@@ragnkja Well, i'm Finnish and i don't know any of our relatives who would've left Finland or come here to join the family and the family records go back into the late 1500-century. Our family farmed the one big plot since 1637 and no non-Finns has been in the family. Also, no highborns of any kind. So, Charlamange having some child that moves into artic forest in the north to freeze his butt off? Gonna press "doubt" on that.... And i find it really, really hard to believe this would be rare. Most rural areas and peasants living in them in Europe were rather isolated and few knew nobility who might have been relative to Charlamange. It's a awesome story but i'm not buying it.
@@scorpioneldar Compared to the size of the whole genome and the effects of recombination, that’s not a lot, especially considering most of them don’t have any effect either way.
@@ragnkja personally I wouldn't say something that happens even once every single time a person is born is rare... much less something that happens 35 times any person is born even if it comes packaged in a set of 3 billion things that happen for every new person.
@@ragnkja to me a rare even would only happen occasionally... like say. being born intersex. that happens around 1% of all births. That is rare. (even still from another perspective. you could argue that out of 8 billion people that means 80,000,000 million people are born as such... which... I mean is it really rare if its more common than being French (roughly 68,551,000 people and 20th largest country by population) but less common than being German? (19th largest at roughly 84,746,000)
It also gets complicated to graph when you consider the effect of people having kids at different ages. The duplicate entries in your "complete" ancestor tree might not be both at the same level. For example, you could have a set of X generation grandparents who were married and had a common ancestor. But the man might be the 4th generation child of that ancestor, while the woman is the 3rd generation child. There would be two children of that common ancestor, one of which had children earlier, and whose children also had children at an earlier age, compared to the sibling that had children later in life. 150 years later, one lineage has had 4 generation and the other 3 generations to produce people at about the same age to become married.
My brother is so much older than me that if he had kids, I could have the same age nephew and boyfriend. My mother’s sister is the same age as my brother, they could have dated in the olden times.
@JasminMiettunen my great grandparents had so many kids that some of the older kids had kids who had kids who got married and had kids thus, i have nieces and nephews some of which are older than me, while some of the younger ones had their kids a little later so those uncles and aunts children are slightly older than me and some have kids who are younger than me, so my parents also have cousins younger than me which is weird af to think abt, and it's both sides. It doesnt help that every1 married different ppl and somehow the majority of us are still alive.
Knowing this helped me understand the joke some podcasters made while mocking Dan Brown’s _The DaVinci Code:_ “If Jesus somehow has living ancestors today, it’s not some lone woman in France-it’s ALL OF US.”
I remember that the Percy Jackson books addressed this by explaining that the gods don’t have genes and thus are incapable of causing defects from inbreeding, so it’s totally cool and still not at all creepy haha (still weird).
The Habsburgs didn't necessarily encourage marrying close relatives, they just wanted high-status single Catholic women for their male heirs, which were in short supply after the reformation. Unless you count the counts. But they generally preferred daughters of dukes, daughters of Kings, or at least great granddaughters of kings and Emperors, which generally was their own family and a countess generally was just seen as "not good enough."
@@kaitlynethylia Just like Apple/iPhone XD. During 2020 pandemic a LOT of people got old photos showing up from 2013-2016. What does this mean? EVERYTHING that was deleted on an Apple product is backed-up to a secret server at Apple HQ. A corporation is breaking the law and nothing is done since they're a trillion dollar industry.
To add to the incest issue. there have been a few times in history where humans got knocked down massively in population which shrank our ancestors' dating options pretty severely.
@@Ultra206most dna testing checks only if you're descended to a total of 84 native americans, cause those were the only native Americans who weren't half European or black by the time the technology needed to store genetic records were created. Thus it's estimated that the number of people with native ancestry is multiple times that testing shows, especially in black people since slaves were forcefully bred with natives to produce children who the eugencists thought would be better workers.
i have native american ancestry that i know of from researching genealogy but 0% on my DNA tests. however i do have shovel shaped incisors which is very rare in european populations, which is the rest of my DNA! my grandma also has senegambian DNA but i have none, and i figured out who in our lineage it came from!! very interesting
It was long believed that mitochondrial DNA was passed down only from the mother and was unchanged from generation to generation except for random mutations. It has however been found that the father's sperm's single mitochondrion can contribute to the child's DNA. The sperm's single mitochondrion does not always enter the egg, is often broken down by lysosomes once inside, and usually has a negligible influence on the child's mitochondria because it is outnumbered more than a thousand to one by the egg's many mitochondria, but in a few rare cases where the mother had a mitochondrial genetic disease the father's mitochondria was able to contribute more functional genes that made the child not suffer from the same malady.
