Homo Sapiens: Who Are We?

Homo Sapiens: Who Are We?This is an attempt to make a small scale science documentary on human evolution. Human evolution is a dynamic subject which is constantly being updated. Black Ryder Films tried to present timely information.

The latest news is that the anatomy of three new fossils (from Koobi Fora in northern Kenya), including a face, lends support to the hypothesis that there were at least two parallel lineages early in the evolutionary history of our own genus, Homo.

The new fossils confirm the presence of two contemporary species of early Homo, in addition to Homo erectus, in the early Pleistocene of eastern Africa.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 1 hour, 48 minutes)

231
7.63
12345678910
Ratings: 7.63/10 from 19 users.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7NZ2QBWUQBBOWVRCZORZSV2TEM alans

    We're Homo Interneticus already

  • over the edge

    while i do not disagree with the information given i could not get into this doc. i did watch it all but it would not be in my top 10 of evolution docs to watch on this site and for a specific human evolution doc i recommend Origins of Us. not only does it contain Dr Alice Roberts and in my opinion worthwhile on that fact alone but i found it more entertaining and informative. that being said i appreciate the effort and free to use nature of this doc and the author obviously knows his stuff it didn't fit my particular taste.

  • Ysabel Vicente

    Thank you for sharing. Love it.

  • Hwallach

    making me go nuts this guys dumb voice,

  • drinker69

    Another boring blacksploitation flick.

  • Teddy Mcd

    That was a great presentation. I looked around for chapter 10 here and YouTube - but no-go so maybe later.

  • Burying god

    "Another boring blacksploitation flick." WTF are you going on about?

  • http://www.facebook.com/glen.hale2 Glen Hale

    We are not directly related to Apes and all animals have the same bone structure , check out a chicken wing same bones as us but fingers have joined at end. we all came from fish ( search here for doco ) and genes are switch on or off depending what we are to be.

  • CrashBandicootFan

    You comment is a perfect example as to why some people don't need to be on the internet.

  • drinker69

    You should become a police officer and get shot

  • Weissmt

    There was a lot of up to date information included in this documentary, which I appreciate. It filled in some gaps for me about the homo erectis and neanterthals finds far from africa, but I found the style of presentation a bit jumpy. I'll continue searching for evidence of massive climactic change that played into the fall of the older groups.

  • Nfiertel

    It is damn annoying to watch the first four chapters of this doc and then..nothing. I detest watching half a program and I am sure I am not the only one!

  • http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

    @Nfiertel,

    Rest assured, probably you're the only one. All chapters of this doc are fine.

  • devlinwaugh

    Fantastic explanation that illuminates all the facts,a no nonsense accurate account based on all the fossil evidence and DNA we have to date.This is a precise and accurate account of human evolution a must watch.10/10

  • Jack1952

    Your original statement would indicate that you are a combative individual whose objective is to stir the pot and see what rises. It offers nothing of any intellectual value to add to any discussion of this film.

    Your response to CrashBandicootFan confirms what I suspected. It portrays an intellectual boor who lacks the ability to carry on any thing close to an intelligent conversation so you resort to insults and veiled threats. Shameful adult behaviour if indeed you are an adult. Sad thing is, you are probably quite pleased with yourself.

  • Jack1952

    This film leads me to believe that we have advanced to Homo Interneticus Boreustodeathicus. It amazes me how they could take such fascinating material and then present it is such a boring manner. This was duller than my grade twelve calculus class. If I took a shot of tequila for every time the narrator said "in the past" I would have spent the last few hours sicker than a dog.

    The information was as accurate as possible and one could learn a lot by watching this video if one could only stay awake through the whole thing.

  • drinker69

    If you say so Jack but what are we if not combatitive individuals? Not individuals if you ask moi, I think maybe you consider yourself 'easy-going' right? Easy going and survival don't mix, not in these wicked times you draft dodger. Why don't you do us all a favour and evolve and like the skin on our African ancestors here, lighten up.

  • Yurilynsky

    Why am I the only person that feels like the evolution of humans is not logical in any way? First, I want to inform everyone that I am an anthropology major at a university with a gpa of 3.7, and at least a 90% average grade in all of my biological anthropology classes. I completely UNDERSTAND all of the theories and concepts that I have been taught in the evolution of humans, however, I feel that most of these theories are very illogical, and nothing more than desperate attempts to make the theory of macroevolution hold together. For example, the theory of bipedalism -one of the first evident characteristics of human evolution found in the fossil record -is thought to have evolved by natural selection from pressures to conserve energy in the hot savannah environment in which our earliest ancestors lived. This theory also suggests the reason for loss of bodily hair. However, if you look at some of the primates of today that thrive in similar environments to that of our earliest ancestors, there are no apparent selective pressures for bipedalism or loss of bodily hair. Baboons, for example, are predominantly quadrupeds with plenty of bodily hair, and seem to be very well adapted to their environment. Although I understand that all species will not adapt to an environment in the same way, as this depends on the mutations that occur, from the little that I know about genetics, I would argue that it is highly unlikely for a mutation in the spinal chord and pelvic bone that would allow for bipedalism to occur, as most (if not all) mutations that affect the skeletal structure of a mammal are disadvantageous. In fact, pretty much all observed mutations found in mammals that are truly beneficial (by "truly" I mean that they actually have a significant impact on the survival of the animal to reach reproductive age and provide sufficient maternal/paternal care to their offspring) are mutations that merely affect disease susceptibility. Furthermore, any early stage of bipedalism in our ancestors would likely be disadvantageous in itself. The early hominids would have been slow moving on two feet, causing them to be easy prey for large felines. I also find it unlikely that in a world so abundant with convergent evolution, not a single other species of the savannah regions of Africa, of similar size to humans, has resolved a thermo regulation problem with bipedalism and loss of bodily hair. Instead, most of these animals have a "network of fine arteries at the base of the brain coupled with the venous circulation through the muzzle" called cartide rete, which helps with thermo regulation. However, the early hominids supposedly did not have this feature. How millions of years old, fragmented skeletal remains is able to determine this, completely baffles me.

  • Jack1952

    A very close friend lost his son who was murdered when he attempted to stop an individual who had stolen a vehicle. I find no humour in a suggestion to shoot a police officer or anyone else for that matter.

    Yes, I am an easy going guy. I have, also, worked as a bartender for over ten years. I have listened to these combative individuals who argue over anything, make inappropriate remarks, use abusive language about everything and at anyone, pick fights and have had to physically evict them from the premises. Nothing evolved about them.

  • drinker69

    Fine that was an inappropriate remark by me. I've been a bartender too, in London England which was awesome I must say. I was young(22) and I worked in some toilets but I loved serving all the m*rons and listening to the garbage they'd spew. This is off topic but so what, its an off topic kind of world. peace

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002961643042 Mohd Iqbal

    part 10 is missing

  • Teddy Mcd

    There is no part ten here or on YouTube.

  • RikG01

    Who said that hman evolution was based on thermo-regulation alone? I don't believe for a second that you have any of the qualifications you say you do. Why? Firstly, because you're missing two of the major evolutionary factors and benefits that are supported by bipedalism, secondly you are trying to wage the befits of bipedalism on thermo-regulation alone, which is bizarre to say the least and thirdly you apparently have limited understanding of fossilisation, genetics, fossil record and climate change.

    Bipedalism in humansis the trump card of previous evolutionary stagesthe totality of which allowed humansto gain communication, large brains and tool usage. Bipedalism allows for the ability to move while carrying objects with increased dexterity. It's true that humans are slower than other great apes in some citcumstances, but try getting great apes to carry weapons in their hands and run. Bipedalism may slow one down but it allows for many other opprtunites. Primarily the greater adaptability to environmental differences. How many great apes other than humans can you name, which travel from region to region and survive all conditions?
    Furthermore, if you had the qualifications and knowledge you claim to have, you'd know that our skeletons are not perfectly adapted for bipedalism. This is why back problems are such a common issue in modern humans.

    Finally, your claim that the only truly beneficial mutations in mammals are those which affect the immune system, is entirely b*llocks. For example, the mutations that have allowed Whales to hold their breath for extreme periods under water, have been incredibly beneficial. The whale wouldn't be much of a sea-bound mammal if it had to breath constantly at the surface of the water.

  • Kateye70

    "This is how evolution works:

    "A dynamic gene pool is encoded for by DNA.

    "This DNA is constantly mixing and occasionally mutating while being selectively culled by natural environmental pressures. Out of this dynamic mix arise organisms best suited for the conditions at hand.

    "Thus, mother nature, not by foresight, not by design, but by carefully rubbing and blowing on her dice, plays her magnificent game of chance; and we, and all we see, are the result. A bit skill and a bit of luck tempered and honed by the laws of chemistry and physics.

    "We are not here because mother nature is a designer, we are here because mother nature is a gambler." (from chapter 3 of the playlist)

    Best explanation ever of how evolution works. (Even if it *does* anthropomorphize a process.)

    I do agree with those who criticize the presentation; the background music is annoying and a little too loud (I find this a common problem in documentaries, though), and the narrator's voice is not the best for this task. But the information is interesting nonetheless.

  • Alwalys Evolving

    Perhaps the need for bipedalism has less to do with the legs and more to do with the need to use the hands and arms for something else. I have come across a dozen articles mentioning that chimpanzees are starting to use tools -spears to be specific- to hunt. With time these chimpanzees are expected to use these spears more efficiently. Certain actions, including throwing a spear at a moving target, would require higher efficiency. Such actions would yield better results from a bipedal stance. Of course once one tool becomes common, hundreds of others are to follow and the use of arms for other purposes besides walking becomes a self-imposed necessity. Chimpanzees who cannot efficiently use their arms for such tasks become a rarity. As natural selection takes over, slowly but surely, chimpanzees walking on two feet become a common sight. Of course their constant need to climb trees might delay this process, but a group of chimpanzees with spear in their hands are bound to get the taste of good deer or buffalo meat sooner or later, after which the scraps they hunt for in trees should become a thing of the past. Your writing depicts a deep insight into this subject. However, stating evolution as completely illogical seems to be a little bit of an overstatement. Baffling? Sure. With many loopholes yet to be filled? Definitely. Completely illogical? No.

