Well spoken, well researched... Honestly, this content is far and away the most rigorous video that popped up in my feed, wonderful work. Thank you for teaching.
@@SHREDTILLDEAD Humans can't have existed for multiple millions of years because early humans struggled hard with predation until we invented tools to defend ourselves better with, even if you make the argument that no bones would've survived by chance, which is a poor argument since I mean just look at this video there's plenty of bones found, rock definitely survives and so we wouldnt have trouble dating that to multiple millions of years. Then you could argue "well couldnt those older tools have been made by modern humans" but we know that they weren't, since we were making complex modified tools with the best material we could find, where earlier tool users such as homo habilis or erectus or heidelbergensis just used whatever source was closest and least time consuming to get, even if they wouldve been able to tell the difference between good and poor quality stone.
@@HistoryWithKayleigh Ur THEORY is ful of Horseshit..U are a CRO-MAGNON and Ur People Never Turned White from Black..Africans are 3.5mil yrs to Date..Ur history is only 7thousand yrs old 😉
3 AM. Woke to the call of nature and decided to check the weather forecast and then got sucked into this. I was just going to take a quick look and wait for tomorrow………lots to think on….
No she doesn’t she uses the racist card for anyone that disagrees with her, that’s a shortcut to thinking and totally unprofessional. She has some fooled.
great info, but you are on a visual medium, you need graphics, pictures to break things up, you need an intro that does not change that encapsulates the focus of the vlog, music helps, you can download some background music for free. hope this helps
Yes !! Just as I am fascinated by the Djebel Irhoud, your approach is full of good stuff. I remember precisely when one morning the French Radio produced an interview of the team having concluded the 300 000 years timeline for the remains found in Djebel Irhoud. I started going on every bit of info. I never have been to actually imagine a sudden halt in movement of population, in the way you describe, but it seems very plausible. Keep going !!!
I follow research about our ancient ancestors, more as a hobby, than a scholar. I've been aware for some time of the hypothesis that all humans alive now are descended from particular African ancestors around 50,000 years ago. However, I've also followed the various estimates of how long humans have been present in Australia, which you referred to near the start of your video. In fact, my understanding of the dates, is almost identical to the dates you gave. With some claiming there is evidence of humans in Australia as far back as 60-65,000 years. Although of course there are other authorities who have put the earliest evidence more recently, from around 40,000 years. If humans were present in Australia from 50,000 years or more ago, this raises very important questions about this hypothesis that all modern humans have the same African ancestors 50,000 years ago. There are various possible hypotheses to explain this apparent discrepancy. From the possibility that if humans were present in Australia 60K years ago, that they weren't actually the ancestors of later Australian indigenous peoples, who were all descended from later arrivals. That the spread of H.sapiens from Africa was incredibly fast. To just that the apparent evidence indicating a human presence in Australia much older than about 45k years ago, is just mistaken. Whatever, I see this as the biggest challenge to the hypothesis that all humans are descended from a limited group of African ancestors 50k years ago.
"I see this as the biggest challenge to the hypothesis" Not really and let me explain why. There's been genetic testing on modern day Aborigines of Australia and they to like everyone else, came be traced back to Africa. Homo Sapiens as you may know are at least 300,000 years old. Over the course of thousands of years, there were many migrations Out of Africa into different parts of the world but many of those populations died off. It's very possible, one of these early migrations Out of Africa, made it to Australia a long time ago but that population went extinct. Thus why their remains would be there but their DNA would be completely absent from modern day Aborigines people because they don't come from that extinct population but from the Homo sapiens who arrived in Australia 60 to 50 thousand years ago.
@@ashelywilliams1718 - I'm well aware that all Homo sapiens originate from Africa. What I was talking about was the hypothesis that all modern humans are descended from several bands in Africa who existed around 50,000 years ago, not 300,000 years ago. I said "There are various possible hypotheses to explain this apparent discrepancy. From the possibility that if humans were present in Australia 60K years ago, that they weren't actually the ancestors of later Australian indigenous peoples, who were all descended from later arrivals." However, that is as I say, only a hypothesis, as is the hypothesis that all modern humans are descended from several bands of hunter-gatherers who lived in Africa around 50,000 years ago. Another possible explanation is that the hypothesis that that all modern humans are descended from several bands of hunter-gatherers living in Africa around 50,000 years ago, may be incorrect. Over the last 40 years ago I have seen many hypotheses about our human ancestors fall by the wayside, causing a complete re-appraisal of the evidence. This is not really surprising, given that there is limited remains from the time, and one single new find, often results in a complete re-evaluation of everything. The fact that all modern day indigenous people in Australia "be traced back to Africa", is hardly surprising given they are all Homo sapiens, which is thought to have first arisen in Africa, nearly 300,000 years ago. The question is whether those people are descended from, or are partly descended, from people who arrived in Australia, more than 50,000 years ago. Various assumptions are made about the rate of mutations in DNA, which is how these estimates are arrived at. It is all based on various levels of probability. It is not deterministic. Often new discoveries are made, which cause those previous assumptions to be re-evaluated. I am not asserting anything, just noting that we cannot be certain about this. Let me give an example. There has been much debate about when humans first arrived in the Americas. Last year a new study was published, that seems to confirm that human footprints in New Mexico, have been dated to "23,000 to 21,000 years ago". Completely over-turning the hypotheses, that humans only first arrived in the Americas, far more recently than that.
@@stephenbarlow2493 "I'm well aware that all homo sapiens originate from Africa" That's Awesome 👍. "What I was talking about with a hypothesis that all modern humans are descended from several bands in Africa who existed around 50,000 years ago" What? So you believe we all migrated from Africa but you disagree with the age of when this event took place? Are you not aware that there were several migrations out-of-africa during different time periods? Isn't it likely one of these early migrations making it to Australia and dieing off because how else can you explain the lack of any of their dna in modern-day Aborigines people? Just wondering, what makes you believe we all come from Africa? What facts made you come to that conclusion. Because how would you be okay with those facts but not okay with the facts that show that we all come from Africa 50,000 years ago? Like I stated before modern-day Aborigines people have been genetically tested and the test show that their people arrived in Australia from Africa 50 to 60 thousand years ago. So why you're still confused on that is interesting.
Genetic studies are an amazing tool to investigate the story of ancient history. As technology improves, we will be able to reach conclusions never previously considered and hopefully avoid layering our own cultural biases on the evidence we discover. I personally feel that people have been traveling far and wide on this planet far longer than was thought. I look forward to new discoveries and connections. Thanks Kayleigh.
NOT CONVINCED !!! 50,000 years ago !! But the Australian Aborigines are credited with being already in Australia at LEAST 60,000 years ago !!! And therefore much of Asia would have also been occupied by Humans at that time. Further as Neanderthal & Denisovians are older than modern Humans the figures should be at least 200,000 years. And of course we may yet discover other "Human" types not yet accounted for that left earlier or even started elsewhere !!!!! Indeed the whole dating issue is turned on its head when the "Cataclysms" of 6000-10,000 years ago are considered. The result of Electrical disruption on an inter-planetary level in the inner Solar system !!! (Reference THE Institute for Electronics & Electrical Engineering)
What is astonishing is that the sequencing of the first human dna was completed 19 years ago. From there dna research has exploded (not blossomed) through out all fields of research. The technology of DNA Analysis is going to continue to change and improve over the next 19 years, as A.I. becomes more involved. In this way "The Letter" that you mentioned may become clearer to read. One can hope! Interesting subject and all the research you have been doing. Thank you Kayleigh, you are one special person.
Thank you, many people don't know different about homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens, but you speak. Many scientists never speak, but I know. Thank you
Oh my I never knew there were six colours I think this is fascinating Sorry i just missed you even though i had set the reminder 🙄 Great presentation Kayleigh Thank you for sharing this especially in relation to the DNA evidence🤗👍💕
If you are going to look at early hunting technology and the importance of meat as part of the diet, I had the chance to visit Olorgesailie, a Pleistocene lakeside kill site in the Rift Valley of Kenya. There the early humans apparently repeatedly ambushed giant hippos in an inlet, and used hand axes to do it. Funny, they seem to have left the large, artfully crafted hand axes where the water was deep enough to hide the large crocodiles. Anyway, it definitely looked to me like the idea that the hand axe was a thrown weapon is valid, and that the people hunting there liked eating BIG animals. Pictures are worth a thousand words, but a beautifully preserved and excavated site is worth an awful lot of pictures.
How would you actually throw a hand axe? Like a discus? Like a shuriken or more like a heavy throwing blade? You should get some hand axes and try out your theory. Can you throw a handaxe and make it stick?
@@bellakaldera3305 Axe throwing contests go on all the time. Marines do it when they're drunk sometimes. You just have to keep a safe distance when they are up to it.
@@kirkjones9639 I am talking paleolithic stone hand axes ...that don't have handles. Of course modern axes can be thrown, but an archaic hand axe (with no haft)...how do you throw that?
@@michaelbarrett3416 Clams, mussels and other shellfish grow in vast colonies, providing large amounts of readily collected protein as well as shells for containers, scrapers and other purposes, vast middens of shells exist from seafood lovers of forgotten eons. All the migration patterns of early man suggest they followed coastlines (and if we can swim, they could swim). We are aquatic hominids. Not to disagree with your statement...big dead things have much meat and useful bones, tendons, teeth and oils. But one thing doesn't rule out the other.