The part about how many genes you did or didn't get from any specific ancestor is possibly not literally incorrect but is definitely incredibly misleading. Just because you didn't directly receive your copy of any given gene through the line (or, as becomes much more appropriate as you go further back, ANY one of the lines) of inheritance that go through that ancestor, doesn't mean they didn't have an identical copy to the one you received. for instance it could've easily been a gene they got from their father and despite not passing it onto the line that led to you, their father also passed it onto another line which did. In the extreme, but incredibly common case, where both of your parents has a copy of the gene which originally came from one specific line, but the more recent ends of that line diverged a bit, it doesn't really matter whether or not your copy was based on the one from your father or your mother and you almost certainly have no way of knowing anyway, but following a strict understanding of inheritance one of those branches contains ancestors you didn't inherit the gene from even though there's an unbroken line of descent from them to you, all of which have the exact same gene. And taking that same situation further, it will have happened countless times in each of your ancestors themselves across the whole of the genome, so each of those times you're discounting an inheritance which is just about as real as any inheritance should hope to be.
That is true, and perhaps the bit about how related one is to an ancestor is a bit misleading, but it is due to the video's focus being on how inheritance itself works and not about gene propagation. Yes, practically speaking, one can be more related to someone because of a shared gene that was passed from a different source, but that equally applies to people that aren't in one's ancestry line at all, so it falls a bit outside the scope of the video.
@@SgtSupaman the key point that's missing is that for the vast majority of genetic sequences in your genome, many or even most of the ancestors you "did" and "didn't" inherit the gene from actually had copies of the exact same sequence. It's probably better to consider not where each gene you inherited physically came from, but instead to consider which differences there are between the different branches of your ancestry graph. It is notable that you inherited a novel mutation from one of those ancestors for instance.
I was confused about that, thank you for clearing it up. It’s kind of like combination versus permutation, it’s more of a combination and how and in what chronological order we get the genes doesn’t matter since most of our genes have copies elsewhere going back tens and even hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Not only that, I know of a part of my family that married their 3 sons to another family's 3 daughters. That practice used to be common just a few generations back.
2:30 "If you do the math - which is complicated - you have only a 50% chance of having inherited any DNA at all from a randomly selected ancestor 10 generations back" - Did you include all these duplications discussed before in the math? If I have 10 ways of possibly inheriting genes from a certain ancestor, this first increases the chance to randomly pick them, and also increases their chance of passing down genes. There are also a few "privileged" ancestors, which will certainly pass DNA along: The ones in the male-only line (for males, passing along the Y-chromosome) and the female line (passing along the mitochondrial DNA).
small problem: exactly what ratio of relatives are duplicated is different for almost everyone except siblings and double first cousins. it would be "up to" that percentage, but just how much lower than that is nigh impossible to predict accurately without a 100% accurate and complete genealogy going back however many generations you want to know (which is impossible to obtain with today's technology, in the case of stupidly large numbers like 100 generations...)
2:30 Please, where does that calculation come from? - Does it take into account the implex (inbreeding)? - Does it distinguish genes and mitochondrial DNA? - Does it count all our genome or only the 1 or 2% of it that is exclusive to the human species? - Does it calculate according to the variant number of alleles for each gene ?
not only am i the spitting image of my grandfather on my mom's side, but i also have his autism as well. Actually, everyone descended from him does. his genes were stronk
I can see the joke already, " his autism is too strong! we can't stop him! " " * in a Gandolph voice * You cannot stop! the *FUNNY!* " " retreat! " Is nice.
In regards to those such as the Hasburgs, the Ptolemaic dynasty had the _just_ _so_ _wonderful_ practice of marriage between siblings in the latter half of their reign. The later generations could be a bit.... hmm. But, Cleopatra VII (yes that Cleopatra) was widely considered beautiful, as well as being very intelligent. It's possible her farther took a mistress, thus 'freshening' the genome.
Cleopatra's image on coins does not show her to be particularly beautiful, but she was clearly intelligent and many men find that attractive. I certainly do.
@@pshehan1 Cleopatra's image representation differed widely in her time, basically, her image was "curated" to adapt to different populations. In some instances, she was represented as "more Hellenic", while in others, she was "more African". The only thing that was probably ugly in her was her nose, but only after his thirties.
@ThePowerLover I'm not sure I believe that. I've always read that King Tut died young because he was inbred. He was also often depicted with a walking staff which was likely required due to a disability associated with the effects of inbreeding
Bought out - Only brand changes, they'll likely keep the same systems in the backend, nobody's crazy *and* rich enough to buy a whole company just to leak their data... _right?_ Hacked - That's the danger with using these kinds of services. Though, I don't really see the point in leaking someone else's family tree, at least currently
@@jr2904 no need to jump at shadows. it'd just be used for tracking purposes by the government you already answer to, not to mention hyper-targeted advertising based on your ethnic ancestry and other such things.