  • lakhotason

    Why would you assume the same evolutionary pressure will produce the same results in different species?

  • over the edge

    Yurilynsky
    please ask your professors for an answer. if they cannot give an answer containing evidence transfer to another university. are you a creationist? and if i can ask what university are you attending? if that question is too personal i understand.
    edit: out of respect for another poster i edited my comment and apologize for the original and retract any accusations

  • lakhotason

    You and I have no way to prove or disprove Yurilynsky's academic bona fides. Best to let that dog lie and take him at his word.

  • over the edge

    lakhotason
    i admitted that i might be wrong and yes i agree that there is no way to confirm or deny another persons claims of the sort we are discussing. but i got a feeling and i felt the need to express it. but i take very few at their word and those that i do have to earn it. that being said a get your point and respect it

  • lakhotason

    I've been pretty much called a liar on TDF once before. It isn't a very desirable experience simply because it was unfair-I wasn't lying but there was no way I could prove otherwise Think of it in those terms.

    You do appear to be an open-minded and fair person.

  • CapnCanard

    Last I heard the Homo floresiensis finds on Sumatra are thought to be minature versions of Home Erectus? Mammals isolated on islands tend to evolve into smaller versions. Look to Wrangel Island holocene dwarf Mammoths, as recently as 6000 years ago. Things change... to put it lightly, our understanding is incomplete.

  • Allgodsaremanmade

    Great Video!!! However the audio SUCKS!!!!!
    Why do editors like background music that blows and drowns the narator????
    And for what it is worth, the narator SUCKS TO!!!!!

  • lex lexich

    total bee es

  • Jr007r1

    Very good documentary: but PLEASE, put this on a faster server. This film stops and goes too much. Almost no buffer time to allow this film to smoothly progress.

  • dmxi

    sir,your comment regarding drinker69 was an unnecessary 'low-punch'
    with no identifiable reason,except personal dislike for sarcastic,ironic &/or british humour in general,maybe?making superficial psychological assumptions concerning the intellectual capability via belittlement due to having a fetish of imitating 'frasier',sadly in a non-humoristic way,is indecent conduct...especially as you 'charge' him of having an insulting demeanour.
    i guess ,'Like'-ing his 'non-threatening' ,'non-insulting' & 'cloaked-with-a-hint-of-education' response,was your way of saying:"excuse me,i was a bit over the top."?
    i always enjoy your comments,as you are very insightful on a vary of
    topics & have a clear style of conveying information,so there is no need of being a smart-ar*e a la 'sheldon cooper'.
    i don't mean to offend you & sincerly hope,that you aren't. it was just
    an ugly comment & i'm sure,that that's not your true nature.

  • robertallen1

    In answer to the question which opens your blog, I'll tell you why. Because the evolutionists know more than you do and like several others on this thread, I doubt your qualifications and couldn't care less about your GPA.

  • robertallen1

    You certainly have a point about the presentation if not about calculus.

  • Drdocwilmot

    Surprisingly good... but too much info in to short a period of time.

  • Drdocwilmot

    Seems we're all Jungle Bunnies out of Africa.

  • bringmeredwine

    @Jr007r1. I know what you mean. This happens to my computer every single time I'm trying to watch a doc on utube. VERY annoying!

  • Samaritan

    The Annunaki are our ancestors.. over 50.000 clay tablets which can be found in musea all over the globe, are a proof of that..

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    that is wrong. you are reading books and watching videos made by pseudoarchaeologists.

    not a single serious archaeologist agrees with the crazy claims made by Zacharia Sitchin.

    you should do better research.

  • robertallen1

    This is as silly as Christianity.

  • dmxi

    isn't annunaki a sumerian word for poppycock?

  • sknb

    I really appreciate and like the information in this.

    HOWEVER. DNA IS NOT SET.

    The new field of Epigenetics proves that external stimuli like diet or toxins can effect, and does effect, the genetics of organisms. Not only does it effect one organisms genetics, but the changes that are made due to these stimuli like famine or BPA plastics are then hereditary.

    Please look at the great work done by Duke University on this topic. This is the most exciting new science in genetics in my opinion.

    You can also watch the documentary on this site called : The Ghost In Your Genes.

  • Jgoggs

    DNA is set. Epigenetic changes are heritable and changeable, but do not change the actual DNA. Instead, they regulate expression of genes that are already there.
    This implies that organisms have a fast acting means to cope with (possibly temporary) stressors without modifying the genome. Unlike a change in DNA, an Epigenetic change in the expression or repression of a gene would be reversible.

  • sknb

    There are so many ways to disprove Ancient Alien theory that I intend to write a thesis on it. At its roots, if you dive deep enough, you will find its links with Nazism. Even at its face it discounts the knowledge and ingenuity of Native and ancient peoples consistently,

  • Pete

    It must be free know hidden charges of any kind!

  • Yurilynsky

    I attend the University of Cincinnati, and I am sorry if my statement that you quoted sounded dumb to you, but please don't belittle me, simply explain to me how scientists are able to determine a specie's artery system based on its fossilized skeletal remains (by the way, that has more to do with archaeology than biological anthropology)...
    Also, I am not saying that I am able to present to the world a better hypothesis for how we came to be as we are, but I am simply pointing out the fact that many of theories on the evolution of man are flawed, and in my opinion, so critically flawed that they should not be taught. Disproving and dismissing hypotheses is equally important to the implementation of the scientific method as is the development of hypotheses...
    Finally, the other popular theory on the evolution of bipedalism has already been widely discounted. Although you may still be taught in classes that the "freeing of the hands" may have played a role in the evolution of bipedalism, it is highly unlikely, considering the fact that tool use did not develop until much later than bipedalism.

  • robertallen1

    As Epicurus has pointed out, you obviously don't have the knowledge or experience to determine what should or should not be taught.

    You certainly lack the fundamentals of scholarship. "Finally, the other popular theory on the evolution of bipedalism has already been widely discounted." Just who are these discounters? Are their objections religious or supernaturally based?

    Until you are ready to disprove evolution wholesale, your attempts to go against those who've spent their intellectual lives studying and writing about it, in short, your intellectual betters, are callow and insulting. I am almost certain than Epicurus will be addressing these attempts directly.

  • Yurilynsky

    First of all, I have no reason at all to lie about my educational background -I am not a graduate student, nor an expert by any measure -I am simply an undergraduate student in anthropology who is eager to learn as much as I can from my professors and text books, but also inquisitive enough to question and doubt the theories at hand...
    However, I feel that you have misunderstood many of the claims that I was making. One main point that I was trying to make is that evolution works by natural selection, so in that case, you cannot uphold the fact that there are several other benefits to bipedalism. Of course bipedalism is a very beneficial attribute in humans, that allow for a lot of other things that make us uniquely human, such as our large brains and ability to use complex tools, as you have mentioned, but those benefits are EFFECTS of bipedalism, not causes. When analyzing the possible REASONS as to why bipedalism may have evolved, one is very limited because the only way that evolution takes place is by both environmental pressures and the chance of beneficial mutations. So, for example, just because it may be beneficial for a squirrel to have a pouch on its underside to store food, doesn't mean that it WILL evolve to have a pouch on its underside. There has to be very strong natural selective pressures for this to occur, along with the chance that such a mutation will even come about. That is the same point that I am trying to make about bipedalism. To make my point even further, back problems in the human species persists despite its disadvantages, because it does not prevent us from surviving and reproducing, and those without any back problems do not have any serious advantages over those with common mild back problems, and therefore there are no strong natural selective pressures to evolve "perfect backs."
    Also, the mutation for whales to be able to hold their breath longer under water is a terrible counter argument for the claim that I was trying to make. First of all, this ability is not a new mutation found in whales, whales have been able to do this for as long as we have been around. Secondly, my main point was that there are no beneficial mutations found in mammals effecting the STRUCTURE of the skeletal system...
    Don't be so quick to just repeat everything that you have already learned and that everyone else already knows -instead, think about it a little more critically, be a skeptic for once, and maybe you will discover something new.

  • robertallen1

    You admit that you are only an undergraduate student in anthropology and yet have the temerity to try to dictate what should or should not be taught. Have you confronted your professors with your issues or have you kept them quietly to yourself? If the former, what have been their responses? This you haven't shared with us. If the replies you receive are those of mainstream science, has it occurred to you that there's probably a scientific reason which fogeyism has nothing to do with?

    It's fine to question, but it's even better to learn as much as you can before you do.

  • Yurilynsky

    Even though you still disagree with me, I really appreciate you understanding my stand point, and giving me credit in what I have learned and evaluated. Although many scientists are starting to doubt the serious role that the "freeing of the hands" may have played in the evolution of bipedalism due to the fact that bipedalism evolved much earlier than tool use, your comment on chimpanzees and their own development of tool use has given me greater insight on how this may have occurred in correspondence with other natural selective pressures in our own ancestry. Also, I acknowledge that the theory of evolution itself has a great deal of supporting evidence, and I completely believe in microevolution, I simply disagree with the possibilty of macroevolution. My opinion is not just based on what I have shared with you all in by initial comment, but also on many other factors that I have taken notes on and followed up on with research.
    Once again, thank you for being so civil with me, and if you have anything else to share, I would be more than glad to hear more.

