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.
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.
This narrator is the worst.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
@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.
This is terrible...I think the budget on this was $5 and the info recycled...garbage
It must be free know hidden charges of any kind!
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.
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..
Seems we're all Jungle Bunnies out of Africa.
Surprisingly good... but too much info in to short a period of time.
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.
total bee es
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!!!!!
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.
Why would you assume the same evolutionary pressure will produce the same results in different species?
"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.
part 10 is missing
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
That was a great presentation. I looked around for chapter 10 here and YouTube - but no-go so maybe later.
Another boring blacksploitation flick.
making me go nuts this guys dumb voice,
Thank you for sharing. Love it.
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.
We're Homo Interneticus already