We are family I got all my sisters with me We are family Get up everybody and sing We are family I got all my sisters with me We are family Get up everybody and sing Everyone can see we're together As we walk on by (And) and we fly just like birds of a feather I won't tell no lie (All) all of the people around us they say Can they be that close Just let me state for the record We're giving love in a family dose We are family (hey, y'all) I got all my sisters with me We are family Get up everybody and sing (sing it to me) We are family I got all my sisters with me We are family Get up everybody and sing Living life is fun and we've just begun To get our share of this world's delights (High) high hopes we have for the future And our goal's in sight (We) no, we don't get depressed Here's what we call our golden rule Have faith in you and the things you do You won't go wrong, oh no This is our family jewel We are family (hey, sing it to me) I got all my sisters with me We are family (oh, I can hear you now) Get up everybody and sing We are family I got all my sisters with me We are family (get up, get up y'all) Get up everybody and sing We are family (I got my sisters with me) I got all my sisters with me We are family Get up everybody and sing (get up and sing it to me) We are family
Cousin marriage is extremely common, and provided you don't pull a Habsburg, not that harmful. The explanation on its prohibition provided by evolutionary psychology is the same as why the Catholic Church prohibits marriage and children for its priests. When powerful families trade offspring, their genetic futures become linked and both families now have a common interest in the grandchildren passing on their genes. This concentrates power, wealth, and social status. I've heard this called "clanning". The first and second estates (royalty and clergy) have a vested interest in making sure that their power is not challenged. This is pretty well demonstrated in game of thrones and European history, amongst other more scientific literature
i feel like the more straightforward explanation for why cousin marriage is generally frowned upon is for similar reasons to sibling incest - there's a general opposition to sexual or romantic connection with people that we grow up too close to, or resemble too closely, ingrained into us to encourage genetic diversity. prior to modern times where nuclear family lives became more common, you'd typically spend a lot more time with your cousins than you do now, so the same instinctive repulsion people feel about sibling incest would kick in more often for your cousins. even today most people that marry cousins are usually marrying people they only met later in life or only knew in passing when they were younger.
A child of two first cousins is as likely to be born with defects as a child of an unrelated couple would be. In other words, it's completely safe. If two pairs of first cousins (say, two brothers and their two female cousins) both have children together, THOSE children are ALSO first cousins but share a percentage of DNA closer to that of siblings. These children would most likely be born okay, same as before. HOWEVER, if these two sibling-like first cousins had kids, their child would be at a much higher risk of defects due to their significant shared DNA. So it's better to just say "Nah, first cousins bad for child"
@@ungulatemanalpha there's a social and genetic element, I feel like marrying a step-sibling you grew up with your whole life seems weirder than marrying a long lost sibling you never met before you started dating, that’s not about genes. I'm not sure if the factor about growing up near your cousin when you don’t live in the same house is the reason it’s frowned upon, because nobody questions it if you start dating your childhood best friend you grew alongside, so that’s not about proximity. One being stronger is reason enough on its own (raised in the same house or being siblings), but the two combined don’t need to be as strong to create an aversion (seeing your cousin a lot growing up).
St. Augustine in the City of God clearly writes that it is much better for people to marry far outside their family tree as it joins disparate families together and gives them shared interest which increases earthly peace (countries, states, cities are more unlikely to go to war with one another if there has been commingling)
The freaking out revealed by the voice at the idea of first cousin marriages tells me you're from the US. The 30 US states that prohibit cousin marriages are pretty much the only places in the western world outside of the Balkans that gets its knickers in a knot about it o
Still around 50%. On average human DNA makes one unfixed base pair mutation every Billion base pairs. With 3 billion base pairs That is 3 every mitosis. The hayflick limit(where cells telomere DNA is to short from dividing) in humans is 40-60 dependent on cell type. So 120- 180 unfixed unique mutations in each cell lineage. However mutations are random so each 120-180 is in a different spot. This isn't much but adds up with age, and through generations. It is also lowered as any mutation that makes cells cancer is hunted down and killed by the natural killer cells in your immune system. This is even lower if you only count mutation in your gamete producing cells(the ones that pass down your DNA.
The only problem with using data from someone else's tree is that they COULD have gotten stuff wrong. I'm using a competitor of MyHeritage and if you pick a tree created by a careless person, you get all sorts of anomalies in the tree.
Does the math in the second half of the video consider the possibility that some of the genes you don't inherit from one parent might still be inherited from the other parent? E.g if an ancestor on your mother's side has their genes filtered out, is it possible that they could still show up in your genetic profile because their ancestors were also present on your father's side?
No two people from the same ethnic background are more distantly related than about fifth cousins. With global travel increasing, this is currently changing! Today's children should on average be more distantly related than today's elderly. Ironically, this also means that with the exception of isolated tribes, humanity on average is getting more closely related, but individuals are getting more genetically distant from people they live near. Still, most of humanity's genetic diversity is in Africa, and it will be many generations before this changes.
Surprised you didn’t try to do the math connecting the theory from where supposedly one time in human history where people became nearly extinct and had to bounce back from like 1000 people left
For animal conservation purposes, a pool of 500 individuals is considered the minimal group needed for repopulation without significant inbreeding or genetic issues
I remember that Randal from XKCD covered this in his second book. Covered it slightly differently so I would recommend people watch Minute earth and read How to.
Personally, I think it’s a lot less about the blood or jeans you get more of the spiritual reality that you are descended from people who survived long enough to reproduce since the dawn of time
Also, one thing I didn't see mention in the video, but historically speaking, there was a LOT more baby making going on, and women were busy being mothers at much younger ages than today, giving those women more time to raise more kids. Before modern medicine and the eradication of several major diseases, infant mortality was historically much higher and people were dying at much younger ages on average than we do now, so women needed to produce more kids to make up for the loses. Plus, child labor was also much more widespread back then than it is now and MUCH less frowned upon, so families with lots of kids would use them to help out the adults with chores.
