8 — Human Evolution Made Easy (for schools)

8 — Human Evolution Made Easy (for schools)

In previous videos, I’ve shown evidence of how the world around us was formed But a fundamental question remains how did we get here? The void has always been filled by fanciful stories the Chinese believe dat dragon goddess needed someone to talk to So she formed humans out of clay from a riverbank According to Jewish mythology a God made a man out of clay and then fashioned a woman out of one of his ribs In ethology describes a raven God who filled the earth with pea pods and one of these bursts open to reveal the first man But 150 years ago one book shattered these myths and opened the door to a rational and evidence-based understanding of our origins But while Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace jointly came up with the idea of natural selection They parted company on whether this evolutionary mechanism could be applied to humans Wallace formulated the idea that animals had evolved, but he couldn’t compromise his belief that humans were the work of a deity but Darwin caved to the inevitable conclusion and called it my little heresy the Little heresy was first expounded not by Darwin But by naturalist Thomas Huxley in an 1863 book called evidence as to man’s place in nature Huxley and his supporters had clear evidence of evolution in animals what they lacked was direct physical evidence to show that Evolution also applied to humans the search was now on for what became known as the missing link a fossil that was half-human half-ape We are of course all apes according to classification, but for the purpose of simplification in this video I’ll refer to human apes as humans and our common ancestor with chimpanzees as Apes It didn’t take long for this new branch of science to find its first piece of evidence Just three years before Darwin published the Origin of Species the bones of what looked like an oddly deformed human were unearthed in the Neander Valley in Germany Neanderthal man wasn’t the missing link But it did seem to be one of our archaic ancestors in 1891 fossil bones from the first real archaic hominid later called Homo erectus Were found on Java Island and thirty two years later another homo erectus skull Peking Man was found in China Neither of these fossils were the fabled missing link they were closer to humans than Apes But they did spark the idea that modern humans may have evolved in Asia Africa was also beginning to yield some valuable finds including the town child found in South Africa in 1924 the problem was these didn’t fit with another discovery made 16 years earlier in southern England Piltdown man but as more fossils emerge from South Africa in the 1930s it became clear that Piltdown man was the anomaly not the town child Piltdown man just didn’t make any sense either in its physiology or its geographical location It only made sense in 1953 when the hoax was revealed by then the distribution of hominid fossils had given rise to two schools of thought on human origins an African origin and a multi-regional origin the idea that humans evolved from archaic hominids in different parts of the world But over the next 40 years paleo anthropologists uncovered the mother lode of hominid fossils The idea of a missing link has long been relegated to the status of a quaint 19th century preoccupation Finding fossils that link humans to ancestral Apes Isn’t the problem the problem is that East Africa has produced so many of them that? Paleoanthropologists are having a hard time sorting out which or our direct ancestors and which are the evolutionary dead ends we find What we find in most animal species a wealth of relatives some branched off and reached a dead end very quickly Others evolved for hundreds of thousands of years before becoming extinct So our family tree turns out to be very rich indeed It’s a bit like trying to find the next of kin of an orphaned, baby and coming up not only with direct ancestors But also their brothers sisters uncles and cousins But together these hominid fossils. Tell a single story as we work our way forward in time Just as expected. They become less ape-like and more human-like Welp no one disputes that but what species evade there’s clear evidence that some of these Apes could light fires and make tools And hunt with weapons they walked on two legs but they weren’t human either they had obvious ape characteristics like arms longer than legs and Why do we see a clear progression through time of more ape-like creatures disappearing and more intelligent and more human-like species? appearing in the sedimentary layers above We never see a species disappearing to be replaced by something less intelligent and less human-like That might be true in some cases but not in all and Skull shape is only one characteristic that separates humans from apes a more slender body form larger brain size walking on two legs Having opposable thumbs. These are all crucial human features that we see evolving gradually through time evolution from 8 characteristics to human characteristics can also be found in the smallest details From the shape of the pelvis to the thickness of tooth enamel When the field of DNA opened up? paleoanthropology got its first big break This completely new field of science would either confirm one of the mythical accounts of our instant creation Or it would confirm the evidence of slow evolution and guess which one turned out to be right Or is it When geneticists investigated they discovered that humans have only 46 chromosomes and all the other great apes have 48 So we couldn’t have evolved directly from a common ape ancestor Unless two pairs of chromosomes had fused well. There’s only one way to find out. I’ll let dr. Ken Miller pick up the story So we can scan our genome, and you know it if we don’t find that chromosome Evolutions in trouble well guess what it’s chromosome number two Mitochondrial DNA tells us even more it shows that our nearest relative in the animal kingdom is exactly as the fossil evidence Predicted a great ape the chimpanzee and when did we last share a common ancestor? Around five million years ago just before the date of the first ancestral hominid fossils mitochondrial DNA from a Neanderthal fossil has also been analyzed It’s completely different to every type of modern human, and it shows that humans and Neanderthals last shared a common ancestor Around half a million years ago Mitochondrial DNA can only be passed from mother to child and it mutates at a fairly regular rate Let’s say this woman’s mitochondrial DNA develops a mutation and let’s mark it red Her kids will share the same mutation, but only the girls will pass it on Several generations later another part of the mitochondrial DNA mutates, let’s give this one a blue code Then another one mutates a green code then more mutations Thousands of generations later we can see a clear pattern Closely related people share a lot of similar mutation markers the less closely related They are the fewer common mutations They share But everyone shares the red mutation Which means they can all be traced back to a common female ancestor? And since geneticists know roughly the rate at which these mutations occur They can work out roughly when and where she lived the result coincided perfectly with the fossil evidence around 150,000 years ago in Africa I’ve laid out the twists and turns of the last 150 years because science doesn’t move in a straight line Ideas are constantly being refined updated and amended as more evidence comes to light There are no foregone conclusions and no preconceptions Instead we feel our way in a darkened room collecting evidence and getting closer and closer to an understanding of the layout When DNA analysis came along It was as if a light had been switched on Nothing in the DNA evidence contradicts what we find in the fossil evidence together they give us the broad picture of our origins in the next video the ancestry of humans made easy I’ll show evidence of who these ancestors were and how they left their homeland to conquer the world You

