Species Shorts playlist: ruclips.net/p/PLRosqf3DDcTGgNafL5qqPP7rDsTuZRHEN Check out other DNALC videos and animations: dnalc.cshl.edu/resources/animations/ Visit us in Cold Spring Harbor, Brooklyn, or Sleepy Hollow! 🧬Field trips dnalc.cshl.edu/programs/fieldtrips/index.html 🧬 Summer camps (virtual also available!) summercamps.dnalc.org
Hi. It's been suggested to me that the data is clear now on h.ergaster and h. Erectus being definitively declared the same species. I'm wondering if you can confirm this for me. Thanks for your content. It's awesome
i love that heidelbergensis once walked in my garden in England UK as nearby is where the Clacton spear was found which is over 400, 000 years old and the world's oldest spear, locally they are referred to as Clactonian Man
Yes, there is also a widely accepted theory in human evolution that population of Homo Heidelbergensis that remained in Africa went on to evolve into Homo Sapiens (humans) and those that migrated to Europe are thought to have evolve into Neanderthals.
Come on folks...give her a thumbs up. This is excellent work. 18,000 plus views and only 613 thumbs up. Plus, she has a whole bunch more that are of equal quality.
Legend. There are so few people that give such niche dense information in video form, for free, without feeling the need for anecdotes or narrative. Many thanks
Hi Lindsey. Great discussion, but how do you view the new findings through new DNA that shows some Heidelbergensis samples are now considered early Neanderthal, and other African samples previously Rhodesiensis are now classified as Homo Bodoensis? Fascinating stuff!
Love the videos one suggestion Would be great if you could put these in a playlist so that they can be watched in order Spent a lot of time looking for all your videos and the order they go in But hey!! Still thank you for putting this together it’s great Teaching an old dog new tricks I didn’t get much anthropology in vocational school in the 80’s .) 🤙🏼
We do have a playlist! Sorry we didn't link it in the description - you can find it here, though: ruclips.net/p/PLRosqf3DDcTGgNafL5qqPP7rDsTuZRHEN Thanks for the suggestion!
Awesome Thank you I’ll deff watch again I feel like I have to say I’m a 50 year old vocational school educated man in construction my whole life Was never able to experience even entry level into anthropology and I’m so addicted now I can’t get enough It’s so awesome to have access to all this info. I keep up on every new or a change due to dna discoveries Just love it Thavk you ‘
Is it just me or does that skull appear to have a smaller forehead than erectus? Also Erectus skulls seem to resemble Sapiens more in general shape than Heidelbergensis or Neanderthal did. At least if you're not counting in the overall brain size. Would be cool if you could do a video about this, maybe comparing Erectus to Heidelbergensis to Neanderthal and maybe other archaic Hominins present at the time. Pretty much nobody does this. EDIT: And what I mean by resembling sapiens more is that Heidelbergensis seems to have it's cranial shape much more ape like than Erectus. It looks very long.
Notice the left temporal bone has a small round hole. It was an abcess that tracked and erupted probably caused by a mastoid infection. Also the individuals dentition has pathologies of alveolar abcesses (advanced tooth decay).
Hi Lyndsay I have found your podcasts on RUclips only today. I have a question which i would be grateful if your good self or any other reader could clarify for me. I am familiar with the term Archaic Features' regarding skeletal remains (skull being++ informative) ,of homo sapiens sapiens. I have got the historical timeline of only 50,000 years for homo sapiens sapiens remains without Archaic Features such as brow ridge, undefined jaw/chin and longer egg shaped skull shape against HSS globe shape (mine may more closely resemble a friendly grey alien following forceps delivery haha). So to clarify - is the anthropological consensus Modern HSS can only be identified when archaic features no longer are appearing in timeline? Is 50,000 years ago for clearly defined modern HSS, aka Us , even remotely correct?
