|
|
|
|
Title: What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much
Added: Feb 25, 2011
Author: ForaTv
Duration: 3:45
Description:
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2011/02/15/Robert_Sapolsky_Are_Humans_Just_Another_PrimateNeurologist Robert Sapolsky explores the genetic differences between humans and chimps, and describes the few genes that make our species unique. Our two species share over ninety-eight percent of the same genes, with only one major trait separating us from other primates: an abundance of neurons in the brain."Take a chimp brain fetally and let it go two or three more rounds of division and you get a human brain instead," says Sapolsky. "And, out come symphonies, ideologies and hopscotch."-----Dr. Robert Sapolsky discusses his work as professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University and as a research associate with the Institute of Primate Research at the National Museum of Kenya. His enviable gift for storytelling led the New York Times to print, "If you crossed Jane Goodall with a borscht-belt comedian, she might have written a book like A Primate's Memoir." Dr. Sapolsky's account of his early years as a field biologist. He is sure to dazzle and delight with tales of what it means to be human. - California Academy of SciencesDr. Robert Sapolsky is a professor of Biology and Neurology at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Museums of Kenya. Dr. Sapolsky is the author of several works of nonfiction, including A Primate's Memoir, The Trouble with Testosterone, Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers and Monkeyluv: And Other Essays on Our Lives as Animals.
Related Videos:
Videos related to 'What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much'
Channel: Tech
Tags: humans people homo sapiens chimpanzee dna genome genes match comparison differences evolution science sequence biology evolved brain structure behavior nervous system primatology foratv fora.tv fora tv robert sapolsky california academy of sciences
humans people homo sapiens chimpanzee dna genome genes match comparison differences evolution science sequence biology evolved brain structure behavior nervous system primatology foratv fora.tv fora tv robert sapolsky california academy of sciences
Youtube Comments: 189
LendMeYourHand Says:
Jan 14, 2012 - flat foot verses curling tongue = WW3. Memory banks verses emotional cognition = WW3 Right hemisphere verses Left hemisphere = WW3.
gblueslover2 Says:
Jan 21, 2012 - In some ways, they are more rational, for certain.
Lius525 Says:
Jan 26, 2012 - @chevyGamul because inteligence is not something only humans have, - gorillas and chimpanzee's tought by early age can learn sign language and very smart ones have IQ around 60-70. From what I know from classical genetics, inteligence is something that can be increased/decreased over generations and humans practicised their brains atleast for 100 thousand years - yes it made us different, but majorly? I don't think so.
fitnesus Says:
Feb 14, 2012 - I Really Like The Video From Your Neurologist Robert Sapolsky explores the genetic differences between humans and chimps, and describes the few genes that make our species unique.
croncong Says:
Feb 14, 2012 - Nice Video That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You Neurologist Robert Sapolsky explores the genetic differences between humans and chimps, and describes the few genes that make our species unique
3AJBNE Says:
Mar 5, 2012 - HE IS AN AMERICAN !! OF CURSE HE MASTERED IT SINCE HE WAS A KID
144jr144 Says:
Mar 7, 2012 - Basically, other than a few relatively minor differences, the biggest genetic difference between humans and other primates is the longer gestation period (during pregnancy) which allows for a much more extensive neurological development prior to birth. That's intriguing. What would happen with 10 month pregnancies or even 13 month pregnancies (in utero or otherwise)?
goodneff Says:
Mar 23, 2012 - is this guy babling i cant focas on the answere
ShinjukuHH Says:
Mar 25, 2012 - Have those proponents of ID EVER found something useful for us humans in the field of, let's say biology or biomedical sciences?Why can't they?
angelwhite Says:
Mar 25, 2012 - Undoubtedly. Are you suggesting that if a person "finds something useful" in science, then they can't be a creationist?
ShinjukuHH Says:
Mar 25, 2012 - I would say, that it would be very unlikely maybe even impossible to "find something useful" which can be applied in the field of biomedical sciences that relies on the foundation of an 'intelligent designer'.The 'intelligent designer' HAS to be smarter than us. Can you outsmart someone who is more intelligent that you are?
angelwhite Says:
Mar 25, 2012 - You're saying that people who do biomedical research deal with evolution directly? I would be quite surprised by this. Much more likely, they deal with anatomy and physiology directly, and evolution only in an explanatory sense. Your thought process sounds like believing that you can't check your email if you think computers work through magic rather than being abstractions of ones and zeros.And I don't understand your second point. Are you saying no creationists are motivated to do science?
ShinjukuHH Says:
Mar 25, 2012 - No, you didn't get it. Different disciplines of science rely and work in part in conjunction with other fields of science. Pharmacology relies on chemistry and evolution. In order to develop a drug, you have to understand the genetics and genetic drift of viruses and bacteria.You need to know how your enemy works and how it adapts/develops resistances.You just cannot do that with intelligent design.
angelwhite Says:
Mar 25, 2012 - That isn't true, creationists recognize "micro evolution" which they would allow to include genetic drift of viruses and bacteria. The world is not as discrete as your argument requires it to be.
ShinjukuHH Says:
Mar 25, 2012 - That was a badly coined phrase. The point is: Intelligent design is a bad theory, because it is neither simple, nor testable.It has to make too many non-falsifiable assumptions, you have to rely on an a priori argument. A good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. That's the case for evolution, but not for ID.And with hindshght: To me, creationists seem to be lazy.
ShinjukuHH Says:
Mar 25, 2012 - But then they would have to admit that Darwin was right (at least in part). And what/or 'who' would prevent that from happening. Where would be the boundaries of so called 'micro-evolution' ? They would be arbritary. There is a constant string of intermediates in the fossil record (geology shows that) ad in the genetic code that are disproving the claim of "There is no 'micro-evolution'. "
angelwhite Says:
Mar 25, 2012 - I don't think many here would dispute this, I was just making the point that Creationists and Christians who do science are not Christian (or Muslim or whatever) scientists, because the principles are based in Science not religion (e.g. I'm a programmer, not an atheist programmer -- the two are disjoint). But I also think it's disingenuous to assume that scientists are never religious.
ShinjukuHH Says:
Mar 25, 2012 - I think the best comparison would be "there are also gay republicans" (and I chose this just for comperative reasons).
publiusdg Says:
Apr 16, 2012 - seems legit. Like.
shelzoth Says:
May 9, 2012 - NO sure. But since homo erectuts skeletons were found in australia, we can infer that aborignals are more closely related to our common ancestor than Eurasians.
dmess12 Says:
May 10, 2012 - He somehow reminds me of thunderf00t
koertje Says:
May 15, 2012 - Wow, this man is so interesting.This kind of intelligence is so rare but so amazing.
ericguitarman6648 Says:
May 23, 2012 - Great! Thank you! I really appreciate videos like this. I want to know. Knowledge is not established by DEBUNKING THE OTHER GUY! No as Michael Palin once said, Contradiction does not equate to an argument! What ever religion you adhere to it has no effect or should have no effect on data.
ericguitarman6648 Says:
May 23, 2012 - Yes! I totally agree! I will not form my world view via contradiction, belittlement and cursing. Just give me data data data.
LendMeYourHand Says:
Jan 14, 2012 - Maybe starting off with the BIG LIE. That chimps are neanderthal gene. And that the gorilla is the cromagnun. Then when we look at people around us, we can see the BLATANT truth in the "brow ridge." As the agressive chimps rule our world. And the shamanic gorilla with psionic abilities are overwhelmed by the madmen ruling our world. I just have one thing to say. B+ be positive. The better genetics will surface with the help of mothernature.