A key period in human evolution wasn't in Africa - David Reich
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Full Episode: • David Reich - How One ...
Transcript: www.dwarkeshpa...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/3RFuS7b/
Spotify: spoti.fi/3APeQ3L
Me on Twitter: / dwarkesh_sp
If you’re interested in advertising on the podcast: www.dwarkeshpa...
You can't have a teasing thumbnail and then not show the diagram in the video.
Agreed
The trick is to go with your gut, not the thumbnail.
*Osuf* -- It's from Wiki Commons.
Drop this into Google ----------------------- _'File:Homo sapiens lineage.svg'_
Take a screenshot? Worked for me
what a joke - I posted the name of the file from Wiki & U2B deleted it. That was two days ago🙄
That talk is crying out for a graphic!
So basically the problem with the out of Africa theory is it doesn't allow enough for back into Africa then back out then in out in out shake it all about.
I dont agree its out of africa. Apes were everywhere before humans then they mated with each other and made humans in my opinion. The idea that it came out of one region is weird. Did dogs or cat evolve in one area?
The simpler idea [Occam's razor (burn)] is that from the earliest to reasonable clearly modern types, these humans originated and evolved in Africa and of course once some of our ancestors left Africa spreading throughout the world, evolution continued apace (they weren't nuns and priests or hermits, beings supposedly chaste and celibate or aloof - laugh emoji) and even if some returned to Africa - iterating - that does nothing to dispel the origination there. The only way around that is to dig deeper (probably literally) in caves and bogs for contradictory evidence which verified might fix a different necessarily "earlier" origin elsewhere. (The CCP would like to find that early origin evidence in a storm drain beneath Ur-Beijing "center of the world", and others of course - selfish or worse - somewhere else.)
[P.S. white supremacists should quit wasting their time pestering uninterested folks and start volunteering on paleoanthropological digs to help come up with that evidence sooner (you think you have muscle and stamina use it sensibly), if they are so keen to prove themselves - no cheating now you guys (Piltdown).]
Doesn’t matter since evolution is so vague evolution it’s not even qualified science.
Evolution has to keep things vague to be remotely believable. You just say they must have somehow evolved from simpler form-you can’t show us at all what those previous forms were of course since evolution slow comicbook X-men science. Evolution isn’t real science like chemistry or physics and quantum mechanics etc.
For that you’d have to show us the step-by-step mutations that led to new complex structures in organisms. Instead you say mitochondria and chloroplasts have double membranes and this somehow points towards their separate evolution.
Nothing you said here debunks irreducible complexity. You just gave vague guesses as to how irreducibly complex structures came about without showing us what theoretical steps of mutations would be required to evolved the simplest organelle.
Evolution in a nutshell says that chance random mutations allegedly have some befit to an organism and evolves some complex new novel ingenious design. Most organs and organelles depend on other organs and organelles for their function so evolution could never happen, the same way a car engine could never evolve: all the parts have to be present for it to work.
That’s evolution in a nutshell. A simple nebulous idea-evolution has to be kept vague in order to be plausible. When you Analyze the nuts and bolts there’s nothing there, unlike a real theory like quantum mechanics or relativity. And “natural selection” only chooses the most fit. It’s not evolution which require the mutations, without which nothing new is produced.
The fact is evolutionists can’t answer a simple question: can you show me a sequence of gradual, beneficial mutations leading to new complex structures? If not evolution isn’t even on the level of theory like quantum mechanics. It’s not real science. It’s educated guesses since there is no scientific way to show what something might evolve to. What’s the future of giraffes? No one knows. Why do they have long necks? No one knows, just speculations unproven. Why didn’t all the animals on the savannah grow long necks? And how do the mechanics of that work? What were the sequence of mutations that involved the complex pumps that push blood to the giraffe’s head. The pumping mechanism is just like a mechanical part, which requires all its parts present simultaneously to work. And the long neck makes it awkward for giraffes to drink, and makes them more vulnerable to predators, so who’s to say either way? It’s all just vague guess work.
People don’t know the mutational sequence that evolved anything. It’s a waste of time and brain power.
Creationism predicts order in the universe and the evidence of design, all of which the universe exhibits. From the universal constants to the irreducibly complex structure of organisms the imprint of design is obvious, the way a literal imprint implies a physical seal used to make the print. If even the slight change in the masses of particles were changed then the universe as we know it wouldn’t be possible.
Thats why most of the great minds in history had some idea that there was intelligence behind nature.
A ribosome makes and ingenuously creates and edits the proteins that create the ribosome itself. How did that cycle get started from an evolutionary standpoint? Specifically, what were the mutations that took place and why were they beneficial? What do they do for the organism to benefit it? Most mutations are either neutral or cause harm to an organism.
Just like there are no traditional fossils. Some have similar features but so does an Altima and a maxima. It doesn’t mean a maxima evolved from the Altima, or a Lexus evolved from a Camry. Their designers simply modified existing designs
Or take the eye and how the brain has to process what it sees. The eye is a perfect example of irreducible complexity: it possesses special cells found nowhere else in the body, sophisticated muscle arrangements that adjusts the eyes’ focus, the perfect ability to bend the lens of the eye so as to perfectly focus for far and nearby objects, etc, what to speak of the intricate nerve apparatus that transfers information from photon receptors to the brain. As mentioned above no one has come close to giving a sequential pathway of gradual beneficial mutations leading to such an arrangent (we haven’t begun to understand how even the cells of the eye work).
The complexity of the eye and the complexity of the software that makes it work is so intense that you can't have one without the other. Evolution can't build just an eye because it won't work without the software to make it work. Think about how the body could write software to run a part that it never had before, or know how it works? It doesn't have flowcharts to time every part for its operation. In other words evolution is impossible.
Darwin himself admitted the difficulty of accounting for complex form in The Origin of Species. "To suppose that the eye, 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 degree."
Darwin then goes on to suggest in an extremely sketchy way that you can have a sequence of gradual changes taking you from a light-sensitive spot in some primitive creature to a mammalian eye. But this sort of magic-wand waving will not do. True science would demand detailed descriptions of exactly how each transitional stage would be formed. To put the matter in proper perspective, it would be like going from a slide projector to a color television merely by successive modifications of design. If someone were to claim this were possible, he should be able to provide us with schematic drawings and working models. Yet nothing approaching this has been offered in support of claims of evolution of complex forms in living organisms.
Science isn’t vox populi. Remember Darwin and copernicus were minorities.