@@bluemanno7901 I don't think the Vendramini hypothesis is very scientific but on the other hand I do think some hominids were more night active or at least crepuscular. Otherwise how did Homo naledi get the bodies it wanted to dump all the way into the cave? There are no torch marks... maybe they had another source of light like fireflies in a basket and it was bright enough with their night vision to see the way... I don't think there's any light at all where they dumped the bodies and nothing can see in complete darkness but they must have had better night vision than we do in my opinion to venture into the caves like that.
This was a big individual with some findings reporting they were up to 7 feet tall. It is also believed that Neanderthals derived from this species as well as Homo sapiens. I personally believe that modern humans came out of West/West Central Africa and I believe they were initially much smaller than this species. The oldest Homo sapiens we know of were found near Morocco 300,000+ years ago. They had a smaller brain case but are still considered our earliest ancestor. I would not be surprised to find a missing link at some point in the future. I think the brow feature is the telling point. Like monkeys and other primates the brow ridge developed in response to the environment they lived in and would have taken many thousand of years to change. I suspect there was a species that inhabited the once fertile area now in and below the Sahara and were forced to change as the environment changed west to east. I would consider climate change beginning 500,000 years ago and find a dried river bed along the edge of the Sahara and look there for skeletal remains.
Oh a female Palaeontologist/Anthropologist, she was good as well, good talker keeps you engaged thus video went by so quickly almost felt too short like I wanted to learn more.
@@mysteryman9641 The point is, you shouldn't care, unless you mean you are pleased that we are moving towards equality, because otherwise, you sound like you're surprised, from a male-centered place of privilege. So, which are you? The Progressive, or the arsehole?
You say it as if it's surprising, most Palaeontoligist I've worked with were females and a trans woman aswell, I think you're just trying to point out common things to be deep and without knowing it you're making the women in these places seem like a rarity and not normal, they're better than most and it's surprising because she isn't a man. Mystery Man? More like Misogyny Man.
I have a question my professor told me humans didn't come from neanderthals they came from a species called homo eidelbergensis which evolved from homo Erectus neanderthals also came from the same ancestors but went extinct their are skulls found all over that show they co-existed and even mated but no they are not what we evolved from so I guess I'm asking why do so many graphs of evolution show humans evolving from neanderthals?
Because we do have some of their DNA in us. When you see dotted lines, it means smaller contributions than "direct ancestors," however, since approximately 67% of their genome is present in modern Europeans, at a level of less than 3% per person, not only are they not exactly extinct, but they are, in fact, ancestral to almost everyone of European extraction. But that said, they are _not_ ancestral to other groups of humans on other continents, so on the whole, they aren't ancestral to all H. sapiens, but they _are_ ancestral to H. sapiens in Europe. I hope this helps.
@@PauloThiagoable You aren't off. They had fairly large brains, some larger than ours, but the theory goes that their brains were less well-organised at the time than ours are now. We get more bang for the buck, so to speak, by having more efficient neuroanatomy. More folds, closer connexions, better lateralisation, etc..
@@lindaakesson8403 You're actually only 2 months ago!. Anyhow...5.11"?. I find that fact amazing. I wonder how they survived for so long compared to "us"...though H sapiens has a long way to go.
Weren't the Schoeningen spears supposed to belong to H. Heidelbergensis? Whoever wielded those to hunt wild horses those would definitely have been a runner.
the Heidelbergensis skull you display looks very much like Homo Erectus. The 12 Homo Erectus skulls from Ngandong (108,000 yo) look even more homo sapiens-like than your Heidelbergensis.
Is the language of genetics shared among all living species? The only difference being the particular genetic instructions with no difference in the language? If so this is amazing. I wonder if out in the stars this may not be so.
uhdurr hurr AMH heheh... sapiens like aahhh i love my spheroid pinhead it looks firendly??? nice cope buddy, sapiens circlheadism is doomed to daeth- hyperdolichocephaly and chamaecrany are due to reclaim this world
The holes on the cheek area, were those for blood vessels? I haven't seen those on a modern human skull. Also, is that pitting or leisons in the browridges? What types of disease would cause that? It's a strange place to see pitting.