@@bellakaldera3305 Look at how a Softball, or Baseball is pitched. I think it would be that sort of motion. You can get fair amount of power behind it, and accuracy comes with practice.
I would like to say that any single video by Kayleigh, provides more knowledge on human history than everything i learned from school about human history. Can you say, "piltdown man"?
awesome presentations, always enjoy your take on what we ultimately uncover, at the very beginning we all would have evolved from one source, its going to interesting to actually find out where that source lay, keep them coming , :)
Is it possible to get more data on this subject? Im very curious about this. Because I had a discussion the other day with a person which claimed that humans is only 34.000 years old and decent from neanderthals and my claim is our human species is at least 60.000 years old and can be traced back to hunter gatherers from northern africa/ middle east. SO I really hope yours study can help me..
Modern humans have been around between 100k to 300k years. Most of us carry 3% of Neanderthal DNA or Denisovan DNA. You are in the right place. Look up Kayleigh's videos on the subject.
@@aaronaragon7838 I know we carry around between 1-4% Neantherthal dna. But that only shows our ancestors fornicated with other races and about 44.000 years ago or in that era of coexistence. But awesome to hear im only about 100k years off with my theory :D
Check out David Reich's, Who We Are and How We Got Here. David was originally from the Max Planck Institute, studying under Svante Paabo. I'm pretty sure he stated there were 4, but no direct evidence has been found. It does show up in the DNA record, though. EDIT: It's also a good book for anyone who wants to learn a lot more about DNA. Great book.
I 'm kind of new on your channel , so I just only on a discovery run , haven't yet made a decision about joining or not , but let's just say I like the enthusiasm in the way you present and narrat your presentations , nice job , looking forward to watch some more 👍
Australian Aborigines had a complex marriage / partner selection system which ensure that inbreeding did not occur. It can be assumed that this was in place for a very long time. It involved travelling far and wide as part of this process, up and down and throughout the country. This is very different to what you say about the African situation.
After about two million years of essentially similar hunter/gathering tribal living, it seems improbable that a mere five thousand years of expanded societal living would fundamentally change our “human nature” that was formed during our tribal period. In other words, I believe that we are still very tribal in our individual and group emotional and motivational life.
i visited Siena, Italy in the 1990s. while on a bus to Siena, i noticed exposed earth on the side of the road, between the fields and the road. it was the color of my US crayon called Burnt Siena. so i am definitely of the opinion that the ochre pigment was given the name Siena cause there is clay in Siena of that shade.
@mercurywoodrose I looked the entymology of "burnt siena" up and here is what I found: "Its name comes from the Italian phrase “terra di Siena or earth of Siena." So is burnt ochre from Ochre?
I Love this video, okay maybe a little too much Lol. You go Girl. Truly an inspiration to all of us who are interested in this field of study. Your bravery and intellect does not go unappreciated.
@@peterdickinson4599 All women who post themselves on social media for the whole world to see knowing how many creeps are out in this world, just waiting to harm women is a brave thing. You're a male, you wouldn't understand.
@@peterdickinson4599 Bravery is exactly the right word. Its not easy for anyone doing these kinds of videos, about information that is somewhat in dispute and sketchy. Further, she is operating in a field that for generations has been exclusively presented by those that are male and white. In addition to being fun, she is brave & bold.
Just to be clear, the number of genealogical ancestors one has is much, much greater than the number of DNA ancestors. Only a tiny fraction of your genealogical ancestors contributed DNA to you. This is important, to keep in mind as the paper discussed here, published in _Nature_ , looks at ancestral population estimates of _DNA contributions_ to ancient (but closer to us in time than we to our deep ancestors) skeletons found in a few African locations. Said long-dead Africans were shown (in the paper) to have DNA from three broad populations in Africa which had existed long before those tested-skeletons were buried. The finding here is important because previously it had be discovered that two such deeper populations existed, and this paper shows there was a third. The inference once can make is that current African and non-African human populations also share these three ancient populations of humans. This is not that surprising, as we know that we modern humans have ancestors from other clades in the genus _Homo_ . However, these outgroups have only contributed a small amount of DNA to us.
No. All your genealogical ancestors have contributed, in some way or another, to your DNA. A lot of them are located in the so-called "Dark DNA" areas and some have been mislabeled as "Nonsense DNA" or "Missense DNA."
Shalom, perhaps you are unaware that Black people are the only human beings on the planet, according to western science.Sorry, to break it down to you like this, but what has been hidden from the view of beings who are not indigenous to the planet is the fact that there's no origin story they can hearken back to other than some theories. As a matter of fact, the old world is really the Americas, here we find the largest pyramids and the oldest civilizations. Add that to the fact that Black people are the civilizers of mankind due to our superiority in thinking and because of our inherent nature. Our superiority is derived from the fact that we are the original man and not mankind. If others were truly superior to us, there would be no need for global antiblackness. Our superiority is further shown when studying the brain. We have nine series of neurological function and the rest of the planet has 6, according to western science. The remnants of our superiority is found all over the world. Please see Anacalypsis by G Higgins and check Black Sambo docum. On TH-cam.
I never understood why anyone worries about where we came from when all humans are almost genetic copies of each other with less than 1% difference in DNA. All that points to the genetic bottleneck not long ago that she is discussing.
You're 99% similar to a chimp based on DNA. The thing your overlooking is out millions of DNA sequences 1% is tens of thousands of differences. Second, most of our archaic homelands are underwater that's why we don't find evidence like we should. I suspect we are really aquatic apes and until they can excavate old mangrove sites we'll never know our true past. They're looking in the modern savannah due to presuppositions. I can't believe how narrow minded people are.
@@MrSean03839 yes we do. But that 1% isn't insignificant. I was pointing out you're also 99% similar to a chimp. Look up aquatic ape theory but the basics of it are as follows... We're hairless, the only other hairless mammals are either in the water or underground. We have a descended larynx to talk but it's function may have been breathing control, the only other mammals that can hold their breath are mammals. Human babies are born with the ability to swim.. a function that aquatic animals also have. My point is these so called scientists are looking in a modern savannah for evidence when it used to be a dense jungle. Time changes places and habitats. We used to be aquatic and that's why we're so different from the other apes.
hey, Kaleigh! this is very interesting. that we all have the same ancestory makes me wonder why we can't live in peace and harmony. i guess it could be like trying to have a peaceful family get-together. there always seems to be some animosity between some individuals in some families. we are just an immense family, after all. the differences between different peoples of the human race could be compared to the differences between the members of a family. the advances in dna technology in the last 30 yrs hold promise for possibly solving some of the mysteries in the next 30. wouldn't that be cool🤩 so, my friend, thanks for your continuous uploads. you always make my day better with them. and, the bloopers always make me smile😁 if not belly laugh🤣 goeie nacht, mein witte wieven!
Do other predators live in peace with each other? Big cats, primates, wild dogs, bears, wolves? Unfortunately Humans- past, present and future will continue to kill each other....
@@Kees247 Girls fight all the time, more then men. I used to work the doors of a nightclub for over 30 years. Broke up more fights with women than I have men. They can be very vicious, much more than men. If women ruled the world then our whole civilization would of nuked itself many years ago.
@@larryc1616 yes but, we don't have to. supposedly, we are far above the other predators, therefore, we should be far more "civilized". but, instead of rising above our natural instincts, we have just developed more "civilized" ways of killing each other. who knows, maybe someday.
I have always wondered what Extra terrestrials would make of our rubbish dumps. Toy story Buzz and Woody having the same name on them. (manufacturer). Aussie Jeff
Wow, this channel is really informative. I enjoy it a lot. I'm so glad I stumbled upon it. I'm going to watch the rest of the videos. By the way, I have a question. If we all descend from a population of African hunters and gatherers, but there were many other species of humans, or hominids, around the planet, like Neanderthals, Denisovans, and maybe Homo erectus in some areas. We know that we interbred with them, so different human populations are actually hybrids between Homo sapiens and these other species. For example, in Europe and Asia, there is Neanderthal DNA, and people in Papua New Guinea and Aboriginal Australians have Denisovan DNA, as do some people in Indonesia. Is it possible that some human populations mixed with species we haven't identified yet, sometimes called ghost species? In Africa, there are hints of mixing with what is sometimes referred to as an African Neanderthal, though it's not actually Neanderthal, it's something else. Could some populations have mixed with Homo naledi or Homo erectus? So, even though we descend from a population of African hunters and gatherers, that's not the whole picture, because we've mixed with other species, making us much more diverse worldwide.
20,000 years ago it's quite possible that the population had grown to the point where migrating tribes had nowhere new to migrate without trespassing the territory of other tribes, which led to clashes over resources. Hence tribes learned to remain somewhat stationary in a certain area to avoid conflicts. This eventually happened all over the world and boundary lines were created, followed by states and nations. And when certain areas became overcrowded or resources became scarce, war ensued. Which goes on to this day.
20,000 years ago, the Sahara plains were still a savanna, and the current Eurasian steppes were occupied by the ancestors of all non-Blacks (other than Australian Aborigines and South India Pre-Dravidians, who just kept the pigment levels).
Hmm... I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I follow a few of them here on youtube. In to and out of Africa is very interesting. I'd love to see you discuss it with Gutsick Gibbon. She's really educated on this stuff. That would be interesting. Good video. I enjoyed it. Cheers!
