Why Is There Only One Species of Human? - Robin May
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2024
- Check out Robin May discussing this lecture and your unanswered questions on our brand new podcast "Any Further Questions?' available on Apple and Spotify
******
Enjoying our lectures? Please take a minute to answer 4 questions to tell us what you think!
app.sli.do/event/1JonWUnuRtwj...
We are the only human species on the planet today. But for most of our history we have not been alone.
Fossil and genetic evidence has revealed a diverse and fascinating set of human-like species, from Neanderthals to Denisovans, to Homo Floresiensis (The Hobbit) and more.
We’ll meet many of them in this lecture, investigate why they died out and reveal why some of them are much closer relatives than you might think.
This lecture was recorded by Robin May on 10th January 2024 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London
Robin is Gresham Professor of Physic.
He is also Chief Scientific Adviser at the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Professor of Infectious Disease at the University of Birmingham.
www.gresham.ac.uk/speakers/pr...
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/o...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
Robin May appeared on the latest episode of our podcast 'Any Further Questions?' to answer all the questions we didn't have time to get to. Listen on Spotify and Apple now!
you forgot the anunnaki dna influence 8 percent of human dna is ALIEN The human genome contains billions of pieces of information and around 22,000 genes, but not all of it is, strictly speaking, human. Eight percent of our DNA consists of remnants of ancient viruses, and another 40 percent is made up of repetitive strings of genetic letters that is also thought to have a viral origin.
Because the Women (Egalitarians') Forced 60% of Male genetic diversity in humanity over history of the species not reproduce. 3 factors separate the ability to reproduce. Genius level Intelligence, Status in Community, & Lack of Wealth.
only one species of human? Tell that to anybody who's grown up with a life "enriched" by an abundance of subsaharan africans
humans themselves are a race. the species is called Lyrian.
Answer this: If evolution is how humans were created, then why is there such a large gap between the "human" intelligence and "animal" intelligence. WHERE are the other super intelligent creatures on Earth that man evolved from or evolved with? Looking at evolution as a column of beings from the simplest to the most intelligent, there is a thick "band" of creatures at or near the bottom of the column that fill every niche of this planet, most with dozens of varieties. Then there is a semi-intelligent GAP in the column with NO creatures AT ALL, then there is only ONE human being creature at the top of the column filling the higher intelligence band. This does not fit the Theory of Evolution! There should be many creatures filling the semi-intelligent band and several filling the higher band. I have a dozen other questions that PROVE that EVOLUTION is a THEORY only and NOT FACT, and it should be TAUGHT as such! We are SEPERATE from every other SPECIES on the planet, that does NOT fit the Theory!
What I really love in these science based presentations is that they always say..."maybe", "perhaps", "based on current knowledge".......and so on, unlike some others who claim to know everything, here and now. You know what I mean. ; )
Maybe. With my current knowledge then perhaps.
@@briankelly1240 The point is.....OUR (science community) knowledge, not mine.
Have to agree there, science is about learning more and changes according to the best evidence. If new information arises, hypotheses and theories may change.
Okay Old Timer, let me tell you about the scientific process. First, you observe a thing, then study the thing, create a hypothesis about the thing, create an experiment for the thing, observe the thing again and again. Then after doing this dozens of hundreds of times, a new way to measure or extract data, and you have to repeat the processes in multiple ways across several scientific communities. Then those brain people meet up and concur on a general consensus on the topic until new data is available. So on, and so on. Forever.
Just plausible deniability. The reality is: At least four distinct species of human evolved in Europe. That means, African and European humans are different species.
I have ‘watched’ this video but realised it was one of those i played right before sleep. … but the title is actually interesting. So i will watch again, this time for real
Zzzzzzzz
Fst is as high as .46 between Mbuti and New Guineans which is staggering considering the distinction between two different species like Coyotes and Red Wolves is only .08- .1. It seems a lot of animal 'species' should actually be reclassified as belonging to the same species if we use the same universal standard for judgment.
Edit:
In fact, after doing some more research,
domestic cattle (bos taurus) and buffalo (bison bison) are even more closely genetically related (Fst of at most .368) than those two human groups, even though they aren't even classified as the same genus let alone the same species. Something seems to be screwy with our classification system.
Or different humans classified as different species
No, the second criteria was to be able to produce viable young. Can Coyotes and red wolves do that?
@@zir3ael811of course they can. Lots of coyote Wolf hybrids.
Can the cayote wolf hybrids then breed, is the point, if they can produce offspring that is verile, then same species, if the offspring is infertile, then differnt species@@lacky9320
@@zir3ael811 an alternative would be donkeys and horses producing mules - overwhelmingly infertile unless paired with another horse or donkey
"Race" may be a triggering word, but I think the question is really, why do we call Denisovians a different hominem than Homosapien, instead of simply a different "race" of them. It seems a pertinent question since the talk started by defining what a "biological species" is, and, according to that definition, Denisovians seem to the same species as Homosapiens.
I think the mating partnership types result in some offspring being infertile. Thats why they are different species like Lions and Tigers can make Ligers that are sterile but can also make tigons if it is a male tiger and lioness.
@@cybat1078a low percentage of hybrids must have been able to reproduce again, otherwise, the modern human wouldn't have around 3% of the DNA of other species.
I don't understand why biologists are so keen on saying races don't exist, still common sense can see them. They shouldn't be afraid to answer scientifically what a race really is.
@@cybat1078sure, I see that as an arbitrary rule to define species though. If you take neaderthals instead, reproducing with them did not create infertile offspring yet they are considered different species
Yeah I've never understood this either. Doesn't a northern European share more genetic codes with a Neanderthal than a modern day Sub-Saharan African, for example? Surely that just makes Neanderthals a different race
@@joshhoppring5051 that is incorrect. Modern Europeans are by far more similar to subsaharan africans than they are to neaderthals
Dogs and wolves have traditionally been considered separate species, but Alaskan huskies have been successfully interbred with wolves by native Alaskans for thousands of years.