The cheek foramen are for large blood vessels. Our skulls have them. Pitting can be for vessels, as well as nerves, but in this replica, it may simply be due to wear over time, shaving off the outermost layer, revealing a blood-rich layer below. This could be related to needs for cooling or retention of heat.
Que yo sepa está escrito en latín y en latín la hache ''H'' es muda. Caso contrario deberían decir Jomo Jeidelberguensis. Es como que quieren que se respeten sus idiomas y se pronuncien bien pero no lo hacen con el latín. Incluso vi a un antropólogo frances pronunciando Jomó Jabilís. La ''H'' de homo debe sonar y pronunciarse igual que la ''H'' de heidelbergensis As far as I know it is written in Latin and in Latin the ax '' H '' is silent. Otherwise they should say Jomo Jeidelberguensis (Spanish). It's like they want their languages to be respected and they pronounce well but they don't do it with Latin. I even saw a French anthropologist pronouncing Jomo Jabilís. The '' H '' for homo should sound and be pronounced the same as the '' H '' for heidelbergensis
You only think so because you don't understand the actual science behind what she's saying. There is a shit ton of proof, triply: Genetic, Archaeological, and Dental Calculus Analysis, for what she's underplaying here. Perhaps, to save embarrassment, ask a question, rather than state something as potentially factual sans proper research.
One group is superior to the other, as mammals are to apes. All apes are mammals, but not all mammals are apes. All hominids are hominins, but not all hominins are hominids. I know, it's stupid, them picking such similar names for nested clades. In fact, I often get them confused, and suggest you double check to make sure I got this right.
@injunsun hominds are great apes (family : homininidea) Hominins are the apes on the human side after the human split form chimpanzee lineage (tribe :hominini/panini that contains humans and chimps) splitting into (sub tribe : hominina/australopithecina wich is the humans side branch and the chimp branch/ sub tribe panina)
Another video says that h. heidelbergensis was typically 7 ft tall. You're saying that h. heidelbergensis was short with a big thick head and a large brain. Instead of imagining Mr. heidelbergensis being a freak of disproportionate head, why not fit the head to a proportionate 7 ft body?
Sorry but that cranium is from a monkey, not from our closest ancestor. Just compare it to other modern monkeys and a modern human cranium and the differences are obvious in terms of which group that skull belongs too. I doesn't take a biology degree to note the obvious.
We know how tissue depths tend to lay over bones, regardless of species, with only slight differences within a species, and only slightly greater differences between species. This means the renderings are what they are. If you force a more human look, you're basically faking the facts to suit your preference. Let's not.
needless to say, i am a little more that upset with how much of our topsoil got shipped to africa during the " end world hunger campaign", ( like trying to put out a fire with gasoline )...I Have Every Right To Not Like People Who Breed Faster Than The Food Grows..
They were a distinct species, with many genetic differences between them as they got to be before sexual recombination versus after. Modern Europeans only have, in aggregate, 67% of the Neanderthal genome within them/us, because entire sections of Neanderthal autosomal chromosomes are missing in us, due to being misaligned, with various transpositions and mutations, not allowing about a third of their genes to work with ours. That's a significant difference, unlike that between any two modern H. sapiens alive today, the max of which is about 0.5%
Species Shorts playlist: ruclips.net/p/PLRosqf3DDcTGgNafL5qqPP7rDsTuZRHEN
Check out other DNALC videos and animations: dnalc.cshl.edu/resources/animations/
Visit us in Cold Spring Harbor, Brooklyn, or Sleepy Hollow!
🧬Field trips dnalc.cshl.edu/programs/fieldtrips/index.html
🧬 Summer camps (virtual also available!) summercamps.dnalc.org
Hi. It's been suggested to me that the data is clear now on h.ergaster and h. Erectus being definitively declared the same species. I'm wondering if you can confirm this for me. Thanks for your content. It's awesome
i love that heidelbergensis once walked in my garden in England UK as nearby is where the Clacton spear was found which is over 400, 000 years old and the world's oldest spear, locally they are referred to as Clactonian Man
The current running hypothesis is that homo heidelbergensis was the direct ancestor to both Homo sapiens and Neanderthals but we're not 100% on that
Yes, there is also a widely accepted theory in human evolution that population of Homo Heidelbergensis that remained in Africa went on to evolve into Homo Sapiens (humans) and those that migrated to Europe are thought to have evolve into Neanderthals.
