CARTA: Bipedalism and Human Origins-Comparative Anatomy from Australopithecus to Gorillas
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 02. 2012
- Why are we the only two-legged creature to develop an exclusively upright gait? And what did it mean to the development of the human species? CARTA brings you foremost experts to explore the many facets of these questions in this fascinating series - starting with presentations from Steven Churchill, Jeremy DeSilva and Matt Tocheri that compare different aspects of hominid anatomy and their relation to bipedalism. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [3/2012] [Science] [Show ID: 20872]
Very good talks. Excellent production values! This is a model of how scientific lectures should be presented on video.
Very fascinating discussion, all three speakers presented their findings and theories in a concise and interesting manner. Thank you for the upload.
I absolutely love these, so much info in a very short time
I would think it possibly be a difference between running and walking upright. Both upright, but the stresses very different. Particularly long distance running.
Excellent point, great question
Thanks this answered a lot of questions for me.
31:44 I was like whaat?!!! 😆
Aniway, seriously, my feet don't look like that foot on the left.
I have an elongated calcaneus.
To me, it's great for climbing hills.
Not to mention, standing upright inside a bus, a metro, or whatever.,.
theres going to be some outliers
Watched some of it
Watched all of it 57:14
It's really interesting, it seems that we achieved bipedality before we grew bigger brains. so, in some ways, we had to learn empathy, and caring for our young before we started using technology.... i mean to say, the smaller birth canals in more upright hominids resulted in more feeble offspring. mothers had to care for their children longer. families had to remain families longer, before brains became a factor.
***** I would not say that the Wikipedia article is the ultimate trustable source, but it says: "Her erupted and slightly worn third molars and the development of her bones indicate that she was fully adult with completed skeletal development. There are indications of degenerative disease to her vertebrae, but this is not necessarily an indicator of old age. It is believed that she was a mature, but young, adult when she died."
Interesting talks here. I have trouble understanding the idea of pelvis shape changing to accommodate bigger brains.
I'm learning about this stuff, so please help me understand if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the change to pelvis shape probably came about due to random genetic variation over time, and/or more drastic genetic mutation due to something like inbreeding or isolation of a single or few (large pelvis) female(s) with a band of males who then procreated the mutation into a larger population.
On the other hand, larger brains might have been potential already in the dna. I'll assume that females had slightly larger and smaller pelvis', just as everyone I know has slightly larger and smaller body parts. If babies were being conceived occasionally or fairly frequently with large craniums bordering on dangerously large for the birth canal, they would exert natural selection on the population by miscarriages and maternal mortality during childbirth. Small-pelvis women either can't reproduce because babies can't make it out of the canal alive, or the mothers would die themselves due to complications arising from large cranium babies. That would weed out the small pelvis from a population in a hurry.
I wonder if dietary changes, and availability of food allowed brains and craniums to grow bigger in the womb occasionally, so in a way, environmental changes prompted this to happen.
I think that writing this out actually helped me to understand it better. Thanks for any helpful comments.
It appears you did not fully understand the content of this video or its scientists' contributions towards our understanding of human evolution.
Credit to you for calling out that creationist comment. However, it may be worth noting that the common ancester of all extant hominids (great apes) would itself have to have been a hominid. Humans are a subset of great apes. I.e. we are still apes and the hominid ancestors we evolved from were themselves apes.
(continued) then their mothers would have had to be carrying them right from the time when we were walking upright, as you can't cling to your mother's fur with 'feet' that can't clasp in the way hands can. Changes in hominin females' arm anatomy would also help throw light on the advent of nakedness - as carried babies don't require fur to hang on to. I've NEVER seen the evolution of the human females arm - which IS different from males - tabulated, let alone the reasons it changed, disussed.
Margriet O'Regan interesting idea. I know as a mother of 3, I carried little ones for a long time. I became skilled with my left hand because my right arm was stronger and could hold my babies longer. I even use chop sticks left handed now. I had to become more ambidextrous with having kids.
I can't wait for you to receive the Nobel Prize then
Why do scientists keep omitting the stick? There used to be a saying that every man needs something to hold onto: you won't see an Australian Aboriginal in old paintings without his long spear; and if the evolution of an individual is a quick repetition of evolution of species, we know very well how obsessed the little boys can be with sticks. It is not accidental. A lone man in savanna with a spear is mich more secure than a man without. So, once the apes grasped the idea that a stick isn't the same as a spear and that a useful spear isn't found innthe middle of a wide open plain, they realized they neede to carry that spear with. And carrying a spear while trying to walk on all four is a bit awkward to say the least. At the same time, if walking is not steady, the spear helps as a walking stick. Just like the old people do. So, the relationship of man and spear is a two way street: it helps to protect and walk, and at the same time the spear prevents walking on all four.
So, I'm rather curious why the scientists who studied the earliest hominid footprints didn't look for a regular imprints of the spear along their footprints?
good point. Similarly, I think learning to harness fire might have been originally mastered for use in the acquisition of honey before fire being used to cook raw food.
No archeological evidence because we burnt all the sticks. But no seriously good point I do now wonder if there are depressions made by sticks along side those ancient footprints of which there are ? many sets preserved. I’d love to know.
@@ozComputerguy youre right! They should check it! By the way, my comment about sticks teaching folks walk upright was printed in the Time magazine sometimes around 1990.
@@ozComputerguy but we'd have to find the very stickprints from the time the bipedal walk was developing. Later on, they might not need the support as much. And that must had been quite a short period of development that I am skeptical it will ever be found.