Dogs are Canis lupus familiaris, domesticated wolves.
different sub-species not species
Wolf's are dogs.
@@malachycarson5846Other way 'round.
There are horse/zebra/donkey, bears, dolphins and cats that breed across species. The success rate falls off over time but it's not a sudden cutoff as soon as a species diverges
In my lifetime, there's been sp much advancement of knowledge on the evolution of our and other species.
It's so humbling when someone finds a very distant "ancestor." We're always surprised, too. I find it delightful.
Thank you for this great lecture. I love going to class. ❤
We ate the competition.
I originally thought you meant hate the opposition but lol ate is very true!
*We f-ed the competition. Both figuratively and VERY literally
😂😂😂😂
*we refused to recognise human speciation because it's politically incorrect
Ok Dr. Ford.
If species is defined by the ability to have viable offspring and modern humans have Neanderthal DNA, then wouldn’t that make Neanderthals the same species as humans?
yea they dont even check their own logic. If a horse and a donkey have an offspring(mule) that mule can't reproduce because the horse and donkey are different species but same group Equidae. So human and neanderthals arent different because we are still here, we were able to reproduce. Neanderthals might just be mutant humans.
No kid... we have parts of Neanderthal DNA and other sapiens...
@@redstarchrille go back to school and learn real science
Yes. They are the same species.
if you skip to 44.31 he speaks about this
I do have a question about the categorisation of species. You noted that there are different species of butterflies that look very similar but are different species. Is that based on your definition of the same species reproducing together?
The reason I ask is, do we know that these different species of butterfly can’t reproduce, or is it that they won’t reproduce, which I think are very different things.
If they choose not to reproduce with each other but in actual fact could technically reproduce, would they then be the same species? I suppose it’s also very hard to tell because I’m assuming you can’t force two butterflies to reproduce with each other.
I’m assuming that due to them being classified as different species, I would assume that they are too genetically different to successfully reproduce even if they tried. And yes, if they could reproduce and yield genetically viable offspring (which are able to reproduce successfully) then they would be the same species. However it is also possible for the same species to begin to seperate through a change in mating behaviour. The key definition of a species diverging from the original group is when it is no longer capable of producing viable offspring which can successfully have children of their own. I am sorry if I worded this incoherently/ poorly. Hope this helps
It’s not up to them most of the time whether they want to reproduce or not. There’s pre and post zygotic isolations that get in the way. Habitat, Behavior, Temporal, ect
Flutterby is a more accurate description than the margarinized butterfly.
Butterflies capable but unwilling to reproduce become a separate specices. I am separate species to most women I've met. Makes sense actually.
You should know that when you take your first college biology course you will learn about speciation. Speciation is an ambiguous and very broad subject in biology; you can classify species morphologically, phylogenically; biologically, etc. When it comes to humans all of these definitions are not very useful to us, there’s simply not enough differences between humans enough for a human sub-species to exist
Very interesting and thorough, Thank you very much.
I love how he's so clear and humble at the same time.
This is very interesting! Thanks for a great lecture, really fascinating!
thoroughly enjoyed that, thanks
Odd that as broad as the human species is, a scientist can get a ladybug with an extra dot it’s own species.
It's because these relationships are often resolved genetically, not morphologically. Morphology complements genetics, but can be misleading alone.
This was awesome. I love this format. Very informative and kept my attention. More like this please
Pretty cool info. Thanks for the lesson
Interesting lecture, thank you : )
I believe we are a hybrid. A hybrid made up of at least 8 other human speices. Some people have more or less dna of a speices than others which is why we have differnt colors and features.
Color is a gene modification as is immunity to certain diseases, height, eye color, finger length, weight etc etc. no 2 people except identical twins have the same genes. You are a hybrid of your siblings as they will get a different set of genes from your parents. You may have different skin tone, hair color size weight, balding etc. genes are complex and show a steady drift between people. It's arbitrary where the species line is drawn
35:14 -- I think science is overlooking one potential reason why the Lion Man was created:
Because it's really **cool.**
Think about it. Imagine a twelve year-old boy living with his people on the grasslands of East Africa. "Bro, what if I had the head... of a **LION.** That would be so cool!"
Thanks for a very interesting and informative lecture!
Whenever one of these lectures posts, I get a big grin on my face and figure out how to carve some time for great presentations and education. Can't wait for the next one!
Based on this video I am 100% certain I am not human because I have been unable to find any human that wants to procreate with me. They ask me occasionally, "Why are you like that?" ..but I have no clue what they mean... I'm definitely not a human if I can not secure mating partners for creation of offspring.
Watch Star Trek
@@reasonerenlightened2456Why are you pretending breeding is the only goal of a species. If it were, homosexuality wouldn’t exist. It was more important before we were the dominant species, but with over eight billion people on the planet, it’s much more likely evolution has created more forms of natural birth control.
The natives of Tierra del Fuego were probably thinking the same about Darwin.
Answer this: If evolution is how humans were created, then why is there such a large gap between the "human" intelligence and "animal" intelligence. WHERE are the other super intelligent creatures on Earth that man evolved from or evolved with? Looking at evolution as a column of beings from the simplest to the most intelligent, there is a thick "band" of creatures at or near the bottom of the column that fill every niche of this planet, most with dozens of varieties. Then there is a semi-intelligent GAP in the column with NO creatures AT ALL, then there is only ONE human being creature at the top of the column filling the higher intelligence band. This does not fit the Theory of Evolution! There should be many creatures filling the semi-intelligent band and several filling the higher band. I have a dozen other questions that PROVE that EVOLUTION is a THEORY only and NOT FACT, and it should be TAUGHT as such! We are SEPERATE from every other SPECIES on the planet, that does NOT fit the Theory!
Wonderful presentation!!! I love this!!!! We have some interesting information on behavioral patterns of our extinct sister species. I wonder if we could look at if there is a relationship between some aspects of human diversity and our genetic heritage from those sister species? Such as do some neurodivergent people, like ASD people such as myself, have perhaps a higher percentage or a certain marker from our Neanderthal ancestors? I thinking this could be an interesting study for any relationship.