100 thoughts on “8 — Human Evolution Made Easy (for schools)”

  1. The clay is modeling clay, it's put in place to fill in the blanks. Generally, this is only done when there are other skulls or fragments of others skulls available in order to not have a false reconstruction.

  2. Terrific work, as usual. You have a real gift for putting ideas across concisely & effectively.

    I declare that Potholer is the Carl Sagan of Youtube!!!

  3. =any schools contacted you yet? =

    Yes, dozens! I'm furiously burning DVDs on my creaking computer to send out to all of them.

  4. Awesome! If you have any Canadian school interested I'd be happy to burn some DVDs for you then ^_^ (It's the least I could do for you after I was able to get my baby cousin interested in science thanks to you… even my mom liked your videos)

    PS, thanks for the whole carbon dating video, linked it in my newest one, that way I didn't have to waste a letter debunking something as boring as C-14 creationist claims 😛

  5. =6:07 i thought apes did have oppossable thumbs? =

    Yes, but please see my comment above. In apes this feature is very crude, whereas in humans the thumb can swing round to touch all four fingers. This articulation is uniquely human and can be seen in some hominid fossils.

  6. potholer54,

    Thank you for all your work. Your series of videos are great resource for all interested in expanding their understanding of all that is. Not only that, they are very well produced. Keep it up!



  7. Yeah. Thank you sooo much for these videos. Easy to understand, good combination of pictures and spoken explanations.
    And i like how you bash religion but in a way no one really can argue against ^^

  8. "Along with those of our innocent children who will be force fed these ridiculous lies."

    That's funny, I could say the same thing about your barbaric religion.

    You're right the crusades did happen for a reason, it was because idiots like you decided it was a good idea to go kill people who didn't agree with their religion. BTW, many people on the other side of the conflict WERE CHRISTIAN (whatever the hell what means).

  9. Your garbage wasn't tossed out, you can still bring a bible to school and pray in class for all I care, you just can't MAKE everyone else read it and pray with you.

  10. You should try actually reading that for a change if you want to hear something ridiculous, actually a bunch of things.

    Try 2nd Kings 2:23-24, that's a good one.

    And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. (2nd Kings 2:24)

  11. "The crusades happened for a reason! The godless must accept His word or burn"

    The crusades happened because of people like yourself, who clungng to dogmatic beliefs and thought that everyone who didn't agree deserved death, and acted as such.

    However you may want to do a bit more historical research, as the peoples slaughtered in the crusades weren't predominantly "godless". The majority would have been Muslim, many were other Christians, but I guess those weren't "real" Christians.

