It seems like during "green Sahara" periods that there would be opportunity for migration and mixing & coalescing of different populations as there would be more habitable spaces opened up, and likewise when the Sahara was in a desert phase there'd be less interaction & more isolation due to the desert forming a barrier between groups who would cluster around habitable refuges from the desert, or in the regions that weren't affected by desertification. If this is true it would have occurred 20,000 year cycles repeatedly over hundreds of thousands of years.
I must say, I watched quite a few Neanderthal and anthropological RUclips videos of late. What “surprises” me the most? How many times these scientists are “surprised.” What that tells me is a lot of these scientists proceed under a biased set of assumptions. To my mind, no scientists should ever be surprised by the results because, if they are, that tells me they formed their hypothesis with expectations. Especially as it relates to these particular subjects.
All science has some kind of bias. Surprise at new discoveries is a natural human response and one reason why curious and brilliant minds are drawn to scientific work. What your post tells me is you don't do science, have never really studied it in detail, and don't understand the scientific method very well at all. You should stop with the youtube stuff and read books by scientists, articles in science journals and peer-reviewed research in online databases--all are readily available. You just don't show the capability of making judgements as yet regarding real science by working scientists.
I hate when they start these documentaries for the same intro it’s so confusing because it doesn’t electric believe that all you watching the same one over and over and over again
Great presentation, but enough of the biblical phrases. It's silly, ethnocentric, misinformative, and adds nothing to the empirical content of the presentation.
It's a fascinating subject and we all like to think we are being objective in our views on it but we aren't and can't be. Our views are all subjective seen through the prism of the social political reality of our time. The partisan advocacy within this comments section illustrate this point perfectly. It's always more instructive to note the facts, issues and points not covered or mentioned in news or press releases as an indicator of a more objective truth. In the academic world any deviance from the orthodoxy is severely punished, heretics are ostracised, ridiculed and defunded.
Absolutely wrong. The scientific method relies on falsification to improve its conclusions. Problem is that those who want to claim they have falsified a scientific model must have testable evidence and those who don't have such get booted, ostracised, ridicules and defunded, like creationists who want to make supernatural claims they cannot back up. Legitimate claims of falsification of any model with credible evidence that can be tested and shown valid are applauded and science makes the updated material a part of their new consensus.
I have always found it puzzling that if humans originated in Africa, for most of human history sub-Sahara Africa was home to the most privative of human cultures.
Historically, large human settlements have had a lot of trouble in regions with a strong presence of malaria (especially P. falciparum). This disease isn't as bad North of the Sahara or in the southern tip of Africa where larger cities are able to exist. This will likely continue to improve as malaria is finally getting to be more and more under control through efforts of medical professionals, charities, and governments. I think you have a weird assumption. People came from Africa. When people leave an area and go to a new one, they take their technology with them. Your logic seems to be something like Africans have been working on their society for the longest, so they should be the most advanced. We all have had the same amount of time. At times we go forward, at times we go backward (think dark ages). If you look at the whole continent of Africa and not focus on the region historically most devastated by malaria, Egypt in particular was a technological powerhouse for most of human history. But nothing about humans evolving in Africa would necessarily predict this. I hope this helps your puzzlement.
Why didn't neanderthals ever create advanced civilizations? They were in Europe for 800,000 years and didn't do shit until black people came 40,000 years ago and turned white 8,000 years ago
The view that modern humans suddenly appeared ca. 200,000 years ago (maybe a bit more) without ancestors is not seriously challenged here. The change from homo erectus to modern humans is gigantic and yet we have no intermidiate species. What is the best conclusion? There was a serious genetic intervention ca. 300,00 years ago (by the Anunnaki) as the summerians describe it in their tablets. Modern man was created then (as a worker). Only this can explain the otherwise very strange human lineage with homo erectus und then suddenly appearing modern humans.
Yes, relatively speaking. Modern humans have far less hairy bodies than our closest cousins. However, I must admit that I've seen some really hairy men in my many years. LOL
I questioned the use of the term too, after hearing this for numerous times. We are the only primate that has developed clothing, and when the word "naked" is used they are showing a person fully clothed, demonstrating cultural behavior. I suppose CARTA's use of this is a survival of Desmond's phrase "The Naked Ape."
@@larryparis925 Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep Human evolution. Only one with clothes. Humans, digital here now. Larry and Dan LarryParis4Freedom DanielHall4Freedom . ws
It seems like during "green Sahara" periods that there would be opportunity for migration and mixing & coalescing of different populations as there would be more habitable spaces opened up, and likewise when the Sahara was in a desert phase there'd be less interaction & more isolation due to the desert forming a barrier between groups who would cluster around habitable refuges from the desert, or in the regions that weren't affected by desertification. If this is true it would have occurred 20,000 year cycles repeatedly over hundreds of thousands of years.
Makes you wonder what may be under the sands of the Sahara.
Explains the invasion of the see peoples?
2:20... I don't get it. Why _fortunately?_
There is so much fascinating information in this lecture. I have to take pauses to understand it all!
Thank you Carta.
I must say, I watched quite a few Neanderthal and anthropological RUclips videos of late. What “surprises” me the most? How many times these scientists are “surprised.”
What that tells me is a lot of these scientists proceed under a biased set of assumptions.
To my mind, no scientists should ever be surprised by the results because, if they are, that tells me they formed their hypothesis with expectations. Especially as it relates to these particular subjects.
All science has some kind of bias. Surprise at new discoveries is a natural human response and one reason why curious and brilliant minds are drawn to scientific work. What your post tells me is you don't do science, have never really studied it in detail, and don't understand the scientific method very well at all. You should stop with the youtube stuff and read books by scientists, articles in science journals and peer-reviewed research in online databases--all are readily available. You just don't show the capability of making judgements as yet regarding real science by working scientists.
no Denisovans? No Luzanensis?
What about denisovians
Cool, a new vid. I would imagine there are more hominid species than on the Wood diagram.
Thank you for sharing.
Thanks
I hate when they start these documentaries for the same intro it’s so confusing because it doesn’t electric believe that all you watching the same one over and over and over again
As we heard from paleo anthropologist we are 0.3 million years old. Now we have to rethink this and think much older.
09-06-2013 .21.40 h . Setúbal Portugal.
Great presentation, but enough of the biblical phrases. It's silly, ethnocentric, misinformative, and adds nothing to the empirical content of the presentation.
It's a fascinating subject and we all like to think we are being objective in our views on it but we aren't and can't be.
Our views are all subjective seen through the prism of the social political reality of our time.
The partisan advocacy within this comments section illustrate this point perfectly.
It's always more instructive to note the facts, issues and points not covered or mentioned in news or press releases as an indicator of a more objective truth.
In the academic world any deviance from the orthodoxy is severely punished, heretics are ostracised, ridiculed and defunded.
Absolutely wrong. The scientific method relies on falsification to improve its conclusions. Problem is that those who want to claim they have falsified a scientific model must have testable evidence and those who don't have such get booted, ostracised, ridicules and defunded, like creationists who want to make supernatural claims they cannot back up. Legitimate claims of falsification of any model with credible evidence that can be tested and shown valid are applauded and science makes the updated material a part of their new consensus.
I have always found it puzzling that if humans originated in Africa, for most of human history sub-Sahara Africa was home to the most privative of human cultures.
Historically, large human settlements have had a lot of trouble in regions with a strong presence of malaria (especially P. falciparum). This disease isn't as bad North of the Sahara or in the southern tip of Africa where larger cities are able to exist. This will likely continue to improve as malaria is finally getting to be more and more under control through efforts of medical professionals, charities, and governments.
I think you have a weird assumption. People came from Africa. When people leave an area and go to a new one, they take their technology with them. Your logic seems to be something like Africans have been working on their society for the longest, so they should be the most advanced. We all have had the same amount of time. At times we go forward, at times we go backward (think dark ages).
If you look at the whole continent of Africa and not focus on the region historically most devastated by malaria, Egypt in particular was a technological powerhouse for most of human history. But nothing about humans evolving in Africa would necessarily predict this. I hope this helps your puzzlement.
@@Thedamped very well put, going to piggyback on that and point out the lack of animals suitable for domestication also likely contributed.
Why didn't neanderthals ever create advanced civilizations? They were in Europe for 800,000 years and didn't do shit until black people came 40,000 years ago and turned white 8,000 years ago
@@beebeesea7622 well put. I'd love to hear more of your summaries, you have no fluff, just facts. It's awesome.
@@Thedamped and yet african tool kits never made it to sahul..
The view that modern humans suddenly appeared ca. 200,000 years ago (maybe a bit more) without ancestors is not seriously challenged here. The change from homo erectus to modern humans is gigantic and yet we have no intermidiate species. What is the best conclusion? There was a serious genetic intervention ca. 300,00 years ago (by the Anunnaki) as the summerians describe it in their tablets. Modern man was created then (as a worker). Only this can explain the otherwise very strange human lineage with homo erectus und then suddenly appearing modern humans.
Homo erectus -> Homo antecessor -> African Homo heidelbergensis -> Archaic Homo sapiens -> Homo Sapiens
Naked?
Yes, relatively speaking. Modern humans have far less hairy bodies than our closest cousins. However, I must admit that I've seen some really hairy men in my many years. LOL
I questioned the use of the term too, after hearing this for numerous times. We are the only primate that has developed clothing, and when the word "naked" is used they are showing a person fully clothed, demonstrating cultural behavior. I suppose CARTA's use of this is a survival of Desmond's phrase "The Naked Ape."
TeslaDan4Freedom fb
@@DannyVega-DanielHall4Freedom Yes! That explains it all.... ????
@@larryparis925
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
Human evolution.
Only one with clothes.
Humans, digital here now.
Larry and Dan
LarryParis4Freedom
DanielHall4Freedom . ws