I suspect, that we will find some interesting beneficial genes from our sister species that actually jumpstated cultural development and it is going to relate back to neurodivergent traits.
Very articulate, well spoken. An Absolutely outstanding communicator.
Are you ABSOLUTELY certain of that? 🤨
Thank you so much for this, I loved it from the very beginning to the very end and for once to get a much clearer overview of how things came to be maybe perhaps….. seriously, excellent
Awesome lecture. Thank you for the upload. ;-)
Just a minute in but before I listen to the rest, the following. I thought a species was defined as the largest group of individuals which can interbreed in which case humans are a species by definition. Since you've watched the whole thing and are obviously impressed by it I'd be grateful if you would correct me if I'm wrong so I can decide whether to watch the rest (I'm short of time). Thanks.
Very interesting lecture. Thank you.
I like the disease theory of the disappearance of the Neaderthals. Plus Shipman's theory of dog domestication and efficient hunting by H. sapiens putting economic pressure on the H. s. Neanderthal
Very interesting and informative video. Thank you.
Fascinating, thank you very very much.
What a great presentation 👍
Brilliant Lecture watched the whole thing absolutely engrossed
"The genetic difference between two very different humans is the same as the genetic difference between bonobos and chimpanzees. 0.4%"
So if it wasn't for the requirement of 'species' to be able to interbreed we would be different species of humans today.
Edit: Then again. Neanderthals were a different species but ancient humans interbred with them.
It is all a little vague.
It's just a political definition. Chimps and bonobos are fully capable of interbreeding, but geographic barriers are significant enough to produce two distinct genetic groups. By that same standard, Africans in the Congo and the Inuit of Alaska (we assume) can successfully interbreed but are clearly separate enough geographically and genetically to be considered different subspecies. Simply put, for any animal species other than modern human, scientists just want the accolades that come with discovering a new species. Discovering a new species within modern humans however would be career suicide.
You have to be able to breed successfully and in restricted/exclusive group. Neanderthals didn't.
Neanderthals were a separate species which successfully created hybrids that could interbreed with humans so I'm not sure what the issue is. Are you saying they had to create their own restricted/exclusive society of hybrids first before getting it on with humans? The definition of 'species' is purely biological so that's the only kind of grouping I'm interested in.@@wecx2375
Humans want to put everything in nice neat, well defined boxes in an attempt to understand things but in terms of evolutionary biology the edges are blurred and overlap. You can't pinpoint the exact generation that one becomes another.
Different plant and animal species of the same genus interbreed with fertile hybrid offspring. The claim that infertile offspring defines a distinct species is rubbish, and curiously that "rule" seems to only apply to humans. The distinction is logically inconsistent.
Great lecture. Appreciate hearing some of the Q&A; some rather insightful questions asked.
Great and engaging lecture. Thank you.
Really Enjoyed that Lecture.......Many Thanks 🤘
Loved loved loved this lecture!
As alluded to, defining a species is a complex task in biology and there are several factors that scientists consider when doing so. He mentioned some, but for those who might be interested (maybe you're watching this video to research for a paper or something) more such factors include, but surely aren't limited to:
Morphological Characteristics: Physical traits such as size, shape, coloration, and other observable features. This traditional method of species identification relies on visual cues.
Genetic Variation: Examination of genetic differences between individuals within a population or group. DNA analysis, particularly through techniques like DNA sequencing, can reveal genetic diversity and help distinguish between species.
Reproductive Isolation: Species are often defined as groups of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring within their own group but cannot do so with individuals from other groups. This concept is known as the Biological Species Concept.
Ecological Niche: The role an organism plays within its ecosystem, including its habitat, behavior, and interactions with other species. Species may occupy distinct ecological niches, which can contribute to their differentiation.
Evolutionary History: Consideration of the evolutionary relationships between organisms, including their ancestry and the divergence of traits over time. This is often studied through methods like phylogenetics and cladistics.
Geographic Distribution: The geographic range in which a species is found. Populations of the same species are often connected by a continuous distribution, although geographic barriers can lead to isolation and speciation.
Behavioral Characteristics: Behavioral traits such as mating rituals, communication methods, and social structure can also play a role in defining species boundaries, especially in organisms where these behaviors are highly specific.
Hybridization: Instances where individuals from different species interbreed and produce viable offspring can complicate species boundaries, especially in cases of recent divergence or ongoing gene flow.
To conclude, these factors are often considered together and different species concepts may prioritize certain factors over others depending on the organisms being studied and the goals of the research. Additionally, the definition of a species is not always clear-cut and can vary depending on the context and the specific organisms involved.
@@worldsend69 It didn't come directly from a website, it's just some of the most common sense factors that are considered. There are definitely more though. It's funny to think that something seemingly so simple could get so complex in reality, but when you sit to think about it, lots of thought actually is required.
Many of those things indicate we are a different species, more than not.
@@benfubbs2432 Well, yeah, obviously lol humans are definitely a different species from others. Not sure what you think you've discovered to say such a thing, but great! hahaha :)
@@GagnierA Those things you list would indicate some groups of humans are a different species to other groups of humans which contradicts the premise of the video. I'm not saying I made a discovery I am saying that your definition doesn't align with the premise of the video. Perhaps you could reconcile this?
@@benfubbs2432 It's easy enough to reconcile by saying what I've already said in the closing statement (since I took the more formal route in case serious readers stumbled upon it)...and that is, it's an incomplete list.
However, it can be debated that the different races of humans could be considered sub-species scientifically speaking. Much like there are different breeds of dogs and cats (and other animals/creatures), which are sub-species of those classifications in some cases, we aren't going to call different human types "breeds" or "pedigrees", or even "sub-classes" -- race is a polite term reserved for humans in replacement of that to be politically correct and compassionate.