  • Yurilynsky

    Convergent evolution is the name given to similar evolved characteristics among species that have dissimilar evolutionary roots. Convergent evolution is something that is widely taught and accepted among scientists. In other words, it IS widely assumed that the same evolutionary pressures will produce the same results in different species (this was not a personal assumption).

  • robertallen1

    So you disagree with the possibility of macroevolution. First of all, where does microevolution end and macroevolution begin? Secondly, I realize that you are merely an undergraduate, but did you know that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs? Did you know that cetaceans such as whales, porpoises and dolphins are not only related to each other, but to artiodactyls such as hippopotami? Did you know that trichechildae such as manatees are related to pachyderms such as elephants? I'm not a science major or even someone with a science background, but I know these things. Why don't you?

  • Yurilynsky

    I attend the University of Cincinnati. Also, I have presented a couple of my professors with a few questions that they were not able to answer. The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution is not complete, and so there are still many unanswered questions in the study. I feel that many of these unanswered questions are so desperately attempted to be answered that many of the existing theories involving evolution are quite ridiculous, but taught to students any way.
    However, I am not a creationist. I am not a believer of any particular faith. I am simply an inquisitive student who believes that we still have not quite figured out how the world has come to be as it is. I believe that in this infinite universe, there are much greater forces at work than we can even imagine at this point in civilization.

  • robertallen1

    This does not jive with what I've read about convergent evolution. So telling me who is assuming this.

  • robertallen1

    Considering the quality of the professors at the University of Cincinnati and the university's fine reputation, I don't believe your story. Once again, considering the woeful incompleteness of your education, you have no business declaring what should or should not be taught.

    And just what are these greater forces? "I believe" doesn't cut it.

  • Yurilynsky

    Just based on the comments between you and lakhotason, I kind of figured that you posted at some point that I was lying about my credentials. First, I want to thank you for editing your comment, as it must have been pretty nasty. I did not comment on this site to have any nasty arguments with anyone, I would much rather have an intelligent debate of some sort. I feel that we should all be able to respect one another, regardless if we disagree with them or not, as I have not said anything that should have offended anyone in any kind of way. But just for the record, I have not lied about anything. What edge can I get from lying about my educational background? Regardless if I were an anthropology student or not, I would feel confident in posting my opinion on here if I felt that I was knowledgable on the subject. I have no reason to lie about by grades -if my grades were bad I would simply not mention them at all. The only reason I gave any of that information in the first place was to simply imply that I UNDERSTAND the concepts of evolution, I just don't agree with some of them. I basically wanted to avoid people making comments that would spell out the basics of the theory of evolution as that would be quite pointless in my case. Apparently, I have to be either an i*iot or a liar to some people in order to get away with my initial post, but oh well -it was worth a shot.

  • Yurilynsky

    Ok, first of all, evolutionists will admit themselves that there are many unanwered questions in the theory. They will also admit that there are many studies that have been done that are not conclusive, and many theories that have been made that are highly debateable. At this point, I really don't care if anyone thinks I'm lying about my qualifications (what in the world could I gain from lying about that? and you all make it seem like I said that I was a professor of anthropology or something -I am a STUDENT, which means I am still learning, for goodness sake!), but if you simply took the time to research anything that I stated on my initial post then you would realize that I know my subject matter, and though by breadth of knowledge is far from complete, I presented quite a good argument.

  • robertallen1

    If you're simply a student, you shouldn't be saying what should or should not be taught.

    However, if you feel that there are certain aspects of evolution which shouldn't be taught, I suggest that you contacgt the National Center for Science Education, 420 40th Street, #2, Oakland, CA 94609-3682 (510) 601-7203. Make sure you present the staff not only with your arguments but with your qualifications as well.

  • over the edge

    Yurilynsky
    you stated "it IS widely assumed that the same evolutionary pressures will produce the same results in different species" nowhere that i know of does it say that.look up "Analogy" as it pertains to biology. the results may be similar but not the same. the most used example is bats,birds and flying insects while they all fly their wings are not the same.
    next you state ""freeing of the hands" may have played a role in the evolution of bipedalism, it is highly unlikely, considering the fact that tool use did not develop until much later than bipedalism. " could you point me to where a textbook states that (when tool use started)? and tool use isn't the only reason for bipedalism .as with many reasons for traits found in species there are usually more than one pressure acting on the species and many adaptations can have multiple uses and causes.

  • robertallen1

    I was right. It goes against everything that I've read about convergent evolution. Thanks for the scientific confirmation.

  • over the edge

    robertallen1
    what i find scary/confusing is the inability of his/her professors to answer this. there may be a number of reasons for this so i won't speculate. but these are basic knowledge questions..

  • robertallen1

    He says he attends the University of Cincinnati, a highly credentialed school with a fine reputation. I think he's lying and I've told him so. I even went one step further and gave him the address and phone number of the National Center for Science Education to address his concerns about what he believes should not be taught.

  • over the edge

    Yurilynsky
    yes i questioned your credentials. yes i should not have based on no proof to the contrary . no it was not nasty. but i apologize just the same

  • over the edge

    robertallen1
    the NCSE is not only a great place to go for answers and concerns. but also just a great place to learn.

  • robertallen1

    And as I've stated before, it's the only organization of which I'm a membe--and besides it costs just $35 a year. Also I recently asked for some back articles on the crank mathematics employed by creationists and the like and received them about three days after my request. So if Yurilynsky has the courage of his convictions, this is the perfect organization for him to express his concerns about what is being taught in the line of evolution--and present the staff with his credentials. I'll wager 50 American dollars to your 50 Canadian dollars that he doesn't bite.

  • over the edge

    robertallen1
    depending on the economy i might come out on the losing end of that one (kidding). but either way i i don't like my odds

  • robertallen1

    I don't blame you. It would probably be a sucker bet anyway. Although Yurilynsky states that he is not religious, I'll bet (again!) that there's something religious behind his comments based on his belief in "greater forces."

  • lakhotason

    So the short answer to my question is that the same evolutionary pressures would not necessarily produce the same results? I was asking the question of Yurilynsky because I simply do not know.

  • robertallen1

    Here we agree. This is my understanding.

  • lakhotason

    Many times when I read an interesting statement by a commentator I don't go and look it up. I try, by what knowledge I possess, to reason it out. In doing so sometimes interesting questions arise.

    Intuitively, that premise seemed (and was) wrong. Now here is a question that's nagging me. Would a lack of evolutionary pressure produce the same or different results? Example: An abundant food supply. Would two different species respond (evolution wise) in the same way?

  • robertallen1

    I don't think so. What about Darwin's finches?

  • lakhotason

    I wouldn't think they would respond the same either. Yet I can't think of a reason why they would respond at all, other than mutation.

  • lakhotason

    ps I get what you mean by Darwin's finches.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    The arterial system is going to be based on the skeleton. certain parts go through and around certain bones.

    tool use wouldnt start to get intricate until much later but australopithecine was certainly using tools like our chimpanzee cousins today...just a little better. that would only be one of the complimentary theories. it has not been discounted.

    and you say: "im simply pointing out THE FACT that many of theories on the evolution of man are flawed" (emphasis mine)

    could you give me an example?

  • robertallen1

    As you, Over the Edge or Achem (I can't remember which one) mentioned, this is basic, even for me with a non-science background. Therefore, when he states that his professors at the University of Cincinnati can't answer his questions, I don't believe him. I'll bet you 25 American dollars to 30 Canadian ones (just to make things fair) that he won't be able to produce one example of a flawed theory anent evolution.

  • Teddy Mcd

    CDN $ and US $ are at par (pretty darn close) these recent days but if I had a million dollars I'd take your generous and thoughtful offer buddy - as for the arterial system - I don't know - you see me an Lao Tzu are checking out the half moon on this cloudless and wondrous night. Take care gentlemen.

  • Heisman_12

    This is terrible...I think the budget on this was $5 and the info recycled...garbage

  • Yurilynsky

    That is just my personal opinion as of now. It may likely change as I learn more throughout the course of my education. If not, however, I will definitely do so -and by then, I will be certainly qualified.

  • Yurilynsky

    I never presented these particular questions to my professors. There were a few other questions that I have confronted them with that they were unable to answer. If I shared with you a couple of these questions, I am sure your professors would be unable to answer them as well.

  • Yurilynsky

    First of all, I am a she, and secondly, if you still don't believe me, you could always look up my name, Yuri Edwards, on UC's 2011/2012 dean's list online.

  • Yurilynsky

    I am definitely not a creationist, and honestly don't even know too much about what they believe in, so please don't associate me with them. However, as a twenty year old sophomore student, I still feel that I need a little more time before I go head to head with the big dogs.

  • Yurilynsky

    No need to apologize -I can see that you are definitely a decent person, and I enjoy the intelligent debate!

  • Yurilynsky

    By "greater forces" I mean forces that are still not understood by mankind. Such as gravitiy before Newton's time. Imagine if we had the power to manipulate DNA to our likings -would this not make us gods? Perhaps there are/were tangible beings somewhere out in the universe that had the knowledge to do such things. I am not saying that I believe in this (as I have no reason to believe this without any evidence) but I am simply making the point that there is a great chance that we have not even come close to discovering all that there is to discover, and that one day the books may have to be rewritten -just as they have been so many times before. I think one of mankind's greatest obstacles is the ego -we always think we know it all -until we discover something new -and then we think we know it all. It is actually a great hinderance.

  • Yurilynsky

    Not necessarily, but often times, they do. Not the exact same results, but very similar results, especially if the two species share similar niches in their environments. Just look up "convergent evolution" and you can check out the whole theory and see examples for yourself.

