cats and only the two ginger ones like milk.
A perfect proof for evolution ... 🤣
"Hold up, hold up just a minute," in the words of Barak Obama. Are you saying that Socrates, Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Dostoevsky, to name a few, have had zero impact on the path of humankind?
What precisely do you mean by "path of humankind"
Others call it the Micky mouse mutation
Like the comics
Neanderthals didn't speak
34:15
Any creationist would agree here 😆 🤣 😂
Uhh. Perhaps the argument doesn’t hold for humans since we have complex family structures like elders passing on knowledge and holding power over groups…. War. Etc…. We are and probably did evolve a little differently than wolves…. So being able to live long enough to ensure your children survive after mating and through adulthood and possible through a second generation are perhaps important….
Opps, has.
Are humans, our lineage, related too "LUCA"?
the last universal common ancestor on this planet? it's a safe bet
@@AMC2283 Explain how a first simple cell can randomly create new proteins in groups to build new body parts…..you would be the first to do it. Moor on.
@@edgein8632 you mean basic organic chemistry clown?
@@edgein8632
You want to learn about random mutations and the scientific age of earth. Not a pseudoscientific one, as I remind you that even Christian scientists are accepting evolution these days because of overwhelming evidence.
If you don't believe in evolution, can you tell me how much you did learn this Scientific theory and what are the 3 main types of evidence that you have problems with?
@@ep8569 Education is not your thing obviously. The evolution we all see AND ACCEPT is Darwinian or micro evolution. 100% of the time these sometimes beneficial mutations happen by a loss of information. Mutations degrade a late stage trivial gene that creates a birth defect basically. Polar bears lost pigment, wolves lose genes to become dogs, Darwin’s finches getting smaller beaks….even pit bulls adding muscle by degrading a growth regulation genes are examples of how it works. Never does evolution build anything new. Sit down, the educated people are talking.
It is said that the distinctive looks of the Chinese is because they lived in very cold areas of climate for a very long time?...does that make sense?
why does any phenotype evolve, mutagens and natural selection
All ethnic groups have distinctive features, all because of environmental conditions.
Africans are darker than Europeans because of the sun/heat.
@@jameswright... naturally....in the case of Chinese, Japanese what was the environmental condition necessary to create those features?
@@Ai-he1dp
Yes!
Evolution is largely nature based, certain mutations suit certain conditions better.
If you line all the ethnic groups up around the world as they spread you'll struggle to pick a point where you see a chance, it's gradual with changing environments.
Inuit people native to parts of America like Alaska look very similar to people living along the cross the top of Siberia.
What we would once all call Eskimo are similar all across similar environments but in different climates.
@@jameswright... so those above mentioned were forcibly stuck? forces? to be in very cold climates for tens of thousands years or more like 100s of thousands? then came down to warmer climate?....why would they have chosen that at a time when the human population was so low?
Leventhal 1.0 and 2.0 undirected random chance probability problem contradicts a significant amount of your statistical information.
by all means, show the calculations that prove your gods did it.
I read recently that bad diarrhoea is genetic ………. It’s in your jeans! 😂 whey hey … I’ll get my coat 🧥
The lineage did NOT become extinct....the next 50+ in line to the throne, were excluded because of their religion and the Stuart line gave way to 51st.(?) in line...namely the first of the Hanovarian Georges.
Triggered 🚨
Not true, if i am old and cant have baby i can still invent something and influence evolution like that
Yes. The biggest evolutionary pressure must be on the immune system
"The biggest evolutionary pressure must be on the immune system" - All ”evolutionary” processes are in fact devolution processes as each new subspecies has less genetic variety than its stem species (like in dealing a deck of cards). This fact makes impossible for a subspecies to create the path that would lead to evolution i.e. to a new taxonomic genus or new taxonomic family.
A top example of largely accepted pseudoscience is the theory of evolution. While still an unproven theory, it is marketed as a scientific theory and an observable fact.
@@jounisuninen Wrong. The deck of cards analogy would be right if it were not for the fact that new genetic material is created by mutation and by addition to the genome through well understood processes
I would just ad that on Earth are groups of people like for example Mongolians which are lactose intolerant but their society is build on eating milk products, foods and drinks which are fermented. And there is theory that if we introduce fermenting bacteria into our guts it could replace natural tolerance to milk for milk intolerant people.