Even though we're all the same physiologically (while acknowledging injuries, accidents, surgical modifications or genetic abnormalities), things like skin color, hair color, environmental temperature tolerance/comfort, cultural differences, size variation and many other factors could all be considered points of classification. Instead, since we're human and politically correct in the words we use to describe each other, we call that demographics instead.
I absolutely LOVED that lecture. The subject is fascinating and Robin May is a really engaging presenter. I would definitely like to hear more from him. Loved it.
Really loved watching this video and learning more about evolution. Thank you and Robin May for the lecture and ability to watch it!
That was a wonderfully illustrative presentation.
Great lecture! Thank you.
My friend suggested, coming down from trees, changing conditions, reaching up the thumb eventually fully stretched away from index finger, complete flexibility of hands, sounds reasonable, “ our destiny all in our hands “
It seems to me the human capacity for intentional travel has had the consequence of halting speciation which was already underway 100,000 years ago.
I would guess if, as a thought experiment, geologically separate populations of humans were left to themselves on separate continents for another million years, some of those populations would not be regarded as recognizably human by the end of this epoch.
Very interesting...much like The Silmarillion (sp?) or Out of the Silent Planet. I have always been amused at how anthropologists can describe entities by a fossilized tooth. Of course gene study will enhance the validity of the results. 50 years ago when I studied Anthro. the defining characteristics of a specimen were the physical characteristics alone. By this the Irish were supposed to exhibit more Neanderthal features than other Europeans. (A long ways from their African roots).
All this is made up to "prove" Darwinian lineage vs Creationism or Alien Intervention, Genetic Manipulation and Experimentation... It's all SPECULATION...
Well as a guy with lots of Irish roots, I welcome being called a Neanderthal…actually, already been pronounced as such a few times.
I would be interested in how the four blood types fit in with the evolution and the migration. The blood type AB is said to be started as less than 1000 yrs ago. Thanks..
There’s a book published called “Eat Right for Your Blood Type” which has a theory of blood type migration, backed by data. Because of this book I believe humans are like butterflies. There are distinct differences between blood types, however, those differences are barely noticed until you understand the markers.
I have a friend who has that book when published and followed it rigidly at first. I need to ask him how he turned out as to his general health or not after all. I didn't like it as much as myself. wasn't that fond of the diet it felt like I should be eating.
@@SmartRob That book has been thoroughly debunked.
It makes no sense to change diet according to blood type, people can have different blood types and highly similar genetics overall (i.e. brothers)
@@AlintraxAika you are correct, however blood type is a differentiation which is at the metabolic level.
How does one distinguish an interbred human (sapiens x denisovan, or sapiens x neanderthalensis) from a human from an intermediate evolutionary branch???
Smart people take their time to answer questions and I can tell the presenter is intelligent.
Not like in "I know my stuff" sense but in his ability to evaluate questions and make logical conclusions.
Human intelligence is an amazing driver and result of evolution.
during the segment about sister species I'm wondering why if bonobos and chimps are considered different species then why wouldn't humans with the same genetic difference of 0.4% also be considered different species?
It's politics, not science. The same rule doesn't apply to any other life on the planet. Just look at the wildly different morphology between the bonobos and chimps and you can see they're different species. But compare a Finn or Swede to a pygmy in the Congo and everyone says they're identical. In Australia, the scientists tell us how all the species were so isolated for so long that they drifted apart from their nearest cousins. Everything, except the humans who spent eons there cut off from the rest of the world. The aborigines in Australia are the exact same species as the eskimos in Alaska and the uncontacted tribes in the Amazon rainforest and the herders in Tibet. How that happened.... is a mystery, but we're sure it happened.
it's funny how they are only desperate to push this kind of neo-marxist dogma in predominantly European societies. almost as though they are the only ones not allowed to form in-group identity preferences.
Because it’s not politically correct. But the fact is that either Chimps and Bonobos are the same species, or races of Humans aren’t.
Easy. Can you mate and produce fertile offspring? If yes, you are the same species.
@@theastrogoth8624 No, because that .1 - .4% difference in DNA occurs across all humans, regardless of population groups, so two Europeans could have a .4% difference, and a European and an African could have a .1% difference. It’s based on individual DNA, not groups of people.
i really love the fact that these species were interbreeding so much. like, yes, we're different, but not that different. and thanks to that interbreeding, their dna has survived to today
Not that different? Living under a rock I presume?
@@FSboy70similar he means
@@alexanderjackson7815 Similar in which way?
What are you measuring, what are your standards and what are the tolerances on these metrics you have used to reach your conclusions.
I'm glad he talked about the possibility of Bigfoot and Yedi in the beginning (first 7 minutes).
I have a question for Dr. May. I am a Historian with a huge interest in Anthropology and Genetics. Your lecture is excellent! I wonder - what research is being done that might shed light on *when* Sapiens began to appear different from their other relatives? We have a bit of a basis for wondering of course - given that we can see the changes in horses over time as well and more recently, the domestic dog. Yes, I know this is selective, but have a look at films of London and NYC at the turn of the century and keep a keen eye on the dogs in the footage. You can see how we have brought about a rapid change in them , and I think that in a natural way, it must have clearly happened when we began to *realize* that we were different. I wonder if you have thoughts on what that might have looked like and when?
Needs to be way longer, or of course many more videos on this.
It should be shorter. The more something is understood, the simpler the explanation becomes.
Excellent lecture. Really cogent explanation of a complex subject. Thanks.
I would be curious of your thoughts of future human species when people get specialized for living on the moon and mars. Will our adaptation create separate species especially if radiation may play a dominate play in those that will live there.
I enjoyed that immensely... Thank you!
But if they were interbreeding, doesn't that mean we aren't distinct species?
It takes more then one gene from a parent to form a child...
"Why is there only one species of Human?"
1min 45 secs into the video..."We don't really know why."
Thanks for not waiting until the end of the video to say that.
We are the only human species because we never totally isolated ourselves into reproductively incompatible groups.
Because it's a lie. There are obviously multiple species of humans, but that would be wacist if you said that.