I've recently gone down a rabbit hole regarding DHA (omega 3 fatty acid) and how eating seafood made our brains evolve (half of the fat from the brain is DHA), Professor Michael Crawford, Dr. Leigh Broadhurst (she theorizes we descend from seafood eating peoples that spread 50,000 years ago) and Keir Watson are great references regarding the topic, its mind blowing. Another topic is vocal learning, amazing how birds like parrots can learn from listening and can talk back, Professor Erich Jarvis explains it perfectly.
I definitely think Humans at some point in their evolution had a closer affinity to the ocean than in "recorded history" Our ability to automatically change some physiological actions on entry to water, our subcutaneous fat not found on other great apes, our hairlessness, our nearly fully evolved but not quite, transition to bipedalism wheras Quadropedalism is far better on the savannah where supposedly "we" evolved and also our brains weird make up adaption and growth, way beyond what is required for life in the supposed enviroment we evolved and mastered for a long long time.
@@walterblanc9708 at the present to the earliest archeology and history humans have always lived within 300 miles of the Ocean. The earliest cities all developed in deltas and fresh water lakes.
Regardless of how certain media outlets, teaching, and propaganda are woven into our species understanding at large, let it be clear, its a honor to be descendants from such rich, diverse soil as Africa. That should be announced loud and proud, and never forgotten. We are who we are today, a force to be reckon with, which all started in Africa.
Brilliant Kayleigh, I think I understand your questionmark, it's obvious. The problem is that the development of various humanoids and ultimately sapiens wasn't a linear progression. I personally think we need at least 250.000 years. The shift that occurred about 50.000 years like many are the result of local, but more likely, global cataclisms. The latest of those may have been the end of the last iceage, I think an airburst over what is now Canada triggered it's end. It is fasinating.
A theory that is the most accepted is that we suffered a massive bottleneck 75,000 years ago when the Toba Volcano blew. This has the most corroborating evidence from genetic studies via examination of genetic diversity, which our species has fairly little of for such a widespread species.
Neanderthals are known to have used ochre as a body decoration for burials as far back as 250,000 years ago. As they inhabited Britain, it's unlikely that H.sapiens only adopted its use 30k years ago. The discovery of the Red Lady (actually a young male) is considered one of the earliest H.sapiens residents of Britain. Whilst the human fossil finds in Morocco are the earliest we have, it is extremely presumptive to describe Morocco as the place where we first appeared. The fossils are thought by many to be those of early humans pushed north by the Saharan Pump from the Sahel and some even doubt they are H.sapiens, as their features suggest they may be an evolutionary off shoot isolated from the mainstream populations by the aforementioned Saharan Pump 350,000 years ago.
@@HistoryWithKayleigh You're on the ball! Quick response. But do you still maintain Morocco is the original 'birthplace' of our species?? By it's very nature DNA CAN describe ancient populations. Just because some populations die out, doesn't mean their DNA is lost. e.g. there are no more Neanderthals, but their DNA is still present to some degree in most of the population today. DNA has been extracted from a human fossil that dates to 18,000 years ago. (Sawchuk, 2010-Tanzania)
As an artist your discussion about ochres was really nice . On another note I have often thought about how we will adapt to living in space as we start exploring our solar system. Has there been much discussion in your profession about adapting to space Kayleigh? If so this might be an interesting topic to talk about on your channel?
Tbh it's likely space exploration, if we ever get to it before killing ourselves off, will be done by robots and AI. We squishy bags of meat and fat are just too fragile to boldly go where no one has gone before. Bones and muscles waste away rapidly in zero G, retinas get torn up by cosmic rays, and frankly the cheap bastards who pay for the rockets don't want to pay for the safety features human spaceflight requires.
I love your honesty, when you make your boo-boo's, and don't hide them. It's one of your many charms. I learned today that DNA degrades in the heat of the African continent. The question of the age of modern humans still has to be answered. Looking forward to your new videos.
Virtually all DNA samples of African populations are taken from living individuals. It is not necessary to have ancient DNA to study ancient humans. DNA is fragile in any environment out side of a cell The question about the age of our species (Homo sapiens sapiens) is not one that is in doubt. It is the time period in which the earliest hominins that can definitely be identified as our forerunners which is obscure. For example, the fossils from Morocco are not H.s.sapiens, but an archaic form which pre dates our species.
@@garyworokevich2524 Thank you. I hasten to point out that my comment is in no way pro or anti cab driver (I deplore cabism) No matter if it be a black, white or maroon cab, they all share a common ancestry! Ubers and mini cabs are another matter.
@@Spectre4913 that would be the origin of H.sapiens, but the modern population is descended from individuals that migrated out of Africa some 50-80k years ago.
Good question. And I doubt it. I've always liked Out-of-Africa theory, but also recognize that it's more of a politically-driven narrative, than a scientifically plausible one. OOA was created because the Rift Valley was the first region in the world where they set up well-organized, well-funded, and well-publicized fossil digs, beginning in the 1960s. (Leakeys). So of course, everything they discovered there, was heralded and unquestioningly deemed "the first-ever this!" and "the first-ever that!" Conversely, any ancient human fossils found anywhere else in the world were always deemed "evolutionary dead-ends." They constructed an entire global theory of human evolution---from a few fragmentary fossils, mostly found in one general region, and all of which could comfortably fit in the back of a pickup truck. Less than one in a million organisms will actually fossilize. And some regions are much better at fossilization, than others. It's a common fallacy to think that only where fossils happen to be found, did ancient human habitation take place. Truth is, we've only begun to scratch the surface (literally). But now that well-funded international research digs are happening elsewhere in the world (Eurasia), they're finding anatomically modern (or darn close to it) fossils---much older than OOA, and much more advanced than previously suspected in those regions. Out-of-Eurasia, or at least a multi-regional hypothesis for the evolution of modern humans, seems much more plausible. And common sense.
Thanks for another fascinating presentation, Kayleigh. I hadn't heard of the ostrich eggshell beads being traded 50,000 years ago. Given their relative consistency, convenience, durability, and value, it seems like these beads would have a fair claim on being the world's first form of money. (All they're missing to meet Aristotle's definition of money is divisibility.) Does that seem reasonable to you? Do you know of anything older that might qualify?
@@haietta9556 Sure,. Friendly amendment: "first so far." If, so far, this is the oldest known instance of something like this, I'd find that interesting.
Anything that was valued could be considered money when it was traded for other desired objects or items. Native Americans used sea shell beads which was sometimes known of as wampum for exchange.
So did the paper claim that every modern human population everywhere has DNA from these 3 populations, or Every population in North, East and South Africa does? From your analysis I gathered that the latter is true, but not necessarily the former.
@@HistoryWithKayleigh Odd, but from what I understand, the San, were the first and most divergent human group, split over 70 thousand years ago, and are located in South Africa. I am sorry I don't have a paper at hand to link to atm
Interesting, I was unaware of modern humans coming from only 3 groups, could this have resulted from the genetic bodle necking that was supposed to have happened at the last ice age? I would love to hear your views on it. Also, please, where are your credentials from? You are way to smart to be doing just TH-cam vids, you have to be doing research in the field and would love to read your research papers if published.
@@jacobjones5269 there was a theory put out about 20 to 30 years ago around the last ice age but don’t quote me on it where humans where nearly wiped out as a species. We where supposed to have been reduced in number’s to somewhere from as low as 3000 to as high as 5000 now keep in mind, that was globally. To put that in perspective, that would be living in a town of maybe 500 where you knew everyone to where your your global neighbors would have been several 1000’s of miles away. To put in perspective London to Rome in Europe or in the America’s New York to say Los Angeles ( over 3000 miles) to find a new mate let alone new people to trade with. Genetic bottle necklace on a global scale.
@@bartonabrams3433 I was just trying to explain the term bottleneck, since you misspelled it originally.. That was obviously a typo since it’s obvious you understand the term.. Just trying to help.. Cheers..
The golden question that no one asks of course is: if modern humans so called came from Africa to Europe how come technologies advanced in Europe but not in Africa, does not make any sense.
If all modern humans descended from those 3 relatively recent groups, but Homo Sapiens had already been living in (for instance) Australia for many millennia by then, it's clear that the Australian natives did not descend from those three groups, am I right? Because AFAIK, it's been established that the Aus Aborigines are direct descendants of those people who arrived there 70,000 years ago. Aren't they? If I have misunderstood this video, please set me straight!
@net gnostic. There's been a lot of genetic testing done on modern day Aborigines of Australia and they to like everyone else, can be traced back to Africa.
@@HistoryWithKayleigh That would still be descendency, I would say. Since I am European, I imagine I have a couple of percent Neanderthal genes, which would prove I am a descendant of Neanderthals, amongst others.
I would like a video of your opinion of an ancient reset of civilization due to a pre-history cataclysmic event. Further, your edutainment is fun to watch. Your intelligent and very attractive.
