All language subtitles for S01E08 - Missing Links of Human Evolution.en

[THEME MUSIC]

GREGG BRADEN: My
name's Gregg Braden.

And I'd like to welcome you to
this very special presentation

of "Missing Links", the deep
truth of our origin, history,

destiny, and fate.

In the last episode,
I shared with you

the science based experiments
that not only confirm

that we are deeply
connected to our world,

but they go beyond that,
showing that this connection is

so deep, in fact, that it
begins at the very core

of our existence, with our DNA,
where we interact with life,

and even reality itself.

Well, today we're
going to zero in

on what it is about our
DNA that sets us apart

from all other life and gives
us the extraordinary ability

to influence our lives
and our world on such

a deep and intimate level.

And it all begins with where
we come from, our origins.

While scientists are
scrambling to unlock

the mystery of our
beginning, they're

also confining themselves to
a limited belief system that

says the mystery has
already been solved

and that evolution is our story.

Well, I want to say
right now that there

is a huge difference between
forcing the evidence that we

discover, such as bones, teeth
and fossils of ancient forms

of life, into a preconceived
idea of how, or even if, they

relate to us.

It's a huge difference between
doing that and allowing

these discoveries, wherever they
are, to lead where they will

and tell whatever
story it is they hold.

Today, we're going to discover
why scientists have now

come to a dead end when
it comes to explaining

the mystery of our past
and why the new evidence no

longer supports the
conventional story when

it comes to us and our origin.

And it all begins with a book.

It's a book that was
published in 1859,

and the beliefs of the man that
wrote the book, Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin
released his book,

titled "The Origin
of Species" in 1859.

And prior to that
time, the big questions

of life, when we asked those
questions of ourselves,

where does life come
from, how does it work,

what do we do to make things
better in our world, the answer

to those kinds of
questions, those answers

came from religious
organizations,

from the church primarily.

And Darwin said, he
said, I would like

to establish a stepping stone.

Let's make the first step
away from using faith

to describe where it is that
we come from and who we are.

Let's do this based in science.

And it's for that
reason that in 1859,

when Darwin released
his first work, that it

was widely accepted.

It was quickly embraced.

It wasn't questioned very much,
because he was a scientist.

He was a geologist.

And when he released
this information,

it quickly became ingrained
into mainstream thinking.

I want to go back a little bit.

I want to share with
you a little bit

about Darwin, my
feelings about Darwin,

where I think he may have
strayed from the deepest truths

of our existence, and why.

And I want to begin
that conversation, first

just by sharing with you the
full title of the book that you

rarely get to see.

When Darwin's book
was published,

in the early part
of the 20th century,

the main title was on
the front of the book,

"The Origin of Species".

The rest of the title was taken
off of the front of the book.

It was relegated to
the inside covers,

because of the implications
of what he was saying.

So let me read to you precisely
what this lengthy title was,

and then we can talk about what
it means from his perspective.

And that will lead us right in
to what the new discoveries are

showing us.

The original tile,
"Origin of a Species",

was this, "The Origin
of Species by Means

of Natural Selection"--

that's the title.

The subtitle began
with the word "or".

And it says, "Or the
Preservation of Favored Races

in the Struggle for Life".

That title tells us a lot about
Darwin, about his thinking.

Number one, he believed that
there were favored races,

that there were some that were
favored over others in nature.

And he believed that life
was a struggle to begin with.

And it's through this lens,
through this perspective

of struggle that Darwin
interpreted everything

that he saw in his
studies and in his world.

Well, I'd like to begin, before
we get into the theory itself,

with a little bit about my
experience with Darwin's work.

I'm a geologist.

I'm a degreed geologist.

And so I relate to much
of Darwin's mechanism

of exploration, his thinking.

Darwin was a scientist.

And I think he was
a good scientist.

He could not possibly have
known in his day what we now

know in ours.

He couldn't have
known about DNA.

He couldn't have known the
deep secrets of biology.

In the 1850s, scientists weren't
even sure what cells were.

So, just to invite you to
think about that a little bit.

I think Darwin's observations
were good, in my opinion.

And I'm deviating from
the science a little bit.

This is a personal perspective.

Here's where I think
Darwin went wrong.

Darwin went into nature
to observe nature.

And he believed that what he
saw happening in one place,

in one moment of time,
in one part of the world,

in the natural world.

If he saw birds behaving a
certain way or ants behaving

a certain way, he believed
that what he saw in that moment

was a little example that
represented a principle,

or a rule of nature that applied
to the big world and all life

everywhere, including us.

But we all know that there's
no one size that fits

all when it comes to nature.