@@mosampson8862 which two humans cant successfully reproduce?
@@mosampson8862 You don't know what species means.
@@freddyt55555 "You don't know what species means."
Maybe mosampson is the last one of his species. xD
I want to know his thoughts on populations in Antarctica. Who they were where they came from and where they traveled to and who they merged with later or does he think they went extinct.
Excellent!
45:55 Dogs (canis lupus familiaris) aren't "a single species", they are a sub-species of Gray Wolves (canis lupus lupus), they aren't genetically distinct enough to be their own species. The difference between a "dog" and a "wolf" is also purely semantic.
Dogs have been "demoted" from a separate species to a subspecies of _Canis lupus_ only fairly recently. And an observer from another planet would have a hard time recognizing a chihuahua and a Great Dane as belonging to the same species.
And yet you can clearly distinct a chihuahua from a wolf. A lot of philogenical classification has been done in Darwin's and Linney's times way before we learned about the DNA, a lot of currently distinct species probably do not bare any significant genetical difference and should be considered one with local sub species, it just so happens that noone has yet tested and catalogued them.
@@ericlipps9459 To be fair, Chihuahuas and Great Danes are VERY artificially-bred breeds. If you compare a Street Dog/Mix-bred (Which make up most of the worlds dog population) skull to a Grey Wolf it's only slightly smaller with more neotenous features.
Race is poorly defined, but breeds & 'sub-species' are often very carefully defined. I suspect it has something to do with ego, inbreeding, and immunology.
@@ericlipps9459Aliens wouldn’t consider Peter Dinklage as our species at first glance neither.
There used to be many hominids.
The ice ages caused mass movement towards the tropics and sub tropics multiple times which caused the hominids to interbreed and reach what we consider anatomically modern humans
Yeah. This is what I was thinking the whole time and something I felt he was intentionally ignoring. There USED TO be several distinctly subspecies of Humans... then they all mixed together and we only have one species now.
But this is not true the first modern humans are the san people, they have no genes other other hominids.
it seems Europeans and east Asian were already the way they are now, when they mix with other hominids.
mixing with other hominids did not change them in any way because the hominids population was very small compare to modern humans.
Do you have sources? I'm interested
@@Bunnidove what nonsense modern humans existed before the ice age, they wee in Africa but other hominids like neathandlal already existed.
There is no physical evidenced of these being other, Europeans only have neathandlal genes.
Unfortunately, that does not match the extensive DNA evidence that is known today.
Easy to digest lecture on our backstory 👌🏽
FASCINATING THANK YOU
Could the florensians be denisovians stuck on an island, becomome small because of that, since they were on that side of th Wallace line?
For most of history, boats were the main way that humans travelled long distance. Before we invented decent quality roads, it would have been easier for example to travel from London to Edinburgh by boat than over land, and indeed in fairly recent history we built a canal network to make it easier to travel around the country by boat.
So I don't think the Wallace Line would have been much of a barrier for humans.
You mean like the extinct dwarf elephants on the greek islands?
Great lecture.
One thing confuses me though. Early on we choose a definition of species to use. One of the parts of that definition is no successful cross breeding. Yet later we discuss all the interbreeding between the sapiens, neanderthal, and denisovians.
Am I missing something or does the second half of the lecture betray the choice of “best” definition of species?
Nice to see someone was paying attention.
This is answered in the ‘Rethinking Species’ segment
it's post-hoc justification
@@saleelsalam2740 Thanks. I will rewatch because I missed that completely.
You'll never get a straight answer from academics about the inconsistency between species definitions when applied to every other animal besides humans, for fear of mentioning the elephant in the room and getting canceled. It's all very vague and "safe" so they can keep their job and continue getting funding.
We need more mature and brave academics who are able to explore the differences between human races without casting value judgments on the findings. Mature and brave, not "safe" and milquetoast lecturers playing with semantics and mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious.
Traditionally, the distinction between species is supposed to be the ability to successfully breed as you laid out here, but you also mentioned that humans can be as different from one another genetically as bonobos and chimpanzees. This got me wondering and sure enough, bonobos and chimpanzees can successfully mate in captivity. In fact, the only thing keeping them from regularly mating in the wild is the fact that they are separated by an uncrossable (for them) river. But assuming the river dried up overnight, they would likely start mating and blend as species. So what is to say that humans aren't just a blend of separate species and that the most different humans genetically today may in fact be humans that are closest genetically to their respective species?
Like he mentions early on, there isn't one single definition of "species" that everybody accepts. It is true that many animals from different species can mate and have offspring: Horses and donkeys, lions and tigers, polar bears and grizzlies, wolves and dogs, exc. But most of the time members of different species cannot mate. Additionally, humans are all anatomically and physiologically the same as each other. Even white people have just as many melanocytes as black people do, but genetics tell our melanocytes how much melanin to produce each day. If a black person's melanocytes malfunction, and this actually happens sometimes in medicine, that black person will turn white within a month. As a nurse I had to intensively study the human body in college, and it is the same across the ethnicities and we treat them the same in medicine. It's not like going to the vet where different animals have different protocols. It is true that different ethnicities have higher instances of various medical issues, but genetics are always variable. It's not enough to call any human a different species.
I would love to see the other lecture he alluded to, where he mentions the topic was the future evolution of humans!
It would interesting to get a DNA sample from an individual from North Sentinel Island to how development has varied compared to the rest of us if at all
That might be very hazardous ⚠️ 😅
Maybe, but I would suggest the aboriginal of Australia,
They ve been isolated for over 50 thousands years.
I would honestly be more interested in the sleep cycle of the people than their dna.
You'd get a genetic result similar to Australian aboriginals, they used to be the main inhabitants of the Indonesian archipeligo, Australia, the Philippines and Taiwan. Before the southward migration of Asians.
Is is interesting enough to risk your life?