  • robertallen1

    Considering the quality of the University of Cincinnati, I really don't believe you.

  • robertallen1

    I don't care which list you're on. You do not seem credible.

  • robertallen1

    Then what makes you think you are qualified to dictate what should or should not be taught?

  • robertallen1

    Then you should have stated what you meant by "greater forces." I can only imagine what your term papers must be like, dean's list or no dean's list. Anyone can waste his time imagining things.

  • robertallen1

    There's also divergent evolution which must be studied at the same time.

  • Yurilynsky

    Thank you for explaining how the skeletal systems can infer certain aspects of the arterial system, as that is something that I obviously did not know. Also, the tool use theory pretty much HAS been discounted as a factor in the evolution of bipedalism, as there are millions of years that seperate the POSSIBLE production of biodegradable tools (similar to those produced by chimpanzees) and the production of stone tools. One may argue that production of these simple "stick" tools along with many other useful arm and hand functions may have altogether played a role in the evolution of bipedalism, but that is when I present my counter argument that this would still confine our early ancestors to the trees, as we would not have been fast enough on two feet to completely abondon our arboreal life without the risk of extinction from predation. How then, would we ever evolve to be solely bipedal PRIOR to stone tool use? By the way, in regards to loss of bodily hair, why would we only retain the hair on our heads, and then, unlike many other primates, develop hair growth in our armpits and genital areas. Furthermore, why did the straight hair, characteristic of all other primates, evolve into kinky, course hair? Also, do you have an example of a beneficial mutation in the skeletal STRUCTURE of any mammal found today? These are just a couple of reasons as to why I said that many of these theories are flawed. I am presenting you with all of these questions because you seem to be very intelligent and knowledgable of the subject, and so far, you have given me the greatest challenge in debate.

  • Yurilynsky

    No! I definitely see the evolutionary advantages, but once again, evolution is an undirected process, meaning that even if something is beneficial, it does not necessarily mean that it will evolve. There has to be strong natural selective pressures, accompanied by the chance of the "right" mutations to come about. On top of that, the genetic mutation has to be heritable, and dominant in order for a selective sweep to take place, unless the dominant allel is critically disadvantageous. What I was meaning by that statement is that, if bipedalism and loss of bodily hair are actually likely to evolve in those environmental conditions, then why in a world so prevelant with convergent evolution, has no other animal in evolved these characteristics in this type of an environment?

  • Yurilynsky

    Since we are having a scientific discussion, I thought it was unnecessary for me to verify that I was not talking about some sort of supernatural force when I used the term "greater forces." And actually, I am an excellent writer (besides my spelling), and I take extra care that I make precise points in my term papers, so I have never had any problems in that area. Also, how can you ever discover anything new if you don't first think outside of the box.

  • robertallen1

    You've answered your own question in your first sentence. Also divergent evolution is probably as prevalent as convergent evolution.

  • Yurilynsky

    I don't think I am qualified to dictate what should and should not be taught. In my OPINION some of these theories should not be taught. I am always entitled to my opinion. When I AM qualified to dictate what should and should not be taught, then maybe I will.

  • Yurilynsky

    You don't seem credible either -that is why all of your comments are short, rude, and lacking any knowledge of anything that is being discussed.

  • Yurilynsky

    You don't have to believe me -I go back to school tomorrow, whether you believe me or not, and I'll get my degree whether you think I am lying or not.

  • Yurilynsky

    Seriously? Divergent evolution is the evolution of a new species in the first place -how can we not be talking about divergent evolution if we are talking about evolution altogether. I feel like your just shouting out the first thing that comes to your mind.

  • robertallen1

    Don't try that smoke screen about thinking outside the box. Won't wash. And don't try to cover up your obvious lack of precision with the self-serving assertion that you're an excellent writer who saves precision for term papers. I'm not fooled and I don't think anyone else is either.

  • Yurilynsky

    Oh, and I meant coarse hair, not course hair lol.

  • robertallen1

    Don't try that cover-up--again it won't wash. One opinion is not as good as another (as should be clear even to you). You made a definite statement that certain aspects of evolution should not be taught and this amounts to dictation. In short, at this stage of your education, your opinion is worthless.

  • robertallen1

    First of all, I don't claim to be a biology student. Secondly, find one factually inaccurate or ignorant statement I have made. When a pipsqueak such as you starts to dictate (the facts speak for themselves despite your denial) what should be taught, she deserves the rudeness of which you complain.

  • robertallen1

    Then maybe you'll be in a better position to assess what should or should not be taught, but you have a long way to go--and all I can say is that you have chosen a fine school from which you will hopefully benefit.

    Once again, I don't believe that you ever asked your professors those questions and received no answers because every one of the issues you have mentioned is basic biology. I wouldn't be surprised if the truth of the matter were that you simply did not like the answers you received.

  • robertallen1

    Wrong as usual. The two are contrapuntal.

  • over the edge

    Yurilynsky
    you ask "other animal in evolved these characteristics in this type of an environment?" an exhaustive answer would involve walls of text so i will give a basic one. the loss of hair or bipedalism relies on previous mutations and selective pressures.even if in some cases similar trails evolve that is no guarantee that it will happen in all or most cases. these two traits are related as our ancestors left the trees (multiple reasons) and took to the savannah bipedalism meant that we spent long periods of time in the open traveling long distances and the excess heat produced by these activities would mean that an ancestor with "less" hair would be more efficient at regulating body temperature. there are many characteristics such as these that rely one on the other. another species would not only have to share our evolutionary history, they would have to be presented with the same pressures and have the same mutations, then survive the competition that would arise from two species filling the same niche (neanderthal didn't survive remember). also while we do have many fossils the conditions required for fossilization and the ability to find what fossils that do exist would lead one to accept that other animals had similar mutations but didn't survive. we as humans have faced many hurdles in our evolutionary past and our survival was on a knife edge multiple times. while you do raise some good questions i hope that you will understand that your original statement "Why am I the only person that feels like the evolution of humans is not logical in any way?" is wrong as i and others have tried to show you just some of the logic. by the way what is your logical alternative to the theory of evolution?

  • robertallen1

    This is why I don't believe her when she indicates that her professors can't answer her questions. Your explanation is no different from that which would be offered in a school such as the University of Cincinnati. She either didn't ask the questions she said she did or did not receive the answers she was expecting or would have liked to receive. Her rhetorical question about the "logic" of human evolution gives her away.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    i BEG you to ask your professors these questions. I personally have worked with a number of professors at your school. my favourite was Sarah Jackson. im sure she can answer your questions. also Heather L Norton and specifically for your questions on osteology you might want to ask Katherine Whitcome.

  • Yurilynsky

    Whatever, you are really ridiculous -you don't know me at all, but you insist on down-talking me as if I personally offended you are something. No one else on this thread is being as critical with me as you are, because it is simply rude and disgusting behavior. I don't have to be precise with you -like I said, I thought that it would be quite obvious that I was not talking about supernatural forces in a scientific discussion. It's actually your biased assumptions about me that led you to make such fraudulent statements about my beliefs. What is the point of even commenting back to anything I say if you think that I am lying about everything that I have said about myself? Please, harass someone else if that is all that you enjoy doing on this site.

  • Yurilynsky

    FOR THE THIRD TIME: I have NOT asked any of my professors any of THESE PARTICULAR questions. I have asked them a few OTHER questions in which they were unable to answer... Now I am starting to wonder if you have comprehension problems (that would explain a lot!)

  • Yurilynsky

    Divergent evolution is when one species branches off into another species. You admitted that you don't have an education in biology, so did you even look up the word?! When members of a species are genetically isolated from other members of a species (which can occur in several different ways) they begin to fill different niches and adapt to their environment in different ways, and in theory, will eventually evolve into a completely new species. Like I said, how can we have a discussion about evolution WITHOUT talking about divergent evolution? I don't think YOU understand how evolution works.

  • Yurilynsky

    That was an excellent answer to my argument about other mammals in similar environments evolving similar characteristics to humans, such as bipedalism and loss of bodily hair. I completely agree with you, but the point that I was making by that is that while other animals so often adapt to their environments in similar ways, there are a few characteristics of humans that are unparallel with anything else found in the wild. I was stressing the fact that the LIKELY hood of us adapting to our environment in such a way seems illogical to me, as it is highly improbable (for the various reasons that I have already given), but you have, to a certain extent, agreed to this with your statement, "we as humans have faced many hurdles in our evolutionary past and our survival was on a knife edge multiple times." I feel that evolutionists are overlly optimistic about the theory of macroevolution, despite the odds that are sometimes present (such as, in my opinion, the odds of us evolving bipedalism).

  • Yurilynsky

    I have actually had a class with both Sarah Jackson and Heather Norton, who I both admire greatly. In fact, in case you also think that I am lying about my education, you could even ask Heather Norton about me, she knows me by name, and told me that she was very impressed with me as a student. I find it so interesting that you know some of my professors!
    I have often thought about presenting some of these questions to my professors, but they just seem so unorthodoxed in a college setting. I always end up asking the questions that aren't so obviously against the theory of evolution. I do intend to formally (in writing) present some of my arguments against the theory to my professors, but only when I am fully confident that I know all of my subject matter. However, that day may never come if at some point in my educational experience I am convinced otherwise.
    In fact, this is the first time that I have debated with others on this subject, simply because I don't like to be ridiculed.
    (By the way, Sarah Jackson is everyone's favorite!)

  • over the edge

    Yurilynsky
    not only do i agree with epic but he is far most knowledgeable in this area than i but i do agree with him that you should present these questions to your professors. i do have one more question if you don't mind. could you give me your expectations for macroevolution ? the reason i ask is there have been many examples of the scientific definition demonstrated.