Conclusion:
The ancestor of Man will be found at elevation, not Savannah.
Fascinating subject. The piece on gorillas could be called evolution in action. Amazing.
I would use grammarly if I didn't want to learn grammar.
Humans have achilles tendon and gluteus maximus used in running .
all apes have both achilles tendon and gluteus maximus.
its just not as strong and developed as in humans.
No, humans grew butts to seduce a mate
I got here from a Live Doobie Brothers jam video .....anyone else ? Lol
That’s whack !
Well it's sad to have studied it for 25 years and not have realized that humans didn't come from apes, but from a common ancestor...
You think that everyone is not aware that humans have an LCA w present day apes? Noone believes that humans are derived from present day apes
It’s sad that you having internet, don’t yet realize that humans are apes and come from ancient apes.
We have a relatively recent common ancestor with modern day Chimps/Bonobos, and a more distant one with all other apes, living or extinct, the fact is, We Come from apes, and We are STILL apes.
@@laserfan17 it´s been 6 million years, recent is far from it.
We are apes, but there are millions of years different from us.
That´s nothing bad tho.
@@antoniomv9444 I meant relatively recent, because compared to all other living animals on the planet, it’s a small amount of time.
For example, we share a common ancestor with rodents that lived about 80 million years ago it seems and with Cercopithecoid monkeys for example, our last common ancestor lived about 25 million years ago.
So I meant recent in geologic time but it’s true, we have about 6-7 million years of divergence with Panins, that’s a lot of time, lots of differences have accumulated in that period.
Still, we are more closely related to each other than to other apes, for example, Gorillas and Chimps have a higher time of divergence, about 8-9 million years.
Genesis says that Adam and Eve used to climb in the tree of knowledge [ v 324 ] so this is good evidence for the arboreal model [ha ha ]
Another reason to not have children: They make bipedalism worse
Still this outdated stuff about the origin of bipedalism? Australopithecines were very likely not our direct ancestors, and it is well known by now that they didn't live in dry savannas, but rather in swamp forests & wetlands, google e.g. "ape and human evolution 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism". For a scientific update of human evolution, google "coastal dispersal of Pleistocene Homo 2018 Verhaegen"
It's funny that with all the digging, we still are without real archeological evidence for the evolution of humans, and what about all the Homo erectus, Cromagnum, and Neandertals walking around today?
Nonsense. How do you watch these programs and post such baloney.
frankos rooni we are not one, that's modern bullshit lies. Even your boy Darwin said that the races were so different that "the varieties of mankind are so distinct that similar differences found in any other animal would warrant their classification in different species, if not different genera." This is right from the mouth of the master. Do you deny him?
@Dieter Gaudlitz you obviously have a lot to learn. These people you say do not exist, are well known to exist by indigenous people all over the world. Science has a lot of catching up to do !?
If every video had a minute of junk before it started, I would have quit YT a long time ago.
I suggest to you work on your patience a bit there. Ever read a book? When you can't handle a couple of minutes of an intro or commercials you might want to work on patience - also...we get the lectures for literally FREE.
Wow, you need to do a lot more reading. Evolution has never, ever, EVER claimed humans came from apes...
Neominois ridingsii
Really? What about the picture they used to hang on class room walls, showing the evolution process from chimp to human ?
Sunny Skies so what about when people thought the earth was the center of the universe? The great thing about science is it’s always changing as our KNOWLEDGE and TECHNOLOGY gets better.
You know nothing then, because evolutionary biology has told us for a long time, that Humans ARE apes, and We came FROM apes.
What is with you people? How can you be so ignorant of this fact? With all of the information available in books and the Internet? How?
Cool story bro, humans still hold anatomical features that uniquely place them into the category of African great ape
@@laserfan17 Wrong. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor that was neither human nor ape. Humans and apes are related but humans did not come from apes. And you say I don't know anything?
"architectural changes" sounds intelligent design'sh
Architecture as in the struture of the physical composition. The changes happen because those who change to more advantageous adaptations die less and eventually are the main ones left. Its that simple, no "intelligent design" is implied.
Intelligently designed by what?
The word architecture is often associated with intelligent design, apparently this is not what the lecturer implied
@@eklim2034 the word architecture refers to the complex design of something, not the conscious design of something
@@juiceoverflow from Oxford dictionary, architecture:
1. the art or practice of designing and constructing buildings
2. the complex or carefully designed structure of something
So it's the meaning no. 2
BABY JESUS, BABY JESUS, BABY JESUS!!!!!!!
Stay there don’t come any further pls
why do they keep citing Lucy and then comparing it to an adult female Hominid? Lucy was a child.
+manco82 Lucy was an adult female. A separate fossil was found that is sometimes referred to as Lucy's child however in this case the child lived thousands of yrs before Lucy and at a slightly different location.
basic BS
Pseudoscience. This is what you get when the answer was given before the question was even asked. And Lucy could not walk upright.
So tell us your scientific worldview and also how you determined that Australopithecus afarensis was a quadrupedal species, in addition to how walking upright somehow makes humans a magical being separate from all other animals when ostriches and kangaroos do it too
lucy did walk upright.
she was obligate biped like humans are.
walking on all fours would be as awkward for lucies species as it would be for us
foramen magnum is one of those things that show that they couldnt have been quadrupeds
Architectural changes you mean intelligent design? That means God
cherrypicking at its finest
Which god?
You mean Vishnu?
@@WorldWokeApeCult took the words from my mouth. It’s the god of your parents, parents. Oh and some geography mixed in there.
which god? because according to humans there are thousands of em