Thank you for a very interesting lecture, though I have a question about the definition of species. You define a species as a group of individuals that can reproduce successfully together. I understand that enough H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis interbred that many of us carry some of their genetic material. Does that mean that the definition is incorrect or is H. neanderthalensis better characterised as H. sapiens neanderthalensis? Note, I am not a zoologist so forgive any glaring misunderstanding 😊
At the same time, how sensible is it to assume that Neanderthals a) are extinct, that b) approximately 2% of the genes within a subset of the human gene pool can be traced directly back to them [Sorry, my misunderstanding: The 2% do not refer to the gene pool but are the average amount of genes within individuals of the subset] and c) at the same time describe them as separate species?
I think that it is necessary to avoid the "species" category in order to meaningfully deal with the evolutionary development of different traits. The fact that we associate the term "Neanderthal" with the idea of a person whose characteristics no longer appear today is because some of these characteristics no longer occur. But others can still be observed in people living today... It would therefore make sense not to assume that the Neanderthal species is extinct, but rather that some characteristics that led to them being categorized as Neanderthals are no longer inherited today.
I agree, @bernard2735. Using Mayr's biol9gucal species definition, it seems more logical to regard Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans as a single species.
@@jrellis11so a dog a wolf and a coyote are the same species but they aren’t the same so why do humans feel the need to pretend we have no differences that make us behave so differently?
@@SuperWiz666
*_"Both Neanderthals and Denisovans still exist."_*
Absolute poppycock.
{:o:O:}
@@pcatful thank you - that’s very helpful.
When he says "we know from dating", he isn't talking about pre-diluvian Tinder.
LOL. I see what you did there ;-)
Surely there is a distinction between species pairs and congeners? Two species can be congeners without being a species pair. Robin May cites genetic evidence to show that Chimpanzees and Bonobos are more closely related to each other than either is to us, but does that justify our being put in a separate genus? Is there a consistency across taxonomy as to what level of genetic diversity constitutes putting a species in a separate genus to another? I ask because I've read Jared Diamond say that there is a greater genetic difference between a Chiffchaff and a Willow Warbler than between the two Chimpanzees and ourselves.
I echo comments below by @bernard 2735. By the lecturer's own use of Mayr's biological species theory with his assumption that Sapiens successfully and often interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, it seems most logical to regard all three as members of a single species.
A formation of a species is a long process and how much distinct two species are is a spectrum. In the early stages, interbreeding is still possible but increasingly uncommon and less and less likely to produce fertile offsprings. Later it moves to a theoretically possible and finally ends with actually impossible.
Sometimes people talk about a much larger species with a lot of different subspecies within them. One interesting example of this are birds living around arctic circle, with populations capable of interbreeding with neighbouring populations but not with ones on the other side of this circle.
Based on this video I am 100% certain I am not human because I have been unable to find any human that wants to procreate with me. They ask me occasionally, "Why are you like that?" ..but I have no clue what they mean... I'm definitely not a human if I can not secure mating partners for creation of offspring.
@@jirivegner3711 Spectrum?.. bit of a loose-cannon word outside of the electromagnetic spectrum.
@@straighttalking2090 they're literally just saying that the closer two species are to their branching point, the more likely interbreeding is successful. I don't even want to know what you're insinuating here.
sub species e.g wolf and dog or different species human and chimp or wolf and fox
Africa has the highest levels of genetic diversity on the planet. While the out of Africa theory is well proven the inner African human evolution story has never been researched. Continual references to Europe and Asia makes no sense because you're only getting a fraction of the story. Surely if human life started in Africa it would make more sense to focus research on that part of the world. This avoidance is a deliberate one. What are they hiding?
Who are "they"? And what sort of ideological/political slant do you have?
"They" are skirting around the hard truth that Sub-Saharan populations are distinct subspecies which interbred with older archaic humans while the rest of humanity interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, and colonized all the other continents. The "genetic diversity" of Sub-Saharan Africa merely means that the populations have been bottlenecked there long enough to form many distinct groups, as opposed to the relatively closely related humans that colonized the rest of the world. Remember, truly indistinguishably modern humans (as opposed to "anatomically modern") are first seen in Morocco and Southern Europe, not in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Have you considered that perhaps it’s very difficult to do these studies in many parts of Africa?
no one is actively looking for fossiles early humans. it happens thr other way around. people find parts randomly (often in mining or construction) and then the archeologists start looking closer in that specific area.
so, the reason we know a lot less about early african humans is mostly because there were either 1. less random findings (which can be related to geograohy because by far most fossils do not survive the centuries) or 2. the funding for archeologists when things were found was not available. this also includes the budget to stop construction or mining operations when stuff is found.
Not much. The Bantus wrecked other African peoples, but they are still around in reduced numbers. There is not much more to it than that. Africa having the highest levels of genetic diversity is exactly what you'd expect in an out of Africa scenario, in fact it is one of the smoking guns that support the theory.
I really enjoyed that..
Imagine how epic it would have been if we all survived and made it, together, towards the stars, instead of alone, wondering if theres someone else out there.
The stars are hundreds or thousands of light-years apart. It would take twice that to send an email back and forth, it's senders dead by the time the recipient got the message. Technology, language and the people themselves would have changed drastically in that period, even barring genetic engineering.
The surest way to encounter strange unrecognizable aliens is to colonize space and wait a while, because the evolutionary pressures between different types planets and space habitats far exceed that between climates and regions on Earth.
Arguably, there may be only "one species" of any species. It goes with the word. At the same time, biologists do recognize some subordinate levels of classification within a species, but they are commonly still considered one species. Designations such as subspecies, variant, and landrace all address recognizable variations within a particular population. The fact is that until a strange mix of racism and political correctness came along arguing that Neanderthals could not be H. sapiens, or that it was unfair not to regard Neanderthal as its own species, Neanderthal was often referred to as _H. sapiens neanderthalensis_, a subspecies of _H. sapiens_.
Excellent speaker
From the original definition of species in this video, surely you could make the argument that sub-species already exist through geographic separation of population centres throughout the majority of human history.