  • Yurilynsky

    That was a really great answer to part of my question concerning loss of bodily hair. Although you were unable to wholly answer all of my questions, I trully appreciate the time and effort you took in answering as much as you could, as I love learning about this material! Now I need to go to bed, as I have class in the morning -too bad I will not be taking any biological anthropology courses this semester (sad face), but this discussion has certainly got me amped for the first day of class!

  • robertallen1

    No, it's you who obviously don't judging from your comments and questions--and the two are contrapuntal in the sense that both occur simultaneously.

  • robertallen1

    Then if you're not so confident, where do you get off telling schools what shouldn't be taught? It's also obvious that you have not posed your questions to these professors as you say you have. The strains your credibility.

  • Yurilynsky

    I am not exactly sure as to what you mean by my "expectations for macroevolution," but basically, some of the things that don't make sense to me when it comes to macroevolution include the likelihood of particular beneficial mutations occurring within a population, and successfully spreading throughout the entire population -especially mutations effecting the skeletal structure, mutations effecting the brain, and mutations effecting the supposed development of certain organs (and I am not referring to the eye, though I do have my doubts as to the liklihood of such a series of mutations actually occuring , and not just once, but several times within the early animal kingdom -another example of convergent evolution -along with the evolution of the "face" among most animals, typically consisting of some sort of eye, nose and mouth, all situated in the same area of the body). I also do not understand the evolutionary advantage of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction, as the earliest asexual organisms evolved to have complementary sexes. Thirdly, as all seperate species have a different number of chromosomes -often making it impossible for the egg and sperm of two seperate species to even form an embryo -I do not understand then, how it is possible for one species to evolve into a new species. To put this into a question -at what point does the female member of a species (with a particular set of chromosomes) give birth to offspring of a new species (with a different particular set of chromosomes)?
    Let me also state that I have not done any research myself into any of the points that I have made above, as I expect to learn more about the genetics of evolution through my education, so if you have any information or references for me, I would be very interested.

  • robertallen1

    If you haven't done any research into the areas you've described, if you haven't asked your fine professors about them, where do you get off dictating what should or should not be taught?

  • Yurilynsky

    The two don't always occur simultaneously. Convergent evolutin has occurred many times among many different species throughout the evolution of life, just as divergent evolution has even more obviously occurred many millions of times throughout the evolution of life. They are two completely different concepts that can only be described as contrapunel in the breakdown of thier very definitions: convergent evolution is when UNRELATED species evolve SIMILAR characteristics; divergent evolution is when a group from a SINGLE species evolves DIFFERENT characteristics due to its genetic isolation from the parent population. The only time that convergent evolution and divergent evolution occur simultaneously, is when convergent evolution takes place -however, divergent evolution often takes place without the occurance of convergent evolution -this is when new or unique organs and mechanisms for survival evolve. The evolution of bipedalism is an example of divergent evolution that did not simultaneously involve convergent evolution.
    Also, judging from my comments, any knowledgable person in this subject will tell you that while I am far from an expert, I DO, for the most part, understand HOW evolution works, and though I may have my arguments against many of the theories, I can explain these concepts with clarity, and I am generally well informed on the subjects that I mentioned. I admit that I was completely wrong about one thing (the ability to determine the arterial system from the skeletal system), but other than that, I have put up a good argument in which no one on this thread has been able to satisfyingly refute on their own.

  • robertallen1

    The point is that although you are only an undergraduate, you made an assertion as to what should and should not be taught. You are in no position to judge.

  • Kateye70

    Your third point--Ok, I was never a biology student in college, but from what I know about it, the egg of one species and the sperm of another will never merge to form an embryo--except very closely related ones such as horse and donkey, and then the offspring is usually sterile, although an occasional fertile one will be born.

    A female never gives birth to offspring with a wildly different set of chromosomes--I don't think there's any mechanism that would even produce such a change, or if it did, it would kill the mother, the offspring, or both.

    It's the mutations *within* a species' chromosomes that change over generations to create the new species. Only one minor change at time, and if it is benign or confers an advantage of some sort, it may be reproduced in the next generation. Contemporaries are always able to mate with one another, and share the majority of their chromosomes, and are still the same species.

    You could compare a lineage many generations apart (great-great-whatever-ancestral-creature to new-species-creature) and see the changes, but it takes many generations to create a new species.

    You're in college as a biology major and never learned this? What are they teaching in high school these days? I'm a little puzzled, because I am not educated in this field at all, but I remember knowing these things when I was a teenager taking the most basic of biology classes.

    Edit: In fact, I just remembered--I was horse-crazy as an adolescent and fascinated by the evolution of horses from small three-toed critters to the beautiful creatures I adored. Eohippus to equus...I studied the skeleton drawings that showed the evolutionary changes very clearly. There was no ambiguity in how the changes took place, or that they took place very gradually. But if you put an Eohippus and a modern horse together, I seriously doubt you'd get offspring.

  • robertallen1

    My concern exactly as well as her representation that when she asked her professors to address her various concerns, they could or would not. Yet, she has the unmitigated gall to promulgate what should or should not be taught. Something's wrong somewhere.

  • Kateye70

    I'm not so much doubting who she as as wondering what the heck has happened in the primary and secondary school systems.

  • robertallen1

    I wonder if she's even typical of what's being produced in the primary and secondary school systems. I have little doubt that she attends the University of Cincinnati (but again who knows what a little investigation might reveal), but the remainder of her story I strongly question.

  • over the edge

    Kateye70, being a horse fan you might like the first link in my post to Yurilynsky. there is still a debate whether it is a sub species or separate species but it is a horse with a different number of chromosomes that produce fertile offspring

  • Kateye70

    Are you speaking of Przewalski's horse? Yes, it has a different chromosome count than the domestic horse, but then so do donkeys, and they can mate, and (rarely) produce fertile offspring. Gotta love wiki. There's a whole section on why male donkey/female horse cross is more successful than the reverse female donkey/male horse, which doesn't produce offspring nearly as often.

  • Kateye70

    @Yurilynsky: You had some earlier questions about hominid evolution, which seems to indicate that you are thinking of bipedalism as only belonging to our own narrow species and direct ancestors.

    Some of what I've been reading on the subject indicates that bipedalism was produced more than once in primate evolution, and that it is a mistake to read the fossil record of all bipedal primates as belonging to homo sapiens' line only.

    I think the problem is that we humans like to think of ourselves as being totally unique in the world. Religions reinforce this particular fancy, especially with the injunction to 'hold dominion' over every other living creature.

    How does one justify that megalomaniac concept without also claiming to be so unique and special that one has the right--nay, the moral duty!--to do this?

    I think youngsters are somewhat shocked when they come to realize we are not such special cupcakes after all.

    Hopefully, upon reflection they come to realize that we out-witted, out-lasted and out-played every other hominid species. Which makes us very special cupcakes indeed, even if very homicidal cupcakes.

    I have always enjoyed fantasy tales about elves, goblins, and other human-like creatures. As I learned more about our hominid past, it has made me wonder if our stories about these creatures are actually the remnants of handed-down oral memories of a time when we did share the planet with other hominids, and possibly a way to mourn their loss.

    It is very sad to be an only child. I think there have been some recent discoveries that indicate the cleansing of all non-homo sapiens sapiens from the planet is somewhat more recent than we have previously believed.

  • Kateye70

    In re: Hominid tool use. I realize that we only have rock (flint) tools to go on, but isn't it likely that such soft items as gut, hair and plant fiber have been fabricated or spun into strings and rope for much longer than we could possibly have any evidence for?

    I read a book on the history of textile making (Women's Work: The First 20,000 Years) which mentioned archaeological finds that were originally misinterpreted and later proved to be evidence of looms (stone weights; the wood parts had long since disappeared). She also explains exactly how hand spindles work and how simple and easy (if tedious) the task is.

    Although that book was primarily concerned with textile making, one could easily imagine the many uses even a primitive rope or string might have (snares, nets, etc.), and that a curious, investigative species might have been making and using that 'tool' even before learning to knap flint.

  • dewflirt

    I did a short archaeology course some years back, practical stuff, thatching, building roundhouses, washing deer skin in pee, that sort of thing. We used to make all the string with nettles or use strips of leather. You can make good cloth from nettles, Germans made uniforms from it during ww1, you get a good dye from it too. There was a cotton shortage I think. Also made flint tools, not that easy! String is easier ;)

  • Kateye70

    "String is easier ;) "

    Ah ha! I have a working hypothesis then! Now, if only they found the imprint of a net dropped next to those footprints left in volcanic ash at Laetoli, a few million years ago, I might be able to advance to a theory o.O

  • dewflirt

    You don't need any of that, remember the piece of coal with a gold chain in its centre? Or the morter and pestle found in a mine? Search ooparts for more of the same, or watch ancient aliens ;)

  • Kateye70

    ooparts? new term, didn't know that one, lol!

    Sadly, I doubt my hypothesis can ever be proved, unless some incredibly lucky find of fossilized string made into a net doesn't then turn out to be a mess of worms or some bizarre coprolite.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    very true. i havent looked much into the history of textiles. i might give that a look.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    oh goodness, dont watch ancient aliens.

    and i dont think there are really any "ooparts" that are that significant tbh.

  • dewflirt

    Don't watch it? But what will I watch when I'm poorly? It's my favourite thing I can watch without paying attention. Always makes me smile :)
    Shame about the ooparts don't you think? Interesting curios. I live not far from the Booth Museum of Natural History. Some guys taxidermy collection. Honestly, he killed a lot of birds! Not as good at taxidermy as he was at hunting. They have a little merman there, all crispy with age and spiky looking. I just like odd things. I know he's only a monkey-fish but he is wonderful :)

  • lakhotason

    Well what I would like to know is whether you guys ever caught that lion which was running loose and taxidermy him - or did you taxidermy the person who "saw" it.