  12. KomatiiteBIF,

    Try and get your hands on "The Incredible Human Journey [DVD]" (when it comes out) AND "Journey of Man [DVD]"

    Both can be found at amazon.

  13. =do you by any chance know of any formitable source on the study of this bacteria=

    The best paper on this is by Susumu Ohno, who describes not only details of the nylonase gene, but also suggests how a framework mutation could spur evolution. Its called "Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence", published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 1984. A pdf version is available online.

  14. There's quite a lot more than the three creation myths mentioned here. One for each religion more or less (you can probably categorize religions; several religions may feature similar myths. But I don't know very much about it). In norse mythology there's no clay involved: here humans were licked free from a stone by a cow:)
    I guess clay is recurrent because it is a material that is easy to mold into different shapes; a hypothetical creator could more easily work with clay than stone, for ex.

  15. @JD12111211 In my opinion you shouldn't take the bible as factual history no matter what you believe. Consider the fact that it was written by and for people that lived more than 2000 years ago. I doubt that their language and knowledge allowed for a real understanding of the universe. You can't really believe that God just snapped His fingers and everything came to be. I mean there must be more to it and we don't even understand how it all works let alone how it came to be.

  16. @JD12111211 to continue I'd like to congratulate you for trying to discover things on your own. I personally believe science and religion are not two opposite things. If you want to understand more about that I'd like to recommend a couple of books:
    "Finding Darwin's God[…]" by Kenneth R. Miller a biologist and "Contact" by Carl Sagan. The second one is a work of fiction, so you should consider it as that and nothing more, but I found reading it to be an interesting experience.

  17. @m3p3p1t0 There are no flaws & weakness in evolutionary theory. Just a few of many, start reading
    Encyclopedia of Evolution (Science Encyclopedia) by Stanley A. Rice
    Evolution: From Molecules to Ecosystems (Oxford Biology) by Andres Moya
    The Origin of Species (Modern Library) by L. Harrison Matthews
    Strickberger's Evolution by Brian Keith Hall
    Evolution, Evolution (Oxford Readers) by Mark Ridley
    Speciation by Jerry A. Coyne
    Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection by Tim R. Birkhead

  18. « I personally believe science and religion are not two opposite things »

    I believe they are, in at least one important aspect: science is based on observation, while religion expects you to believe a thing despite (the lack of) any observation. I believe that the notion of the non-overlapping magisteria is false: religion *does* make statements about actuality, and these *are* therefore subject to scientific investigation.

  19. I'm sorry to say but you sound just as a creationist in your comment. If you refer to the statement "God created the heavens and the earth" then go ahead and prove it wrong. According to Kant you can't, no more so than to prove it right. And that's exactly my point: religion is not a scientific theory that you can name true or false. Nor is it meant to be treated that way. Making the bible into literally truth is the fallacy of creationists and you can't expose their ignorance by falling into it

  20. « then go ahead and prove it wrong »

    And here we come to another disparity between religion and science: religion deals in revelation, which is supposed to be taken at face value, as an undisputable fact. Science, on the other hand, deals in models, that can be more or less accurate, but always just models of reality. Another problem is that when theists say "prove me wrong", they implicitly define their god as to preclude any means of ever detecting it.

  21. « then go ahead and prove it wrong »

    But, in the end, the "prove me wrong" type of argument is a direct attack on the validity of the scientific method. After all, if we discard scientific theories and hypotheses as merely conjecture, we make *every* possible 'explanation' as likely as the next.

  22. « then go ahead and prove it wrong »

    Concluding, there is not some boundary beyond which science may not or cannot operate: if it exists, and affects observable reality, then it is subject to scientific investigation. If it does not exist, or it does not affect observable reality (same thing, really), then it is irrelevant.

  23. « religion is not a scientific theory that you can name true or false »

    But religions make statements about reality that are either true or false. And those claims usually go way beyond 'there exists something forever beyond our capability to detect (which would make it irrelevant)'. Aside from the miracles which are supposed to have happened, the creation of a universe would be a real event, and therefore testable, even if only theoretically so.

  24. I never said "prove me wrong".. I said "prove it wrong". My personal beliefs are rather far from anything you could call mainstream religion and I'm rather happy with keeping them to myself.

    As for the rest I already made my point. You seem either unable or unwilling to grasp things outside the realm of science so there's no way for us to discuss what is clearly a philosophical matter.