The most "pressing" environmental change affecting the future of homosapiens is the introduction and subsequent evolution of electronics to the habitats.
Yes this must be discussed because affects evolution since earth magnetic waves of earth that we had 100,000 years ago with animals, bugs, viruses with magnetic waves as they were that now disturbed and chemicals in environment that enters all species. Older the mother father reproduce the more chance for broken genes produces more defective offerings thus birth babies before 30 or chance of defective offerings.
That we have been evolving for a small amount of time and we probably have a small amount of time, may not be true. We don't know how non-life matter transform into life and consciousness (and that by expending a lot of resources, spending billions of years, overcoming a host of terminal conditions[black hole catastrophes if not terminal radiation sources etc.] I wonder if it is all for a small amount of time (we cannot rule out that we still have a lot to evolve into). Purely considering 'purpose', we seem to have to be programmed to withstand many miracles of design. We haven't seen enough yet.
They are from that area most simios
And china japan
It seems that this mixing change genes
Gene recombination happens after fertilization when parents' genes are reshuffled. In that way we get intraspecific variation but not evolution. There is no evolution whatsoever because evolution would need a continuous flow of unforeseen new genes. There aren't unforeseen new genes on this planet. Mutations do not produce new genes, they only destroy existing genes.
”Because the biggest part of mutations - if they have any effect - are harmful, their overall effect must be harmful.” [Crow, J., The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:8380-8386, 1997.] Of the same opinion are also Keightley and Lynch: ”Major part of mutations are harmful.” [Keightley, P. & Lynch, M., Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683-685, 2003.]
@jounisuninen No, mutations don't destroy existing genes. They change them. Genes can be duplicated. Duplicated genes can have their own mutations and gain a new function while the original genes remains with the original function. Genes can also be deleted which could cause some inhibitor gene function to be lost which could cause such traits as increased encephalization.
G.G.P.M.
How do we know which are the Neandertal genes: by comparing with humans whose ancestors never left Africa?
I disagree totally with the claim "We have no bearing on evolution after our reproductive age."
Let me demonstrate this as clearly as I can: - The lecturer's statements that inform his audience about how our offspring are the future of our genetic legacy, can have a significant effect on how his audience approaches their reproductive outcomes. It can affect how many children they now choose to have, how they raise them, and their approach to educating them. Similarly, the advice of our elders can also influence our approach to mate selection and raising children. If this isn't a potentially significant effect on their reproductive future, and thus their potential 'evolution', I don't know what is...
Other than that I agree with most of the rest... Great to see all the maps of records of genes and some key inherited traits, and how they are present in various regions. Much work went into preparing that info.
It's a bit of a semantic point that I feel is not well taken by any audience. Consider first that once an organism reproduces, it does not have any further capacity to contribute to the genetic lineage of its species. All of the "epigenetic" influences that may arise from cultural or environmental factors that would effect future generations do have their effect on future generations rendered upon reproduction. So if someone claims "you have no bearing on evolution after your reproductive age" it still technically holds true in the sense that the effects of your direct contribution to your species *is* over, and for whatever further effect you may have on your offspring and their reproductive habits, or your group as a whole, it still ends for the individual unit upon reproduction.
@@thomabow8949Yes, after reproducing, an organism does not have any 'direct capacity' to contribute to the genetic lineage of its species. This is true. What I was pointing out is reproduction is not where parental influence on our genetic destiny ends. Parental and familial example and influence on their children can have a huge impact on how they approach their reproductive outcomes. It can affect how many children they now choose to have, how they raise them, and their approach to educating them, their approach to mate selection and raising children.
You cannot ignore these 'environmental influences' on how our genotype is expressed. It has been long understood that BOTH the genotype and environmental influences determine how our genes are expressed, and there's no doubt the environmental influences I listed can have a huge impact on how individuals succeed at 'socializing' and thus can have a tremendous impact on our reproductive, and thus our 'genetic' success.
@@thomabow8949 it is totally illogical to think humans cannot be influenced by our parents in many crucial ways that affect such genetically significant outcomes as our mate choices, our success in life, and even how many kids we have. These can all have an impact on our reproductive outcomes, and thus our evolution as a species. Yes, these are 'indirect' effects on our genetic outcomes, but certainly no less real than the direct influences.