  • dewflirt

    Sorry, no ABC's here. Nothing more than hearsay unfortunately. Did you see the story about a tiger in Hampshire not long back? Police helicopters found it, turned out to be a cuddly toy! We must be having a big cat flap ;)

  • lakhotason

    I couldn't help of thinking of Monty Python's "Tiger in Africa" scene from "The Meaning of Life". I mean it is the way we Americans see you English.

  • dewflirt

    It's true, we are that way. My dad sounds exactly like John Cleese! :)

  • Kateye70

    Interesting link, thanks =)

    Now, if 38,000 years ago they were already making twisted fibers, they probably also had spindles of some sort. And our clever hominid ancestors probably had something similar to use, wouldn't you think?

    BTW if you just search 'drop spindle' on youtube, its amazing how many videos show up, from all parts of the world, including suburban America. Just watch one and see how easy this process is.

    It just doesn't seem that big a stretch to imagine this process being used not just in the last 30 or 40,000 years, but for the last couple of million. (Maybe I'm giving hominids too much credit...on the other hand, they'd already become chefs, so why not textile artists as well?)

  • Kateye70

    You should look up 'drop spindle' or 'yarn spinning' on youtube =D

  • lakhotason

    In my home state we have something that was woven 9000-10000 years ago. They are sandals woven from the bark of sage. They are said to be the oldest pair of shoes in existence. Worth a look. Just google Oregon sandals.

  • Kateye70

    Do you know, I think I actually saw a pair at an exhibit at the U of PA Museum in Philadelphia? When I saw the picture of the sandals, I remembered going to that show about 15 years ago. Thanks for reminding me =)

  • lakhotason

    There are several pair (they found dozens of sandals) on exhibit here at the local university. The experience is fairly intense.

  • lakhotason

    Oh I know it's true. That's why it is so endearing.

  • dewflirt

    I've used a drop spindle, check out Russian spindles too. Simpler tool but more fiddly to use. For early knitting look up nalebinding, also known as knotless knitting. More like crochet in that you use only one tool. Also Sprang, made on a small loom by twisting the warp threads together, a bit like drawn thread embroidery. Pretty sure macrame came before all of these, the easiest thing to make would be a net ;)
    I think nalebinding came before knitting which came before crochet. If you like complicated you should look up Gansey (Guernsey) knitting. Very beautiful. The tighter you knit, the more weatherproof the garment becomes. You're never far from making felt when you play with wool :) Happy Hunting :)

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    not too many of them had bigger brains than chimps...you might be giving them too much credit...but who knows, perhaps homo erectus.

  • Kateye70

    I remember when I lived in Athens, GA, years ago, going to a crafts fair and watching women working with textiles, combing, spinning, dying and weaving; the whole process was very interesting.

    I was also a bit fascinated with one of the youtube videos that showed how to wash dog hair to prepare it for spinning; one of the comments cautioned that garments made from pure dog hair yarn are almost too hot to wear.

  • dewflirt

    Too hot? Not if you're somewhere very cold :) I'd forgotten about dog hair, didn't know it was so warm. I'd have gone for merino or cashmere maybe. I prefer cotton, wool is either too fluffy or too itchy for me. You'd need a long haired dog as you need fibres long enough to twist together. If they're short they have to be blended with another yarn. You could leave a jumper in a dog bed for a few days instead, it'd look just as wonderful. Honestly! :)

  • robertallen1

    Why aren't you asking your professors these questions? What aren't you trying to seek answers from your textbooks? It's much quicker and more efficient than using this website. Something just doesn't add up?

  • over the edge

    Yurilynsky
    you state "two seperate species cannot produce an embryo." but as i pointed out with Przewalski's horse it is at least a subspecies if not a separate species and it does produce viable offspring. but for the most part you are right. in evolutionary terms an offspring whether or not it has the same number of chromosomes as the parent (example humans has a fusion event at some point and that has been proven) it is not a separate species from the parent or previous/current generation. evolution claims that if these mutations are beneficial and a group is separated from the rest for long enough these traits build up to a point where a new species cannot breed with the original group and therefore a new species (see ring species)
    you them state "(all species have a different number of chromosomes" i already gave you a link showing that to be incorrect. and also micro/macro evolution is almost exclusively used by creationists and those that don't fully understand/accept evolution. macro is just lots of micro. it is akin to stating that i"i can walk to the front door", "i might even be able to walk to the end of my driveway", "but there is no way i can walk to the end of the street" . not to be rude but the micro/macro statement sounds that ridiculous to the rest of us. do you frequent id/creationist sites for your information concerning evolution? if you are i suggest you stop they lie

  • Yurilynsky

    It is only the second week since classes began, but everything is going well. I am not taking any biological anthropology courses this semester -only interpersonal communication, Maya prehistory, North American indian prehistory, and nutritional anthropology.
    I already understand exactly how a mutation spreads throughout a population over time.
    If you look into the very earliest stages of evolution you will find that a "face" has evolved independently several times -it is not a single evolved characteristic shared by a common ancestor.
    Although I am not informed enough on the subject of asexual reproduction to present a strong counter argument, my initial argument was based on the idea that in a world of only asexual reproducing organisms, exactly what natural selective pressures would have "promoted" sexual reproduction, when all organisms of the time were very simple. In this I am emphasizing that the advantages of sexual reproduction in complex organisms would have been irrelevant, and that the basic means of life -surviving and reproducing -would have been easily met.
    Finally, you are very correct about many species having the same number of chromosomes, I was apparently misinformed at some point on this. Also, speciation is a tricky subject, as it is not agreed upon by all experts as to what qualifies a species. Although I was very wrong about my general statement on species and their distinct number of chromosomes, I still argue my point that it seems impossible for a species to evolve into a new species that has a different number of chromosomes. You mentioned how two of our chromosomes merged into a single chromosome. I could always look it up myself, but if you already know a lot about the subject, could you tell me -did this "merging" occur as a single mutation?

  • Yurilynsky

    I'm not judging. I'm stating my opinion. Since you don't know anything about biological anthropology, you are REALLY not in any position to judge ME.

  • robertallen1

    Manatees and elephants are related (i.e., evolved from the same distant ancestor). Why not look up the number of chromosomes for each? Whales, dolphins and porpoises are related. Why not look up the number of chromosomes for each? Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Why not look up a few species of birds and compare the number of chromosomes of each? As Over the Edge has brought out, why do you have such a problem accepting all stages of evolution?

  • Yurilynsky

    That was a great example you gave me. However, this is an extremely rare case, and in the case of humans, we are certainly unable to successfully mate and reproduce fertile offspring with other primates. Is it that during the point in our evolutionary past when two of our chromosomes were merging, you are suggesting (or perhaps know from research) that we WERE able to successfully mate and reproduce fertile offspring with others in our population who had 48 chromosomes?

  • over the edge

    Yurilynsky
    please ignore the parts of my last response that you cleared up with this post. also i would like to point out that i am not a biologist. while my education is in the natural sciences i do not claim to be an expert. consider it an obsessive hobby. might i suggest "Falsifying Phylogeny" right here at TDF not that it addresses all your questions but it does many. it will also give a basic foundation in order to build upon. as i (again not meant as an insult) am not sure of your level of understanding of the mechanics of the theory.

  • Yurilynsky

    Hey, I was just wondering, if you don't mind telling me -what kind of work did you do with Sarah Jackson and Heather Norton?

  • over the edge

    Yurilynsky
    you asked "suggesting (or perhaps know from research) that we WERE able to successfully mate and reproduce fertile offspring with others in our population who had 48 chromosomes?" i am strongly suggesting but i cannot back that up (others might if they agree)

  • robertallen1

    So softening your proscriptions to mere opinion makes it all right to state what should and should not be taught in biology classes--you're a second-year student, right? No one needs to know much about biological anthropology to notice by the number of times you've been corrected that you must not be a very good student. No one needs to know much about biological anthropology to realize from the questions you ask and your plaint about receiving no answers from your teachers that quite frankly you don't add up.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    without giving away too much of my information:

    I worked with Sarah Jackson at the University of Toronto using her work on Mesoamerican culture in comparison to the Iroquois here in this area.

    and worked with Heather Norton, being a subject in one of her pigmentation studies (having red hair im a useful subject).

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    "we are certainly unable to successfully mate and reproduce fertile offspring with other primates."

    this is not true. we dont know this for sure.

  • Yurilynsky

    That is so cool. I knew that Jackson worked in Central America, doing some kind of archaeological work I believe, as she would always refer to her fluency in Spanish for different relevant reasons in her linguistic anthropology class. It is also interesting how you said you were a subject in one of Norton's pigmentation studies because as a professor in biological anthropology, Norton would always refer to her own red hair when demonstrating different concepts of recessive traits. It just seems like such a coincidence how you and I, mere students in anthropology from universities in different countries, both know these two professors.

  • Yurilynsky

    Oh, wow! Seriously?

  • lakhotason

    Only because we cannot prove a negative. That's pretty weak Epi.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    no because it is unethical to test.

    however most biologists would say it is likely we are able to produce offspring with great apes like chimps and bonobos.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    pretty amazing. such a small world, especially when brought even closer by the internet.

  • lakhotason

    That's another work around. Nowhere in human evolution is there any evidence there has been such a mating. Do you not think that in the hundreds of thousands of years of humanity there would have been such a coupling and we would see the results some where in our genes?

    I haven't looked but I don't think I've ever heard a biologist say it is likely.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    it wouldnt continue with out genes unless it happened enough to make an impact on the gene pool. that is not likely since they look so different from us. However we did mate with Neandertal in the past enough that its in our DNA.