…… and a lot more women dying in childbirth. Thus the frequency of men having 2 or 3 wives sequentially, in history. The first wives died having babies. And also thus the common “evil stepmother” trope.
My 3rd great grandmother was a descendant of the first laird of Argyle. 2 of my children married descendants of the first laird of Argyle that are at least 5th cousins. A few years ago there was a church event where we were asked to link into “relatives near me”. I am a transplant yet of the thirty people that linked twenty-nine were relatives to me.
This sounds wrong, like scientifically. It sounds like the candy metaphore is about chromosomes and sure you get only a certain cpmbination of chromosomes. The problem is during meiosis the DNA in these chromosomes combines and recombinates so saying you don't have DNA from most of your ancestors is not correct I think
By natire, there can only be a finite number of building blocks, be they chromosomes, genes or aminoacids, in an individual's DNA code. Furthermore, most of these are common to all humans, there is no variation. So we speak'about the variable human part. On the other hand, going back, for example, 5000 years = 220~270 genrations, we have about 2^250 theoretical ancestors ~ 10^75. Much more than the nbr of aminoacids in your genome. (If I remember correctly, the Universe consists of 10^75 particles. Check.)
The percentage of blood kinship between first-degree cousins is only 12%, and second-degree cousins 3% That is, you are barely engaged, there is nothing preventing marriage
One of my friends found out he and his wife are related because 6 generations back their great great great great grandmothers were sisters. Which is really funny because before that became known my friends father was up in arms about it being an "interracial" marriage. Goes to show that it really dosen't take too long for genes pools to get divergent. Hell as a red head with blue eyes and attached earlobes, I have a lot more immediately noticable recessive genes than most folks. If me and a clone both had kids with separate partners I'd wager in 3 generations the grand kids would look very different from each other.
2:51 can you talk about how many people contributed that DNA? If my DNA is only comprised of a tiny slice of my ancestors from 1000AD, how many ancestors? Right now, I have 100% DNA in common with 2 of my 2 parents 1 generation back, 100% in common with my 4 of my 4 grandparents 2 generations back, and supposedly entire portions of the tree will start to go missing as I fail to inherit everything from every ancestor, so I might have 100% in common with 900 of my 30000 ancestors 15 generations back (or whatever the math is). What does the graph of that number look like as it goes from 2, to 4, to 900, and beyond? Does it converge towards some constant or no?
There is way too much uncertainty in that number. Yes, it is true that 100% of your inherited genes would come from the 4 grandparents collectively, but it is possible that the 100% is only coming from 3 or even just 2 of them, so the others being included in that number are already extraneous. It would be like saying 100% of your genes come from your parents and aunts and uncles. While technically true, the parents part of that statement is what covers the 100% since your aunts and uncles didn't contribute at all (though you are still likely to share genes with them). So, though it would still be accurate to say you have 100% from all 32,768 ancestors from 15 generations ago, there is no way to know how many of those are extraneous. Once you get past your parents, it is going to wind up being a range from zero to some maximum of what each ancestor could have possibly passed to you. For grandparents, each one can provide 0-50% genes to you but will average around 25%. For great-grandparents, each one can provide 0-x% genes to you (where x is the amount that the corresponding grandparent is related), which will generally average to 12.5%. And so on. Of course, once overlap starts occurring, the likelihood of you having more genes from someone that comes from different sides of your family tree gets higher. I would think this is way too variable to produce any useful graph.
I love the explanation of the ancestor paradox in the first part of the video, very nice for something not that intuitive. But doesn't the second part about inherited genes ignore what we just learned? If we have much fewer ancestors that the 2^'number of generations' like you explained, does the math still work out to 50% chance of no genes inherited 10 generations back? Did you take the "inbreeing" into account in that calculation?
Interesting, though I do like the idea that "You are the result of an unbroken chain of ancestors dating back to the first cells". It makes people who are child free by choice even more badass, "I break the billions year old chain"
Going back 15 generations, I am the first born son of the first born son (records are spotty during the 18th century), and before that it goes back even further. My lineage fairly easy to track along that line, but beyond that it hurts the brain worse than my computer lags at the end of a game of Crusader Kings III when I open the family tree to track the 600 years of my dynasty (and my family has nearly 1000 years of recorded history).
also some candy(dna) packets might be so small that some of your ancestors might share a total copy making the total important ancestors less important. all of this is really good for the actual grandfather paradox of time travel, because maybe it's not really that important that that's your grandfather, when things mostly end up mostly the same anyway, cause being well less important to effect as multiple causes can bring about the same effect. really cuts down on many worlds problems too because multiple worlds can converge on a frame world that is the same.
Yes it's all very well me getting together with someone with ancestors from different countries from me - because that is the day and age we live in, where lots of people travel around an awful lot. But 5-10 generations ago a lot of our ancestors will have married people from the same village
I’m about to finish Chapterhouse: Dune, and I’m so glad I didn’t see this video **before** i read the whole series. Lol, genetic memory plays a HUGE role, but this kinda chops into it. XD
My favourite piece of trivia is that every single human on Earth can trace a matrilineal line to one woman who lived between 100 to 200 thousands years ago.