275,000 years of isolation isn't enough to speciate apparently
@@notallowedtobehonest2539 This is true, The modern human is very young, seen historicly
I have heard the theory about disease from an arriving population. are there any cases where an arriving group is wiped out by the locals, and if not why not? love the lecture.
The big problem is one of time and disease mutations. Europe has a very compressed population which lets diseases spread and mutate very rapidly with the survivors passing on protection to those mutations.
There are however diseases that could easily decimate Europeans out there but most of those are not airborne. For example malaria, carriers of sickle cell trait are way more resistant than non-carriers.
@@wodmarach Japanese sailors spread smallpox to Hawaii when they arrived before Europeans, which we know because there was no population crash when Europeans arrived. Disease isn't a density problem, it's a time problem. The longer you are around the more diseases you have - entire empires rose and fell before people made it to South America. And, to address a claim he made in the video, no, Europeans never deliberately infected indigenous people, nor did they "genocide" them. Crimes against humanity, sure, but not genocide.
Also this lecture didnt even go into the several other ghost species which our evolution even more complicated
@ 39:00 I had heard of this, but my question is: if we were truly two seperate species, how would we be able to enter breed with them? Honest question. I'm enjoying this lecture quite a bit. Thanks for posting.
I can only guess that we weren't far enough down a seperate lineage branch to stop enterbreeding such as wolves and dogs. Although horses and donkeys can produce but their offspring can't. So just thinking.
And just like that.. I get to the end and my question is sort of answered. Lesson is.. maybe ask questions at the end. lol
@@Blueflesh4 * interbreed
⭐️⭐️ WOW! FASCINATING!!
This is incredibly interesting, and downright explosive, even to a layperson with only a longtime interest in the subject.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Ive always wondered that there were multiple 'human species' and were over time mixed together and got the best outcome
Fossil record doesn't support that thought
If all the human types actually could interbreed and that makes them one species by the starting definition, doesn't that take us back to the original question - why is there only one human species which has so much difference from it's nearest differing species? I think he said we had about 10x the genetic difference from chimps than they do from bobos.
Where are the extinct different species between us and the chimps?
@@hippiehillapefossil record doesn't support that thought - so far.... The earth is quite big.
@@hippiehillape Hominids have buried the dead long before even agriculture. Of course there isn't evidence in the fossil record. And what little evidence there was of giant hominids was destroyed by the Smithsonian's own admission about 200 years ago. You're being played for a fool. Never forget "SAFE AND EFFECTIVE AT PREVENTING K0\/][D"
@@Merlin3189 But that definition was completely made up and is disproven by lions tigers, and horses donkeys.
The internet is like just a beehive for human information
I often wondered (as undergraduate anthropology student) if humans were on the road to speciation. If not for exploration or migration might not speciation have occurred. Given phenotypic variation amongst even current populations could different, yet very similar species have developed?
I understand the question(s): why are the Denisovans, Neanderthals and Floriensians extinct? But, I don’t understand your more general question. “There is one species of humans” seems to be a tautology. Chimpanzees are like humans but are not human. Chinese, Europeans and Africans are different from one another but are all human. How could the situation be different? Could there be a species with human attributes (which?), with whom we could not interbreed? Although, the connection between “species” and the ability to interbreed is troublesome, since we could breed with Neanderthals and the others mentioned.
Thanks for the your lecture
Informative 😊
Only daughters of Neanderthal father and Sapiens mother survived, possible by genetic incompatibility. Chimpanzee with Human have chromosomal problem
I think the main difference is that we cannot interbreed with chimpanzees or any other species, except those who are already within our DNA such as Denisovans and Neanderthals. Since we absorbed their entire gene pool ages ago, there is no one left to breed with but others of our own species.
Read the full definition of species, please. It is not only the ability to interbreed, it is also the condition that they really do reproduce over a longer time. I assume when you look at this from a mathematical or evolutionary point of view, the main condition is that you have a certain stability over time.
@@xiyangyang1974 By "stability" I assume you mean insular integrity of the gene pool? THAT is why we don't see these separate types of human today, isn't it?
Thanks for making this very interesting exploration of our human evolution and interwoven roots. Very clear explanation of biological, genetic and social understanding of race.
Evolution dont exist 😂😂😂😂😂
But race is inconsequential, remember…?
Answer this: If evolution is how humans were created, then why is there such a large gap between the "human" intelligence and "animal" intelligence. WHERE are the other super intelligent creatures on Earth that man evolved from or evolved with? Looking at evolution as a column of beings from the simplest to the most intelligent, there is a thick "band" of creatures at or near the bottom of the column that fill every niche of this planet, most with dozens of varieties. Then there is a semi-intelligent GAP in the column with NO creatures AT ALL, then there is only ONE human being creature at the top of the column filling the higher intelligence band. This does not fit the Theory of Evolution! There should be many creatures filling the semi-intelligent band and several filling the higher band. I have a dozen other questions that PROVE that EVOLUTION is a THEORY only and NOT FACT, and it should be TAUGHT as such! We are SEPERATE from every other SPECIES on the planet, that does NOT fit the Theory!
I heard a theory some time ago which appeared quite feasible. That is, that modern man may well be the first war like human. Not that they killed other humans en masse but perhaps drove them out, off to less habitable lands. Considering that that is exactly what we have been and are throughout recorded history
Chimpanzees have also been observed to have one group drive away and then completely wipe out other groups of chimpanzees.
Territoriality is a quintessential mammalian trait, exhibited not only by lions and bears, but even rabbits, where some species are notoriously territorial.
@@Valchrist1313 We may well have been the first however
Currently, humans are respeciated. Several times throughout history, several groups have, through natural barriers and seplf imposed restriction, have expeciated. Prior to the period of european exploration, it was very common for entire civilizations to be cut off from the rest of the world for centuries. The ability to hybridize and for those hybrid species to continue producing ofspring is how respeciation has occoured. Humans are, after all, just animals, so if we are to define speciation by specific clasification criteria, those same criteria also apply to humans.