  25. « grasp things outside the realm of science »

    The point I am making is this: is the statement that a god exists and created the universe really outside the realm of science? I say not. It is a statement about something real, something that exists, something that has an impact on observable reality, and therefore testable even if only in principle.

  26. The statement that God exists is not only outside the realm of science but outside the realm of philosophy. I think Immanuel Kant made this point quite clear so if you're not convinced by his work there's really nothing I could add.

    The statement that God created the universe is quite abstract. If you mean in the biblical sense then I already explained one must be rather ignorant to believe it ad literam. If you mean in a broad sense then there's no axiom to prove we should find evidence he did

  27. But the point I was making is that religion isn't a science and as such it doesn't or shouldn't be applied to anything that's already covered by scientific knowledge. In my opinion religion should be something focused on the world within.

    Even the bible has a rather small part of it dedicated to the creation of the universe compared to the rest of it which is mostly dedicated to social and (other) philosophical issues. And you can't judge the whole of it on the literally accuracy of part of it.

  28. Not that I hold the bible in such a high regard.. on the contrary. But I feel that if I can make a point for Christianity then it applies even more so to other, more illuminated religions.

  29. « statement that God exists is not only outside the realm of science »

    And again, if a god exists, and affects observable reality, then the claim that it does is testable in principle, and subject to scientific methodology. If a god exists but does not affect observable reality, then the point is moot, and the god in question irrelevant to us.

  30. « The statement that God created the universe is quite abstract »

    The universe is a tangible reality. And if something exists beyond the universe that affects the universe, then that too is real and testable. Moreover, most religions hold that their gods have performed works within the universe.

  31. You are a rather narrow minded individual. You keep saying if he "affects observable reality".. well what about things we can't observe ? The easiest example that comes to mind is the moment before the big bang. We might never be able to observe that.

    Or what about things that we could "observe" but we don't? I mean it's not like we can keep track of every atom on the planet.. let alone in the universe. God is supposed to be a sentient being not a natural phenomenon. How can you observe that ?

  32. But all those arguments are besides the point. And I feel like no amount of arguing could bring this any closer. You stick to your narrow reasoning like christians to their dogma. So I'm sorry to say but I don't really see any reason to continue this discussion.

  33. « what about things we can't observe ? »

    Irrelevant. What matters is not whether we can at this time observe something, but rather whether or not it is observable in principle.

  34. « the moment before the big bang »

    If such a time exists, and it affects observable reality, then it is testable through observation. Keep in mind that we infer the nature of such events through observations, we do not observe the events themselves.

  35. « How can you observe that ? »

    And again, if your claim is that a god exists but hides itself to such an extent that all the observations it supposedly contributed to can also and more elegantly be explained through naturalistic models, then how is the claim relevant or useful in any way? One might as well claim that the universe was created 10 seconds ago.

  36. @eternaloutlook The missing link doesn't exist because evolution doesn't work that way. Every one that has lived and procreated is a link to the ancestors. You are a link to the future if you procreate.

  37. PotHoler54, you may want to update your "last known common ancestor between humans and neanderthals" timeline due to the article in the May 7 print edition of Science

  38. Thank you, potholer, from a theist, for what has been a very informative and enjoyable set of videos on evolutionary theory. It is much appreciated. While we certainly may not agree on theological terms, I can say that I agree on basically scientific terms. Some would see religion as always contradicting science. The beliefs I adhere to do not restrict me in any such way.

  39. @StorminMormin91 You see, in the LDS faith, we search for truth come from where it may, and continue to look to the latest in science to explain the natural world around us, while leaving theology and our belief in divine revelation to explain our relationship to Deity and how we can serve the people around us. We do not think there needs to be some unbridgeable gap between science and religion. Rather, it is usually our own misperceptions of either that cause the misconceptions.

  40. @StorminMormin91 ahahahaa doorman! It must be hard to live with yourself to know that science is true then to go back to your CULT and LIE to yourself about FALSENESS of the Mormon cult beliefs. Or is it easy to dismiss the FACTS that your Church of Joseph Smith was concocted by a Sexual Predator, Polygamist, & Charlatan who took advantage of people's religious beliefs. How can you deny the overwhelming Evidence against your Cult & embrace science? hahah Delusional!

  41. @mytv80 dude, seriously? How about you stop being a freak and stalking people, and keep to yourself. No one wants to listen to your idiocy.