    Goats and sheep have further apart DNA than humans and chimps, and goats and sheep are able to reproduce.

    there are also alleged cases in Soviet Russia and China of scientists succeeding at this, but I wouldnt site them as credible.

  • lakhotason

    I swear to God I can't believe you brought up the old ( and pop science) "we mated with the neanderthal" argument.

  • lakhotason

    You do realize there are two ways that different species can share DNA? And that the least likely is that the two different species mated.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    only other way is a common ancestor and i dont see how that applies to what i said.

  • lakhotason

    Because there has been a study published in "The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" that shows the most likely source of common DNA among the four human species to be common ancestry, not interbreeding. This study was published in mid-August.

    When I said "pop science" I was referring to the way the media reported that humans and neanderthals interbred. The media ignored some very important caveats included in that research and only reported the "marquee" news.

    Add to that the assertion that humans and neanderthals interbred was not universally accepted among anthropologists. Not by a long shot.

    Note - We don't have DNA for one of the human species so we can only say the common DNA of three of the four species.

  • lakhotason

    The application is that you stated without equivocation that humans and neanderthals mated. But that is not a fact and shouldn't be treated as a fact.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    we have DNA for neandertal denisova and us.

    and also you are mentioning ONE paper that has also been responded to by the lead author of the last paper confirming interbreeding.

    "Prof Svante Pääbo, at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, who led the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome in 2010 and has championed the idea that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, said he was surprised that Manica's work had been published, since his original paper had admitted a role for substructuring in Africa in the sharing of DNA between humans and Neanderthals. "But we regard this as a less parsimonious explanation," he said.

    Pääbo has co-authored a paper, which is yet to undergo peer-review, to further support his thesis that humans and Neanderthals did in fact interbreed. "We find that the last gene flow from Neanderthals (or their relatives) into Europeans likely occurred 37,000-86,000 years before the present, and most likely 47,000-65,000 years ago," he writes. "This supports the recent interbreeding hypothesis, and suggests that interbreeding may have occurred when modern humans carrying Upper Paleolithic technologies encountered Neanderthals as they expanded out of Africa.""

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    it is when you take into account that researchers did not over look that factor and took steps to rule it out.

  • robertallen1

    Pardon my ignorance, but is this some sort of ring speciation?

  • lakhotason

    Well no, it isn't one argument, it is many arguments complied. I suppose in saying that if the shared DNA is from common ancestry then we should find no evidence of genetic markers from neanderthal mtDNA in human mtDNA. And that is precisely what is found. There are no genetic markers and there should be genetic markers if we interbred. There are really only two reasons why this is so. The first is that all human-neanderthal couplings were female-male and the second is there was not interbreeding. The first reason is not very likely.

    It is the mtDNA that would differentiate between common ancestry and interbreeding and modern human mtDNA shows no evidence of interbreeding.

  • lakhotason

    You have to go back to the original research and the conclusions that were drawn. This is where the media screwed up by reporting that humans and neanderthals interbred. That's a little different from the conclusion drawn by the researchers who said the research suggests there could have been interbreeding.

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    no

  • lakhotason

    Yes I've read that before and him just out flat stating that the two interbred is a mystery to me because no one, repeat no one else is prepared to make that statement. He presents no evidence that they interbred. And still does not answer where is the evidence in human mtDNA. There are much better sources of info.

  • lakhotason

    Also the latest citations are from 2010 and that won't give you the latest research. If the report I cited shows that there was an alternate explanation, then this person now has to PROVE what he is saying for him to make the claims he makes.

  • lakhotason

    I understand what you are saying and I believe you understand what I'm trying to say. There is a problem and it has to do with "bad" science. It is admittedly hard for a layman as I to understand "high end" science so I have to rely on journals to explain it to me. And I swear those journals go for the headline instead of the real science every time.

    In short, two things are giving us "bad" science. The first is the peer review system is broken and second the media reports things that you and take as facts and are not facts. And it is hard for you and I to check these facts.

    Still,from what I understand, I'll stand with the alternative explanation. Not that I dismiss interbreeding, it's because the alternate explanation put the onus on interbreeding to "put up or shut up".

  • dewflirt

    Have you seen the French rugger player, Chabal? He could be proof enough of neanderthal love all by himself ;)

    Sorry, had to edit. Don't like the i word, it doesn't feel nice :)

  • Ramus73

    But not impossible. Unless you have concrete evidence that neandathals and humans did not mate then Epi could be right. Our inherent disgust at mating with another species may not have existed 10000 years ago.

  • robertallen1

    How about the inherent impossibility of producing viable offspring. You need to look up species.

  • lakhotason

    I understand what you are trying to say Ramus73 but you must understand that one cannot "prove" a negative. It would be as if you told me you could fly and it was my responsibility to prove you couldn't.

    Epi could very well be correct. Maybe there was interbreeding but he and I just have a different opinion. I don't think the case for interbreeding is strong enough to say for a fact that interbreeding did occur given that there is another reasonable and perhaps more likely explanation.

    You do bring up a point I've spent some thought on. The human taboo against sex with another species runs very deep. So deep in fact that there are still taboos against mating within our own species based on race. It's speculation of course but I think it must be considered.

  • lakhotason

    Well it is obvious now that they didn't rule it out. That's why I and many others think they went a little too far in suggesting that there was interbreeding.

  • Kateye70

    "Our inherent disgust at mating with another species..." lol, where do you think all those mythological stories about half-human, half-other species creatures come from? Not to be rude, but since when have humans had any disgust at mating with anything that moves...or doesn't move, for that matter. ;-)

  • Kateye70

    I have to disagree. The only taboos we have about mating within our species based on race are social ones, not inherent. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many interracial people out there.

    And even where there were/are social taboos, they only extended to marriage and inheritance of property. Certainly not to the physical act.

  • robertallen1

    You're not being rude at all, only factual.

  • lakhotason

    I don't think so Kateye. I think racial taboos are inherent. All one need do is look at racism that still exists in spite of our knowledge that we all one species and only one species. Human history could also be said to be a history written in racism. I wouldn't presume prehistory to be any different.

    That being my belief, the taboo against mating outside the species runs especially deep. And it can get you executed in many parts of the world even today. Now I'm sure back in the day some lonely shepherd.....you know the rest. I'm not saying it didn't or isn't happening but consider this. If there was interbreeding and it produced a viable off-spring, what are the chances of that off-spring being allowed to live? And the mother? Given what we know about racism and the taboo against interbreeding I would say it would be pretty slim indeed.

    PS I hope you do understand that I'm speculating here. Don't ask me to prove anything.

  • Kateye70

    Don't confuse racism with a taboo against interracial sex. They're two different things, as any slave child of a plantation owner could have told you. "Marriage," as I said, is the actual taboo. And marriage has to do with property and inheritance, not sex.

    I don't think it's just "lonely shepherds back in the day" that have inter-species sex, either. The amount of animal porn on the interwebz makes that pretty clear. I'm sure there are plenty of laws against it with some severe penalties; again, when has that ever stopped it?

    My point was that humans would probably have mated with other hominid species, given the opportunity.

    Whether that would, or could, have produced viable offspring who could also reproduce is a different issue altogether.

  • lakhotason

    About those mythological half-human creatures. What about early humans wondering why those chimps looked sorta human and sorta animal? Think they could conjure up a story about half and half? Those mythological arguments for half and half don't go a long way.

  • Kateye70

    I was thinking along the lines of greek mythology in particular: satyrs (goat-human), the minotaur (cattle-human) and other mythological creatures. Then there's story of Leda and the swan. Other cultures include gods with human-animal morphology, too.

    I'm just throwing out a wild guess that there was a lot of guilty pleasure happening; knowledge of animal husbandry (but not of the science of reproduction) might have included fear of possible repercussions...

    Chimpanzees I don't know about; I'm not sure their range extended north of the Sahara, although clearly other apes and monkeys were known across the eurasian continent. Then consider the human louse population, with genital lice being related to gorilla body lice and human head lice being a different species altogether.

  • lakhotason

    But you are speaking in individual terms and I am speaking in cultural terms. It's one thing to watch animal porn on the internet and quite another to practice that sex openly.

    And remember we are debating inter-species mating and how it may have been curbed. I am far from saying it didn't happen. What I am saying is this. This taboo ALONG with the problem with viability is something to be considered when making the claim that there was interbreeding that resulted in neanderthal DNA showing up in human DNA. Although hard to measure, this taboo certainly played a part. We just don't know to what extent. We'll never know.

    And as far as the plantation owners, you are speaking of a minority and after all, those owners knew the slaves to be human.

    Humans know themselves to be unique and hold that uniqueness very sacred. I think early humans (I should be saying homo sapiens) understood that the neanderthal didn't quite reach the human level. I do believe that because of this inter-species mating was rare. You must remember the societal setting. You lived among a small group, a tribe if you will. Anything you did was known to all others unlike the pervert watching animal sex on the internet.

  • lakhotason

    I'm quite sure early humans encountered the chimp. Just pointing out there is an alternate explanation of half and half mythology and it is perhaps the most likelier of the two.

  • Kateye70

    Your statement

    "The human taboo against sex with another species runs very deep.

    "So deep in fact that there are still taboos against mating within our own species based on race."

    is where this conversation started.

    Let me be clear in what I'm trying to convey. Interracial sex is not the same as inter-species sex.

    Interracial sex taboos have much more to do with possessions and inheritance than with the actual act, since it *is* condoned when it's separated from inheritance. Think how many men have kept "exotic" concubines. Those taboos exist to protect a given society from domination by another group.

    Inter-species sex is wholly different. Any taboos against it would be based on the possible consequences of hybrid children, based on ignorance about reproductive science, which was why I mentioned the mythological offspring earlier.