Come on folks...give her a thumbs up. This is excellent work. 18,000 plus views and only 613 thumbs up. Plus, she has a whole bunch more that are of equal quality.
Legend. There are so few people that give such niche dense information in video form, for free, without feeling the need for anecdotes or narrative. Many thanks
I can’t believe this is already 2 years old!! It seems like this went up yesterday
Look at you popping up in my search with exactly what I was looking for. Thanks a lot.
Aaah thank you so much for doing these! This is the perfect primer/ refresher. Excellent content! Gonna go right ahead and binge the rest of this :)
Hi Lindsey. Great discussion, but how do you view the new findings through new DNA that shows some Heidelbergensis samples are now considered early Neanderthal, and other African samples previously Rhodesiensis are now classified as Homo Bodoensis? Fascinating stuff!
Love the videos one suggestion
Would be great if you could put these in a playlist so that they can be watched in order
Spent a lot of time looking for all your videos and the order they go in
But hey!! Still thank you for putting this together it’s great
Teaching an old dog new tricks
I didn’t get much anthropology in vocational school in the 80’s .)
🤙🏼
We do have a playlist! Sorry we didn't link it in the description - you can find it here, though: ruclips.net/p/PLRosqf3DDcTGgNafL5qqPP7rDsTuZRHEN Thanks for the suggestion!
Awesome
Thank you
I’ll deff watch again
I feel like I have to say
I’m a 50 year old vocational school educated man in construction my whole life
Was never able to experience even entry level into anthropology and I’m so addicted now
I can’t get enough
It’s so awesome to have access to all this info.
I keep up on every new or a change due to dna discoveries
Just love it
Thavk you ‘
I am happy to see people sharring their passion and knowledge about science .. You kiddos are lucky to have a jumpstart in the information age !
Sometimes RUclips actually suggests something worthwhile to watch. Thank you for the class, Lindsay. I learned a lot.
Subscribed :)
Well done Ms. Barone.
This is great. Thank you so much for posting this information. I love this series.
Wonderful to have someone dealing with facts and details not myth and legend ..
I'm student of Anthropology f.......so, from which institutions or website I can buy These ancient hominid Skulls and Skeletons ??????
Let me know when you have made separate playlist for short videos
There is. Looks at playlist.
Okay I'm subscribed now
Thank you so much! Riveting stuff and well presented
Is it just me or does that skull appear to have a smaller forehead than erectus? Also Erectus skulls seem to resemble Sapiens more in general shape than Heidelbergensis or Neanderthal did. At least if you're not counting in the overall brain size. Would be cool if you could do a video about this, maybe comparing Erectus to Heidelbergensis to Neanderthal and maybe other archaic Hominins present at the time. Pretty much nobody does this.
EDIT: And what I mean by resembling sapiens more is that Heidelbergensis seems to have it's cranial shape much more ape like than Erectus. It looks very long.
interesting observation
Maybe Homo erectus split 2 ways Heidelbergensis Neanderthal and Ancestor Sapian
I enjoyed that very much. Thank you!
Brilliant channel 🤗
Did you do a piece on denisovans? If so, do you have a link to it?
We know very little about anatomy of denisovans so I don’t think that video is coming
It was really well explained. Thank you.
Great work!
It would be interesting to understand modern human behavior in the context of the frontal node.
Notice the left temporal bone has a small round hole. It was an abcess that tracked and erupted probably caused by a mastoid infection. Also the individuals dentition has pathologies of alveolar abcesses (advanced tooth decay).
Hi Lyndsay I have found your podcasts on RUclips only today. I have a question which i would be grateful if your good self or any other reader could clarify for me.
I am familiar with the term Archaic Features' regarding skeletal remains (skull being++ informative) ,of homo sapiens sapiens.