Here are more examples of irreducibly complexity in regards to flagellum, bacteria phage, shrimp statocysts, and flat worms. If you can explain by what mechanisms they evolved-if you can solve the puzzle then it is you who will get the Noble prize:
books.google.com/books?id=pdznAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=Organization%20Constraints%20on%20the%20Dynamics%20of%20Evolution&pg=PA33#v=onepage&q&f=false
Regarding the above: Concluding remarks of John Maynard Smith, celebrated British evolutionary biologist, co-editor of the conference proceedings for the International Symposium on Organizational Constraints in the Dynamics of Evolution; Budapest:
“For me, one of the high spots of the conference was the account by Thompson and Goel of their biological automata models. It was not only that I was envious of their skill at programming. More important was their demonstration of the process of ‘self-organization.’” Smith goes on to compare Thompson’s work to his own, and says, “It is this kind of process that Thompson and Goel have simulated, with triumphant success.”
Here’s a part of the video version of the latter:
th-cam.com/video/aNpPFadeM60/w-d-xo.html
nothing with interdependent complex parts can really gradually evolve. So many interdependent parts would have to appear that it’s not plausible or scientific.
The Intelligently-Designed laws of physics and fundamental constants are essential for a life-permitting and fine-tuned universe:
I. Fundamental Constants
1. Speed of Light (c)
2. Planck Constant (h)
3. Gravitational Constant (G)
4. Cosmological Constant (Λ)
5. Fine Structure Constant (α)
6. Electron-to-Proton Mass Ratio
7. Neutron-to-Proton Mass Ratio
8. Charge of the Electron
9. Mass of the Higgs Boson
so what are you saying? put your left foot in, take your left foot out. put your right foot in, take your right foot out. then shake it all about? :)
Thank you for this comment. I think you defended your point eloquently. I would lime to know more than what TH-cam's comment section permits. Could you please recommend me some books/resources on intelligent design that don't rely on the Christian Bible?
The Earth's axial tilt is nearly constant. However, it can vary between 22⁰ and 24⁰. When it was at 24⁰, it affected the climate in Africa. This meant that the African Monsoon, which now comes to places like Ethiopia, and creates the Nile flood, used to move right across the Sahara Desert. Thus, the desert turned to savannah. Huge lakes and mighty rivers appeared, which nowadays are almost always dry. Herds of wild animals moved northwards, and men went north to hunt them. This is one of the principal ways that human beings went out beyond Africa. When the desert was mostly green or greenish, it was much easier for different groups to move out and explore the wider world. It was also easier to move into Africa. That had an effect too.
As the African Monsoon weakened and disappeared, the desert dried up. But there were still oases with some of the animals and plants that were stranded there. There were also pictures left by early humans.
You are not living on a spinning ball buddy
They keep monkeying around with this lineage question.
Meh...
Much of the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis was the racist implication that African people were more 'privative' than Europeans. This is straight out of H#tler's eugenics playbook. This is something that was being discussed openly when I was studying anthropology in the 80's. But, by the end of the decade, the tone of 'Out of Africa' was being changed into an honorary position that 'the black woman is the mother of all humanity' to maintain the fundamental ideology.
I found it odd that the racist position was being held on to and morphed into a more digestible form for the masses, but it still sounded like it had an "Europeans are more 'advanced'" implication.
@@vociferonheraldofthewinter2284 perhaps instead of evaluating the theory based on whether or not it is racist, you should evaluate it based on whether or not it is true. all of the oldest homo sapiens fossils we have found have been in the great rift valley of africa. whether or not this is being spun as racist or afrocentric should not be relevant to science.
@@vociferonheraldofthewinter2284 I thought the theory was based on the fact that the oldest remains found at that time were in Africa.
@@henryknox4511 I'm more referring to the politicization of the theory than anything. First as a dis to Africans, then to prop them up. Why can't facts be facts? I left anthropology because it was too corrupted with ideology.
I've been out of that world for a long time; but last I heard, the evidence was pointing to proto-humans leaving Africa for Eurasia, then returning to Africa as humans. I do know that there were multiple migrations back and forth and that makes sense. Living things have legs and tend to wander around quite a bit. Any theory that assumes a static state must be wrong.
There was a split long ago. Meaning some went back into Africa and the rest ventured out into Eurasia.
We know the Europeans and Asians, basically every human except the ones In Sub-Saharan Africa has DNA from Neanderthal and Denisovan lineage. That alone is a pretty big deal.
The people in Africa has DNA from several other human ancestors that used to live there. So we branched out many many years ago.
Subsaharan Africans possess 0.3% Neanderthal DNA, this is because a flow of Eurasians returned to Africa and brought Neanderthal DNA with them. Asians possess the highest levels of Neanderthal DNA but it is combined with Denisovan DNA, DNA that is not found in Western Eurasians or Subsaharan Africans.
Could you give a source on African non-sapiens DNA that's not found in non-Africans? I believe you, but I'd love to see it.
@@joemerino3243 Only in West Africans was a mixture of a Ghost population found between 2% and 19%. The highest frequencies were found in Yoruba peoples with 19%, East Africans have between 0% and 2%, Khoisan do not have this mixture.
@@user-yt3xd2jl6dAbsolutely. The West Africa thing paves all of Africa as ghost contaminated, and that's true science.
The Khoisan are the purest and original form of modern humans unmixed with archaic and ghost populations. They constitute the highest genetic source of ancestry for all peoples living now. It is more than 90% of our genetic heritage.
Well the thing is 'the split' doesn't matter. Even if there were 'a split' you still have to answer for why we all have the same base-mitochondria and the same base X chromosome. We EITHER all started in Africa or we started in a few places with a heavier African populace, and then a catastrophe happened where eurasian homo sapiens were wiped out.
In either case you get our current lineage of humanity coming out of Africa, flat out.
He's likely referring to the origins of Homo sapiens, the main lineage that developed into modern humans, which is still uncertain. It's unclear whether the origin was in Africa or the Middle East, as other species like Neanderthals and Denisovans had already reached Eurasia by that time. He's not discussing how humanity later split into groups like black Africans, white Europeans, and East Asians, etc., which occurred much later-especially the latter groups, less than 70,000 years ago. Instead, he's talking about a period between 2 million and 500,000 years ago. If Homo sapiens originated in the Arabian Peninsula, it would mean that all Africans, including West Africans-where the typical black person in the West comes from-had ancestors who roamed Arabia before returning to Africa during that period. Modern human 'races' did not exist back then. However before 2 million years ago, all human-like species, such as Australopithecus, Homo erectus, and other ancestors that split after bonobos and chimpanzees, were definitely fully located in Africa, as supported by genetic and archaeological evidence.
We know that different populations have different admixtures from archaic homonoids. Some people in south east Asia have up to 10% Denisovan DNA. The people in one area of Africa have 10%+ from an unknown archaic group (perhaps homo erectus). Early humanoids could have mixed with cromagnon outside Africa. We know that modern humans aren't exactly the same regardless of phenotype.