Your real good! And getting better. That’s one of the better discussions of “out of Africa” I’ve heard lately. You could have gone into the east and west sub Sahara genetic “finds” of yDNA and mtDNA frequently described as genetic “Adam and Eve”. You could have also gone into the contribution of interbreeding with non-Saipan hominids in more detail. You allude to this. In reality those interbreeding made us the “man” that we are today. But if you had in any detail we’d still be watching video an hour later. Both you and your source are right about 20,000 years ago. This time period is a fur ball. Traditional artefacts, genetic data.....lots to consider yet nothing conclusive to explain the really rapid development of tools, physiology, and genetics. The answer may lie with climate. If you go back and look at the climatic graph from 40,000 years ago to present, the one they always show for global warming or the younger dryas event, you’ll see a funny set of peaks and valleys lasting 3-4,000 years right at the 20,000 year mark. That’s solid data not some “effect”, it’s supported by a lot of ice and sediment core analysis. But nobody knows exactly why. So they skip ahead and talk about the younger dryas event at 12,000. Whatever it was that gave modern man a kick in the butt developmentally happened at about 20,000 years. Nobody has answered that yet. I don’t even know anybody looking at that. But then I’m not privy to every work in progress. But I’d bet money someone is. Look for a paper in a year with the answer you seek. Fox out.
Glad you corrected yourself with the age of Australian migration. 65,000 ya seems most likely but north Australia being tropical monsoonal, actual skeletal confirmation is difficult.
There are many Aboriginal stories of fighting with and supplanting other earlier peoples. Plus there is some DNA connection with southern India and Denisovan genes. Seems highly likely there were waves of migration over tens of thousands of years... same as happened with Americas with Clovis culture being supplanted by later waves. We are a lot more mixed than we realize. There are no "pure" bloodlines, anywhere.
Aboriginal Australians appear to be related to ancient or indigenous Hindu, they were either the Ancient hindu of 65000+ years ago or they travelled there out of Australia to India. They are genetically the ancestor of indigenous Amazon still in the forest making more questions such as from America to Australia to India or India Australia America. They are related to Māori and American Indian in the way of original south East Asians and pre mongoloid Asia in general pre Jomon expansion, there are talks if Ainu are amongst them.
@@FlameAlchemyIO Bravo! Thank you for the rambling gibberish. Anyone else you missed out on? Besides the Hindus who didn't exist 6500 years ago, let alone 65,000.
@@peterbreis5407 How do they share genes with ancient Hindus wise guy. How do Amazonian in the jungle share genes with them wise guy.I’m letting the science speak. Pre Mongoloid south East Asians whom aren’t negro.
Australian aboriginals being genetically related to Hindu is a fact, Same as with the Amazon I am appalled. They have been in Australia for 65000+ years when we’re they in India? America? They are pre mongoloid south East Asian and all this dribble comes from science so fact check me.
If we all evolved from a common ancestor in Africa, how is it that we have so many blood types? The only reason we have this out of Africa Theory is to meet specific polical agendas.
This is so interesting. I think it's easily that we all are related to a small number of people. Also it may be tricky to trace all this as perhaps humans could have been ring species. So it could trace back to more than one part of the ring. I know nothing about the ongoing research and these ideas, I am just imagining things as a newcomer to this interest area... I think as more and more techniques of agriculture developed, people could have become a bit more tied to specific locales. The learning curve of each locale could be steeper for agriculture than for hunting. Perhaps some of the tooling could be less mobile too. We'll learn more as more finds and research comes forward and I really look forward to that. I wish I could live anothre 500 years to keep learning more. One thing I can't get off my mind is the Sentinelese. I realize they want to be left alone but it could be so interesting to somehow study them without them being distrupted or even knowing. Perhaps drone in some cameras for observation. Or some sort of way of getting some DNA samples. I mean we can send a probe to the moon, why not somehow sneak some dna from North Sentenel too...
Modern Homo Sapiens originated in Asia according to a recent 2020 paper titled: "Ancient Y chromosomes confirm origin of modern human paternal lineages in Asia rather than Africa". Makes sense considering, a lot of older remains of hominids are being discovered in the Eurasian continent.
But the Nature study that this video is based on just came out this year. It doesn't get more recent than that right? Just saying Lol. Another paper but this time from Oxford University just came out this year as well here recently. Google this title: University of Oxford researchers create largest ever human family tree: Researchers from the University of Oxford’s Big Data Institute have taken a major step towards mapping the entirety of genetic relationships among humans: a single genealogy that traces the ancestry of all of us. Here's a direct quote from the researchers "After adding location data on these sample genomes, the authors used the network to estimate where the predicted common ancestors had lived. The results successfully recaptured key events in human evolutionary history, including the migration out of Africa". So here we have two papers from (2022) from two different genetic studies from two different science journals. Showing through genetic evidence the African origins of modern human beings and we are just suppose to go off this paper from 2020? That sounds backwards. And unless they debunked Y chromosome adam, something they did not do. All modern human beings are living descendants of him and he originated in Africa. That is still considered a scientific fact. Which makes sense, since the oldest physical remains of homo sapiens have been found in Africa. Morocco to be exact.
You mentioned DNA degradation in Africa due to heat and humidity. Bones are easier to find in Africa due to the drier climate. It is very difficult to find ancient remains in India for example because of the heat and humidity. Another problem with finding bones in India is because they are underneath at least 6 feet of volcanic ash. Just because Africa is the easiest place to find bones does not mean that is where we came from.
Why would life begin in cold climate regions ? Answer that with honesty and perhaps you can move on . Certain people find it disturbing to accept the reality that the Black man/Black woman are the mothers and fathers of "modern humans" . Whites exist only because some of their cavemen ancestors were "seeded" by modern humans from Africa .. those who were not fortunate to interbreed - went extinct. White people have yet fully rid themselves of their late era genetic and spiritual qualities ( excessive hair , inadequate melanin levels , the need to be paranoid and greedy about sharing resources)
Kayleigh, you are doing a fantastic job, giving this information in a common language that is very easy to understand, and comprehend thank you.
Just discovered this channel. Fantastic info, and I love her energy and enthusiasm.
Great channel.
This is the 5th video I have watched from you. You do good work, and I like your style. Thank you.
Thank you!
Kayleigh , exceptional clarity. Keep it up.
Well spoken, well researched... Honestly, this content is far and away the most rigorous video that popped up in my feed, wonderful work. Thank you for teaching.
Thank you 🙂 i have lots more on the channel
Michael Cremo. Prove him wrong
Big fat theory!
@@SHREDTILLDEAD Humans can't have existed for multiple millions of years because early humans struggled hard with predation until we invented tools to defend ourselves better with, even if you make the argument that no bones would've survived by chance, which is a poor argument since I mean just look at this video there's plenty of bones found, rock definitely survives and so we wouldnt have trouble dating that to multiple millions of years. Then you could argue "well couldnt those older tools have been made by modern humans" but we know that they weren't, since we were making complex modified tools with the best material we could find, where earlier tool users such as homo habilis or erectus or heidelbergensis just used whatever source was closest and least time consuming to get, even if they wouldve been able to tell the difference between good and poor quality stone.
I just kind of stumbled onto your channel through a recommendation from TH-cam. Really enjoyable and informative, I ❤️ it. Great vid, Kayleigh.
Thank you 🤗
@@HistoryWithKayleigh Ur THEORY is ful of Horseshit..U are a CRO-MAGNON and Ur People Never Turned White from Black..Africans are 3.5mil yrs to Date..Ur history is only 7thousand yrs old 😉
@@HistoryWithKayleighAre you a historian or anthropologist?
This is my first premier love the countdown;)
Wow!!! Thank you so much for sharing this information;)
Thank you!
Yet another great video Kayleigh. This one just chock full of information!
I was today years old when I found out why my childhood watercolour paintbox had colours called burnt sienna and burnt umber!
Another great video. For every answer we get more questions. Keep the bloopers, very human and funny. Thanks
3 AM. Woke to the call of nature and decided to check the weather forecast and then got sucked into this. I was just going to take a quick look and wait for tomorrow………lots to think on….
I would love to learn more about ochre from you, Kayleigh. Please do a video on that, if it's not too much trouble.
I for one wouldn’t mind if you did a video on ochre production
Interesting vids. Very knowledgeable, which I appreciate. Way too many disruptive ads though :/
I really enjoy your videos. You ask questions and then give answers. Great stuff, and keep up the good work!
No she doesn’t she uses the racist card for anyone that disagrees with her, that’s a shortcut to thinking and totally unprofessional. She has some fooled.
great info, but you are on a visual medium, you need graphics, pictures to break things up, you need an intro that does not change that encapsulates the focus of the vlog, music helps, you can download some background music for free. hope this helps
Yes !! Just as I am fascinated by the Djebel Irhoud, your approach is full of good stuff. I remember precisely when one morning the French Radio produced an interview of the team having concluded the 300 000 years timeline for the remains found in Djebel Irhoud. I started going on every bit of info. I never have been to actually imagine a sudden halt in movement of population, in the way you describe, but it seems very plausible. Keep going !!!
New to the channel but I really enjoy your content & humor. Can we get more ancient queens‽
I follow research about our ancient ancestors, more as a hobby, than a scholar. I've been aware for some time of the hypothesis that all humans alive now are descended from particular African ancestors around 50,000 years ago. However, I've also followed the various estimates of how long humans have been present in Australia, which you referred to near the start of your video. In fact, my understanding of the dates, is almost identical to the dates you gave. With some claiming there is evidence of humans in Australia as far back as 60-65,000 years. Although of course there are other authorities who have put the earliest evidence more recently, from around 40,000 years. If humans were present in Australia from 50,000 years or more ago, this raises very important questions about this hypothesis that all modern humans have the same African ancestors 50,000 years ago.