It doesn't work that way.

But this is the assumption
that Darwin made.

So having said that, I
also want to say to you

that Darwin was very clear, when
he wrote his book, about why

he was writing it.

When I researched his
book for my writings,

I took the time to go back and
read Darwin's own words, not

the interpretation through an
academic professor or somewhere

from a university
or a philosopher.

I wanted to see what
Darwin was thinking.

And it's not an easy read.

He had very complex language,
very flowery kind of adjectives

that he was using, almost
like a philosopher.

But I want to share
this with you.

And I want to share this
in Darwin's own words.

Because even Darwin knew that
his theory would probably fall.

And I want you to know that he
was OK with his theory falling.

Darwin was perfectly OK
with his theory falling.

It's mainstream
academia today that's

having a problem letting
go of Darwin's theory.

Listen to Darwin's own word.

Here's what he said.

This is a quote.

He said, "if it
could be demonstrated

that any complex organ existed,
which could not possibly

have been formed by
numerous successive slight

modifications", he said,
"my theory would absolutely

break down."

My theory would
absolutely break down.

All right.

So what's Darwin saying to us?

He's saying that in this
theory of evolution of organs

and attributes developing
slowly, gradually

over long periods
of time, he's saying

if we could ever find
even one example,

if we found one example where
that theory didn't apply,

the whole theory
would fall apart.

Well, not only found one,
we found many examples.

The human eye is
a perfect example.

The way the proteins
come together

to create the clotting
mechanism in our blood

is a perfect example.

The way cells work
is a perfect example.

Every cell has to have
a way of taking in,

of eating nutrients, of
excreting those nutrients,

of reproducing.

And evolution says that
those kinds of attributes

should come slowly, gradually
over long periods of time.

But if you think
about it, it can't.

They all have to be there at
once for the cell to function.

If a cell is able to
eat but not excrete,

that's not going to work.

If a cell can live
but not produce,

you're not going to
see many more cells.

So a cell is a perfect
example of where

all of these attributes have
to be in place all at once

for the organism to live.

They cannot be gradually
created or gradually developed

in response to nature over
a long period of time.

So what I'd like to do--

I'm talking about evolution--

and I'd like to
define evolution.

Let's go on a little journey.

Let's go on a 58-second journey
of evolution and what it is

and what it says to us.

So if you look at
your screen, this

is a beautiful graphic example
of exactly how evolution works.

Darwin believed that in
the beginning, life formed.

And he said himself, he
didn't know how life began.

So he didn't try to explain how
life began in the first place.

He said, after life was
here, in a primitive form,

as a single cell, what happened?

He said that cell began
to grow and become

more complex over time
in response to what

the environment, to what
nature was showing that cell.

When the life form
needed to stay warmer,

or when it needed to adapt
to a different kind of food,

or when it needed to sense
differently in its environment,

those kinds of things
would trigger a mechanism

within the organism and new
attributes would develop,

slowly, gradually, over
long periods of time,

the organism became
more and more complex

until it reached the
point where we are

today, with humankind
being the pinnacle,

at this point, of what
evolution is saying to us.

So since 1859, this mechanism
that I've just shared with you

has been the thinking
underlying biology

and human origins, where we
come from and how we got here.

Since 1859, the
thinking has been

that those organisms, as
they grew and developed

new attributes over
long periods of time,

that when they would die, they
would leave a fossilized record

of that moment, a snapshot
of that moment in evolution,

and that we should be able
to find those in the world.

And when we do, they
will begin to give us

what's called the
evolutionary family

tree that leads from
those primitive organisms

to where we are today.

So the question has
always been, how

do we get from there to here?

How do we get from
those organisms

to where we are today?

And the thinking that this
gradual transition must

be available to us
in the fossil record

is at the very foundation, it's
at the root of human biology

and the way we think about
our evolutionary past today.

But I also want to say
to you that when Darwin

put his theory together, even
he had questions as to why

we don't see more of the
kind of evidence that he said

should be available
if we, in fact, are

the result of this long,
slow, gradual evolution.

He said, we ought to find
these fossils everywhere.

I want you to see, once again,
Darwin's own language, so

that in your mind, you're
beginning to have an insight

and beginning to think the
way that Darwin was thinking.

What Darwin said is this.

He said-- and this is a quote--

he said "the number of
intermediate varieties,

which have formerly existed,
must be truly enormous."

So he's saying there's
obviously been a lot of life

in the world in the past.

Here's his question.

He said, "why then is not
every geological formation

and every geologic stratum full
of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not
reveal any such finely gradated

organic chain.

And this, perhaps, is the most
obvious and serious objection

which can be urged
against my theory."

