CARTA: Bipedalism and Human Origins-Comparative Anatomy from Australopithecus to Gorillas

Why are we the only two-legged creature to develop an exclusively upright gait? And what did it mean to the development of the human species? CARTA brings you foremost experts to explore the many facets of these questions in this fascinating series - starting with presentations from Steven Churchill, Jeremy DeSilva and Matt Tocheri that compare different aspects of hominid anatomy and their relation to bipedalism. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [3/2012] [Science] [Show ID: 20872]

[pjhirsch]

Very good talks. Excellent production values! This is a model of how scientific lectures should be presented on video.

[HueyTheDoctor]

Very fascinating discussion, all three speakers presented their findings and theories in a concise and interesting manner. Thank you for the upload.

[redddbaron]

I would think it possibly be a difference between running and walking upright. Both upright, but the stresses very different. Particularly long distance running.

[Rico-Suave_]

I absolutely love these, so much info in a very short time

[chiisuigintou]

31:44 I was like whaat?!!! 😆
Aniway, seriously, my feet don't look like that foot on the left.
I have an elongated calcaneus.
To me, it's great for climbing hills.
Not to mention, standing upright inside a bus, a metro, or whatever., .

[saif]

Thanks this answered a lot of questions for me.

[margrietoregan]

(continued) then their mothers would have had to be carrying them right from the time when we were walking upright, as you can't cling to your mother's fur with 'feet' that can't clasp in the way hands can. Changes in hominin females' arm anatomy would also help throw light on the advent of nakedness - as carried babies don't require fur to hang on to. I've NEVER seen the evolution of the human females arm - which IS different from males - tabulated, let alone the reasons it changed, disussed.

[detourne]

It's really interesting, it seems that we achieved bipedality before we grew bigger brains. so, in some ways, we had to learn empathy, and caring for our young before we started using technology.... i mean to say, the smaller birth canals in more upright hominids resulted in more feeble offspring. mothers had to care for their children longer. families had to remain families longer, before brains became a factor.

[Songhole]

would not say that the Wikipedia article is the ultimate trustable source, but it says: "Her erupted and slightly worn third molars and the development of her bones indicate that she was fully adult with completed skeletal development. There are indications of degenerative disease to her vertebrae, but this is not necessarily an indicator of old age. It is believed that she was a mature, but young, adult when she died." 

Interesting talks here. I have trouble understanding the idea of pelvis shape changing to accommodate bigger brains. 

I'm learning about this stuff, so please help me understand if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the change to pelvis shape probably came about due to random genetic variation over time,  and/or more drastic genetic mutation due to something like inbreeding or isolation of a single or few (large pelvis) female(s) with a band of males who then procreated the mutation into a larger population.

On the other hand, larger brains might have been potential already in the dna.  I'll assume that females had slightly larger and smaller pelvis', just as everyone I know has slightly larger and smaller body parts.  If babies were being conceived occasionally or fairly frequently with large craniums bordering on dangerously large for the birth canal, they would exert natural selection on the population by miscarriages and maternal mortality during childbirth. Small-pelvis women either can't reproduce because babies can't make it out of the canal alive, or the mothers would die themselves due to complications arising from large cranium babies. That would weed out the small pelvis from a population in a hurry. 

I wonder if dietary changes, and availability of food allowed brains and craniums to grow bigger in the womb occasionally, so in a way, environmental changes prompted this to happen. 

I think that writing this out actually helped me to understand it better. Thanks for any helpful comments. 

[Marchawc]

It appears you did not fully understand the content of this video or its scientists' contributions towards our understanding of human evolution.

[Marchawc]

Credit to you for calling out that creationist comment. However, it may be worth noting that the common ancester of all extant hominids (great apes) would itself have to have been a hominid. Humans are a subset of great apes. I.e. we are still apes and the hominid ancestors we evolved from were themselves apes.

[niklaswikstrom]

I can't wait for you to receive the Nobel Prize then

[thechatteringmagpie]

Fascinating subject. The piece on gorillas could be called evolution in action. Amazing.

[Alarix]

Why do scientists keep omitting the stick? There used to be a saying that every man needs something to hold onto: you won't see an Australian Aboriginal in old paintings without his long spear; and if the evolution of an individual is a quick repetition of evolution of species, we know very well how obsessed the little boys can be with sticks. It is not accidental. A lone man in savanna with a spear is mich more secure than a man without. So, once the apes grasped the idea that a stick isn't the same as a spear and that a useful spear isn't found innthe middle of a wide open plain, they realized they neede to carry that spear with. And carrying a spear while trying to walk on all four is a bit awkward to say the least. At the same time, if walking is not steady, the spear helps as a walking stick. Just like the old people do. So, the relationship of man and spear is a two way street: it helps to protect and walk, and at the same time the spear prevents walking on all four.
So, I'm rather curious why the scientists who studied the earliest hominid footprints didn't look for a regular imprints of the spear along their footprints?

[therealpatriarchy]

Conclusion:
The ancestor of Man will be found at elevation, not Savannah.

[timcovington]

I would use grammarly if I didn't want to learn grammar.

[marcverhaegen]

Still this outdated stuff about the origin of bipedalism? Australopithecines were very likely not our direct ancestors, and it is well known by now that they didn't live in dry savannas, but rather in swamp forests & wetlands, google e.g. "ape and human evolution 2018 biology vs anthropocentrism". For a scientific update of human evolution, google "coastal dispersal of Pleistocene Homo 2018 Verhaegen"

[MorgantheWhoregan]

Another reason to not have children: They make bipedalism worse

[georgeelmerdenbrough]

I got here from a Live Doobie Brothers jam video else ? Lol

[gda]

Genesis  says that Adam and Eve  used to climb in the tree of knowledge  [ v 324 ] so this is good evidence for the arboreal model  [ha ha ]