There are various possible hypotheses to explain this apparent discrepancy. From the possibility that if humans were present in Australia 60K years ago, that they weren't actually the ancestors of later Australian indigenous peoples, who were all descended from later arrivals. That the spread of H.sapiens from Africa was incredibly fast. To just that the apparent evidence indicating a human presence in Australia much older than about 45k years ago, is just mistaken. Whatever, I see this as the biggest challenge to the hypothesis that all humans are descended from a limited group of African ancestors 50k years ago.
"I see this as the biggest challenge to the hypothesis" Not really and let me explain why. There's been genetic testing on modern day Aborigines of Australia and they to like everyone else, came be traced back to Africa. Homo Sapiens as you may know are at least 300,000 years old. Over the course of thousands of years, there were many migrations Out of Africa into different parts of the world but many of those populations died off. It's very possible, one of these early migrations Out of Africa, made it to Australia a long time ago but that population went extinct. Thus why their remains would be there but their DNA would be completely absent from modern day Aborigines people because they don't come from that extinct population but from the Homo sapiens who arrived in Australia 60 to 50 thousand years ago.
To say that paleo-human has a single location origin, single family origin has a
Hebrew Literature pre-concept.
@@yonatancruz2761 its not even close to the same thing.
@@ashelywilliams1718 - I'm well aware that all Homo sapiens originate from Africa. What I was talking about was the hypothesis that all modern humans are descended from several bands in Africa who existed around 50,000 years ago, not 300,000 years ago.
I said "There are various possible hypotheses to explain this apparent discrepancy. From the possibility that if humans were present in Australia 60K years ago, that they weren't actually the ancestors of later Australian indigenous peoples, who were all descended from later arrivals."
However, that is as I say, only a hypothesis, as is the hypothesis that all modern humans are descended from several bands of hunter-gatherers who lived in Africa around 50,000 years ago. Another possible explanation is that the hypothesis that that all modern humans are descended from several bands of hunter-gatherers living in Africa around 50,000 years ago, may be incorrect. Over the last 40 years ago I have seen many hypotheses about our human ancestors fall by the wayside, causing a complete re-appraisal of the evidence. This is not really surprising, given that there is limited remains from the time, and one single new find, often results in a complete re-evaluation of everything.
The fact that all modern day indigenous people in Australia "be traced back to Africa", is hardly surprising given they are all Homo sapiens, which is thought to have first arisen in Africa, nearly 300,000 years ago. The question is whether those people are descended from, or are partly descended, from people who arrived in Australia, more than 50,000 years ago.
Various assumptions are made about the rate of mutations in DNA, which is how these estimates are arrived at. It is all based on various levels of probability. It is not deterministic. Often new discoveries are made, which cause those previous assumptions to be re-evaluated. I am not asserting anything, just noting that we cannot be certain about this.
Let me give an example. There has been much debate about when humans first arrived in the Americas. Last year a new study was published, that seems to confirm that human footprints in New Mexico, have been dated to "23,000 to 21,000 years ago". Completely over-turning the hypotheses, that humans only first arrived in the Americas, far more recently than that.
@@stephenbarlow2493 "I'm well aware that all homo sapiens originate from Africa" That's Awesome 👍.
"What I was talking about with a hypothesis that all modern humans are descended from several bands in Africa who existed around 50,000 years ago" What? So you believe we all migrated from Africa but you disagree with the age of when this event took place? Are you not aware that there were several migrations out-of-africa during different time periods? Isn't it likely one of these early migrations making it to Australia and dieing off because how else can you explain the lack of any of their dna in modern-day Aborigines people? Just wondering, what makes you believe we all come from Africa? What facts made you come to that conclusion.
Because how would you be okay with those facts but not okay with the facts that show that we all come from Africa 50,000 years ago?
Like I stated before modern-day Aborigines people have been genetically tested and the test show that their people arrived in Australia from Africa 50 to 60 thousand years ago. So why you're still confused on that is interesting.
Another great video to share with my girls......Thanks Kayleigh.
Interesting. Thank you Kayleigh for your insight as always.
Love the videos, love your new outfit, love you. Your videos are refreshing. Love seeing someone else get excited by new discoveries.
Genetic studies are an amazing tool to investigate the story of ancient history. As technology improves, we will be able to reach conclusions never previously considered and hopefully avoid layering our own cultural biases on the evidence we discover. I personally feel that people have been traveling far and wide on this planet far longer than was thought. I look forward to new discoveries and connections. Thanks Kayleigh.
Except for the science deniers
@@kittys.2870 We’ve always had religious people, Kitty
3rd 22w
@@bendover9813 All "religious" people aren't science deniers.
scientism is itself a religion
Great vid
Thank You Kayleigh for using great resources like Nature. 🏆🏆🌈🌈🍀🍀🌷🌷💜💜🙏🙏😍😍
Always 🤗
NOT CONVINCED !!!
50,000 years ago !! But the Australian Aborigines are credited with being already in Australia at LEAST 60,000 years ago !!! And therefore much of Asia would have also been occupied by Humans at that time. Further as Neanderthal & Denisovians are older than modern Humans the figures should be at least 200,000 years. And of course we may yet discover other "Human" types not yet accounted for that left earlier or even started elsewhere !!!!!
Indeed the whole dating issue is turned on its head when the "Cataclysms" of 6000-10,000 years ago are considered. The result of Electrical disruption on an inter-planetary level in the inner Solar system !!! (Reference THE Institute for Electronics & Electrical Engineering)
Very informative and entertaining. As usual.
Another great video!
What is astonishing is that the sequencing of the first human dna was completed 19 years ago. From there dna research has exploded (not blossomed) through out all fields of research. The technology of DNA Analysis is going to continue to change and improve over the next 19 years, as A.I. becomes more involved. In this way "The Letter" that you mentioned may become clearer to read. One can hope! Interesting subject and all the research you have been doing. Thank you Kayleigh, you are one special person.
The bloopers WERE great though 😁💖
6:10 Make a video on ochre!
You're really good at what you're doing keep it up
Makes sense 🤷🏼♂️. Awesome video as always!
Thank you John!
Thank you, many people don't know different about homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens, but you speak. Many scientists never speak, but I know. Thank you
Oh my I never knew there were six colours I think this is fascinating Sorry i just missed you even though i had set the reminder 🙄 Great presentation Kayleigh Thank you for sharing this especially in relation to the DNA evidence🤗👍💕
Thank you!!
a short video about ochre would be FASCINATING. It has my vote!
I heard you say, "why not learn more" that got my Subscription.
Thank you 🤗
Real talk I'm sooooo glad I found this channel!!
If you are enjoying Kayleigh’s videos, have you considered becoming a channel member or Patreon. Every little bit helps.
Love your teaching. You do not underestimate the intelligence of your audience.
Great channel but you have ads constantly going through the videos. I’ve never seen a channel get so many commercials playing. It’s so distracting
If you are going to look at early hunting technology and the importance of meat as part of the diet, I had the chance to visit Olorgesailie, a Pleistocene lakeside kill site in the Rift Valley of Kenya. There the early humans apparently repeatedly ambushed giant hippos in an inlet, and used hand axes to do it. Funny, they seem to have left the large, artfully crafted hand axes where the water was deep enough to hide the large crocodiles. Anyway, it definitely looked to me like the idea that the hand axe was a thrown weapon is valid, and that the people hunting there liked eating BIG animals. Pictures are worth a thousand words, but a beautifully preserved and excavated site is worth an awful lot of pictures.
How would you actually throw a hand axe? Like a discus? Like a shuriken or more like a heavy throwing blade?
You should get some hand axes and try out your theory. Can you throw a handaxe and make it stick?
@@bellakaldera3305 Axe throwing contests go on all the time. Marines do it when they're drunk sometimes. You just have to keep a safe distance when they are up to it.
@@kirkjones9639 I am talking paleolithic stone hand axes ...that don't have handles. Of course modern axes can be thrown, but an archaic hand axe (with no haft)...how do you throw that?
@@michaelbarrett3416 Clams, mussels and other shellfish grow in vast colonies, providing large amounts of readily collected protein as well as shells for containers, scrapers and other purposes, vast middens of shells exist from seafood lovers of forgotten eons. All the migration patterns of early man suggest they followed coastlines (and if we can swim, they could swim). We are aquatic hominids.
Not to disagree with your statement...big dead things have much meat and useful bones, tendons, teeth and oils. But one thing doesn't rule out the other.
@@bellakaldera3305 Look at how a Softball, or Baseball is pitched. I think it would be that sort of motion. You can get fair amount of power behind it, and accuracy comes with practice.
Prime Time Kay, I have a big THANK YOU for another great episade of super edutainment. I love it.
Thank you!
I would like to say that any single video by Kayleigh, provides more knowledge on human history than everything i learned from school about human history. Can you say, "piltdown man"?
Yes please do an ocher video. I'm very interested in the subject. Love your videos
awesome presentations, always enjoy your take on what we ultimately uncover,
at the very beginning we all would have evolved from one source, its going to interesting to actually find out where that source lay,
keep them coming , :)
Great video. I've always been fascinated by this topic.
Is it possible to get more data on this subject? Im very curious about this. Because I had a discussion the other day with a person which claimed that humans is only 34.000 years old and decent from neanderthals and my claim is our human species is at least 60.000 years old and can be traced back to hunter gatherers from northern africa/ middle east.
SO I really hope yours study can help me..
I put my sources in the description as always 🙂
Modern humans have been around between 100k to 300k years. Most of us carry 3% of Neanderthal DNA or Denisovan DNA. You are in the right place. Look up Kayleigh's videos on the subject.
Your bigger worry are those that want everyone to believe we all descended from Jack and Jill 5,000 years ago.
@@HistoryWithKayleigh as I said. Hope your research can be to my benefit in the further debate with people :)
@@aaronaragon7838 I know we carry around between 1-4% Neantherthal dna. But that only shows our ancestors fornicated with other races and about 44.000 years ago or in that era of coexistence. But awesome to hear im only about 100k years off with my theory :D
Love your work
Keep it up
Check out David Reich's, Who We Are and How We Got Here. David was originally from the Max Planck Institute, studying under Svante Paabo. I'm pretty sure he stated there were 4, but no direct evidence has been found. It does show up in the DNA record, though.
EDIT: It's also a good book for anyone who wants to learn a lot more about DNA. Great book.
It was his work that got me to really question out of Africa. Never really mattered to me.
I 'm kind of new on your channel , so I just only on a discovery run , haven't yet made a decision about joining or not , but let's just say I like the enthusiasm in the way you present and narrat your presentations , nice job , looking forward to watch some more 👍
Yes! Definitely watch some more of Kayleigh’s videos. She always displays the enthusiasm and passion.
Australian Aborigines had a complex marriage / partner selection system which ensure that inbreeding did not occur. It can be assumed that this was in place for a very long time. It involved travelling far and wide as part of this process, up and down and throughout the country. This is very different to what you say about the African situation.
Might I ask if you have any academic qualifications in the disciplines that you refer to in your productions?
After about two million years of essentially similar hunter/gathering tribal living, it seems improbable that a mere five thousand years of expanded societal living would fundamentally change our “human nature” that was formed during our tribal period. In other words, I believe that we are still very tribal in our individual and group emotional and motivational life.
I would definitely be interested in a video on ochre and color, especially color in the context of ancient times. Fascinating stuff!
i visited Siena, Italy in the 1990s. while on a bus to Siena, i noticed exposed earth on the side of the road, between the fields and the road. it was the color of my US crayon called Burnt Siena. so i am definitely of the opinion that the ochre pigment was given the name Siena cause there is clay in Siena of that shade.
@mercurywoodrose I looked the entymology of "burnt siena" up and here is what I found: "Its name comes from the Italian phrase “terra di Siena or earth of Siena."
So is burnt ochre from Ochre?
Goed zo Kayleigh,...groeten
I Love this video, okay maybe a little too much Lol. You go Girl. Truly an inspiration to all of us who are interested in this field of study. Your bravery and intellect does not go unappreciated.
Where does “bravery” enter the content?
@@peterdickinson4599 All women who post themselves on social media for the whole world to see knowing how many creeps are out in this world, just waiting to harm women is a brave thing. You're a male, you wouldn't understand.
@Ashely Williams Quite a tirade! Thanks for taking the time to dismiss me for being male. Good conversation.
@@peterdickinson4599 "cuz the man holding every woman down" - dumb marxists.
@@peterdickinson4599 Bravery is exactly the right word. Its not easy for anyone doing these kinds of videos, about information that is somewhat in dispute and sketchy. Further, she is operating in a field that for generations has been exclusively presented by those that are male and white. In addition to being fun, she is brave & bold.
Excellent, VERY well explained, I'm subscribing.
Just to be clear, the number of genealogical ancestors one has is much, much greater than the number of DNA ancestors. Only a tiny fraction of your genealogical ancestors contributed DNA to you.
This is important, to keep in mind as the paper discussed here, published in _Nature_ , looks at ancestral population estimates of _DNA contributions_ to ancient (but closer to us in time than we to our deep ancestors) skeletons found in a few African locations.
Said long-dead Africans were shown (in the paper) to have DNA from three broad populations in Africa which had existed long before those tested-skeletons were buried. The finding here is important because previously it had be discovered that two such deeper populations existed, and this paper shows there was a third.
The inference once can make is that current African and non-African human populations also share these three ancient populations of humans.
This is not that surprising, as we know that we modern humans have ancestors from other clades in the genus _Homo_ . However, these outgroups have only contributed a small amount of DNA to us.
Thank you for the good explanation
No. All your genealogical ancestors have contributed, in some way or another, to your DNA. A lot of them are located in the so-called "Dark DNA" areas and some have been mislabeled as "Nonsense DNA" or "Missense DNA."
Thanks for the clarification.
Shalom, perhaps you are unaware that Black people are the only human beings on the planet, according to western science.Sorry, to break it down to you like this, but what has been hidden from the view of beings who are not indigenous to the planet is the fact that there's no origin story they can hearken back to other than some theories. As a matter of fact, the old world is really the Americas, here we find the largest pyramids and the oldest civilizations. Add that to the fact that Black people are the civilizers of mankind due to our superiority in thinking and because of our inherent nature. Our superiority is derived from the fact that we are the original man and not mankind. If others were truly superior to us, there would be no need for global antiblackness. Our superiority is further shown when studying the brain. We have nine series of neurological function and the rest of the planet has 6, according to western science. The remnants of our superiority is found all over the world. Please see Anacalypsis by G Higgins and check Black Sambo docum. On TH-cam.
@@benyahudadavidl , So, you're a black supremacists. If blacks are so superior, then why isn't Africa a world power? Why didn't blacks come up with vaccinations, washing machines, toasters, velcro, zippers, typewriters, brain surgeries, tanks, calculus, algebra, special relativity theory, general relativity theory, quantum mechanics, kites, books, paper, printing presses, kung fu, Brazilian jiu jitsu, muay tai, wing chun, jeet kune do, hapkido, tai chi, gun powder, ice cream, noodles, rockets, pizza, RPGs, watches, telescopes, radios, ditto machines, tape recorders, submarines, computers, Nike tennis shoes, iphones, phonographs, cameras, GI Joes, Barbies, McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger Kings, Taco Bells, donuts, mustard, sous vide, ketchup, relish, fortune cookies, Peking duck, crispy pork belly, Mandarin duck, wanton soup, VW bugs?
The way you explained it like a letter left in the rain was majestic.
I never understood why anyone worries about where we came from when all humans are almost genetic copies of each other with less than 1% difference in DNA. All that points to the genetic bottleneck not long ago that she is discussing.
Thank you 🙂
I was hoping Kayleigh would mention the bottleneck theory. Glad you did.
You're 99% similar to a chimp based on DNA. The thing your overlooking is out millions of DNA sequences 1% is tens of thousands of differences. Second, most of our archaic homelands are underwater that's why we don't find evidence like we should. I suspect we are really aquatic apes and until they can excavate old mangrove sites we'll never know our true past. They're looking in the modern savannah due to presuppositions. I can't believe how narrow minded people are.
@@stolenlaptop So your point is 99% of all humans share the same DNA?
And where is your proof that apes lived in water? LoL!!!!
@@MrSean03839 yes we do. But that 1% isn't insignificant. I was pointing out you're also 99% similar to a chimp. Look up aquatic ape theory but the basics of it are as follows... We're hairless, the only other hairless mammals are either in the water or underground. We have a descended larynx to talk but it's function may have been breathing control, the only other mammals that can hold their breath are mammals. Human babies are born with the ability to swim.. a function that aquatic animals also have. My point is these so called scientists are looking in a modern savannah for evidence when it used to be a dense jungle. Time changes places and habitats. We used to be aquatic and that's why we're so different from the other apes.
always love your analyses.. well done :)
hey, Kaleigh! this is very interesting. that we all have the same ancestory makes me wonder why we can't live in peace and harmony. i guess it could be like trying to have a peaceful family get-together. there always seems to be some animosity between some individuals in some families. we are just an immense family, after all. the differences between different peoples of the human race could be compared to the differences between the members of a family.
the advances in dna technology in the last 30 yrs hold promise for possibly solving some of the mysteries in the next 30. wouldn't that be cool🤩
so, my friend, thanks for your continuous uploads. you always make my day better with them. and, the bloopers always make me smile😁 if not belly laugh🤣 goeie nacht, mein witte wieven!
Do other predators live in peace with each other? Big cats, primates, wild dogs, bears, wolves? Unfortunately Humans- past, present and future will continue to kill each other....
@@larryc1616 yeah Lets start replacing all male leaders by female ones. I bet we have less war. Its always the males who seek a fight.
@@Kees247 Girls fight all the time, more then men. I used to work the doors of a nightclub for over 30 years. Broke up more fights with women than I have men. They can be very vicious, much more than men. If women ruled the world then our whole civilization would of nuked itself many years ago.
@@larryc1616 yes but, we don't have to. supposedly, we are far above the other predators, therefore, we should be far more "civilized". but, instead of rising above our natural instincts, we have just developed more "civilized" ways of killing each other. who knows, maybe someday.
I have always wondered what Extra terrestrials would make of our rubbish dumps. Toy story Buzz and Woody having the same name on them. (manufacturer). Aussie Jeff
Your research is amazing! Great content! Thank you, Kayleigh!
Thanks Scott!
Wow, this channel is really informative. I enjoy it a lot. I'm so glad I stumbled upon it. I'm going to watch the rest of the videos. By the way, I have a question. If we all descend from a population of African hunters and gatherers, but there were many other species of humans, or hominids, around the planet, like Neanderthals, Denisovans, and maybe Homo erectus in some areas. We know that we interbred with them, so different human populations are actually hybrids between Homo sapiens and these other species. For example, in Europe and Asia, there is Neanderthal DNA, and people in Papua New Guinea and Aboriginal Australians have Denisovan DNA, as do some people in Indonesia. Is it possible that some human populations mixed with species we haven't identified yet, sometimes called ghost species? In Africa, there are hints of mixing with what is sometimes referred to as an African Neanderthal, though it's not actually Neanderthal, it's something else. Could some populations have mixed with Homo naledi or Homo erectus? So, even though we descend from a population of African hunters and gatherers, that's not the whole picture, because we've mixed with other species, making us much more diverse worldwide.
20,000 years ago it's quite possible that the population had grown to the point where migrating tribes had nowhere new to migrate without trespassing the territory of other tribes, which led to clashes over resources. Hence tribes learned to remain somewhat stationary in a certain area to avoid conflicts. This eventually happened all over the world and boundary lines were created, followed by states and nations. And when certain areas became overcrowded or resources became scarce, war ensued. Which goes on to this day.
Very well thought out idea. Very plausible as well.
20,000 years ago, the Sahara plains were still a savanna, and the current Eurasian steppes were occupied by the ancestors of all non-Blacks (other than Australian Aborigines and South India Pre-Dravidians, who just kept the pigment levels).
@@Egilhelmson yes please help us out?
@@hughmaseko9780 that is obviously a plowed boy or loaf creeper seeing mud peepole as a threat.
Considering the population is at an all time high, but the three most populous countries on the planet aren’t even at war, idk
Hmm... I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I follow a few of them here on youtube. In to and out of Africa is very interesting. I'd love to see you discuss it with Gutsick Gibbon. She's really educated on this stuff. That would be interesting. Good video. I enjoyed it. Cheers!
I've recently gone down a rabbit hole regarding DHA (omega 3 fatty acid) and
how eating seafood made our brains evolve (half of the fat from the brain is DHA), Professor Michael Crawford, Dr. Leigh Broadhurst (she theorizes we descend from seafood eating peoples that spread 50,000 years ago) and Keir Watson are great references regarding the topic, its mind blowing. Another topic is vocal learning, amazing how birds like parrots can learn from listening and can talk back, Professor Erich Jarvis explains it perfectly.
I definitely think Humans at some point in their evolution had a closer affinity to the ocean than in "recorded history" Our ability to automatically change some physiological actions on entry to water, our subcutaneous fat not found on other great apes, our hairlessness, our nearly fully evolved but not quite, transition to bipedalism wheras Quadropedalism is far better on the savannah where supposedly "we" evolved and also our brains weird make up adaption and growth, way beyond what is required for life in the supposed enviroment we evolved and mastered for a long long time.
@@walterblanc9708 at the present to the earliest archeology and history humans have always lived within 300 miles of the Ocean. The earliest cities all developed in deltas and fresh water lakes.
But, DHA can be synthesized from alpha linoleic acid from plant sources
That the DHA fat in our brains may have come from eating lots of sea food in past generations is food for thought.
Regardless of how certain media outlets, teaching, and propaganda are woven into our species understanding at large, let it be clear, its a honor to be descendants from such rich, diverse soil as Africa. That should be announced loud and proud, and never forgotten. We are who we are today, a force to be reckon with, which all started in Africa.
Brilliant Kayleigh, I think I understand your questionmark, it's obvious. The problem is that the development of various humanoids and ultimately sapiens wasn't a linear progression. I personally think we need at least 250.000 years. The shift that occurred about 50.000 years like many are the result of local, but more likely, global cataclisms. The latest of those may have been the end of the last iceage, I think an airburst over what is now Canada triggered it's end. It is fasinating.
A theory that is the most accepted is that we suffered a massive bottleneck 75,000 years ago when the Toba Volcano blew. This has the most corroborating evidence from genetic studies via examination of genetic diversity, which our species has fairly little of for such a widespread species.
Hominins, not humanoids.
Hominins being from the same animal family.
Humanoids just meaning species that resemble humans in shape and function.
The driving force to get out of Africa was to get away from the Ngrs.....
@@jgkitarel Toba Volcano didn't that blow about the same time as the Neanderthals and Donovins vanished as races from Spain to Russia??
Love your insight... really helpsa in Expanding my Brain Cells....
Neanderthals are known to have used ochre as a body decoration for burials as far back as 250,000 years ago. As they inhabited Britain, it's unlikely that H.sapiens only adopted its use 30k years ago. The discovery of the Red Lady (actually a young male) is considered one of the earliest H.sapiens residents of Britain.
Whilst the human fossil finds in Morocco are the earliest we have, it is extremely presumptive to describe Morocco as the place where we first appeared. The fossils are thought by many to be those of early humans pushed north by the Saharan Pump from the Sahel and some even doubt they are H.sapiens, as their features suggest they may be an evolutionary off shoot isolated from the mainstream populations by the aforementioned Saharan Pump 350,000 years ago.
Homo sapiens first used it 300,000 years ago, as i mentioned in my video
@@HistoryWithKayleigh You're on the ball! Quick response. But do you still maintain Morocco is the original 'birthplace' of our species?? By it's very nature DNA CAN describe ancient populations. Just because some populations die out, doesn't mean their DNA is lost. e.g. there are no more Neanderthals, but their DNA is still present to some degree in most of the population today. DNA has been extracted from a human fossil that dates to 18,000 years ago. (Sawchuk, 2010-Tanzania)
I do, until they find older remains 🙂
@@HistoryWithKayleigh That flies in the face of accepted (mainstream) paleo anthropological theory.
your history work is fascinating great content
14:30. Its early farming.
I did not know there were so many colors! A quick tutorial would be very enlightening. Please.
As an artist your discussion about ochres was really nice . On another note I have often thought about how we will adapt to living in space as we start exploring our solar system. Has there been much discussion in your profession about adapting to space Kayleigh? If so this might be an interesting topic to talk about on your channel?
Tbh it's likely space exploration, if we ever get to it before killing ourselves off, will be done by robots and AI. We squishy bags of meat and fat are just too fragile to boldly go where no one has gone before. Bones and muscles waste away rapidly in zero G, retinas get torn up by cosmic rays, and frankly the cheap bastards who pay for the rockets don't want to pay for the safety features human spaceflight requires.
Love this channel❤👍
I've read that the eruption of Mt. Toba reduced the human population to only several thousands. What do you think of that idea?
Great research.
Completely engrossing, thank you! 😊
I love your honesty, when you make your boo-boo's, and don't hide them.
It's one of your many charms.
I learned today that DNA degrades in the heat of the African continent.
The question of the age of modern humans still has to be answered.
Looking forward to your new videos.
Virtually all DNA samples of African populations are taken from living individuals. It is not necessary to have ancient DNA to study ancient humans. DNA is fragile in any environment out side of a cell The question about the age of our species (Homo sapiens sapiens) is not one that is in doubt. It is the time period in which the earliest hominins that can definitely be identified as our forerunners which is obscure. For example, the fossils from Morocco are not H.s.sapiens, but an archaic form which pre dates our species.
@@peterleadley This cab driver fully appreciates your answer Mr. Leadley.
@@garyworokevich2524 Thank you. I hasten to point out that my comment is in no way pro or anti cab driver (I deplore cabism) No matter if it be a black, white or maroon cab, they all share a common ancestry! Ubers and mini cabs are another matter.
It's been answered many times. 250,000-300,000 years.
@@Spectre4913 that would be the origin of H.sapiens, but the modern population is descended from individuals that migrated out of Africa some 50-80k years ago.
Good question. And I doubt it. I've always liked Out-of-Africa theory, but also recognize that it's more of a politically-driven narrative, than a scientifically plausible one.
OOA was created because the Rift Valley was the first region in the world where they set up well-organized, well-funded, and well-publicized fossil digs, beginning in the 1960s. (Leakeys).
So of course, everything they discovered there, was heralded and unquestioningly deemed "the first-ever this!" and "the first-ever that!"
Conversely, any ancient human fossils found anywhere else in the world were always deemed "evolutionary dead-ends."
They constructed an entire global theory of human evolution---from a few fragmentary fossils, mostly found in one general region, and all of which could comfortably fit in the back of a pickup truck.
Less than one in a million organisms will actually fossilize. And some regions are much better at fossilization, than others. It's a common fallacy to think that only where fossils happen to be found, did ancient human habitation take place. Truth is, we've only begun to scratch the surface (literally).
But now that well-funded international research digs are happening elsewhere in the world (Eurasia), they're finding anatomically modern (or darn close to it) fossils---much older than OOA, and much more advanced than previously suspected in those regions.
Out-of-Eurasia, or at least a multi-regional hypothesis for the evolution of modern humans, seems much more plausible. And common sense.
Thanks for another fascinating presentation, Kayleigh. I hadn't heard of the ostrich eggshell beads being traded 50,000 years ago. Given their relative consistency, convenience, durability, and value, it seems like these beads would have a fair claim on being the world's first form of money. (All they're missing to meet Aristotle's definition of money is divisibility.) Does that seem reasonable to you? Do you know of anything older that might qualify?
@@haietta9556 Sure,. Friendly amendment: "first so far." If, so far, this is the oldest known instance of something like this, I'd find that interesting.
Anything that was valued could be considered money when it was traded for other desired objects or items. Native Americans used sea shell beads which was sometimes known of as wampum for exchange.
@@lobotiggre6432 Ostrich feathers might have been used but they are not as durable. Does something have to be durable to be considered money?