    The only one delusional is you, my friend, you lying, caniving, fool.

  42. @StorminMormin91 I don't have Magic Mormon thongs but mormons wear them! AHAHAH!!! Hey does the Magic Undies come in different colors?? hehehehehe ahahah!

  43. @StorminMormin91
    But your religion does indeed restrict the acceptance of evolution as the means of creation, especially in light of authoritarian pronouncements which declare that organic evolution is not the source of human beings. Mormon doctrine is quite clear. Adam & Eve were the first human beings, there was no death of any human prior to them as there were no people on the earth prior to them. So I'm afraid you are indeed held hostage by your beliefs. Mormonism is quite absurd.

  44. @ExmormonFoundation Wrong. There is no official view of the Church on evolution, and if you actually knew the history, there has been apostles and members on both sides. Mormon doctrine does not say that the biblical story of creation needs to be taken literally in every sense. Only that which has been clearly revealed and pronounced. Adam and Eve could exist and yet we could still have evolution. It says death, but does not clarify if it is physical or rather spiritual death, which is plausibl

  45. @ExmormonFoundation so no, EXMOFO, I'm afraid you really don't know Mormonism as well as you put off. Apparently you should have actually stayed in the church and studied it out a little longer.

  46. Sorry stormy, but you're stuck with a literal interpretation of Adam & Eve. From the temple, to the Bible and D&C, Mormons are bound by a literal Adam & Eve in a literal Garden of Eden in Jackson County Missouri no doubt. Without a literal Adam and Eve, how could there be a fall? How could sin and death be introduced into the world if they were not literal beings partaking of literal fruit? No, you are stuck with the literal and absurdly unfounded position that Adam and Eve were real.

  47. Add to that the teachings of Brigham Young that Adam & Eve were resurrected beings who came to the earth, and began the human race through copulation, not evolution. You are stuck. Despite FAIR & FARMS's best efforts to excuse away the contradictions between the evidence and Mormon theological claims, Mormons must believe in a literal Adam & Eve with no descent from prior hominids. You can excuse and confabulate all you want, but Mormon doctrine is very clear, despite your apologetics.

  48. Next you'll be declaring that there was no global flood & that Kolob is not really the light source for the sun as stated in the Book of Abraham. The claims of Mormonism are literalistic in nature. The problem for you and your Mormon cohorts is that the evidence soundly debunks Mormon claims as well as those made throughout other fundamentalist Christian sects and cults the world over. Your literalism is both your downfall & key to escaping such nonsense. Here's to your continued enlightenment!

  49. @ExmormonFoundation speculation, never claimed it to be doctrine, said it was not necessary for our salvation, and there was no agreement upon it by the governing Church bodies.

    Again, I don't have to do or believe anything that you miscreants say I do. Now enough with your fallacies and ad nauseum assertions that aren't based in any verifiable fact. You Ex-Mo's are really disappointing.

  50. Now please, can you shut up about my beliefs which you haven't a clue about and just sit back and enjoy a good video? I doubt potholer cares for your incessant crap on his video. How about actually commenting the vid, as I have.

  51. Alright stormy, when in a corner, obfuscate, deny & pretend. It worked for many of us for many years too. The comments are germane to the video as they show the absolute religious nonsense which is continually shoved further and further to the side in the light of overwhelming evidence which shows those beliefs, doctrines, pronouncements etc. to be utterly absurd and unfounded when countered by evidence. Mormonism too founders on the rocks of evidence, especially that of evolution. Good luck!

  52. One would think that the "one true galactic truth" would actually get something right instead of having to defer, recant or ignore its positions when exposed to the glaring light of scientific inquiry and verifiable evidence. From global floods to the origins of mankind, Mormonism & other like religious systems the world over have gotten nothing correct. As science advances, religions change their stance in order to survive. So much for "divine" revelation from the purveyors of religion.

  53. I can't help but wonder where is evolution going to take humans next?

    Any ideas as to how humanity may change next? Larger heads, less hair, etc.

  54. @BigBobsh2o
    Larger heads – do people with large heads have more children? I think not. There's a correlation between cranial size and intelligence, but do smart people have more children? I'm not aware of any research that's been done it (although I'm sure it's there!), but it would be fun to confirm/refute the claim put forth in the movie Idiocracy!