So Darwin is saying, he's
admitting, he's saying,

you know, I've got this--

I'm paraphrasing-- he's
saying, I've got this theory.

And even I, as a geologist,
am a little amazed

that we're not finding more
evidence to support my theory.

So this is kind of the backdrop
that has been conveniently

forgotten in the modern world,
in academics and teaching,

that you won't hear high school,
college professors sharing

these kinds of doubts.

And I think it's
important that we

be honest with ourselves and our
young people in school today.

I think it's important to be
honest, truthful and factual.

And I'm about to share with
you the evidence, the very

unpopular evidence that does
not support Darwin's theory.

And I also want to be clear.

I'm not suggesting
that we throw out

all of the theories
of evolution and stop

teaching them in our schools.

I believe that we owe
it to our young people

to honor them with
all the information,

show them everything, show them
the idea of Darwin's theory,

show them the new evidence.

And here's why that's important.

Young people love to know if
they are living in a world

where the mysteries
have yet to be solved,

because it means maybe
they're the ones that

can solve the mystery.

And that's much more
exciting to study

than to study a rigid
academic theory,

where we say it's
all buttoned down

and we already know
everything there is to know.

That's not the case.

So the thinking
has been that as we

find these primitive
forms of life--

and I know you've
seen these before.

I grew up in the '50s, '60s.

And it was a very exciting
time in anthropology.

Louis Leakey, the Leakey
Foundation, the Olduvai gorge

in Africa, where
they kept finding

older and older examples,
fossilized examples

of these primitive beings.

And the magazines, the flashy
magazines on the newsstands

would have these big titles,
The Age of Human Ancestors,

would push back again
and again and again.

And we all heard things
like Australopithecus.

It was better known as
Lucy or Homo habilis.

It was called the
handyman, or Neanderthal.

And these are the
examples that were

given as being evidence that
was discovered that was believed

to support Darwin's theory.

Well, this is what I want
to share with you right now.

The problem is that the evidence
doesn't support the theory.

The evidence does not
support the theory.

If you look at a traditional
tree of human evolution,

it's called the human
evolutionary tree,

we see human at the top of
the tree and leading up to us

are all of what are believed to
be these intermediate species,

and we're all connected
by these lines from one

to another and another up to us.

Here's the thing.

Look closely the next time
you observe one of these,

or look at the one that's
on your screen right now.

And if you look at the
legend, the little box that

describes everything
that's happening,

those lines generally
are dotted lines.

And the reason
they are dotted is

because they are called inferred
or speculative relationships.

Inferred, or speculative.

That means the scientists
suspect they exist,

but they have yet
to find the proof

to actually nail down their
existence of this relationship.

They're believed to
be true, and they

have been believed
since 1859, when

Darwin proposed the theory.

I don't know about
you, my thinking,

since 1859 until where
we are right now,

it's about 150 years, we have
had the best minds in academia,

the best scientists, we've
had the most sophisticated

equipment, we've had the
greatest universities,

we've had the most
funding, the most money,

all directed toward solving
this mystery of our origin.

And I think that if we
were on the right track,

we'd be further along
than we are right now.

We would have some of those
dotted lines be solid lines.

But they are not.

They are not.

And the scientists keep saying--
and I have friends in academia

who are teaching this in
universities right now--

they're saying we just haven't
looked in the right place.

We just haven't found
the right fossil.

We just haven't looked in
the right part of the world

and found this evidence yet.

Well, that physical evidence
is only a part of the key.

Because now we have
new evidence that's

taking us light years
farther and it's

telling us why the
physical evidence may not

be supporting this story.

So you've all heard of missing
links, and the missing links

when it comes to
human evolution.

The truth is that the missing
links are still missing,

and I think they always will be,
because the evidence suggests

that they probably do not exist.

Let me tell you why.

Human DNA is beginning
to tell a new story.

And it's an exciting story.

This sounds like science
fiction, CSI kinds of stuff.

But we are actually
able to cull the DNA

from a human out
of the bone marrow

from their fossils that
are thousands and thousands

and thousands of
years old in a way

that we have not been
able to do in the past.

That's the state of
the DNA right now.

So I'm just going to
begin with a story.

In 1987, northern Europe.

We've all heard of Neanderthal.

We've been taught
that Neanderthal

is one of our ancestors.

Well, 1987, the body of a
Neanderthal infant, a baby

girl, was discovered in a
rare state of preservation

that we have never seen
before and never seen since.

She was carbon dated to
about 30,000 years old.

And she's supposed to
be one of our ancestors.