Please make a video just about Ochre!
So did the paper claim that every modern human population everywhere has DNA from these 3 populations, or Every population in North, East and South Africa does? From your analysis I gathered that the latter is true, but not necessarily the former.
From my analysis it seems the latter is 100% without a doubt true, the former is yet to be fully confirmed although evidence does point that way
@@HistoryWithKayleigh Odd, but from what I understand, the San, were the first and most divergent human group, split over 70 thousand years ago, and are located in South Africa. I am sorry I don't have a paper at hand to link to atm
Another awesome job 👍👍.
Thank you Chris
Interesting, I was unaware of modern humans coming from only 3 groups, could this have resulted from the genetic bodle necking that was supposed to have happened at the last ice age? I would love to hear your views on it.
Also, please, where are your credentials from? You are way to smart to be doing just TH-cam vids, you have to be doing research in the field and would love to read your research papers if published.
Bottlenecking.. Like the neck of a bottle that narrows..
@@jacobjones5269 there was a theory put out about 20 to 30 years ago around the last ice age but don’t quote me on it where humans where nearly wiped out as a species. We where supposed to have been reduced in number’s to somewhere from as low as 3000 to as high as 5000 now keep in mind, that was globally. To put that in perspective, that would be living in a town of maybe 500 where you knew everyone to where your your global neighbors would have been several 1000’s of miles away. To put in perspective London to Rome in Europe or in the America’s New York to say Los Angeles ( over 3000 miles) to find a new mate let alone new people to trade with. Genetic bottle necklace on a global scale.
Barton i am a high school dropout, i create these videos because i am extremely passionate about ancient history
@@HistoryWithKayleigh Far out!
@@bartonabrams3433
I was just trying to explain the term bottleneck, since you misspelled it originally.. That was obviously a typo since it’s obvious you understand the term.. Just trying to help.. Cheers..
The golden question that no one asks of course is: if modern humans so called came from Africa to Europe how come technologies advanced in Europe but not in Africa, does not make any sense.
If all modern humans descended from those 3 relatively recent groups, but Homo Sapiens had already been living in (for instance) Australia for many millennia by then, it's clear that the Australian natives did not descend from those three groups, am I right? Because AFAIK, it's been established that the Aus Aborigines are direct descendants of those people who arrived there 70,000 years ago. Aren't they?
If I have misunderstood this video, please set me straight!
They don't necessarily need to be descendants, they could've interbred with a descendant and therefore share the genes
@net gnostic. There's been a lot of genetic testing done on modern day Aborigines of Australia and they to like everyone else, can be traced back to Africa.
@@ashelywilliams1718 what genetic evidence shows Aborigines can be traced to Africans? You have been lied to.
@@ashelywilliams1718 Agreed.
@@HistoryWithKayleigh That would still be descendency, I would say. Since I am European, I imagine I have a couple of percent Neanderthal genes, which would prove I am a descendant of Neanderthals, amongst others.
I would like a video of your opinion of an ancient reset of civilization due to a pre-history cataclysmic event. Further, your edutainment is fun to watch. Your intelligent and very attractive.
Your real good! And getting better.
That’s one of the better discussions of “out of Africa” I’ve heard lately. You could have gone into the east and west sub Sahara genetic “finds” of yDNA and mtDNA frequently described as genetic “Adam and Eve”. You could have also gone into the contribution of interbreeding with non-Saipan hominids in more detail. You allude to this. In reality those interbreeding made us the “man” that we are today. But if you had in any detail we’d still be watching video an hour later.
Both you and your source are right about 20,000 years ago. This time period is a fur ball. Traditional artefacts, genetic data.....lots to consider yet nothing conclusive to explain the really rapid development of tools, physiology, and genetics. The answer may lie with climate. If you go back and look at the climatic graph from 40,000 years ago to present, the one they always show for global warming or the younger dryas event, you’ll see a funny set of peaks and valleys lasting 3-4,000 years right at the 20,000 year mark. That’s solid data not some “effect”, it’s supported by a lot of ice and sediment core analysis. But nobody knows exactly why. So they skip ahead and talk about the younger dryas event at 12,000. Whatever it was that gave modern man a kick in the butt developmentally happened at about 20,000 years. Nobody has answered that yet. I don’t even know anybody looking at that. But then I’m not privy to every work in progress. But I’d bet money someone is. Look for a paper in a year with the answer you seek.
Fox out.
It's the truth that is exposing it's self naturally, GOd is speaking, more wonders more brother
Hi Kaylie, your illustration of the six colors of ocher shows mine. LOL.
Glad you corrected yourself with the age of Australian migration. 65,000 ya seems most likely but north Australia being tropical monsoonal, actual skeletal confirmation is difficult.
There are many Aboriginal stories of fighting with and supplanting other earlier peoples. Plus there is some DNA connection with southern India and Denisovan genes. Seems highly likely there were waves of migration over tens of thousands of years... same as happened with Americas with Clovis culture being supplanted by later waves. We are a lot more mixed than we realize. There are no "pure" bloodlines, anywhere.
Aboriginal Australians appear to be related to ancient or indigenous Hindu, they were either the Ancient hindu of 65000+ years ago or they travelled there out of Australia to India. They are genetically the ancestor of indigenous Amazon still in the forest making more questions such as from America to Australia to India or India Australia America. They are related to Māori and American Indian in the way of original south East Asians and pre mongoloid Asia in general pre Jomon expansion, there are talks if Ainu are amongst them.
@@FlameAlchemyIO Bravo! Thank you for the rambling gibberish.
Anyone else you missed out on?
Besides the Hindus who didn't exist 6500 years ago, let alone 65,000.
@@peterbreis5407 How do they share genes with ancient Hindus wise guy. How do Amazonian in the jungle share genes with them wise guy.I’m letting the science speak. Pre Mongoloid south East Asians whom aren’t negro.
Australian aboriginals being genetically related to Hindu is a fact, Same as with the Amazon I am appalled. They have been in Australia for 65000+ years when we’re they in India? America? They are pre mongoloid south East Asian and all this dribble comes from science so fact check me.
We like the bloopers. Please keep them in. lol
If we all evolved from a common ancestor in Africa, how is it that we have so many blood types? The only reason we have this out of Africa Theory is to meet specific polical agendas.
This is so interesting.
I think it's easily that we all are related to a small number of people. Also it may be tricky to trace all this as perhaps humans could have been ring species. So it could trace back to more than one part of the ring. I know nothing about the ongoing research and these ideas, I am just imagining things as a newcomer to this interest area...
I think as more and more techniques of agriculture developed, people could have become a bit more tied to specific locales. The learning curve of each locale could be steeper for agriculture than for hunting. Perhaps some of the tooling could be less mobile too. We'll learn more as more finds and research comes forward and I really look forward to that. I wish I could live anothre 500 years to keep learning more.
One thing I can't get off my mind is the Sentinelese. I realize they want to be left alone but it could be so interesting to somehow study them without them being distrupted or even knowing. Perhaps drone in some cameras for observation. Or some sort of way of getting some DNA samples. I mean we can send a probe to the moon, why not somehow sneak some dna from North Sentenel too...
Modern Homo Sapiens originated in Asia according to a recent 2020 paper titled: "Ancient Y chromosomes confirm origin of modern human paternal lineages in Asia rather than Africa".
Makes sense considering, a lot of older remains of hominids are being discovered in the Eurasian continent.
But the Nature study that this video is based on just came out this year. It doesn't get more recent than that right? Just saying Lol. Another paper but this time from Oxford University just came out this year as well here recently. Google this title: University of Oxford researchers create largest ever human family tree: Researchers from the University of Oxford’s Big Data Institute have taken a major step towards mapping the entirety of genetic relationships among humans: a single genealogy that traces the ancestry of all of us. Here's a direct quote from the researchers "After adding location data on these sample genomes, the authors used the network to estimate where the predicted common ancestors had lived. The results successfully recaptured key events in human evolutionary history, including the migration out of Africa". So here we have two papers from (2022) from two different genetic studies from two different science journals. Showing through genetic evidence the African origins of modern human beings and we are just suppose to go off this paper from 2020? That sounds backwards. And unless they debunked Y chromosome adam, something they did not do. All modern human beings are living descendants of him and he originated in Africa. That is still considered a scientific fact. Which makes sense, since the oldest physical remains of homo sapiens have been found in Africa. Morocco to be exact.
Out of africa theory is laughable these days.
@@JonathanErwin I never bought that theory, either. That every human was a genetic relative of "Lucy", it just didn't seem plausible.
Always like your channel.
You mentioned DNA degradation in Africa due to heat and humidity. Bones are easier to find in Africa due to the drier climate. It is very difficult to find ancient remains in India for example because of the heat and humidity. Another problem with finding bones in India is because they are underneath at least 6 feet of volcanic ash. Just because Africa is the easiest place to find bones does not mean that is where we came from.
Why would life begin in cold climate regions ? Answer that with honesty and perhaps you can move on . Certain people find it disturbing to accept the reality that the Black man/Black woman are the mothers and fathers of "modern humans" . Whites exist only because some of their cavemen ancestors were "seeded" by modern humans from Africa .. those who were not fortunate to interbreed - went extinct. White people have yet fully rid themselves of their late era genetic and spiritual qualities ( excessive hair , inadequate melanin levels , the need to be paranoid and greedy about sharing resources)
Still, it's where we came from.
@@Waseemmmm you don't know that