After all we've discovered about DNA and encoded cellular information, human evolution is still a viable theory? Are there any alternatives that don't rely on 19th century scientific conjecture?
..Apeism still exist in our society... Example : Warfare & dominance
If you're gonna call out people for being "apes", you should perhaps look at a mirror and ask yourself why you're generalizing apes and using such negative connotations behind the word. I'll be a gentleman and call you a "tribalist" because, afterall, you're engaging in warfare and dominance.
26:49 Swathe is a verb. It is not a swath. Come on, people. Learn your language.
a two second google search will tell you that swathe is the British spelling of swath, and indeed is both a verb and a noun
@@msbananananner4739 If you listen to the BBC you can hear that it's not a spelling issue. The English have come to confuse those two words. A 'Google search' has no value as an argument.
@@PJinBston if it's an argument you want, feel free to direct it at the dictionary
I guess its more than 300 thousands years, the first ape called lucy was 2 million year old
Australopithecus is a different genus
Er
JASON BRESHEARS
ARCHAIX
WILL EXPLAIN
AND YOU AIN'T GONNA
LIKE IT
We get many many talks all over the world. Each one comes up with their own data as facts. And each time the rest of us are left scratching our heads. Why still like that !?
Maybe its because they're talking about many very different things.
Lectures make me sleepy.
Why cant these scientists don't remember is all humans didn't leave Africa. Still a lot of us are still there. Africa really have a more interesting history.
The trouble is, the fossil record now a shows human remains of Lucy, Ethopia Girl, is 3.2m years old. The fossils found near Johannesburg are 2.5m years old. Humans and their ancestors have been around for much longer than we thought and lots of academics are not happy.
Lucy was basically a monkey, had very few modern human features.
@@NVIK5 You appear to be confused. Monkeys are an entirely different family of primates and Lucy and her Afarensis relatives had many many hominid traits.
Why would lots of academics be “not happy” with the discovery of other older hominids?
@@mountkeen8701Because it questions where we came from. It challenges the veiw that we not were civilised until 400,000 years ago. But in the Johannesburg discovery, the remains were found in a cave and with them were structures for shelter and cooking and hunting implements.
@@Steve1734 Now you’re introducing subjective terms into your claim. “Civilised” means what precisely? Additionally the Naledi fossils have been dated as 335,000 - 236,000 years old. Not 2.5 million years old.
He kind of failed his intro .. the species is a genetic soup and most of your genes are circulating in others. Anything that you do which overall helps the survival of these genes is a help. Of course, self-sacrificing above a point leaves to elimination of specific genes that lead to self-sacrifice.
If you take the Bible
Noe appeared on a boat
They were not in africa
Hunan history began long before then
Here's a thought. Can you compare brain cavity sizes between early H Sapiens and now? I suspect life expectancy and health is creating NeuroDivergency, as a species evolution
Yeah our brain shrinked i heard like the brain of wolves is greater than dogs
Our brain actually shrinking because there less environmental pressures on us.
@@supremercommonder Is that true in all instances, though? This could be the start of diversification between the Neurodiverse and Neurotypicals, I've been under constant attack for 50 years for using my brain, and have the impression the NTs are stultifying, because they're taught creed, not how to think.
@@JelMain Interesting your right modern social stresses (jobs,computing,media) could be causing our brains to become more compact shrinking doesn’t mean less intelligent. It could be parts of the brain that was relevant 1000s of years ago are not now so the brain is reducing in those parts.
@@JelMain Also we have way less physical movement and need for survival skills as most things are easily accessible and we have safety. I read also to central heating humans are shedding and losing more hair aswell.
EVOLUTIONARILY speaking!
Not "evolutionary" speaking!
Every time he gets it wrong.
{:o:O:}
Odd that such highly educated native speakers can't manage to recognise & correct this; the adverb is dieing.
@@chrisfreebairn870The adverb has been "dying" even before you grew up to learn English.
By yours and OP's reasoning, we shouldn't say: "Stop talking too quick!" since 'quick' is an adverb and should be 'quickly'.
I am 68 years old & live in Australia, where the adverb still lives; and i well understand the vernacular often departs from grammatical correctness; but certain adverbs really do make speech flow better, since leaving off the -ly creates a weird truncation of the flow.
And I do indeed run quickly, or fast, never quick. I also take not bring things with, & I lie down, not lay.
@chrisfreebairn870 So why don't you also use gender and grammatical case? Why don't you use the dual?
English lost all that, only having remnants here and there.
Also, vernacular speech is grammatically correct in its own right.
I also don't get the point of 'take with' and 'lie down', if if 'bring with' and 'lay' are supposed to be incorrect?
That gives you lupus
There is a strong genetic link to religious scepticism vs belief in general. Specific religion, is very unlikely and I haven't heard any evidence
I’m astonished at such bold claims being stated as factual First it was Lucy as the first “human” and then they found something that debunked that (older bones in South America)
ATGrain. They are "facts" in that they explain things to the best of our current knowledge. Your mention of Lucy is exactly how science is supposed to work and is not the problem you imagine.
@@SMHman666 I hear you but I’ve heard even more that contradicts this Look up Stephen myers * You’ll hear even more current knowledge regarding this subject of evolution
33480000
Great lecture. 👌my wife & I are evolutionarily failures,,,our selfish choice !!! I have some regrets,,but they're also selfish,, ie, who'll care for her when I'm gone & stuff like that. But Still,,, I doubt the universe cares so it's all OK 👍
🤥
Why is the squirrel that the ape evolved from missing?
Which species of hominid are you even talking about whose ancestor you think is unknown?
As primates evolved around 50/55 million years ago and squirrels 40 it be the other way around 😂
But if you actually took time to learn evolution you'd know different lines split at different times, squirrels and apes will share an ancestor but it could be way before each existed.
They'd definitely have a common ancestry at the development of the backbone, all life shares ancestry at some stage.
@@jameswright... ok, so what was the creature that evolved into the ape?
@@thunderous-one
Monkey's!
Apes are a subset of monkeys, tail-less monkeys.
Apes are still monkeys as an animal never grows out of its heritage, it just becomes something else on top of that.
@@jameswright... what evidence is there that apes evolved before squirrels?
This lecture was on RUclips/Gresham just 2 weeks ago. As a subscriber, having wasted 20 minutes confirming this was a repeat and drafting this simple comment, I would appreciate if "re-runs" were advertised as such. As is, it feels like someone at Gresham was trying to deceive the audience. And in this age of "fake news/info," that's a self-destructive path for a college to take.
The recording date is listed in the video description; Gresham aren't deceiving anyone who cares to read it. Perhaps they accidentally released a video earlier than intended - it happens all the time. Fake news is false news; 3-week-old lectures are just old news
Get over yourself
Nonsense man... What's wrong with you?
Like evolution, no one cares.
Subscribers usually receive output early as one part of the contract .
Often this is highlighted to you in an email.
This implies (no surprise) that there are average cognitive differences between human populations, however it is relatively small.
no it doesn't. The factors that make people smart exist in the same way in every region
Yeah, it’s based mostly on your environment. Your zip code has more correlation to your IQ than your dna does.
Genetic intelligence is universal and does not vary based on environment. Practical intelligence, the kind that people grow into, is the one that is affected by education and family wealth, so IQ tests will vary between different social groups precisely because it measures the environment people grew up in and not their biological baseline.
When you have a sexually reproducing species, the design of complicated machinery must be universal, or else random gene recombination would break the mechanism, like mixing blueprints for the engine parts of a Toyota and Porsche. And nothing is more complicated than a brain, ergo brains are universally similar in human race.
@@Talleyhoooo You have it the wrong way round - zip code correlates with intelligence
A sportsmen success correlates with income.
@@5BMN What you just said makes no evolutionary sense. There are lots of small genetic variations between population clusters within the same species.
There are differences in freqency of genes such as FOXP2, BDNF, COMT, APOE and others linked to brain function.
Just the fact that humans have different levels of admixture with archaic species like the neanderthals and denisovans should make you pause.
Let me state it again, there are average cognitive differences between human populations, but they are relatively small.
These cognitive differences will include personality traits like extroversion, a lot of "known unkowns", meaning we know they exist but we have little understanding.
humaistns have only existed for 6k there is no ancestors to evolve form
Lamarck recognized the unlimited amount of time required to account for the history of the earth, deduced the organic origin of sedimentary rocks, and pointed out the importance of fossils for the estimation of past changes of climate, valuable services to science, largely ignored even today. It is for his Philosophic zoologique published in 1809 that Lamarck is remembered in the history of science. Confronted with the task of classifying the collections in the Paris Museum of Natural History, he experienced such difficulty in distinguishing between species and varieties of species that he concluded that there was no basic difference between them. He argued that if enough closely related species were studied together, differences between them could no longer be made out and they merged into one another.
In fact this is not the case, bc the barrier between species is always discernible even if very difficult to detect, but the appearance that species graded into one another led Lamarck to put forward a full theory of "transform ism" or evolution, which he was the first to do, invoking descent of species during long periods of time from other species, so that the Animal Kingdom could be represented by a genealogy of branching lines, the last branch being that of man. Fossil organisms he thought had not become extinct but had been transmuted into their living descendants. Lamarck accounted for evolution by means of the action of two factors. The first was a supposed tendency to perfection and to increased complexity, which he held responsible for the existence of the scale of beings from the simplest organisms at the bottom to man at the top.
He regarded this concept as so self-evident as not to require proof, of which in fact it is incapable, being inaccessible to scientific investigation. It led him to suppose that as simple lowly organisms exist today without having been perfected or made complex, they must have arisen recently by spontaneous generation. Lamarck's second factor was introduced bc the scale of beings is not a perfect series graded from the lowest to the highest but shows anomalies, deviations, and branching from what it might and in his view would have been if the environment had not interfered. Like Diderot and Erasmus, Darwin, Lamarck supposed that as a result of new needs experienced by the animal in its environment, its "inner feeling,"
439 class, UH manoa
Aka evolution hurts your religious feelings
If humans have only existed for 6,000 years this will have come as an enormous surprise to the builders of Gobekli Tepe 9,500 ago.
@@mountkeen8701 haven’t you heard, radiometric dating can’t be trusted because bible.
So, you’re saying that Lamarck was wrong.
This man's enthusiasm for mRNA vaccines is a worry since they were released without full medical regulation and testing and are still producing unacceptably high levels of adverse events such that some countries have ceased their use. Symptoms include myocarditis, pericarditis, neurological damage and a newly discovered form of blood clot. Recently revealed data shows correlation between those suffering badly from COVID 19 virus and vitamin D deficiency especially in dark skin people who avoid the sun or live at higher latitudes. Those considered vulnerable should have their blood levels checked. The NHS is slow to make these important tests.
My wife is at least 90% neanderthal. Prolly more.
"Evolution is impossible" - The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
The order in entropy in thermodynamics that you guys cling to like the last boat on the titanic is about heat energy available for work and has less than nothing to do with your superficial notions of what’s orderly. Whoops.
@@AMC2283lol. literally all scientific data support Creation and debunk evolution and no scientific data support evolution (I'll review that in the book I'm writing on how Chemisty irrefutably debunks evolution). It's evolutionists who need a lift boat but they don't even have one. Math, biochemistry, thermodynamics theoretically and empirically crush the theory of evolution. The mere existence of enzymes crushes evolution---which even Darwin would have agreed with. Evolutionary biology is not science....neither are fields like paleontology, astronomy... the scientific method requires an experiment which requires independent and dependent variables---this of course is impossible to do if any of the aforementioned pseudosciences. Luckily real scientists understand this; hence, 72% of all Nobel Prizes in Chemistry have been won by Christians and 65% in Physics.
@@AMC2283 Heat comes from energy…..so over time it moves towards equilibrium so less order. Order requires more energy moor on.
@@edgein8632 yep, sure does. And once again that’s thermodynamics, work done by heat. Not the process of hereditary change, clown shoes.
@@lepton31415no genius, hot things getting cold has no impact against evolution
Evolution is a great idea.
I'm very disappointed that it hasn't started yet.
Usually, sarcasm doesn't work well in writing, especially in RUclips written comments section.
But well, this time: *I loved the irony.* 😅
Aka it’s against your religious superstitions