So all of a sudden
now, we have the DNA

of a being that's supposed
to be our ancestor

that we can compare
to our DNA today

to see how much overlap
there really is.

They were able to pull the
DNA out of the bone marrow

from one of her toes that
was preserved so very

well, the bone of
one of her toes

that was preserved so very well.

I'm going to cut to the chase.

I'm going to go to the very
last sentence of the very

last paragraph in the very
prestigious journal "Nature",

from the study that was
released in the year 2000,

the conclusion of what this
DNA investigation showed.

You remember, the
discovery is made in 1987.

The results were only
released in the year 2000.

Here's what they said.

The last sentence
says, "the results

suggest that modern
human was not, in fact,

descended from Neanderthals."

Modern human was not
descended from Neanderthals.

That is from the journal
"Nature", volume 404,

March 30th in the year 2000.

So now we know who we're not.

We're not descended
from Neanderthals.

And as a matter of
fact, since that time,

additional evidence has shown
that we shared the Earth

with the Neanderthal,
which means we could not

have descended from them.

All right.

So now we know who we are not.

Fast forward to
another DNA discovery.

You've probably
heard of Cro-Magnon.

That is a term that was used
when I was in school, back

in the '60s and '70s.

And it's still being used
in some places today.

But the term has been replaced.

It's no longer used now.

And the word, the words that
have replaced Cro-Magnon

are self-explanatory.

Cro-Magnon is now replaced
with an acronym that is A-M-H,

the letters A-M-H. They stand
for anatomically modern human.

And that tells the whole story.

Anatomically modern humans,
used to be Cro-Magnon.

We showed up.

They showed up 200,000
years ago on the earth.

And they have not
changed since that time.

That means they are
us, or we are them.

The DNA of the anatomically
modern humans that showed up

200,000 years ago and our DNA
is essentially the same DNA.

If you were to take the skeleton
of an anatomically modern human

and put it next to mine right
now, except for their legs

being maybe a little thicker,
their bones, because they were

running and walking probably
much more than I do,

you can't tell us apart.

We are them.

They are us.

We showed up on this earth as
fully realized, fully enabled,

fully capacitated, anatomically
modern humans 200,000 years

ago, and we haven't changed.

Now we're going to get
into what this means,

but I want to tell you, that's
not Darwin's idea of evolution.

And this is where
the problem comes in.

I want to read to you just
a couple of quotes from one

of the research
magazines, so there's

no doubt in your mind about
what it is that they're saying.

This is from the journal
"Advances in Anthropology".

In 2012, scientists
claimed that Cro-Magnon, is

what they're calling it, the DNA
is fully modern and unchanged.

They actually have
DNA now that goes back

over 28,000 years
from these beings.

They haven't gone all the way
back to the 200,000 year point

yet.

But they haven't changed.

And it says, "this
means that Cro-Magnon

was a fully modern
individual who

perhaps had even a larger brain
capacity than we have today."

Let me just talk to you a
little about the brain capacity.

They may have had a larger brain
capacity, because it gave them

more surface area.

Our brains are a little smaller,
but they're more efficient.

Because now we have more
folds in our brains.

That gives us more surface area.

So what are we saying here?

What's the bottom
line to all this?

What we're finding is that we
need a new evolutionary family

tree.

The old family tree that
has us at the top, that

can no longer be the tree.

Because the evidence
is not supporting what

that tree has said.

The new family tree probably
looks more like a bush.

It does not have
a long succession

of evolving life forms that
lead up to us It shows, boom,

we showed up 200,000
years ago in a form

that still exists today.

We don't know how or why.

We're going to begin
talking about that.

But when it comes to how we
appeared, this is the mystery,

we haven't changed in
those 200,000 years.

So now that we know humans
showed up 200,000 years ago,

two questions.

Two questions arise immediately.

Why did it happen?

Why did we show up as we have?

And how?

What is it that triggered it?

What caused this to happen?

So I'd like to
take just a moment

and look a little
closer at what these DNA

studies between modern
humans and Neanderthal

are really telling us.

I know you've heard
about them before.

I'd like for you to see
them with your own eyes,

so you know exactly what it is
that scientists are looking at,

you know what is matching,
what's not matching,

and you know why that overlap
is not occurring the way that

has been believed in the past.

So let me orient you to
what you're seeing here.

This is a graphic image
of the 23 chromosomes

that are both human
and Neanderthal.

We both have 23, 23 chromosomes.

And you're seeing them
overlaying one another,

so that we can see
where there is a match

and where there is not a match.

The blue is Neanderthal.

The red is human.

And if you look closely, and
they are few and far between,

there are orange bars that you
will see above each chromosome.