Seems the question switched halfway though. The issue is numbers, you had parents, they had parents, they had parents. Going back too far you start to get incredible numbers of people. Unless your mother is also your grandmother, that's still two unique parents required. Everyone has a mother, their mother a mother and so on. But one man could be a grandfather and father, as distasteful as that sounds, it's not as culturally acceptable as family mating. Ultimately I feel the question wasn't answered. And if one wants to claim more then 37 generations the numbers continue to multiply
My mom and dad have the same last names before marriage. No relations between the two family trees for at least 150 years, but definitely some time in the past the two trees merge.
Depends on what the root word of the name is. If it's profession based (Smith, Baker) then it could mean two unrelated people worked in the same field and if it's location based (Dale, Ford) then it could mean they lived in different places of similar topography.
I understand that the MinuteEarth format has a strict time budget, but I do think it would be wise to talk a bit more about the paradox before moving on to a solution. Was the reason you stopped at 37 generations back just that that's when the ancestors outnumber lived humans? How far back is that in years? How many generations have there been of humans? These things make it easier to follow the next bit 😜
They might not inherit their genes directly, but the genes other are made of, did come as a result of them. Best example? 6000 years ago Humans had hands, today we still have hands as a result of evolution and genes we inherited. Therefore this whole video is stupid and irrelevant.
I have a big family tree and that's just going with my Dad's mom's side of the family (as I haven't been able to find much records on my mom's side nor my Dad's dad's side.) and not only do I have paperwork showing me descending from Jan Van Eyck I have DNA that was passed down from that area, while I can't say for certain if it was Jan Van Eyck himself passing DNA, the possibility for it is very high.
What about "genes" that were from mutations, meaning an even smaller percentage of YOUR genes could be traced back only so far before it isn't really the same "gene" anymore.
I guess this video is for newer societies like the ones in Europe and America. In India, we have a concept of gothra where, well, at least in theory, you don't have any shared ancestors if you marry someone from another gothra. Marrying within a gothra is kind of like inbreeding, so it's not allowed.
Doesn’t the historical practice of inbreeding call into question the size of a gene pool needed for a group to reproduce and sustain a population (essentially how much inbreeding is too much inbreeding…😅). If a canoe with 10 or 20 people on it landed on an uninhabited island like Hawaii and remained isolated for a couple hundred years, would that population survive or die out from inbreeding?
Most places on earth it's ok to marry your first cousin. There are even places in the US that it's still legal. As long as it's not frequent there is little risk health wise. The reason it's been outlawed in most of the US was political, not morality.
Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to offer: bit.ly/MinuteEarth_MH
12 hours ago?
Given the Honey scandal, I for sure hope this isn't close to it
@@mr.boomguy MyHeritage is an Israeli company, do i need to add anything else
Wow. Way to go if you want to add your entire genome to a database
This feels like a privacy nightmare, not just for your, but for all of your relatives you are compromising.
Please don't support services like this.
My uncle Eugene - we called him Gene - had quite a large pool.
He also got large *JEANS*
Though he only kept the fittest ones.
My g
Isn't that the guy with the weird gnome?
My uncle/cousin Gene had quite a shallow pool
Gene's large pool
I always explain this to ppl who say they “direct descendants” of royalty from 100’s of years ago…bro we all are
With some exceptions, mostly in remote uncontacted tribes who have killed any outsiders who have tried to interact with them.
And direct descendants of their scullery staff.
@@therealallpro
Aren’t most people with European ancestry descendants of Charlemagne?
@@ragnkja Well, i'm Finnish and i don't know any of our relatives who would've left Finland or come here to join the family and the family records go back into the late 1500-century. Our family farmed the one big plot since 1637 and no non-Finns has been in the family. Also, no highborns of any kind. So, Charlamange having some child that moves into artic forest in the north to freeze his butt off? Gonna press "doubt" on that....
And i find it really, really hard to believe this would be rare. Most rural areas and peasants living in them in Europe were rather isolated and few knew nobility who might have been relative to Charlamange. It's a awesome story but i'm not buying it.
@
Charlemagne was in the 8th century.
The In-cestors Paradox
Nooooooo 😂
That would explain a lot about the majority of Americans and why many cannot read beyond a sixth-grade level.
The Paradox of Andy and Leyley
The comments never disappoint.
That's a great pun.
Take this virtual token of approval.
👍
@@bahmoudd that game is amazing
Not to mention, over all those generations, there are bound to be some mutations that limit how many genes you and your ancestors actually share.
mutations are very few, the much more impactfull thing is recombination where during chromosome crossover genes mix up
@@MostIntelligentMan roughly 35 mutations in genome per generation actually. not so few.
@@scorpioneldar
Compared to the size of the whole genome and the effects of recombination, that’s not a lot, especially considering most of them don’t have any effect either way.
@@ragnkja personally I wouldn't say something that happens even once every single time a person is born is rare... much less something that happens 35 times any person is born even if it comes packaged in a set of 3 billion things that happen for every new person.
@@ragnkja to me a rare even would only happen occasionally... like say. being born intersex. that happens around 1% of all births. That is rare. (even still from another perspective. you could argue that out of 8 billion people that means 80,000,000 million people are born as such... which... I mean is it really rare if its more common than being French (roughly 68,551,000 people and 20th largest country by population) but less common than being German? (19th largest at roughly 84,746,000)
It also gets complicated to graph when you consider the effect of people having kids at different ages. The duplicate entries in your "complete" ancestor tree might not be both at the same level.
For example, you could have a set of X generation grandparents who were married and had a common ancestor. But the man might be the 4th generation child of that ancestor, while the woman is the 3rd generation child. There would be two children of that common ancestor, one of which had children earlier, and whose children also had children at an earlier age, compared to the sibling that had children later in life.
150 years later, one lineage has had 4 generation and the other 3 generations to produce people at about the same age to become married.
My brother is so much older than me that if he had kids, I could have the same age nephew and boyfriend. My mother’s sister is the same age as my brother, they could have dated in the olden times.
@JasminMiettunen my great grandparents had so many kids that some of the older kids had kids who had kids who got married and had kids thus, i have nieces and nephews some of which are older than me, while some of the younger ones had their kids a little later so those uncles and aunts children are slightly older than me and some have kids who are younger than me, so my parents also have cousins younger than me which is weird af to think abt, and it's both sides. It doesnt help that every1 married different ppl and somehow the majority of us are still alive.
...hobbits
I'm descended from Irish people, my number of ancestors is quite a lot fewer than 37 billion
Shots fired
I'm German, so yeah, there was beer and a sausage involved.
Have you seen the snl skit about Irish dating?
There's an app that you can check " how related " you are to the person you're currently dating...
@@ralanham76 That app is in/for Iceland not Ireland.
As a native mexican, i know that problem-ish
01:32 When the tree doesn't fork very much, but the whole village does.
😂
Came looking for this comment 😂👍
@@jonnyducker So did the villagers.
When it starts looking a little less like a family tree and more like a family circle
🍴 Every time your ancestors were "spooning" 🥄, it put your DNA inheritance on a "knife-edge" 🔪!
Knowing this helped me understand the joke some podcasters made while mocking Dan Brown’s _The DaVinci Code:_ “If Jesus somehow has living ancestors today, it’s not some lone woman in France-it’s ALL OF US.”
Do you mean descendants?
@ Yes I meant descendants.
1:14 Have you ever heard of Greek Mythology??
Have you ever heard of Muslims?
Egyptian Mythology my friends
The gene pool…. Is…. A little.. limited we’ll say..
I remember that the Percy Jackson books addressed this by explaining that the gods don’t have genes and thus are incapable of causing defects from inbreeding, so it’s totally cool and still not at all creepy haha (still weird).
@@EMLtheViewer in mean in that mythos, gods ain't human so its not weird to them
@@Ali-se3gb Last I checked most people weren’t Muslims, but I might have missed that part in history.
1:20 it didn't work out well for Charles II of Spain, just so the viewers know.
He had a chin for the ages
@Praisethesunson way worse, look it up.
@@didack1419his genitals were so fucked up that people had trouble finding out whether he was a male or a female.
A chin only a sister could love.
He was "always on the verge of death but repeatedly baffled Christendom by continuing to live"
So does that mean all of us are related to a pretty great extent?
Yeah
Hey there fourth cousin 😘
Vsauce already talked about this years ago....
And yes, we are releated far removed cousin....
Of course we are, we didn't just
spawn !
The Habsburgs didn't necessarily encourage marrying close relatives, they just wanted high-status single Catholic women for their male heirs, which were in short supply after the reformation. Unless you count the counts. But they generally preferred daughters of dukes, daughters of Kings, or at least great granddaughters of kings and Emperors, which generally was their own family and a countess generally was just seen as "not good enough."
"High-status Catholic singles in your area"
As a low-status Catholic single, I may (or may not) be tempted to click on that...
regarding the sponsor: giving anyone access to your DNA is a huge security risk - also for your relatives (and vice-versa)
Exactly anyone can hack their database and there goes your family tree in the arms of a distannnnnnnnnnnttttttttttt cousin
and also, you CANNOT delete your data from their database. Once you give them your data, it is theirs. Forever.
Also cops don't need a warrant to get your DNA if the company you gave it too agrees to hand it over willingly (which a lot of them do)
@@kaitlynethylia Just like Apple/iPhone XD. During 2020 pandemic a LOT of people got old photos showing up from 2013-2016. What does this mean? EVERYTHING that was deleted on an Apple product is backed-up to a secret server at Apple HQ. A corporation is breaking the law and nothing is done since they're a trillion dollar industry.
You don't give them any DNA?
To add to the incest issue. there have been a few times in history where humans got knocked down massively in population which shrank our ancestors' dating options pretty severely.
2:45 This is why my mom carries native American DNA, but my sister and I don't. I figured this, but having it explained this way helps.
It's also worth mentioning that DNA testing tends to be very inaccurate when it comes to Native Americans.
@@Ultra206most dna testing checks only if you're descended to a total of 84 native americans, cause those were the only native Americans who weren't half European or black by the time the technology needed to store genetic records were created.
Thus it's estimated that the number of people with native ancestry is multiple times that testing shows, especially in black people since slaves were forcefully bred with natives to produce children who the eugencists thought would be better workers.
Are you sure you aren't adopted?
i have native american ancestry that i know of from researching genealogy but 0% on my DNA tests. however i do have shovel shaped incisors which is very rare in european populations, which is the rest of my DNA! my grandma also has senegambian DNA but i have none, and i figured out who in our lineage it came from!! very interesting
@@karanaher5030 were the eugencists right and made better workers or were they full of shit and were equally as good workers?
This is reminding me of my one cousin who my parents called my double cousin. Our grandmas were cousins and our grandpa’s were brothers…
I got a double cousin. My dad’s brother married my mom’s sister. Always funny to see them at both family reunions.
My father's parents were 3rd cousins. They both descended from the same first cousin of the guy who wrote the Star-Spangled Banner.
You're related to Francis Scott Key?!
Would have probably made the video a touch too long, but would have loved an extra section on mitochondrial DNA.
It was long believed that mitochondrial DNA was passed down only from the mother and was unchanged from generation to generation except for random mutations. It has however been found that the father's sperm's single mitochondrion can contribute to the child's DNA. The sperm's single mitochondrion does not always enter the egg, is often broken down by lysosomes once inside, and usually has a negligible influence on the child's mitochondria because it is outnumbered more than a thousand to one by the egg's many mitochondria, but in a few rare cases where the mother had a mitochondrial genetic disease the father's mitochondria was able to contribute more functional genes that made the child not suffer from the same malady.
@@magister343wow thank you
@@magister343a person with a fathers mitochondria is very very sick. The exception reinforces the rule
The part about how many genes you did or didn't get from any specific ancestor is possibly not literally incorrect but is definitely incredibly misleading. Just because you didn't directly receive your copy of any given gene through the line (or, as becomes much more appropriate as you go further back, ANY one of the lines) of inheritance that go through that ancestor, doesn't mean they didn't have an identical copy to the one you received. for instance it could've easily been a gene they got from their father and despite not passing it onto the line that led to you, their father also passed it onto another line which did.
In the extreme, but incredibly common case, where both of your parents has a copy of the gene which originally came from one specific line, but the more recent ends of that line diverged a bit, it doesn't really matter whether or not your copy was based on the one from your father or your mother and you almost certainly have no way of knowing anyway, but following a strict understanding of inheritance one of those branches contains ancestors you didn't inherit the gene from even though there's an unbroken line of descent from them to you, all of which have the exact same gene. And taking that same situation further, it will have happened countless times in each of your ancestors themselves across the whole of the genome, so each of those times you're discounting an inheritance which is just about as real as any inheritance should hope to be.
That is true, and perhaps the bit about how related one is to an ancestor is a bit misleading, but it is due to the video's focus being on how inheritance itself works and not about gene propagation. Yes, practically speaking, one can be more related to someone because of a shared gene that was passed from a different source, but that equally applies to people that aren't in one's ancestry line at all, so it falls a bit outside the scope of the video.
@@SgtSupaman the key point that's missing is that for the vast majority of genetic sequences in your genome, many or even most of the ancestors you "did" and "didn't" inherit the gene from actually had copies of the exact same sequence. It's probably better to consider not where each gene you inherited physically came from, but instead to consider which differences there are between the different branches of your ancestry graph. It is notable that you inherited a novel mutation from one of those ancestors for instance.
I was confused about that, thank you for clearing it up. It’s kind of like combination versus permutation, it’s more of a combination and how and in what chronological order we get the genes doesn’t matter since most of our genes have copies elsewhere going back tens and even hundreds of thousands of years ago.
And the calculation is based on the assumption that all ancestors are distinct people, which he has already argued that it isn't possible.
What is written in that kamehameha in 0:28 ?
Great question, no idea
Sacred hakka equation for max rizz.
Kamehameha in Ge’ez. (I am lying.)
That's what I was wondering, almost looks like Aramaic, Nabataean, or Kharosthi to me
Not only that, I know of a part of my family that married their 3 sons to another family's 3 daughters. That practice used to be common just a few generations back.
2:30 "If you do the math - which is complicated - you have only a 50% chance of having inherited any DNA at all from a randomly selected ancestor 10 generations back" - Did you include all these duplications discussed before in the math? If I have 10 ways of possibly inheriting genes from a certain ancestor, this first increases the chance to randomly pick them, and also increases their chance of passing down genes.
There are also a few "privileged" ancestors, which will certainly pass DNA along: The ones in the male-only line (for males, passing along the Y-chromosome) and the female line (passing along the mitochondrial DNA).
small problem: exactly what ratio of relatives are duplicated is different for almost everyone except siblings and double first cousins. it would be "up to" that percentage, but just how much lower than that is nigh impossible to predict accurately without a 100% accurate and complete genealogy going back however many generations you want to know (which is impossible to obtain with today's technology, in the case of stupidly large numbers like 100 generations...)
Gotta love that the go-to example of inbreeding is always the Habsburg Family.
Even though they were much less inbred than any Eygptian Dynasty
2:30 Please, where does that calculation come from?