I have got the historical timeline of only 50,000 years for homo sapiens sapiens remains without Archaic Features such as brow ridge, undefined jaw/chin and longer egg shaped skull shape against HSS globe shape (mine may more closely resemble a friendly grey alien following forceps delivery haha).
So to clarify - is the anthropological consensus Modern HSS can only be identified when archaic features no longer are appearing in timeline?
Is 50,000 years ago for clearly defined modern HSS, aka Us , even remotely correct?
The cranium looks huge! Eyes were much larger than ours.
Is the heidi skull an actual find or a replica? Thanks
She said in another episode that she uses replicas.
It does look scary. It's got no forehead and giant eyes, like it's nocturnal
Yes indeed, artist reconstructions may be making them look much more human than they actually looked.
@@bluemanno7901 I don't think the Vendramini hypothesis is very scientific but on the other hand I do think some hominids were more night active or at least crepuscular.
Otherwise how did Homo naledi get the bodies it wanted to dump all the way into the cave? There are no torch marks... maybe they had another source of light like fireflies in a basket and it was bright enough with their night vision to see the way...
I don't think there's any light at all where they dumped the bodies and nothing can see in complete darkness but they must have had better night vision than we do in my opinion to venture into the caves like that.
You still there Wendy? RUclips isn't letting me read your reply for some reason 😞
Wonderful lecture I am from India I never heared before like this. Thank you.
Who produced the skull replica?
3d printer
This was a big individual with some findings reporting they were up to 7 feet tall. It is also believed that Neanderthals derived from this species as well as Homo sapiens. I personally believe that modern humans came out of West/West Central Africa and I believe they were initially much smaller than this species. The oldest Homo sapiens we know of were found near Morocco 300,000+ years ago. They had a smaller brain case but are still considered our earliest ancestor. I would not be surprised to find a missing link at some point in the future. I think the brow feature is the telling point. Like monkeys and other primates the brow ridge developed in response to the environment they lived in and would have taken many thousand of years to change. I suspect there was a species that inhabited the once fertile area now in and below the Sahara and were forced to change as the environment changed west to east. I would consider climate change beginning 500,000 years ago and find a dried river bed along the edge of the Sahara and look there for skeletal remains.
So interesting. Good, good
Thanks
Oh a female Palaeontologist/Anthropologist, she was good as well, good talker keeps you engaged thus video went by so quickly almost felt too short like I wanted to learn more.
Who cares that she is female?
@@LH74 looks like I do doesn't it?
@@mysteryman9641 The point is, you shouldn't care, unless you mean you are pleased that we are moving towards equality, because otherwise, you sound like you're surprised, from a male-centered place of privilege. So, which are you? The Progressive, or the arsehole?
You say it as if it's surprising, most Palaeontoligist I've worked with were females and a trans woman aswell, I think you're just trying to point out common things to be deep and without knowing it you're making the women in these places seem like a rarity and not normal, they're better than most and it's surprising because she isn't a man. Mystery Man? More like Misogyny Man.
I have a question my professor told me humans didn't come from neanderthals they came from a species called homo eidelbergensis which evolved from homo Erectus neanderthals also came from the same ancestors but went extinct their are skulls found all over that show they co-existed and even mated but no they are not what we evolved from so I guess I'm asking why do so many graphs of evolution show humans evolving from neanderthals?
They are probably outdated or made by laymen. I’m pretty sure it was once thought that Neanderthals were our direct ancestors.
Because we do have some of their DNA in us. When you see dotted lines, it means smaller contributions than "direct ancestors," however, since approximately 67% of their genome is present in modern Europeans, at a level of less than 3% per person, not only are they not exactly extinct, but they are, in fact, ancestral to almost everyone of European extraction. But that said, they are _not_ ancestral to other groups of humans on other continents, so on the whole, they aren't ancestral to all H. sapiens, but they _are_ ancestral to H. sapiens in Europe. I hope this helps.
Gosh I love her. !
Look at the size of those eyes!!!