@@chrissorrels7093True, Europeans have the highest admixture with Neanderthals, Asians with Denisovans and Africans with an unknown group, perhaps African Heidelbergensis or Erectus. This interbreeding with adjacent species kickstarted our differentiation.
@@ingwiafraujaz3126
The Middle East & South Asia is very mixed in terms of DNA from other human species
Mutts, all of us, some stranger than others.
So if modern human races are younger than 70,000 years old, what (presumably non-modern) races existed 70,001 years ago? Surely there would have been ethnic variation in the humans of that day, unless you are saying that all modern humans descend from a *single family* less than 70,000 years ago.
Too true, Caucasians did not develop in Africa. Orientals did not develop in Africa either.
The Caucasian and Mongoloid lineages split 45 thousand years ago, the first Caucasoid was Kostenki 14 however he did not have the genes for light skin, Phenotypically he was more similar to the Indigenous people of South India and Sri Lanka, modern Caucasoids emerged 25 thousand years ago, with Dzudzuana the first to have light skin with the SLC24A5 gene, the first representative of the Eastern Eurasians is Tianyuan Man, however Tianyuan was more similar to the Indigenous Australians, it was not until 19 thousand years ago that modern Mongoloids emerged.
The last common ancestor of Kostenki 14 and Tianyuan Man is unknown but it is thought that they derived from an ancestral population called Basal Eurasians, these Basal Eurasians left traces in African populations, Middle East, South Asia and Europe. The Iberomursians (Paleolithic North Africans), have a deep substructure before the split of the Caucasoid and Mongoloid lineages, have 66% Basal Eurasian admixture (the last common ancestor of all Eurasians), then the Natufians have 50% Basal Eurasian admixture, Dzudzuana who is the first modern Caucasoid has 28% Basal Eurasian DNA, among living populations, the Qataties and present day North Africans have 35% Basal Eurasian.
... and both - even taken together - account for a MUCH smaller proportion of total human genetic variation than what is still found in Africa today.
In short, the non-African varietals of homo sapiens are closely related populations of what turned out to be an invasive species that spread like wildfire once they reached fertile ecosystems (from a hunter-gatherer perspective) they proved uniquely able to exploit...
It was pick and mix of genes from Africa ,Europe and Asia. Evolution doesn’t understand equality it’s more akin to gambling. Note the genes must row together to excel.
wagas of north america
Just because you can only find ancient primate fossils in a certain area doesn't mean that is the only area they existed in or that they were in that location first. In many areas of the world living tissue is not instantly desiccated by the dryness and heat and preserved like it is in Africa.
Actually, Africa doesn't preserve dna and bones well due to it's acidic soils. This is why till this day they have failed to extract DNA from West Africa where it's very wet with acidic soils. Meanwhile there is a paper coming out every other day about dna from other continents.
@@SabzKhumalo I was talking about fossils, not DNA.
Yet we find endless fossils of recent fauna like Woolly Mammoths and Wolly Rhinos outside of Africa....
@@twelvestitches984
He never concluded that, or anything close to that.
.
Your comment is so far from relevant its cofusing...lol
.
Your comment is just so far from 'necessary' - one wonders what was on your mind?
The point you are trying to make, irrelevantly on this occassion, is one he constantly conveys - of course - when it is pertinent...lol
YOU, should actually try and watch the whole interview.
.
You might gain a quarter of the knowledge you think you possess.
@@nopenopeXOXO Anthropologists have been saying for about 100 years now that humans come from Africa because that is the only place they have found the oldest primate fossils. You would know that if you had an education.
My comment is more relevant than your pseudo-science. You are worshipping selfish liars and cheats.
One wonders what is on my mind? The truth, not BS pseudo-science.
A scientist dropped something very small outside but it was dark so he could not find it. So he went inside a building to look for the small thing because the building had lights inside.
To sum up this guy's word salad: Humans come from Africa but likely diversified more once a population entered Eurasia.
He said that two of three times, just spoke very quickly
Yet most of the diversity’s found in Africa and all haplogroups find a common origin in Africa.
Plus, his ancestry has a bigger brain, and he is superior to other humans.
This is Eugenics. A false religion.
He wants to put in the mind of the listener that there are inferior races to his.
@@kiuk_kiks
Interestingly, he may be one of the main scientists to have discovered that little factoid you thought was a "gotcha".
He does not disagree with anything you just said - like I said, that factoid, was probably brought to you by him or his team (I am not exagerating.).
Your comment shows that you did not even try to listen to his point.
@@nopenopeXOXO There is no "gotcha". What he is doing is called "guessing" as the more appropriate term and scientists do this all the time. What he is trying to say is that some ancient hominid species exited Africa and had some kind of "special evolution" in Eurasia, then migrated back to Africa and further evolved into modern humans. Just at face value it is absurd that he is proposing such a convoluted model with zero evidence. I guess he is trrying to say that the 300,000 year old hominid remains from Jebel irhoud must have been the result of back migration from Eurasia.
maybe= we don't know
Yet
@@algernonwolfwhistle6351Or perhaps ever.
People migrate. That probably has always been the case. It wouldn't be at all surprising if some of the evolution of modern humans occurred outside Africa and then some of those ancestors migrated back to Africa, re-mixed with native populations, and gave rise to what we think of as modern humans. There are, of course, many permutations of that theory involving migrations into and out of Africa, and TBH none of them would surprise much.
Homo sapien humans already existed. To say that they left and came back is not an evolution. Just like it's not evolution if a person with British ancestry makes babies with a person of Japanese ancestry.
Yes, there were migrations into and out of Africa...but the fact is that all of the oldest DNA is found in African. Our mitochondria is clearly from a woman around the lake victoria region. Same for our X chromosome (not at the same time though we're not talking about Adam and Eve). So yeah, humans were in an out of Africa...and? Regardless a catastrophe happened, we got bottle necked down to the lake Victoria area and that's where we were for *tens of thousands of yearssssss*.
Yep. 😂😂 that was ALWAYS evident 😂😂😂😂
Possibly more study need to be done on Cro Magnon
Yes, I suppose they were not much different in some ways to Neanderthals. In that they were just another group in Europe.
Cro Magnon were Homo sapiens.
It's like saying Celts or Polynesians. It's not a distinct species
Think of all the ice ages over the two million years and the displacement it forced. It’s kinda hard to live on a glacier. Our ancestors would have gone back and forth over the eons.
It is not clear, at least to me, who you mean by "our".
@@bernhardschmalhofer855 By 'our' I mean all of Humanity.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Africans were actually the younger branch of humanity
that would explain sth that always puzzled me, the fact that subsaharan africans have less body hair than any other human ethnic group . Considering that our hominid ancestors had hairy bodies, one would expect the older branches of humanity to have more body hair than the younger ones. .
@@thisisobviouslynotmyrealname The Khoisan people are the least hairy, and the East Asians are next close. The two groups must be closely related.
East Asians emerged 19,000 years ago.....probably descended from the original Khoisan migrations 60,000 years ago. Both have similar eyes and light body build. The Indo-Europeans and Pacific Islanders are so hairy. Must be ghost population content there being that Africa is generally not hairy.
@trevormcdonald385. Neanderthals and Denisovans are older lineages than modern human. Their admix is what makes some modern populations hairy.
@@thisisobviouslynotmyrealname East Asians have considerably less body hair than your average Nigerian. That's not saying much
our ancestors came out of africa but their ancestors may have come from eurasia
You do realize that their ancestors are by definition our ancestors, right?
@@Maryland_Kulak Europeans have Neanderthal DNA African peoples don’t it’s that simple.
@@user-mf4on1pk2zOk. Put on your thinking cap. Let’s say your mom is African and your Dad is European. Are your mom’s ancestors your ancestors? Bonus clue: Modern Europeans have at most 4% Neanderthal DNA.
@@Maryland_Kulak In a longer version of this video, Reich says non-African people have 10-20 percent Neanderthal ancestry, but that harmful Neanderthal genes were removed by natural selection, giving us the 4 percent DNA figure. His theory is that Neanderthal's didn't "die out" but were swamped over thousands of years by "modern human" DNA. Just like a European Jewish lineage came from the Middle East but was swamped by European DNA. These "Israelites" never disappeared, even though they might be 80 percent European DNA at this point.
All hominids come from Africa.
Aborigines had to have seafaring to reach Australia. That means they escaped from the new owners sometime after Southeast Asia was already populated.
It is good to see the Multi Regional Hypothesis getting at least some of the airtime that it deserves.
Airtime with zero evidence.
That "Old DNA" is probably available on the Andaman Islands. Gonna be tough to extract though.
if it's present in the andamanese it should also be present in melanesia and australia, no?
@@Ian-nl9yd The theory is that the (almost) untouched North Sentinel islanders could be an isolated group of holdovers of a migration out of Africa 50,000 years ago. Other people find that hard to believe, but nobody is sure. Their DNA might reveal a lot. Problem is, they attack if you get close to the island.
@@Ian-nl9yd Andaman people look nothing like Australia's Aboriginal people. They may have common genetic ancestry but its certainly not obvious.
We have lots of Andamanese samples. You're thinking of the uncontacted Andamanese tribe on North Sentinel Island called the Sentinelese (by us).
Wikipedia has a section on Andamanese DNA. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andamanese_peoples#Genetics
@@philipschienbein6067 I know. I tried to respond but YT auto deletes my comments. Yes, those islanders could be isolated holdovers from a migration out of Africa 50k years ago. That's the theory anyway. Good luck collecting the DNA sample though. They don't like strangers.
A somewhat unorthodox and courageous view, but the basis is one I agree with.
It’s a delicate subject but Reich discusses it with respect and deference, never denigrating any group or promoting another. I feel bad hearing some researchers felt they didn’t to be associated with the work. That’s unfortunate. We are all mixtures, and that’s okay to point out. Understanding more about modern mixtures and how interconnected we are could bring receptive minds more understanding which in time creates empathy for one another.
I'm not sure what's so brave about it. Facts are facts.
It wasn't that long ago that the idea we all came from Africa would have been brave and outrageous.
We know of a few of our ancient cousins. We know there was interbreeding. And there's plenty evidence of there being a lot of mingling. A few hundred thousand years is a long time!!!
@@KeldonAI would say brave in that many researchers investigating the subject of human origins and migration have been harassed and cancelled in modern times, some even getting fired from thier jobs. Careers have been irrevocably harmed by those who perceive the work as racist. Reich himself was a target very early on and still is (just read the comments.) But, if you’ve followed his work over the years it’s clear he’s never been anything but respectful and honest. “Controversial” brings the crazies out, the loud type that get people fired and their reputations ruined. In the full video he explains that many co-researchers ended up dropping out of the paper because they didn’t want their names associated with the research. Very respectfully, it’s brave to discuss the topic so frankly ❤
@@DorchesterMom
I very much agree.
It's not courageous though. He's just getting the cart before the horse and passing it off as a new discovery.
I think the huge undercurrent of evolution is how Europeans, middle-easterners, east Indians and east Asians evolved so differently than sub-saharan Africans and American Indians.
Hybridization with Neanderthals...
Two types of Neanderthals...
One to East and one to the West of the Caucus Mountains... leading to the Caucasians in Europe and the Asians in Asia...
With Native Americans having encountered both species of Neanderthals.
Plus a hybrid Neanderthal & Neanderthal subspecies in the Middle East... that was mix of the two Neanderthals.
With the Denisovans adding a another influx influence in Pacific and Western Indian ocean to Australia regions.
Unfortunately our education system is a paper pedigree system based upon social connections and economic influences.
More interested in maintaining social engineering agendas and political agendas rather than honest unbiased science and scientific investigations and research.
But American Indians are directly descended from proto Asians tho ? It’s not as far as euros/africans
L0, L1-L3 Africans. They made the Aborigines. Aborigines made Caucasian and Asians. Really simple.
Emblem of the Americas 1798 the American Indians
Don't confuse very superficial physical adaptations for evolution
Doing that makes you seem stupid
There are plenty of Africans who are far cleverer and more successful than you are because they've been given the opportunities you probably wasted
what do you mean not clear? what about the jaw they found in the balkans a couple of years ago age 500000 years?
what about excavations in france, greece etc?
It's both humorous and sad that so many viewers find it so difficult to appreciate (in the sense of understanding the significance of something in its full complexity) scientific discussions involving a number of qualifications and hypotheticals. If its certainty being sought -- easy totalizing answers, end of discussion -- that's simply not how understanding of the natural world develops. That's more on the level of ideology, not science. I'm glad that the kind of education that balks at those discussion-over pronouncements was available to me. The world's a remarkably complex place.
most people prefer simpler models of reality that give an illusory sense of certainty than the uncertainty of more complex models. That we have a minority of humans with a scientific mindset is actually a miracle in itself.
It's clear that it's not clear.
Essentially, modern humans are not the result of a group in Africa expanding and displacing others. Modern humans are the result of those separate lineages being brought back together as environmental pressures pushed them together.
Basically he doesn't know anything for sure 😅😅😅
Hard to be sure of anything that happened a million years ago, to be fair 😅
I’m sure you know for sure?
This is just what the data suggests.
There are no absolutes now. With more samples we can make more confident statements.
The full interview is fascinating. He never claims to have superior knowledge and admits results can be interpreted several ways. I guess information and critical thinking is just too burdensome for some.
not just him. that is why scientists use words like "theories"
This is exactly the genetic evidence we have at this time, well spoken by a cogent and intelligent award winning esteemed professor of genetics
Eurasia means Alot of people from northeast Asia came via TarTar, Avar, Huns, Mongols, Mar-Gal, etc...
One theory after another that, over time, become widely held beliefs, but are not the truth.
Migrations and exposures to different environment, climate, foods resulted in changes. Periods of greening provided corridors through Sahara. Those who didn't migrate were not exposed to the same factors.
In another discussion, I expounded on what you commented here. Unfortunately, it got censored even though I was respectful. It's social dynamite to actually ponder the importance and meaning of that.
Die Frage ist auch, wer hat wen gegessen und sich mit wem gepaart. Kannibalismus war wohl während der gesamten Zeit nicht unüblich und wurde ja bis ins 20. Jahrhundert wohl noch von einigen Stämmen praktiziert. 😮😳
You volkker are liklely correct.
inwiefern könnte Kannibalismus für die genetische Struktur des Menschen von Belang sein?
@@martian9999 es geht darum, dass es wohl eher meistens keine friedliche Koexistenz gab damals. Ich habe das ja als Frage in den Raum gestellt. Es geht im weiteren Sinne ja darum wie und wieso kam es zu sexuellen Interaktionen und wie sahen diese aus? Mit der heutigen Romantik hatte das sicher eher wenig zu tun 😁… also wenn bspw Neanderthaler den Sapiens gegessen hatte - es gibt ja eindeutige Belege dafür - was ist mit der Sapiens Frau passiert.
Und da Neanderthaler ja größere Köpfe hatten - wie konnte eine sapiens Frau dann ein Kind von einem Neanderthaler zur Welt bringen…? 🤔
Kannibalisme har formentligt ikke stor betydning for menneskearternes evolution.
Excellent knowledge, great presentation. This will be very helpful for the general public as well as armchair anthropologists. Thank you, I am glad I found you, and I look forward to your other videos.. 🤗From a new subscriber
He’s talking way too damned fast. Especially given the complexity of his information and ideas. TOO DAMNED FAST.
Clickbaity title is gonna trigger so many 😅
Yh look at the comment section a lot of the racist yytes fell for it, oh Yh the dumb Neanderthal that became smart the moment yt people found out they have Neanderthal genes.
Nah. It’s actually a valid and interesting viewpoint. We just don’t have enough evidence yet.
@reportedstolen3603 One thousand people who liked the video in just one day disagree with you.
@@sirrathersplendid4825the only reason people still believe in the out of africa hypothesis is because the mainstream media didn't make continuous announcements that its been debunked, so they simply dont know, and also they have grown weirdly attached to that "theory" and get defensive when you try to tell them. Already 10 years ago, one of the founders of that theory called Christopher Stringer did an interview where he explained it was being called into question in light of new discoveries and advances in genetic research. Now we know we dont all have the same ancestry (different humanoids interbreeding in different parts of the world) and the latest findings of the oldest human fossils at 7.2 million years old were found in modern day Bulgaria and Greece.
@@sirrathersplendid4825the only reason people still believe in the out of africa hypothesis is because the mainstream media didn't make continuous announcements that its been debunked, so they simply dont know, and also they have grown weirdly attached to that "theory" and get defensive when you try to tell them. Already 10 years ago, one of the founders of that theory called Christopher Stringer did an interview where he explained it was being called into question in light of new discoveries and advances in genetic research. Now we know we dont all have the same ancestry (different humanoids interbreeding in different parts of the world) and the latest findings of the oldest human fossils at 7.2 million years old were found in modern day Bulgaria and Greece.
People always migrating happening through history and leading to modern human evolution and better humans overall.
Meanwhile, people always complaining about immigration and wanting to build walls around themselves and isolate themselves from other humans.
The irony..
You have walls and doors in your house to isolate yourself from people and society YOU HYPOCRITE.
The walls are not created for the purpose of isolation. They are created to prevent people from entering the nation illegally, jumping the line and overwhelming social services. It's utterly pragmatic and rational.
@@anthonymorris5084 good fences make good neighbors
Why do all POC have black hair?
Why is the hair of every east Asian poker straight, every African fuzzy, every south Asian and Hispanic wavy?
Why do Caucasians have every type of hair texture and color?
Some have red hair. I guess you never saw any who do.
@@track1949 No they don't. Not naturally red.
This guest (David Reich) is mesmerizing. I am totally blown away with his range of knowledge and how he can explain, very quickly, something so complex (I think only Ben Shapiro can talk faster).
Thanks, this is very good stuff, love it!
Anyway to get this to David about if he gets info about Asian DNA research dealign with East early migration Homo S2 that devd into Proto Asian, India Dravidians into SE Asian into Pacific Islands mixed with Denisovans. Can you look into that? Just got a vid from a brother speaking about peoples in Melasian more first human african miragtion mixed with Denisovans.
Not Eurasian, but northeast Asian record.
Sentinel island is the proof
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
Its not just the historical dna we lack from africa, theres also a lack of fully anatomically modern human remains. What we do find still show pronounced archaic features until relatively more recently compared to remains found outside africa. Theres too many unanswered questions for the out of africa model to be given much credibility.
Keep in mind, especially when dealing with fossil records Hominidae or not (or Felidae, Canidae for that matter), you can't prove a negative with a negative. Just because a fossil has not been found, does not prove there was or was not such a fossil, or there was the species that could have made that fossil. This also means the lack of fossil evidence does not mean a particular species did not exist.
Eur-Asia include the continents of Both Europe and Asia. So when the panel states Movement in Eur-Asia, he is referring to Northeast Asia to Europe.
He is presenting his challenges to current thinking for human evolution to what are mostly lay people. It would be more believable if he was discussing his version with other people in the field.
I am a retired biologist, but human evolution was not my field of study. But there are certainly a lot of questions I would ask if we were one on one. There is suggestive evidence of genes flow between africa and to neanderthal and back.
But from what I understood the field still working on what is now not well understood. The problem is Nazi racists are trying to say 'white' people have significantly different origin than is the case with those peoples still living in africa. One does have to be careful how to phrase somethings.
And if you zoom WAY BACK to when we were genetically one with the great apes, we do come back to a tropical Eurasia. "Apes first appear in the European fossil record 17 million years ago with Griphopithecus. The closely related Kenyapithecus is also known from fossils in Germany, Slovakia and Turkey. Both Griphopithecus and Kenyapithecus are considered likely to be ancestral to the great apes."
Where did you read that rubbish?
Raaaaaa-YUKIN
Advanced in genetics and archeology since 2010 refute the “Recent African Origin” hypothesis of the emergence of modern humanity that was the mainstream scientific consensus from 1990s. The most populous and successful ancestral Y-chromosome haplogroup F has no presence in Africa, and clearly emerged before 70 thousand years ago in West Eurasia, as well as its sister haplogroups C, D and E. The scatterplot of principal components of global genetic diversity has a “core” of West Eurasian genomes, with Sub-Saharan indigenous genomes in distant periphery. Neanderthals and homo sapiens were found to have a history of interbreeding for hundreds of thousands of years, not only after alleged “Exit from Africa”. Genetic data for African populations is most consistent with repeated waves of immigration of Eurasians into Africa, not Africans into Eurasia. Anatomically modern fossils with ages more than 100 thousand years ago were found or dated recently both in West and East Eurasia.
Uhhhh what you're saying here doesn't matter though. You'd still have to explain why we have the same mitochondria and why the earliest traces of our X chromosome both still end up being from Africa. The idea that humans evolved in many places at once doesn't really detract from the possibility that it doesn't matter and that some kind of catastrophe 'reset' us in Africa.
so whats youre saying is that humans have the oldest west eurasian DNA, followed by African dna?
Are aussie aborigines DNA older strains compared to africans?
@@Raverraver9999 They're "old" but they are not the oldest, no. That would be the San people of southern africa
@@Raverraver9999 See that's the thing, no. He's saying we have a LOT of eurasian DNA. But the oldest are the San. Period. And they don't have any eurasian DNA. These people can't account for that unless we were all in Africa at some point.
'there was gene flow and a ONE WORLD POPUALTION'
Dude, you literally just acknowledged that the lineages diverged into DIFFERENCE SPECIES, the gene flow was almost nonexistent as a rule. Sure there was hybridisaiton but this may have happened in rare converging events or populations, its not like a multiracial london high street.
So, you dont know...
Seems like you could draw a circle around the area where the population has consistently been highest- that's where evolution probably originated or significantly evolved. Seems simple.
As put forward by Richard Dawkins in his book, ‘The Ancestor’s Tale, there are two theories of human ancestry: the ‘early out-of-Africa’ theory, which everyone agrees with, and the ‘late out-of-Africa’ theory which is much less decided upon.
our ancestors came out of africa but their ancestors may have come from eurasia WHICH IS THE MAIN POINT
Fascinating! Many thanks! :-)
Mr Patel why are you deleting comments. Some of us from Africa are new to these discussions about Africa and the world, we seek to understand what is being discussed yet you are deleting my comment
There is also a survival bias: the large number of archeological findings in Africa is a combination of good climate that preserve bones and number of the homo species there. It is hard to know if we had more prehistoric humans in areas where bones are poorly preserved.
i was looking for this comment. Most people dont factor survival bias
Oddly, Africa doesn't preserve bone any better than Eurasia.
Eurasia is big, many areas preserve bone a lot better than anywhere in Africa.
And there are still more prehistoric human bones found in Africa.
Still, the latest find of the oldest human fossils at 7.2 millions yrs old were found in modern day Bulgaria and Greece.
I'd like to know a lot more about those Archaic lineages.
Who wouldn't, yes amazing.
What a strange voice. It's certainly an affected academic voice. In fact, he sounds a lot like Steven Pinker, who also spent a lot of time at Harvard.
Nice information, thank you
I'm not sure what the point is that he's making. Fully modern humans (homo sapiens) have only been around for only around 300k years (based on the latest archaeological record). For fully two-thirds of that time, the only archaeological evidence of homo sapiens is from Africa. The earliest record outside of Africa is from the Levant roughly 100k years ago, but the major wave out of Africa was 70 kya. It spread really fast (reaching Australia by around 60 kya, for example).
The limited genetic variation TODAY of sapiens outside of Africa strongly suggests the numbers making up the 70 kya wave were relatively modest (i.e., the founder effect) but their population was able to explode in such numbers in what later became the "Fertile Crescent" (and likely in the far more fertile Indian subcontinent - though the archaeological record there is largely missing) that theirs evolved into BY FAR the most dominant set of human genomes outside of Africa (typically accounting for 98% - or thereabouts - of the modern human genome).
So yes: hybridization did happen with closely related non-sapiens humans during the 70 kya wave (and possibly during the 100 kya expansion into the Levant), but the number of such episodes was so limited relative to the size of the rapidly growing sapiens population that they contributed (as far as we know) under well under 5% of the surviving human genome.
The point is that those modern humans 300kya may have had ancestors from outside of Africa already.
@@davidwuhrer6704Not could have. Simply did not. The DNA and archeological evidence do not even point towards that.
Homo heidelbergensis, Homo juluensis (aka Denisovans), Homo neanderthalensis etc were also Homo sapiens genetically. It does not matter whether you personally classify them so or not. And irrespective of this, while the findings of AMH start about 300 000, genetic calculations show that the actual start (i. e. even the start of AMH) is much much much earlier.
@@cinattra DNA does not contain a GPS tracker.
@@jrjrjrjrjrjrjr Heidelbergensis and Neanderthalensis and Denisovians were all Erectus, like Sapiens, but not Sapiens.
Steppe herders probably more significant than farmers but then again the farmers made stuff for raiders to take.
Are you deviating from the freightening and crucial issue of Animal in Thirupati ladu
There were primates evolving in Europe 7+ million years ago. Who's to say the ancestors of man didn't cross over then into Africa, evolved a bit, then crossed again 2.2 million years ago?
Genetic and archeological evidence.
True, the only reason people still believe in the out of africa hypothesis is because there hasnt been continuous announcements that its been debunked, so they simply dont know, and also they have grown weirdly attached to that idea and get defensive when you try to tell them. Already ten years ago, one of the founders of that theory called Christopher Stringer did an interview where he explained it was being called into question in light of new discoveries and advances in genetic research. Now we know we dont all have the same ancestry (different humanoids interbreeding in different parts of the world) and the latest findings of the oldest human fossils at 7.2 million years old were found in modern day Bulgaria and Greece.
@@Yk9oIt hasn’t been debunked
@@professorfinesser8289 The basic reason some are so against OOA, and want to overthrow it is that the implication would be non-Africans are 'secondary' to Africans as the prime source of modern human emergence. The rub.
It's very distracting to see dustbins and blondes. Please blur..
Humans have only been on this earth for 8000-8500 years.
Oh this wont be popular!!!!!! ( whatever the truth)
We don't have one central ancestor. That would be extremely mathmatically improbable, according to genetic variation. One human race? Nope, several human subspecies.
Even several subspecies have a common ancestor, though.
It seems difficult to imagine a scenario where all modern humans don't share a common ancestor.
The division of a group of organisms into races or subspecies is largely academic -- it doesn't really matter if dogs and wolves are the same species or not--they are quite different and they do share a common ancestor.
lol, yt man tryna change history again
Totaly black people are still in subsahara
Everyone knows we evolved from homo Floresiensis.
LoL this is the everything on Earth came from Nothing. Stop lying to yourself and to anyone who takes this drivel serious. Search your heart and call on your Creator the LORD.
Why do you bother with videos like this one since you have it all figured out?
Where is Eurasis it is still in Africa even if the land was divided the. Plate is still in Africa
No. Eurasia is different tectonic plates. One is shared between Africa and Europe, and one between Africa and Asia. The other plates of Eurasia are outside of Africa.
Finally. Someone says it.
David, I am not familiar with your work so I will look elsewhere to find other expressions of your opinions. I am writing off video at the moment as yt has started a new trick with me, removing every comment as I reload without any notification or explanation.
First thing. This sounds like the smartest thing I have heard for a few years on human evolution so generally speaking I am open to hearing more.
Second thing not so good. Some have called me scrupulous, others pedantic, and yet others autistic, along with other things, so don't you be surprised if I don't find your opinion on my comment-if you choose to voice one-unique.
Here goes: words have meanings and meaning inform understanding. I think shared meanings are important to communication. I say this from the experience of one who does not participate in sub-cultutures and often lacks understanding or appreciation of shared ideas. Yes, I even find speaking with my wife fraught if she so much as drops a word from a sentence and I have then to explain to her that her simple statement or question has maybe six discrete interpretations so without more information I am unable to respond meaningfully.
History means history. Setting aside such concepts as "geological history" for now "human history" refers to either written history-whether that be writ on clay tablet, stone, paper, or in silica-or oral history, whether that be living memories or lore passed from one generation the the next. Those forms of history together cover a period of about ten millennia, before which time reference to what humans did is supposition and we call that time prehistory. That period that we can thus call historic dates from about the Younger Dryass, give or take a couple millennia. Offhand the only exception I can think of is cave art which is a representation, which distinguishes it from prehistoric artefacts. Myth and history have a curious relationship which we do not yet understand. It might be that all myths have basis in fact but with original events so far in the past we are not really even able to understand how much happened and how much was simply made up in an effort to explain that which we know has or must have happened. Basically I am saying don't use the word history to refer to guesses about a distant past that has evaded even intergenerational retelling.
And the other usage causing me difficulty is your references to "modern humans". Anthropologists created the phrase "anatomically modern humans" [AMH], I believe (and I am hoping to avoid the political motivation here), to refer to the distinction in physical appearance between late African ancestors (the people of the great out of Africa migration) and other prehistoric humans such as (and in particular) Neanderthals (but also to a lesser extent australopithecines, homo erectus, and so on). Actual modern humans are not the same thing as anatomically modern humans. Actual modern humans are a mix of ancestors, plus throw in a bit of ongoing evolution, but primarily two groups, those that combine AMH DNA with Neanderthal DNA (and sometimes others such as Denisovan) and those which do not have Neanderthal DNA. Those who do not make the distinction between actual modern humans (the peoples of the 20th and 21st centuries) and AMH fall into the trap of conflating modern day Africans with AMH. I understand the closest modern analog to AMH are the Khoi San people of southern Africa and few of those if any remain in a form unaffected by hybridisations post-75-50Kya. Bantu-speaking black Africans, the majority of sub-saharan-Africans, are not the AMH of the migration, indeed in my opinion, they are a human development from after the migration. The Khoi San people, or their ancestors from before interbreeding with Bantu people may be AMH. If it is indeed the case that Khoi and San people are not just analogous but the same line, then we might fairly assume that the AMH of the great migration were tan-skinned people with epicanthic eye folds.
Reading through comments I detect some pretty big failures in understanding. I have already mentioned that anthropologists have based a lot on a little, that little being what they have found but what they have found may even be of little or no significance. The most obvious omission in most people's thinking is that the important years of human evolution took place during a colder time when much of the land surface of the Earth was covered in ice and sea levels were 130 metres below where they are now. It is a common observation by anthropologists that humans have preferred areas to settle, the three main ones being on the edge of a volcano (go figure!), on the edge of a river, or on the sea shore. So what we know about volcanoes in the long term is that they explode. What we know about rivers is that they change course, and what we know about the sea is that its level has changed dramatically. What has remained accessible for the study of early human existence could simply be a few outliers! While it is not common knowledge the earliest evidence of human occupation in North America, has nothing to do with Scandinavians, with Siberians or Mongols (or the Taiwanese sea migration the generated the Polynesians in the opposite direct that anthropologists have hung their slate on). The earliest human tools found in N America were under the water on the Eastern seaboard and the technology suggests an Iberian origin.
We know squat.
I don't use an app so cannot edit after posting. I now see a couple typos but will not stress about them.
And yes, I didn't say it but it looks like I am allowed to post again today.
Guess what all of these new discoveries are leading to? You're not going to like the answer.
pray enlighten us.
@@martian9999 Can't. I'll end up in 24 hour TH-cam jail.
@@anthonymorris5084 boring!
@@martian9999 I didn't come here to entertain.
Plenty of opinions, followed by few facts, and a lot of wishful thinking.
Curiosity is what has moved the world forward. Congratulations on not contributing!
@@jillionairess Thanks for being gullible. Proof is a good thing.
Look up haplogrupp maps and locate the area with most diversity.
That H. sapiens iself originated in Africa is highly likely because that's where we find the most genetic diversity, but that doesn't mean all its predecessors lived in Africa, it could have evolved from another species that had migrated back into Africa.
This is quite interesting..... the background print on the wall is also trees with branches..... looking to me anyway..... interestingly also..... many different cultures believe they are from other alien groups...... I think this man's speaking... David Reich.... has a close idea of that.... but yet far away... but closer than what I think is the truth....
What would be so wrong giving account to the fact that Africans are not same like others and agents are different to I mean there must be some trace of it I cannot imagine that we are really all the same and it would not be wrong if we would be different
It doesn't matter if you can't imagine it. It's still so. All humans alive today are of one and the same species.
None of us are cats or trees or whatever.
@@davidwuhrer6704 yeah, and science never changed...
@@MickeyMouse-el5bk Facts are not a matter of belief.
The scientific method is what it is. Science is about facts. That has never changed. And the facts are what they are, no matter what you want to believe.
@@davidwuhrer6704 yes, but science changes. Let us see in 1000 years. But oh like with c plande.ic sience was a money hoe
Well here's the thing--the guy is skipping over some very important facts. Fact: our mitochondria as an entire species clearly does come from one woman. Our X chromosome comes from on man. Were there other people around? Yes! Could they have been more widespread than just in Africa? Sure. But at the end of the day SOME kind of catastrophe happened that kind of 'reset' humans down to a very small population in Africa at some point.
I thought the main argument for the out of Africa theory is the amount of genome diversity in Africa compared to the rest of the world. The more diversity the longer the genome has been in that area
It’s not particularly relevant whether the origin is in Africa or not.
Hi,That was my understanding as well.A small founder group with lower diversity spread into Eurasia perhaps then mixing with Neanderthals .I guess its much more complicated than that.
@@ashleigh3021 maybe the populations outside of Africa returned to Africa, 2 million years is a long time
The out-of-Africa theory also relies heavily on a near-extinction event around 60,000-70,000 years ago with the eruption of Toba on Sumatra wiping out virtually all humans who were not then living in Africa.
As far as I understand the argument in the video, the idea is that ancient (very ancient) human (=Neanderthal, Denisovian and other groups of humans in Eurasia) genome is more diverse in Eurasia, than the genome of ancestors of modern humans was in Africa in those ancient times (according to current data, new data may change things).
So the idea is that there were early migrations of ancient humans (ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovians) from Africa into Eurasia, then a group of those ancient humans returned back into Africa, evolved there into modern humans, and then migrated back into Eurasia, replacing Neanderthals and Denisovians.
I personally think that this is possible, but (as far as I know) we currently do not have enough data to either prove or disprove that hypothesis.
This guy is a liar.
I’m way more floored by the fact that we of Eurasian ancestry have so MUCH neanderthal derived DNA. Ten to twenty percent of our ancestors were likely neanderthal - those alleles are gradually washing out, yes, but this brings up many more questions.
What IS it to be “human”nowadays? Is it that Humans exist on a spectrum of the various sapien mixtures, and sublineages are braiding into each other in modern times? Is it correct to say Homo sapien neanderthalensis?
To much a mouth full 😂
There's some Neandertal DNA in some modern humans, etc.
Modern humans are still a different species of human. Early modern humans lived contemporary to Neanderthals and Denisovians and others. At some point there were six different species of human at the same time.
Modern humans are the only species of human that hasn't become extinct yet.
Over the millions of years there has been the occasional interbreeding, which was not at all usual. I mean, there are people today who do it with animals, which is not normal and even illegal. But it happens. And even though the different human species were not genetically compatible, they were similar enough that in rare cases there was fertile offspring from that, which is how there are traces of the DNA of other human species in today's humans. That does not make those others our ancestors, exactly, and certainly not of modern humans in general.
History is messy.
More like 2% of Eurasian ancestry is Neanderthal-related. 10-20% is the amount of archaic homo Erectus-related ancestry in sub-Saharan Africans.
Well also us of American extraction have Neanderthal dna and on propensity more then our Eurasian counterparts. The missing link is the Americas
All somebody’s words but where is your facts❓
Words themselves are not worth listening to
‘OPINIONS’ -- 🥶💦
Super smart geneticist but he gave no real concrete evidence of our origin and seemed to have emphasize that Africa probably didn’t play a big role in our evolution. I don’t care either way but I don’t need to be more confused with my Neanderthal brain. Lol
So modern humans could speak better. Good questions by the interviewer, amazing stuff from the prof.
I don't know, but didn't ALL our direct evolution line since the time of unicellular organisms were KEY parts?
Remember the phrase, 'Missing link'? That turned out to the be biggest understatement in Human evolutionary history.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
All rivers and lakes had their own human species until someone invented water transport. After that there has been only one human species.
This thinking is gonna be painful to the “ We wiz Kangz an Shyt “ crowd.
Why did I read that in Ali G’s voice😭
Africans and the left are going to be so mad about this
In science there is no left or right. Only questions.
in science there are no africans or people for that matter .did I do it right
No way, as he still says out of Africa occurred, and to be honest I am happy the Neanderthals were not wiped out, it feels nicer that way. and we should not let politics get in the way.
why? The Left is on balance open to new evidence. It's the Bible-thumpers who say mankind is merely 50k old and dinosaurs roamed the earth right before that.
Africans think out-of-africa has something to do with them, when they're actually descended from a different lineage that never left Africa.
Somebody should convey this information to Louis Farrakhan. 🙂
I’m no fan a room with no dust. It’s not natural. Think Gattica. Who wants a world like that.
So is he saying the yamanaya and cornered ware were like cousins, and then spread. Amazing.
When migrating, genes flow both directions - forward and backward.
Really hard to trace this culprit who caused us to form such a mono form species.
I guess I should have more patience with this David Reich. So far to my knowledge the oldest example of Homo sapiens is from africa. When you can show me that a khoi-san person is significantly different from say a native american person, then I might listen. The first has been in africa and the other has made it all of the way to the americas. Now we know that there has been mixing with humans with our relatives as we traveled and that would seem to be the major source of the differences.
So basically,
1. very early humans came out of Africa
2. lots of human species emerged throughout Eurasia and Africa
3. modern humans emerged from Africa, and mated with Neanderthals
Most Africans have little is any Neanderthal DNA.
"modern humans emerged from Africa, and mated with Neanderthals" ... Africans will screw anything thats why we have AIDS and Monkley pox.
yeah naw
@@CRT4Dummies Yeah, yeah, this whole thing is a non story.
basically
I'm betting on the area of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
Humanity genetic materials came from an aquatic species that the Annunaki manipulated into what we are today...did they explore this avenue or pure speculation like the Jesus and the apostles history???
Genetic engineering? Unlikely.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There is no evidence whatsoever for genetic engineering in human DNA (except for two girls in China).
But of course "a wizard did it" is always possible, just not terribly plausible. A claim that can't be disproven can't be tested. Maybe it's all an illusion and you're actually dreaming. Maybe it's all done by invisible pixies. Anyone can make anything up. That's why you need at least evidence to back up a claim.
The story of Jesus and his apostles is a widely circulated story. Some believe one or the other version of the story to be historically accurate, so historians looked at historical records, as they do, and found no evidence for the historicity of either, and some against it. The origin of the story is still not certain, but the story of the story and how it spread is history.
There are plenty of other texts that have changed throughout history, many of which have no certain origin. Interesting stuff if you are into that.
Why waa the traffic only one way?
He may be saying it was not.
South asia