Yes, Dave. Steve gold made a very strong statements about the difference. Between the fact of evolution and the theory of the mechanism by which Evolution works. And I think it's absolutely essential on an occasion such as this. To say Yes, again. The really can be no doubt, but we are here because over time we have evolved from forms of life that are different to what different to what we ourselves are at this moment. when Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species there was scant paleontological information very few. Fossils have been found. The geology of the sites of Discovery. Where was poorly understood? Fossil evidence pertaining to our own specific Evolution was hardly known at all and the zoology and ecology with which were also familiar and which make up such an important component of understanding Evolution was still very much in its scientific infancy. things have changed tremendously since then and we now have In Africa, but also elsewhere a collection of fossil remains. That looks really very little help they speak for themselves and we can demonstrate. very clearly Transitions and changes that have occurred and we can point to a Heritage of our own species. That goes way back in time. exactly how far we can take it is more difficult because we are dealing with the inadequacies of definitions that we ourselves has created one of the sadness is that I have is it so often when the general public hear about the studies of human Origins? I hear that in the context of emotional arguments personality cults. and personality assassination attempts I think it is much more important than that. And I believe that within the next decade the last remaining questions concerning our origin will be documented from the fossil record be possible as it almost has no to turn back and to look. From whence we came to understand. the Y the wind and the hull of humanity before I take you to look at some of the fossil evidence and discuss some of the implications of the first I'd like to digress momentarily induction one or two of the issues that I perhaps be on my own responsibility, but one which I feel obliged to dress on an occasion such as this Builders question Is it worth doing is it important? Why paleoanthropology? Why study Origins when they're perfectly good alternative explanations? I think the answer must be but if we are going to solve some of the problems of the world and lay them to look forward to the management of this planet. On the basis that we are concerned with the survival of the species rather than the survival of a particular part of that species, then we need to fully understand that we are a species. We are a single species and the things that differentiate one group from another. Which physical characteristics or cultural characteristics or as is often the case a combination of both? These differences have reasonable explanations. I'm have a reasonable place in human society and should not and must not continue to be used to divide. I believe I'm not at yourself in a species sense is important. And I believe that with this knowledge many of the problems might be possible in terms of a solution. Of course, it is not my job to deal with it. I'm specifically concerned with the origins as represented by the fossil remains that have been found and that are kept in museums and can be studied. There are aspects to the study of origins of the origin of human behavior. A very complex question the place of cultural development the significance of cultural development in terms of the future as well as in terms of the pops. When did we become as we stated yesterday award like animal? Is this something that is innate or is this something that is learned? Do we control our Destiny or is are the destiny already programmed in our genes these questions are important important to explore and they're important to discuss in an open Forum of this kind. I believe. Doctor are going to be some problems with looking at couch level Evolution from a genetic point of view. And I think it would be fair to say that I would in a different for him like to have a lengthy discussion on that question. It is a fascinating topic and a topic that is really as Professor Wilson said in his infancy, but I would like to make it clear that I see. Cultural Evolution as a totally different phenomena to the evolution that I wish to talk about in the remainder of my time before you and that is a physical evolution. Who said that? Let me know turn to some of the Pointe Noire Amy, they worried because we have all sorts of arguments raging at the moment in the field of paleontology in biology. One of our difficulties is definition when we talked about men. What do we mean do we mean the male the male and the female do we mean homo sapiens? Do we mean as some suggest Homo sapiens sapiens? What arrogance? What do we mean by man? What do we mean by man and ape? What is an eighth if it's not a man? What is a man if it's not all of these issues require qualification and definition if you're going to have a meaningful dialogue and yet we haven't time to set up our definitions before a discussion of this time. Certainly today we all unique. but our uniqueness Israeli notice another spectacular as many of us want to believe yesterday again we heard and I fully agree that it is totally wrong to think of evolution having occurred to produce us. That sort of mistake goes without definition of ourselves Homo sapiens. It's pure arrogance to think in such terms. people worry about Evolution since Darwin proposed the idea and I think had darling explicitly stated that Evolution applied to old but humans. Go to be in a far greater Acceptance in Victorian society in England and Europe in his day. SS Don explicitly included us as he must have done. But since then and if you look at some of the cartoons on the exhibit in the museum here with the special at Nobel conference and you look at some of the literature that is still being portrayed by the radicals in the organizations such as the scientific creationist movement one is struck by the fact that people are most concerned. That we are related to the chimpanzees and the gorillas. This is the announcement. This is what causes. What is the difference between a human and a chimpanzee? Well, it's not very difficult to see some differences. But when you analyze the many of these differences are not absolute. You can say that a chimpanzee is not intelligent. What do we mean by not intelligent? There are people who had lobotomies and medical problems were not intelligent either but they remain remain his people. Youngsters children are not intelligent even some of our friends and not particularly intelligent. Suddenly my friends. But they are still. truly human unafraid So what what is it? What is the definition? I think we've got to look at some more fundamental characters and I believe the most important thing about Humanity. And one which I would stress in my interpretation is the fact that we are upright we walk on two legs. biologically genetically, we are very very similar to the chimpanzees and gorillas that they will come for and we will come to that transition from a Quadra ped to buy pads happens at a certain moment in time as a results presumably of some selective pressure where it was advantageous to a population of like creatures, but it's advantageous to walk on two legs when it happened, but to me, that's not the first appearance of humanity. And then from then the world humans on planet Earth. We know and I will show you examples basis of slides that for a long. They were bipedal Apes two-legged Apes that roamed Africa rape symptoms of a brain size of brain development. At some point and I think we know approximately when a population of those bipedal Apes underwent further change that relates directly to us. Selection favor a trend towards greater intellectual skills greater mental skills enlargement of the brain and absolute terms, but more importantly it was a change in the internal organization and structure of the brain second parts of the brain related today to the things that we take for granted began to develop. This to me is the second important part of the evolutionary process that I think are really of importance to our story. I believe it would be much easier to go back to the original suggestion the suggestion that could be termed the clay this suggestion but we include ourselves and the other Apes in a single-family and not separate us on a family level. Look at us instead as simply different distinct General within that particular group of family of animals the attempts to understand the evolutionary process as seen by the fossil record would be much easier and much what I would say in the latter part of this talk will it affect reflect that particular preference play this preference in terms of the taxonomic organization of my thinking. Sort of questions that are undoubtedly burning in many people's minds really. Broadcast focus in my thinking just two days ago when an elderly gentleman. From quite near here to spend the good part of his life on a farm in the corn. Rose in the. After my lecture and asked me when I had ever in all my experience measure monkey. the new the meaning of sin I realized the importance of that question to this gentleman is an important part of western culture is an important mental concept that helps us guide ourselves and through ourselves Society in a particular direction, but sin is really a human word for nothing wrong from right a wrong is a sin in a sense of low moral wrong is more of a person than another room. I'm quite sure that other animals particularly a monkey or chimpanzee or gorilla will in certain instances. No. but something is wrong in terms of the social norms that particular society that is part of the monkey has the burden of knowing it is a sin simply that it is wrong. And I believe there in lies the other important part of our story. When did we develop a brain? But have the capability of such abstract ideas. That wrong was more than wrong, but wrong was a Sim. I don't believe we will ever find out by looking at fossils. Nor do I really believe we will ever find out by looking at chimpanzees. I think we have got to accept that there are certain questions about her Origins that we will never understand. But that's not a problem list of life. We don't understand and I don't think we necessarily have to believe that every question will have an answer that is available to us. And he said that I think we should take the lights down and run through some slides because we don't have all day. Four subjects that really should have taken much longer than this single conference. I think this portrays really what Steve was talking about yesterday that they could they could well have been a situation. Where have they not being some extraordinary event possibly a collision with another Stella body where there would have been no humans or no primates on planet Earth. This is theoretically perfectly plausible as it's plausible that in the future there could be no humans are primates on planet Earth and in some ways when my dog you put the well would have been the best of place had we all being bipedal dinosaurs shopping around the Primeval swamp some forests. In any event, I want to stress again that evolution is not there to produce us. We are fortunate to be here and we have a tremendous responsibility to stay here. But more importantly to allow other creatures that share our planet to stay with us. No, I mentioned earlier on my concern with definitions and a description of where my research is focused. I'm concerned with this point here. Which is I believe the first two splits. Between the very primitive monkey like animals and a group that we call as it were the answer points. This particular point is probably between 20 and 30 million years exactly dated has not been possible. But I think 25 to 30 years. There will be evidence of that basic split. We have fossils that go through time along this line and you will notice that I'm not put dates on this particular diagram and the second important point for me is up there. Which as I see it is the moment when bipedalism was developed. We don't know why by people is in the cud, but I think this origin of humans the beginning of humanity. The development of a bipedal ate was a reaction to environmental change and I believe environmental change occurred in Africa, and it occurred sometime between 15. And 10 million years before the present it was at that time that this huge continent underwent some very significant changes and the changes were that the Earth's crust developed two large domes one here and one feather up thumbs of upwelling of the Earth's surface resulting in mountain ranges. And the reflective uplift what's the create totally new ecological habitats for Africa being flat across the equatorial zone for the first time Africa had a Chipotle Rafi. It was sufficiently extreme, but you got totally different weather patterns and totally different vegetation patents as a result. About 9 million years ago in the fossil record in Africa, you get the first appearance of the real grazing animals animals that are adapted to feed on grass. It is a response to that grasslands habitat. But I think we owe all religions and it is that the particular concerns me at the moment to determine whether or not we can relate the beginnings of bipedalism to that today. You'll notice today in Africa that all of the fossil sites on the Eastern side of the continents. There is so CA today with the rift valley the work that I have done is all up here in northeastern Africa. The work of Daniel Hanson and some teams from the from Beckley and from France a write-up in the Horn of Africa and traditionally the work on human Origins was in southern Africa at these sites down here, but they were all on that side of the continent which still today is typified by grassland and step land unlike the western side of the continent which is characterized by rainforests and semi jungle and very forested conditions the great apes other than living in Africa today are confined to the western side of the continent. They have remained in the forest where presumably our own ancestors originally venture. We have at least Africa a tremendous number of sites and I don't want to take you through all of them that I simply want to point out to you that we have sites that go from 20 million years. Where we have the very primitive Apes the dryer pissings. The science of between 17 and 13 million is where we have a group of creatures that have been closed. Can you pick us? She's a pithecus ramapithecus creatures that we have. Sometimes thought might be human ancestors between now realize I'll probably not but probably more related to the ancestry at least in terms of sheet of Hrithik has of the orangutan in the forest. Lettering time from 17 from 13 to 7. We have sites feeling Africa at the moment, but we have sites in China and Greece in Pakistan and a new size in Kenya. We have some of these Advanced Apes. And I recently got a new discovery new hominid 1982 which hasn't been named and which is quite unlike anything. We have fun before and which undoubtedly relates to the story feather up that chopped. Higher up in the sequence. We have a number of sites that spanned the. Between 7 and 3 million years. and in that group of sites, we have a lot of evidence particularly in the latter two or three million years that is between 5 and 3 a lot of evidence for bipedal Apes by that stage humans were in Africa humans in the definition of being bipedal Apes still a tremendous wealth of African sites have bipedal Apes, but we begin to get the first indications of selection favoring an enlarged brain greater intelligence and the first stirrings what you might call culture or technology we have in the Lost bill in years final modification of the bipedal 8 to a single species leading directly to ourselves today this extraordinary geological record with fossils all the way through about two or three fossils as we used to do. We are talking about hundreds of fossils and the record is to complete to dismiss what we are concerned about. Is of course development of modern humans that have technology that have speech that do things together and all of those typically human characteristics on the stand is where we came from how we came to be what we are. We have enough fossils to look back and to reconstruct a lost about the physical shape of our ancestors living between the present and about three millennials. The farther back you go the less complete the record and the less confidence we have in drawing these particular types of of arch and the point that I would like to stress. Is it although they were probably several different species or non breeding groups of bipedal a type of a long periods of time. They all said the basic characteristic of being upright and bipedal and the only way in which we can distinguish them today is to distinguish them on the basis of the morphology or shape of their heads. There is different definite difference in the region of the skull. Between the one on the extreme left which would be a characterization of Australopithecus robustus. The one in the middle which would be a characterization of Australopithecus Africanus and the one on the right which would be a characterization of the large Brain form which we have attributed to Homo erectus or Homo habilis, and we don't want to get too much into these Latin names this morning, but simply I want to stress that the distinction that we make is really in the morphology of the skull and the teeth rot in the morphology of the skeletons in the remainder of this. Visual presentation you seen nothing, but skulls. We do have all the parts of the skeleton, but we're simply concerned with the skulls because they tell us the most about what was going on. Between 100100 and fifty thousand years ago and the present you have typically large-brained forms of bipedal ape this is a skull not from Africa, but it's called from Grease the Petronas go but it's the sizes for the purpose of this lecture. It is very similar to skulls of similar and take it either being found in Africa and Asia and in other parts of Europe. These are characterized by having a brain size upwards of 1200 cubic centimeters. Which of course is substantially and significantly larger than any of the other Apes Through Time. We see an increase as we come forward in time of brain science. We haven't time. No, is this the right occasion to go into the details morphological discussion about the significance of those changes? What is an absolute measure brain size does increase Through Time? They're obviously problems with a continuing brain size increasing. I've simply say that in the modern society particularly in the situation that we're in here this this morning, you mustn't think of those two around you with larger heads as being more evolved. This this is often quite the contrary and I don't know whether you use the term big head in this part of the wealth, but usually somebody is called a big head tends to be slightly less bright than one who's calling him. I'll have a big head. It is a curious thing that the constant increase of the brain size has had its problems in that the larger the brain in adulthood of the larger. The brain needs to be in infancy a large head has problems being passed through the birth canal of the mother at Birth. We have today a situation where human children are born essentially prematurely as you all are aware by the from your own immediate experience of those of your descendants of relatives. The human baby is a remarkably useless creature for a very long time indeed. Quite quite hopeless, but if human babies are born with more development particularly in the head, they would have larger heads and large heads wouldn't get to best canals of humans who need to walk on two legs The Wider the hips the more difficulty a person has been walking and again when you leave the whole you might simply observe not to August 8th. They the This this phenomenon. It's really quiet. parts of warding and it does certainly helped you if you're Accused by your wife or girlfriend of of looking too hard at something and say well, this is purely anthropology. I'm trying to work out the problems of childbirth as it relates to large heads. Anyway, let's let's come back to this question. We say that we do have essentially mobile phones going back a hundred hundred fifty thousand years. There is a problem and I'll come back to this at the end as to whether we have been to take fully modern human forms Homo sapiens. Oh to be arrogant for a moment sapiens sapiens as having a single Source the result of a single speciation event Homo sapiens as inevitable consequence. All day genetic Suites of genetic characters of markers that was established long before and was simply saying sapiens as a stage or a great. This is a complex question in one where I'm still open, but I believe in probability. We will eventually determined that homo sapiens arose where the world populations of what we're presently calling a different species Homo erectus, and I'm not suggesting multiple speciation events. I'm simply talking about the effect of culture must have had in keeping contact between genetic genetically related population, but we'll come back to that towards the end and I simply want to move forward now and look at some of the other characters as you go back from fully modern forms. You come to form is rather like this is a skull that we found in Kenya of homo erectus what we call him and it's probably wrong to pull it in terms of it being a separate species. A large Brain about a thousand CC's chocolate in this particular case, but arranged It is Well ahead of the other apes and well ahead of the other human rights. If you like the bipeds Contemporary with but interestingly enough for the sizes and much longer face than a human as the brain area gets bigger in time. The face tends to get smaller and tucked in the absolute size of a homo erectus adult head in the absolute size of a muttonhead is probably about the same as simply the difference in proportions between the face and the jaw and the backpod containing the brain that has changed. When you look at the mountain human compared to Homo erectus, you can see that there are similarities, but they're also difference isn't what the real difference as I say relates to the increase in the brain size head over that. if we go back Beyond about a million and a half years you lose the characteristic erectus form and you can just think that we've been calling Homo habilis and this is the 1470 skull the others like it where the brain is simply smaller. And the face is much longer and wider. I believe what we called Homo habilis with your cousin at various African sites in about 2 million years really represents at the moment the first evidence we have for an increase in brain size. It's not very significant in terms of its absolute size. But there are morphological distinctions between the brains of these sorts of creatures and other creatures with which they were a contemporary the australopithecines. It doesn't particularly matter to me whether you call it humor or Australopithecus or EXO why it's simply important to note that there are a group of creatures that are distinct. But appear to change from this to the homo erectus condition and from the homo erectus condition to the mall Marvin Sapp Ian condition that does seem to be a progression know whether this is gradual change. Whether we can see moments of punctuation. Is it open discussion at the moment and I'm absolutely convinced that the initial shifts from a small brain to a more advanced will become human brain for one of the best of town at the moment. This was surely at punctuation this probably happen very rapidly, but perhaps once it happens, then the gradual refinement and development of those sweet of characters can go on in a progressive and gradual way if that is the case. I would come down not in favor of Steve Gould hypothesis or or synthesis. We talked about Evolution happening in fits and starts know what I come down and say they'll simply the gradualistic approach, but rather a little bit of both Some things happen rapidly other things don't need to happen rapidly and we'll go on gently and then the runtime early accelerating or being cut off when environmental factors require it being some of the arguments that we still have to consider and one in which I'm simply not prepared to take a hard position, but I would say that one has to be aware of them in terms of the implications of some of the things that we say Bianca logical record. Parallels the fossil record in the sense that from the first time we get large-brained or larger brain forms. We also get the first evidence of stone Implements of lithic industries of cultural technology, whatever you want to call it and it is a definite. Moment in time when you begin to see evidence for technology and that mirror is very precisely the first evidence we have for a large Brain and I think it may be significant. When you locate a homo erectus a million and a half years ago, they almost certainly would have looked just like you and I seen in distance. They would have looked just like us as you got closer. You would have noticed that the heads were the only part that made them different from us. This is a slide taken from a film series that I did for the BBC. These are a group of actors that are simply wearing face masks and the face masks to sufficiently well done that many people who sold them when they were being prepared for filming standing around smoking cigarettes didn't really catch on to the fact that they went rather on modern humans, but then they realize that they had these tremendous Brown ridges and around a flat top to the head and that meant to lead to questions as to where leaky had picked up these on people. in addition to Homo erectus or Homo habilis What you have here, we have a contemporary with this groups of other bipedal Apes the australopithecines. We have specimen such as this switch off different again only in the region of the head and they have a small brain. Sumrall the nosey people have suggested that the small brains full simply females of the large Brain phone, but this is simply not on not on for for a variety of perfectly good reasons as well as emotional reasons. The Usher Philistines are an old group. They were very successful in Africa. And again one must reflect that where is the world could have been people or occupied solely by dinosaurs in the ascendancy is also perfectly possible, but the well could still have only had australopithecines rather than us. I'm absolutely certain that the world would it be in the best place had the australopithecines still rule the Earth because I think it is our intelligence. We've got lots and lots of these specimens. I simply want to show you that I'm a proud possessor of pretty pictures as well as everything else. These are some of the South African all scenes of Jaws and skulls in different stages. This is quite an interesting specimen way. We have the face of an osteopath in with his beautiful teeth preserved to say youngest individual with the wisdom tooth still on the ruptured in the lower Joel just to give you some indication of the sort of thing was that one can find in this house record the diversity of fossil suggest that there was more than one type of Australopithecus E. I think there was a type that we call Oscar because Africanus that was contemporary with Australopithecus robustus these strange creatures that had absolutely no forehead. And this huge wide and very fat face these particular creatures were characterized really by there and they have very large molars and premolars which presumably were ideal for coping with a particular type of food. One can envisage and Austria put the same living out on the Savannah where the food was not very nutritious and the only way to get enough to keep body. I never said Body and Soul. Let's stick to body body together by eating a lot a lot of poster. Do you really need big teeth? Otherwise, they just going to wear through and so we see this as it as it were an Adaptive Suites in Austria for the extra Buster's in our case. It was a larger brain. Pressing on I simply want to point out as I did earlier in addition to jaws and teeth. We do have skeletons the the recent publicity given to a skeleton from Ethiopia may have given me some of you the impression that it was the only skeleton ever found that lots of skeletons have been found some more complete than others, but we had a very good idea about the bodies of our ancestors going back 1 2 and 3 million years that the public has a lot of interest on this alleged debates between leaky and your handsome the debate between leak in your handsome is simply a discussion at the weather or not these sorts of things represent one or two different adaptive complexes or doctor Suites. The answer is we simply don't know the truth. We need more fossils in until no fossils are found. It's going to be an unresolved question. Better than we have and I'm pressing on because time is always difficult to control. We have fossilized Footprints and these are the earliest Footprints developing found and these dates are about three and three-quarter million years ever found by my mother in Tanzania, and it's a set of footprints of a bipedal ape there was three individuals that walked across the volcanic plane, which should be in a recent eruption of fresh Ash and they left behind their Footprints Robert as if they were walking down a sandy beach today. This is a remarkable Monument to the Antiquity of the by people 8 years ago the bipeds on the African Savanna and that really is the final part of this pistols. We have the wrong Epatha scenes from Africa and from Asia features such as this represented really by teeth and one of the interesting things about ramapithecus all this particular special for the first time you begin to get evidence of an anthropoid 1/8 with small canines that state I to see if you like the exact significance of that is not fully understood but a lot of people have argued that if you're going to change your diet because you change your habitat you're going to need to change the way you deal with your food. And otherwise if you're still bleeding last fruits in the forest, you can simply move your jaw up and down. Because the fridge for break up quite easily on your cuspid teeth If instead you're dealing with a food that may be dry or it may be coming in small packages. It's quite useful to be able to prepare it in your mouth by making a small a bonus that you can swallow in order to do that. You probably need to have more movement in your jaws. And in addition to being able to move up and down you need to be able to move your doors from side-to-side again, imagine how difficult it would be to chew chewing gum. If you have large canines that locked against each other you simply couldn't do it, but with our beautiful small K9, you can produce the extraordinary facial expressions that you do when you wander around your campus chewing gum, This ability to Market chewing gum is undoubtedly an important byproduct of this particular selection. Running for the scenes May well prove to be simply ancestors to the Asian orangutan and a group of creatures that are not extinct David building from Harvard working in Pakistan with some of the Pakistan about cuz they have come up with a partial skull that you see here and there it's compared on the left with a chimpanzee and on the right with an orangutan and you can see from the morphology that it's remarkably like this specimen here and really different from the specimen that for a long time. We have sold around us as an ancestral hominid. I think we were wrong and I think now there's an increasing body of evidence that we simply dealing with an early A Rang. Interesting enough, we can trace the origin of the Rings two African. We have specimens from lake. Turkana. That is still not widely known in the literature such as this that I absolutely unmistakably the ancestors to the ourang. She's a pithecus group and we have a number of specimens from this new site in Canada has yet to be fully worked. I'll be working it in February or March where we may be able to understand the origin of the Asiatic Apes. This is a particularly important development. In addition to those we can go back to around 20 million years and we can collect specimen such as this which is a partial skeleton of the dryer in 20 million years ago. Paul looking ape wandering around in the forests of Africa or group of Polar King Apes the drive to the scenes from which all the types of rivers and I think it's much easier to look at the same as ancestors to the Apes and to look at ourselves as Apes in the context of the Eeveelution a story that the fossil record can give us if that is the case. This would be one of those very early Apes from which we also my plates and Trays are in pedigree. Let's fix this problem. Probably like this. They were chimpanzee. Like they weren't chimpanzees by any manner of beans and we don't yet know how much time they spend in the trees on the ground. They will probably sell a generalized forest dwellers that were equally at happy Bears on the ground and in the tree, they certainly from the skeletons requirement to walk on their knuckles as the morning chimpanzee and gorilla. They will knock knock of workers, but probably more like sea monkeys in terms of the locomotive if we bring this to Worlds of conclusion, I think it's it is important to devise some means by which we can talk to each other and I think a large part of the problem is not that we haven't got the evidence is because we haven't got the vocabulary and we are depending on schemes but simply don't fit the modern knowledge and I think if we could have the house lights up. I simply like to wind up. This address and say to you that we have no considerable body of knowledge. There is no doubt at all that we have evolved. There is no doubt at all that I ancestors at one time when not like us. there's no doubt at all that things such as culture technology language and all the things that makes so much a part of our daily lives have a very long time span in terms of the origin some of them we will document Some of them we went when did language begin? I don't know but I can tell you that the skulls that we have of homo erectus or homo stage 3 suggest that they had the morphological requirements for containing a brain that has the motor areas developed for things such a speech if you're going to make complicated stone tools and you can to hunt and gather and living social communities. Presumably speech would have been very advantageous. But this is different from saying that we know when speech began it would be my view. However if you take the development of a large Brain as the uniqueness of homo sapiens and if you accept the with a large Brain and you are going to get technology culture and communication you are in effect from that moomins putting us in a different position from other forms of life in the sense that the speed by which genetic change can occur in the speed by which we can keep populations in contact has been greatly altered and I believe that if you law culture as part of the driving force of human evolution, then it's perfectly possible to have I want to sell those sapiens sapiens sapiens arising from populations. Homo sapiens that were less advanced in terms of their cranial development of rain development than we are today without having to invoke parallel Evolution or multiple speciation events, which are unacceptable to me as I think they are too many people the truth is we simply don't have enough to answer those questions. But the exciting thing is that with the symphysis that is being made possible by new approaches new studies new techniques and with the as it were the opportunity to think of fresh. There is a very good chance the best questions will in fact be so exciting to recognize that in the very near time short short future. We being spanked finally be able to look at look at ourselves, and if somebody said yesterday know ourselves, I think it's worth carrying on with that tosk. Thank you.