Answer this: If evolution is how humans were created, then why is there such a large gap between the "human" intelligence and "animal" intelligence. WHERE are the other super intelligent creatures on Earth that man evolved from or evolved with? Looking at evolution as a column of beings from the simplest to the most intelligent, there is a thick "band" of creatures at or near the bottom of the column that fill every niche of this planet, most with dozens of varieties. Then there is a semi-intelligent GAP in the column with NO creatures AT ALL, then there is only ONE human being creature at the top of the column filling the higher intelligence band. This does not fit the Theory of Evolution! There should be many creatures filling the semi-intelligent band and several filling the higher band. I have a dozen other questions that PROVE that EVOLUTION is a THEORY only and NOT FACT, and it should be TAUGHT as such! We are SEPERATE from every other SPECIES on the planet, that does NOT fit the Theory!
Im not sure we are alone, i known a lots of nearthentals and pitetcantropus in my country😊
😅❤😊
What’s wrong with death metal?
Thats no bad thing, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that they were the more intelligent hominid.
Answer this: If evolution is how humans were created, then why is there such a large gap between the "human" intelligence and "animal" intelligence. WHERE are the other super intelligent creatures on Earth that man evolved from or evolved with? Looking at evolution as a column of beings from the simplest to the most intelligent, there is a thick "band" of creatures at or near the bottom of the column that fill every niche of this planet, most with dozens of varieties. Then there is a semi-intelligent GAP in the column with NO creatures AT ALL, then there is only ONE human being creature at the top of the column filling the higher intelligence band. This does not fit the Theory of Evolution! There should be many creatures filling the semi-intelligent band and several filling the higher band. I have a dozen other questions that PROVE that EVOLUTION is a THEORY only and NOT FACT, and it should be TAUGHT as such! We are SEPERATE from every other SPECIES on the planet, that does NOT fit the Theory!
@@carlmarkwyatt All humans today have a mix of sapians DNA, nearthentals being one the sapians.
@40:00 it is said that interbreeding was going on with different human species, but wouldn't that mean that these different species were actually one?
Some (native american) people have started to claim that indigenous Americans are not actually the same species and that they originated in North America, and not in Africa like the rest of us. Could you do a video evaluating their claims?
no, he couldn't
I believe the difference in shape of skull is often due to cooked food vs non cooked food. The muscles of every mammal(based on jaw strength) ultimately relieves or flattens the skull. Hence the ability to acquire language 👍
Interesting.
@@straighttalking2090 Hence the ability to acquire language (I’m speculating mother to infants, cooing then articulating)
Not the only species. Scientific evidence is there but not investigated.
@@maureenhumphries8607 it just takes money lol
@@maureenhumphries8607 if the other human species preferred their diet “in-the-raw” it would explain a lot, no?
Who is the lecture convenor at the end? She asked some interesting questions.
she won't let you hit, calm down buddy
@@c00ked it's just a dinner, I have plenty of questions 😁
convenor.
@@stephenking4170 thanks for conveying that correction Mr King5188
@@c00ked cringe
43:40 The greatest story that no one has dared tell, or even speculate.
Physically speaking there are at least 12 species of humans. As species of elephants there are three. Check out other animal species, for we are just one of them.
I don't understand why the neanderthals and denisovans are a different specie amd not a different race. They looked different just like Asians vs Africans or Caucasians. They interbred just like Asians, Africans and Caucasians. And, they lived pretty much at the same period just like Africans, Caucasians and Asians. Why?
Africans lived long before Caucasians and asians
Too many differences, and races didn’t arise from separate species, having more or less melanin is one pretty minor thing, relative to Neanderthal differences between us
@Thomas-bq4ed Sub-Saharan African DNA is obviously distinct from European and Asian DNA in more ways than just melanin. Regardless, taxonomy is based on more than genetics alone, it's also based on observable traits. If they applied the same standard to modern human groups as they applied to Neanderthals and Denisovans they would quickly discover multiple human subspecies but they don't do that for obviously political reasons.
@@marshallscot: "they don't do that"? A _few_ have _stopped_ doing that, you mean. Just look into a mirror to see someone who still does that.
@@marshallscot Obviously different? Are you a geneticist? Have you done the research? Where is your computational data? And how would you interpret those differences-and separate junk DNA from DNA that actually gets used, and actually pinpoint the differences that actually get expressed? So as to actually demonstrate that these differences have some actual implications in our modern society? If these differences exist for people with very little mixed ancestry, what’s the relevance for the rest of the world, which is largely mixed? What’s the point? And how do you even determine whether there is a point at all, or whether you’re choosing to interpret the data to make yourself and your imaginary conception of the world feel better?
If we found a gracile skeleton of a person from Thailand, and the robust skeleton of an Australian Aboriginal would we conclude they were the same species? How can we be a different species from Neanderthals if we share a common ancestor and had fertile children? It strikes me that this is more of a political question than a scientific one.
Exactly. There are plenty of species in nature that produce fertile offspring and are considered “different” species.
@@theastrogoth8624: Name some.
Yeah, if we were intellectually honest we'd recognize at least human subspecies. In particular, african pygmy hunter gatherers clearly meet all the criteria for a subspecies compared to the rest of humanity. There is absolutly no scientific reason why Chimps and Bonobos should be considered "species", but we should pretend to see no variations in modern humans, except /politics/.
What you describe are variations within the same frame.
And these can be used to identify the origin of a skull for example, but does not change the species.
Baboons. All baboon species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. @@hwgray
Is mRNA a better way to compare/contrast species? Do we still share the same amt of mRNA as chimps, etc? Thanks!!
Fun fact: Humans have 46 chromosomes while chimps have 48.
no why would it?
@@theelectricunicyclist9069 Actually we have 44 Chromosomes and 2 Gonosomes, that make up the sexes.
So chimps go to 24 and Me for their ancestry
@@Kivas_Fajo gonosomes are chromosomes. Don't be the "AcTuAly" guy