The orange bar tells us
where we have data in common.

So if you look at
chromosome number one,

for example, what
you're seeing, all

of the places above the
actual blue and the red graph,

every once in awhile--
and I'm highlighting them

on the screen for you-- you
see a little orange bar.

That orange bar tells
you where the DNA

between Neanderthal and human is
common, where it's overlapping.

And I'm going to share with
you, with these circles,

I'm going to
highlight them here.

You don't see very many.

There are some.

Because we obviously
are sharing DNA.

But we share DNA with
all forms of life.

We share DNA with a fruit fly.

We share DNA with a cow.

We share DNA with our pets, our
dogs and our cats and our fish.

So it's not surprising
that we would share DNA.

The question is, to
what degree is there

an overlap between
their DNA and ours?

And this graph is showing you
why the scientists are making

the conclusion that there is
such little overlap that they

are not our ancestors.

We are not descended
from the DNA.

And this image is actually
from a peer review journal.

It's again from the journal
"Nature", volume 444, July,

2006.

So scientists have known
about this for a while.

Yet you are not seeing this
in mainstream textbooks.

You're not seeing it
in the classrooms.

Our young people
are not seeing this.

And we're not seeing it on
the television documentaries

and the specials.

It does not support the
traditional mainstream story

of us, our origins,
where we came from

and who our ancestors are.

So Darwin knew that there
were problems with his theory.

And Darwin, as I
mentioned earlier,

never claimed that his
theory would be the theory

to end all theories.

It was a bridge.

It was intended as
a stepping stone

to get us started,
to get us from where

we had been on a path of
a new way of thinking.

And I'd like to share with you
one more time Darwin's own very

complex language, where he is
expressing, in his own book,

his doubts of how
his theory might not

support very complex organs
within the body or organisms

themselves.

So I'm going to read
directly from his quote,

so that I get every
word just right.

When Darwin was talking
about the improbability

of very complex
organs just happening

through evolution alone
and how improbable

that actually sounds--

I just want you to
hear his words--

he said, "to suppose that
the eye, for example,

with all its
inimitable contrivances

for adjusting the focus
to different distances,

for admitting different
amounts of light,

and for the correction of
spherical and chromatic

aberration, could
have been formed

by natural selection
seems, I freely

confess, absurd in the
highest possible degree."

End of quote.

These are Darwin's own words.

So he's saying very honestly,
as a scientist, he's saying,

I know this sounds outrageous.

He said, and I even think
it sounds outrageous,

but this is the best that
we have for right now.

So when it comes to the way we
are thinking about ourselves

and one another, I wanted
to give you some insights

into the most controversial
facets of Darwin's work

and what it means.

For me, one of the problems that
scientists are finding today,

it's all about context.

It's all about
the bigger picture

of where the little
discoveries actually fit.

Let me just give you an
example of I mean by that.

If you and I are walking
through a field somewhere

and we look on the ground and
we find a key, a car key, and we

pick it up.

From that car key,
unless you know more

about a bigger context,
you don't really

know much about that key.

You may not be able to tell
what kind of a car it goes to,

what year or make or
model that car is.

You don't know how long
that key has been there.

And you'll never know only
by looking at this key.

This is a principle that
comes up again and again

and again in science.

We find it in the
archaeological sites

and the out of place
artifacts that we talked

about earlier in this series.

If we look only at the
civilization itself,

if you look only at the
walls of an ancient temple,

if you read only the
hieroglyphs that are there,

and you expect to see from
that the big picture of who

created them and
where they came from

and why they were there, without
knowing what was happening

in the cosmos,
what was happening

in the climate, what's
happening on the Earth,

it's probably not going
to tell you the story.

The same principle
applies to human origins.

If we are looking only at
fossils in Olduvai Gorge,

or if we are looking
only at Darwin's theory

and trying to apply that
to everything that we find,

and if we're trying to take
every discovery that we find

and force it into a
preconceived idea of this tree,

we're probably not going
to find the answers

that we're looking for.

It's not going to lead us
to the place of our origin.

To do that, we've got to
look at the bigger picture.

We've got to look
at the context.

That's where human DNA comes in.

In the next episode, we'll
explore what the latest DNA

studies are now revealing
when it comes to our origin.

And while some of our questions
are going to be answered,

I have to tell you
right now, we'll

also find that the
answers that we do receive

are going to open up the door
to an even deeper mystery

and forbidden
territory when it comes

to modern science
and the human story.

Thank you for joining me for
this program today, and be sure

and tune in for our next all
new episode of "Missing Links",

the deep truth of our origin,
history, destiny, and fate.