Were heildbergensis the first homo species to develop beer or did that come later?
It’s even more primitive looking than my Neanderthal skull I have. His brow ridge is massive.
Is this the reall size of the skull? his brain volume is above 1,200 cm³, isn´t it? Thanks!! :)
sorry, the camera tricked me at the beginning of the video
@@PauloThiagoable You aren't off. They had fairly large brains, some larger than ours, but the theory goes that their brains were less well-organised at the time than ours are now. We get more bang for the buck, so to speak, by having more efficient neuroanatomy. More folds, closer connexions, better lateralisation, etc..
Thank you!. I enjoyed your presentation of Hh. At 5.9 he was probably a "runner" with the ability to follow prey long distances. Good stamina.
I have heard that Homo Heidelbergensis was about 5'11 (male). I do not remember female height tho. Sorry for being 2 years late :)
Edit: months*
@@lindaakesson8403 You're actually only 2 months ago!. Anyhow...5.11"?. I find that fact amazing. I wonder how they survived for so long compared to "us"...though H sapiens has a long way to go.
Weren't the Schoeningen spears supposed to belong to H. Heidelbergensis? Whoever wielded those to hunt wild horses those would definitely have been a runner.
the Heidelbergensis skull you display looks very much like Homo Erectus. The 12 Homo Erectus skulls from Ngandong (108,000 yo) look even more homo sapiens-like than your Heidelbergensis.
Cool thanks mate
Ahh 😩 can't you just do a episode on Homo Naledi for the culture?
Homo Naledi was auto translated to Home of the Lady.
Is the language of genetics shared among all living species? The only difference being the particular genetic instructions with no difference in the language? If so this is amazing.
I wonder if out in the stars this may not be so.
We can hope.
Is that a real skull or a replica?
I thought she said it was a cast/replica.
Heidelbergensis neanderthales denisovans were quality species inhabtin colder latitudes hence lesser populations.Quality over quantity.
acting like she aint getting SKULLMOGGED, HARD
uhdurr hurr AMH heheh... sapiens like aahhh i love my spheroid pinhead it looks firendly??? nice cope buddy, sapiens circlheadism is doomed to daeth- hyperdolichocephaly and chamaecrany are due to reclaim this world
@@kogalcanaveral851 Whatev... You can decide that, when your pelvis is the one passing that through.
@@injunsun not up to me!! this has *been* decreed... set in stone... i'm just layin it out!!
The holes on the cheek area, were those for blood vessels? I haven't seen those on a modern human skull. Also, is that pitting or leisons in the browridges? What types of disease would cause that? It's a strange place to see pitting.
The cheek foramen are for large blood vessels. Our skulls have them. Pitting can be for vessels, as well as nerves, but in this replica, it may simply be due to wear over time, shaving off the outermost layer, revealing a blood-rich layer below. This could be related to needs for cooling or retention of heat.
Something about the eye sockets of these skeletons just fascinates me a lot I dunno how to explain it
Thank you again for the informative video's, you're fantastic and gorgeous
This lady is pretty.
Well that's relevant
¿Omo Eilderbergensis o jomo jeidelbergensis? ¿Usan el latín o no usan el latín?
Heidelbergensis, using the German, as in, Heidelberg. Because duh.
Que yo sepa está escrito en latín y en latín la hache ''H'' es muda. Caso contrario deberían decir Jomo Jeidelberguensis. Es como que quieren que se respeten sus idiomas y se pronuncien bien pero no lo hacen con el latín. Incluso vi a un antropólogo frances pronunciando Jomó Jabilís.
La ''H'' de homo debe sonar y pronunciarse igual que la ''H'' de heidelbergensis
As far as I know it is written in Latin and in Latin the ax '' H '' is silent. Otherwise they should say Jomo Jeidelberguensis (Spanish). It's like they want their languages to be respected and they pronounce well but they don't do it with Latin. I even saw a French anthropologist pronouncing Jomo Jabilís.
The '' H '' for homo should sound and be pronounced the same as the '' H '' for heidelbergensis
Head like a war helmet.
It's homo erectus I think
The Earth is only 6000 years old.
Monsters.
yo hablar español
Bueno por tu. Y? ¿Que esta su point?
I'm still waiting for your friend in your hand to blink..
Talk about some big eyes ..
There’s too much speculative conclusions being drawn from little evidential information.
Any specific conclusions you find lacking evidence?
You only think so because you don't understand the actual science behind what she's saying. There is a shit ton of proof, triply: Genetic, Archaeological, and Dental Calculus Analysis, for what she's underplaying here.
Perhaps, to save embarrassment, ask a question, rather than state something as potentially factual sans proper research.
Hominin? Well yes, and mammal, but you can be more specific, any bipedal hominin is called a hominid.
Actually no not true
Australopithecus and other early hominins that were bipedal aren't classified as hominids
One group is superior to the other, as mammals are to apes. All apes are mammals, but not all mammals are apes. All hominids are hominins, but not all hominins are hominids.
I know, it's stupid, them picking such similar names for nested clades. In fact, I often get them confused, and suggest you double check to make sure I got this right.
@injunsun hominds are great apes (family : homininidea)
Hominins are the apes on the human side after the human split form chimpanzee lineage (tribe :hominini/panini that contains humans and chimps) splitting into (sub tribe : hominina/australopithecina wich is the humans side branch and the chimp branch/ sub tribe panina)
Another video says that h. heidelbergensis was typically 7 ft tall. You're saying that h. heidelbergensis was short with a big thick head and a large brain. Instead of imagining Mr. heidelbergensis being a freak of disproportionate head, why not fit the head to a proportionate 7 ft body?
Ratios exist. Apparently the video saying 7' was an outlier. Consider that, and attempt to either confirm or deny what that other video said.
Sorry but that cranium is from a monkey, not from our closest ancestor. Just compare it to other modern monkeys and a modern human cranium and the differences are obvious in terms of which group that skull belongs too. I doesn't take a biology degree to note the obvious.
How do scientists know these species looked like Apes? I would like to see more human like renderings using these skulls.
We know how tissue depths tend to lay over bones, regardless of species, with only slight differences within a species, and only slightly greater differences between species. This means the renderings are what they are. If you force a more human look, you're basically faking the facts to suit your preference. Let's not.
Is there any truth that it is these archaic hominids that built the monoliths?
No..
that would be difficult to prove
@@Lance_Lough 😂
@@Lance_Lough I bet you just assumed that
They probably died sometime around 188,000 years before the construction of Gobekli Tepe, so it is extremely unlikely unless they had time travel.
These archaic humans lived for millions of years. H. sapiens sapiens, being so smart and sapient, will not last that long.
How do you know that?
Oh, phok off.
Why can’t I meet pretty geek like you? :).
Ugly buggers int they?
how stupid do you think we are. no such thing as evolution .Reed the Bible start in Genesis for the whole creation story.
Excuse me, but how do you know that the specimen doesn't represent a trans individual??
needless to say, i am a little more that upset with how much of our topsoil got shipped to africa during the " end world hunger campaign", ( like trying to put out a fire with gasoline )...I Have Every Right To Not Like People Who Breed Faster Than The Food Grows..
Are you sure it’s just a cold you have? Seriously.
These people ruined the world
There is no Neanderthal species. Just human.
Human is not a species in anthropology, it’s a genus, humans are just any species in the genus Homo.
They were a distinct species, with many genetic differences between them as they got to be before sexual recombination versus after. Modern Europeans only have, in aggregate, 67% of the Neanderthal genome within them/us, because entire sections of Neanderthal autosomal chromosomes are missing in us, due to being misaligned, with various transpositions and mutations, not allowing about a third of their genes to work with ours. That's a significant difference, unlike that between any two modern H. sapiens alive today, the max of which is about 0.5%
Dr Nathaniel Jensen is completely destroying your evolutionist view with his book Traced. This video well not age well.
How much do you want bet that you can even define evolution and describe how we think human evolution occurred? I’m pretty confident that you can’t.