  55. " It seems to me that the Bible was more often taken literally before scientific advancements"
    Ah, but the major problem with religion and religious people is that they more often tend to just thump on the Bible then actualy read it.
    For Example I have no Idea how they get a "65000 year earth" when Adam to Noah is 14,000ish years and Noah to Jesus is another 4000ish and in the Psalms there is a peom aboout a civilization before Humans ruin cities in a Sxorched Earth (outside "Eden")

  56. And with so much so called "evidence", one would think the idea that Humans evolved from Apes would be PROVEN by now..lol..but of course it hasn't..nor has the Darwinian Evolution theory that all living beings evolved from a Fish..A fish?? Really?? Lmao…& in order to explain the 1st life, you must explain the origin of the information necessary to produce the 1st single living cell..and of course Scientists don't have the answer to this either..*sigh*

  57. If you watch these potholer54 videos, and still don't believe that evolution has been happening and still is, you're too indoctrinated or intellectually challenged to understand and accept the truth.

  58. SHAME ON YOU FOR TARGETING SCHOOLS – train up a child in the way he should go huh!
    Evolution negates the need for God and that is why God is being removed from schools

  59. @MrInseine what do you mean targeting schools? It's an educational video. Also evolution does not negate the need for a god. That is one of the most idiotic things I have heard.

  60. @MrInseine No No No No No. You Britisher sounds like a fundamentalist American. Everything that is British contradicts your assuertion that Evolution negates the need for God. But some people can simply use it as part of their arguement that, at best, god only created the Universe and left everything to the laws of Nature. An thus YOU were created. Which means YOU just contradicted your own evolved existence. I think you're funny.

  61. @MrInseine By the way. You are right about this video. That it was made for schhools. Therefore it TARGETS schools where we will find (though I'm not nor do I want to look) school CHILDREN. If you have ever been to a school you will have noticed that the education system actively and constantly endeavous to TRAIN UP the way he/she SHOULD GO. Otherwise we'd end up with millions of the Lords of the Flies. Are you one?

  62. I think that those of you people claiming that he does not know what he is talking about have not actualy watched his videos and if you claim that you did, just name some points that he got wronge.

  63. @truthforchrist =Why can a German breed with an Asian?= Because the various 'races' have only been separated by about 60,000 years at the most. So our DNA is almost identical. It takes millions of years before the DNA of two populations diverges to the point where they can no longer interbreed.

  64. That is an interesting question, i have wondered if modern humans could lose the ability to interbreed with certain other races, i think the key is humans interbreed more as the human population is less isolated then any other species.

  65. Potholer54's answer is at least half of a complete answer. Another portion is that distant human "races" have been interbreeding indirectly. A theoretical sequence that I created just to illustrate the point is: A German and Pole would get together. Then, a Pole and a Slav. Slav and Kazakh. Kazah and Uygher Turk. Turk and Han Chinese. Han and Japanese. The series is simplified, but even a little mixing of populations is enough to keep all human populations in the same biological species.

  66. The website, talkorigins, has a page on prominent hominid fossils that you can look at. It has quite a bit of information on each individual one, too.

  67. I can imagine a creationist saying that the lizards weren't separated for 60,000 years. I'm right to say that relative lifespan is the important thing there, right?

  68. It really has more to do with generations rather than raw years.
    Humans for most of our existence have had a generational lifespan of ~15-20 years, whereas a lizard may have a year or so per generation.

  69. True. I find cats fascinating. I guess their history aren't nearly as long as lizards because the behavior of wildcats is so similar to domestics, and different species (not just breeds) of cats can interbreed to e.g. European wildcat and domestic or (if brought together e.g. as pets) Asian Leopard Cat and domestic or even Serval and domestic – though the first 4 generations of male offspring in Serval and ALC case are sterile. Good video.

  70. Because when comments are unpopular and voted down more than six times, they disappear. In the interests of an open discussion, I like people to see the comments. I also unmark comments that have been marked as spam whenever I can, no matter what view is being promoted.

  71. Martians obviously. Please try to keep your questions to actual inquiries, not nitpicking of something everybody knows!

  72. @potholer54 – have you had the opportunity to look in to the late Lloyd Pye's hominid theories? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5qJYwfAju8) I know it probably isn't good form to debunk a man who can no longer defend himself, but he presents himself like an authority (good snake oil salesmen tend do do that – as you keep pointing out,) so it'd be a lot of fun to know your thoughts on his particular brand of "research" and also the conclusions he has drawn?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *