Only watched a few minutes so I didn't really get to see where she went with it but I'd be pretty skeptical about what you take from that video based on what I heard and what I know about neoteny. Again, this is something that crops up in a few of my classes.A quite interesting discussion on the women/children relationship, I think they can thank/blame biology.
More specifically, I would be skeptical about evolutionary interpretations of neoteny as I think a lot of it can be explained by life-history theory, our evolutionary history, and development in general.
A few things she mentioned which caught my attention (in other words, are misleading):
- - Evolutionary tendency towards neoteny (very questionable).
I could expand a lot here but it's probably just easier if I just tell you it's probably coincidental.
- Humans show more neoteny than our relatives, citing the brain as an example (explainable by life-history theory and the evolution of encephalization in humans)
- Chimpanzee as comparison for what our ancestors may have looked like (don't forget chimps have undergone ~7Ma of evolution since our split as well).
- Adult humans resemble infant chimpanzees more than they do adult chimps. True, but doesn't really tell us much in this context. Human infants are even a closer match, and adult chimps show neoteny as well. Embryonic alligators have a skull with similar proportions and shape to an extinct adult bird. This all ties closely with life-history, developmental biology, and homology (common descent).
- Neoteny as the reason for our delayed maturation.
- The stuff about the maturation and developmental periods of our ancestors is a bit odd.
The idea is not necessarily wrong but she forgets things like that chimps wean at roughly 6-7 years of age and humans closer to 3 years. Chimpanzees don't have a child developmental period. But they do reach maturity well before us. So I'm not sure if she hasn't done her research or just wrote that bit badly.
- "Better at surviving"
ugh, takes the "survival of the fittest" too literally. Survive all you want but your genes wont be passed on if you fail to be reproductively successful (as well as your immediate ancestors). It's not so bad to mention survival if you follow it up with something about reproductive success or "fitness" (as fitness includes your reproductive 'potential' and not just survivability).
- "Less time to get smart"
I get what she's trying to say but she goes about it horribly. If you delay chimpanzee maturation, you won't make them much smarter. Our delayed maturation is due to our massive brain, not a tendency towards neoteny. It just so happens that we need a delayed maturation, with a childhood, to allow our brain to develop (among other things). Neoteny is not the driving force of our delayed maturation or that this delay allowed our brains to evolve the way they did. She's got it the wrong way round (or at leasts words it that way).
- The environment of ancestral hominins was similar to contemporary chimpanzee environment.
Depends how far back you go along the evolutionary scale but you would probably make a better comparison with baboons (monkeys) than chimps from 4-3Ma onwards. Back then we were pretty bipedal but didn't have our huge brains, gracile dentition, or flat face. We had diverged quite a lot by then, however. Unfortunately, life-history isn't well preserved in the fossil record so you can really only make inferences about developmental timings etc.
6:00 - Declares that what follows is only her conjecture based on what she has read (I see Fox news article as a reference in the description). Considering how many things I've picked up on in a single 6-minute watching (I paused to type), I don't want to know what follows for the next 22 minutes. I imagine there's a fair amount of evolutionary psychology that follows and you would want to be very careful in your interpretations of the interpretations reported in research/press releases. Usually, you can rely on the media to draw the pretty ridiculous conclusions from research but I've seen my fair share of ridiculous conclusions by authors in evo-psych papers.