    Horses and donkeys can and do mate willingly, though. They produce offspring that is usually sterile although there are the occasional exceptions. Why wouldn't humans have mated with other hominids given the opportunity?

    I'm pretty sure opportunities would have arisen anywhere our territories overlapped with that of other hominids. And the mating didn't have to be consensual, either. What better way to claim a territory than by rape?

    Whether our particular hominid species was able to successfully breed with another hominid species, and then produce viable offspring, is a question that is still being researched. We may never get a clear answer.

    Edit: Regarding plantation owners being a minority, you are right. However, very few African Americans are purely African. Most have some European, Oriental and/or Native American ancestry.

  • robertallen1

    Don't you mean "intra-species" sex?

    By definition homo sapiens could not have bred with other hominid (human) species to produce viable offspring. However, basic evolution (common ancestry, slow beneficial genetic mutation, etc.) seems to provide a workable historic model. But the question remains, why are homo sapiens the only extant human hominids?

  • Kateye70

    "Don't you mean "intra-species" sex?"

    Depends on whether I was speaking of inter-species sex (between species) or intra-species sex (within the same species)--referred to so far as 'interracial,' or between races. I've been discussing both =)

    I would assume that 'why' we are the only extant human hominids could be answered by knowing that there has been more than one population bottleneck in hominid development, and the likely scenario that we out-competed them for resources as our particular species spread around the world. But you know what they say about 'ass-u-me'. It's only my personal speculation.

    Edit--as to whether we could produce viable offspring with other hominids, wouldn't that depend on how closely related they were? But now we're getting to areas I am only slightly conversant in.

  • lakhotason

    I not quite sure of the point you are trying to make. We are talking about what may (or may not) have happened 35000 to 70000 years ago. I am saying considering the lingering racism and taboos we have today think what it may have been then. And this racism and taboo is a very powerful force. World War II showed us how powerful this force can be and how deeply it is ingrained into humans in spite of the fact we knew better. I think you too easily discount that force.

    And hey, horses and donkeys are not human so it would be a stretch to compare the mating habits of horses and donkeys to that of humans.

  • robertallen1

    Interracial sex is intra-species. That's why I questioned your use of the term inter-species.

    As I stated, basic evolution seems to provide a workable model. That's why I asked Epicurus about whether all this could relate to ring speciation to which he replied that it doesn't. However, ring speciation could explain the divergence. I'm just engaging in speculation as well.

  • lakhotason

    Here is another problem I'm having and that is the upper limit set by those who propose interbreeding. The upper limit for the amount of Neanderthal DNA in the stated percentage of humans is around 400-450 viable off-spring. That is to say any more than that amount would produce a greater incidence percentage wise of Neanderthal DNA in human population. Now if that is the case it doesn't make sense that if there were interbreeding between humans and neanderthals that it would have stopped at 450 viable and surviving hybrids. If interbreeding were possible shouldn't we see greater evidence of interbreeding? And if interbreeding was occurring why did the neanderthal go extinct? Would not the evolutionary pressure be to merge the two species? I mean if they are mating why the competition which drove one species extinct.

  • Kateye70

    "...horses and donkeys are not human so it would be a stretch to compare the mating habits of horses and donkeys to that of humans."

    Orly? Why would it be a stretch? Horses and donkeys are closely-related species, just as early humans would have been relatively closely related to Neanderthals or other extant hominid lines 35-70,000 years ago.

    However, I do doubt you'd find horses or donkeys mating with sheep or goats...or cattle or swans or humans, for that matter.

    Let's discuss what humans have demonstrated their willingness to do. I also doubt this propensity is a recently-acquired trait.

    I don't agree that racism is a 'lingering' characteristic. I think it is part of the natural hoarding of resources for one's own group and thus one's own genetic line.

    Race is an artificial way to determine the 'other' (i.e., not our close genetic kin) within our species. Nationality has become another way, although its much easier to distinguish between physical characteristics, such as skin tone or hair color and texture, than having to show a passport.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ND2YNBYAQNQ2UEEL3RM76SDTKY Mom

    There are human fossils that have been found that date back more 3 million years, and they are and were fully human. If humans evolved from monkeys, why are they not continuing to evolve? and also the animals around us? There are mutations, but no proof of species changes. The only changes that can be claimed are anomalies and simple mutations of a particular species, not genetic changes from one species to another. If so, how so, and how do you prove it?

  • lakhotason

    Then we'll just have to disagree. I find no problem in that. As a matter of fact I welcome disagreement. Makes you think.

  • over the edge

    Mom
    are you pulling my leg? can you show me these fully modern human 3 million year old fossils? where does evolution claim we evolved from modern monkeys? are you also claiming we have no proof of any species change? if i gave you an observed example of one species evolving into another would that satisfy you? if not what would?

  • lakhotason

    Who says we're not still evolving. Do you know that the size of the human brain is shrinking. In the past 20,000 years our brains have become smaller by about the size of a tennis ball. That's evolution.

  • robertallen1

    Wrong. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.

    Wrong. Evolution is a slow process, taking hundreds of thousands to millions of years for most forms of life and thus is not directly observable, except in quickly reproducing types of life such as e-coli.

    Wrong. Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. The manatee and the elephant are closely related as are dolphins, porpoises and whales which all share a common ancestry with a land animal. Dogs, wolves, cayotes, cougars and pumas all share a common ancestry, as do snakes and lizards (however distant).

    Why don't you read up on evolution before posting about it? I suggest starting off with the Wikipedia article on the subject. And while you're at it, there's another fine Wikipedia article on the e-coli experiment which might set you straight on continuing evolution.

  • Kateye70

    Ok, now you're talking genetics. As the saying goes, "You done left preachin' and gone to meddlin'!" =)

    I am not a genetic researcher, so my interest in that subject is a layman's; I freely admit that. But from what little I do know of the subject, it is still an ongoing area of study and so far based on small samples still being worked on. I think there is still a tremendous amount of research still in progress, and undoubtedly more will crop up as further discoveries are made.

    As far as numbers go, whether or not offspring were viable there are still many other factors affecting whether such hybrids would have been able to survive to reproductive age.

    I was never proposing that interbreeding of humans and Neanderthals was in large numbers or enough to sustain a population; merely that it was not only possible but probable to whatever extent opportunity allowed.

    But going back to horses and donkeys: considering that they have been deliberately bred for thousands of years by humans, we still don't have a self-sustaining mule population. Even in the rare instances that a fertile mule is produced, it is almost always a female (who very rarely produce offspring themselves), and only one case of a mule stallion has ever been verified afaik.

  • Kateye70

    It sure does =) I've enjoyed this conversation.

  • robertallen1

    it depends on the type of disagreement. Scientists disagree about global warming, the mechanism by which birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs and string theory (an unfortunate term). However, this is intelligent disagreement and deserves fostering. On the other hand, disagreement about the age of the earth and whether evolution is valid constitutes unintelligent disagreement and deserves no respect.

  • robertallen1

    What about those who have been able to survive the rarified atmosphere of the Himalayas while newcomers generally cannot. Talk about recent human evolution.

  • lakhotason

    You are right about that. Let me change disagreement to reasonable disagreement.

  • robertallen1

    It's your post, but I find intelligent to be more accurate, such as your recent exchange with Kateye. As I explained to Kateye, simple evolution seems to explain it rather well, especially ring speciation--but I might be totally wrong. What I'm really curious about is what caused the extinction of all hominids (humans) except one. As far as I can see, no one has any idea--and I'm sure you'll agree that it's an interesting and potentially productive area of research.

  • robertallen1

    As I indicated to you before, I really appreciate the links you provide. Now, can you provide me with one explaining why the various types of hominids could not be examples of ring speciation or perhaps you can provide me with your take on the matter.

  • robertallen1

    Most informative. Thank you. One other question. I have been trying to locate something on the probable causes for the extinction of hominids such as homo erectus, homo habilis, etc. with no luck. Is it really just a matter of competing for limited resources?

  • http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

    pretty much. I would say there was also a lot more likely of extinction due to their new features in the ecosystem still developing and being exploited by their prey.

    but really we have so little information about these species that extinction causes could only be hypothesized so far. but its a great question and i will see what i can find...however im in class right now and have a paper due for tomorrow so i might get around to it tonight or by tomorrow night.

  • robertallen1

    Take your time and write that paper first. However, these new features (which I assume were genetic) don't seem to have been so beneficial at first.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kruxmohan Kirti Ruxmohan

    Amazing synthesis of human evolution. It is a continuous process. Homo Sapiens have insulated themselves from the environment in a rather skillful way. Once it is tamed then only further morphological change would seem unlikely. The mammoth variable will be the expansion in the human brain. We patiently await the inevitable.

  • bringmeredwine

    If you have a limited attention span like I do, this doc might not be for you.
    I felt like I was watching slide show, with a very droning voice, narrating so many interesting facts without any expression whatsoever.
    This is such a fascinating subject but its form of presentation caused me to quickly lose interest.

  • robertallen1

    You're criticism is valid, not only for this documentary, but for a number of others as well. The issue is not with the information presented in the documentary, but in its presentation. Scripting and delivering are two different areas.

  • bringmeredwine

    Forgive my ignorance, I do my best! Subject: [topdocumentaryfilms] Re: Homo Sapiens: Who Are We?

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.richcreek John Richcreek

    This narrator is the worst.

  • Ryan Dragon

    Mother nature isn't an organizer? I would have to disagree. Decent documentary, not a fan of the narrator. It's like a giant run on sentence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/carl.hendershot Carl Franklin Hendershot

    lol

  • http://www.facebook.com/carl.hendershot Carl Franklin Hendershot

    I IMAGINE SO.=)