- Does it take into account the implex (inbreeding)?
- Does it distinguish genes and mitochondrial DNA?
- Does it count all our genome or only the 1 or 2% of it that is exclusive to the human species?
- Does it calculate according to the variant number of alleles for each gene ?
I can recommend the book "a brief history of everyone that ever lived" it discusses this concept in some interesting ways
interesting, thank you for the suggestion, hopefully its an audio book bc id like to listen to this on long drives
not only am i the spitting image of my grandfather on my mom's side, but i also have his autism as well. Actually, everyone descended from him does. his genes were stronk
I can see the joke already,
" his autism is too strong! we can't stop him! "
" * in a Gandolph voice * You cannot stop! the *FUNNY!* "
" retreat! "
Is nice.
In regards to those such as the Hasburgs, the Ptolemaic dynasty had the _just_ _so_ _wonderful_ practice of marriage between siblings in the latter half of their reign. The later generations could be a bit.... hmm. But, Cleopatra VII (yes that Cleopatra) was widely considered beautiful, as well as being very intelligent. It's possible her farther took a mistress, thus 'freshening' the genome.
Outrageous, he should have kept the bloodline pure,
No wonder the gods abandoned egypt
Cleopatra's image on coins does not show her to be particularly beautiful, but she was clearly intelligent and many men find that attractive. I certainly do.
According to the latest studies, Tutankhamun's genome was not so bad.
@@pshehan1 Cleopatra's image representation differed widely in her time, basically, her image was "curated" to adapt to different populations. In some instances, she was represented as "more Hellenic", while in others, she was "more African". The only thing that was probably ugly in her was her nose, but only after his thirties.
@ThePowerLover I'm not sure I believe that. I've always read that King Tut died young because he was inbred.
He was also often depicted with a walking staff which was likely required due to a disability associated with the effects of inbreeding
"So you MUST have a lot of fewer ancestors than you might think" OH NOOOO… I'm worried what this implies 🫣
What happens to your data if MyHeritage gets hacked or bought?
Bought out - Only brand changes, they'll likely keep the same systems in the backend, nobody's crazy *and* rich enough to buy a whole company just to leak their data... _right?_
Hacked - That's the danger with using these kinds of services. Though, I don't really see the point in leaking someone else's family tree, at least currently
China is going to buy it and make weapons for us specifically...
@@jr2904 or more boringly malicious data brokers will show medical ads to you
@@jr2904 HELP WHAT 😭🙏
@@jr2904 no need to jump at shadows. it'd just be used for tracking purposes by the government you already answer to, not to mention hyper-targeted advertising based on your ethnic ancestry and other such things.
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing
Everyone can see we're together
As we walk on by
(And) and we fly just like birds of a feather
I won't tell no lie
(All) all of the people around us they say
Can they be that close
Just let me state for the record
We're giving love in a family dose
We are family (hey, y'all)
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing (sing it to me)
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing
Living life is fun and we've just begun
To get our share of this world's delights
(High) high hopes we have for the future
And our goal's in sight
(We) no, we don't get depressed
Here's what we call our golden rule
Have faith in you and the things you do
You won't go wrong, oh no
This is our family jewel
We are family (hey, sing it to me)
I got all my sisters with me
We are family (oh, I can hear you now)
Get up everybody and sing
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family (get up, get up y'all)
Get up everybody and sing
We are family (I got my sisters with me)
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing (get up and sing it to me)
We are family
@2:54 ish
I mean,,, 3% of DNA is still A LOT of gene pairs.
It's not 3% of the DNA, It's a 3% probability to have gotten any DNA from them
Cousin marriage is extremely common, and provided you don't pull a Habsburg, not that harmful.
The explanation on its prohibition provided by evolutionary psychology is the same as why the Catholic Church prohibits marriage and children for its priests.
When powerful families trade offspring, their genetic futures become linked and both families now have a common interest in the grandchildren passing on their genes. This concentrates power, wealth, and social status. I've heard this called "clanning".
The first and second estates (royalty and clergy) have a vested interest in making sure that their power is not challenged.
This is pretty well demonstrated in game of thrones and European history, amongst other more scientific literature
i feel like the more straightforward explanation for why cousin marriage is generally frowned upon is for similar reasons to sibling incest - there's a general opposition to sexual or romantic connection with people that we grow up too close to, or resemble too closely, ingrained into us to encourage genetic diversity.
prior to modern times where nuclear family lives became more common, you'd typically spend a lot more time with your cousins than you do now, so the same instinctive repulsion people feel about sibling incest would kick in more often for your cousins.
even today most people that marry cousins are usually marrying people they only met later in life or only knew in passing when they were younger.
A child of two first cousins is as likely to be born with defects as a child of an unrelated couple would be. In other words, it's completely safe.
If two pairs of first cousins (say, two brothers and their two female cousins) both have children together, THOSE children are ALSO first cousins but share a percentage of DNA closer to that of siblings. These children would most likely be born okay, same as before.
HOWEVER, if these two sibling-like first cousins had kids, their child would be at a much higher risk of defects due to their significant shared DNA. So it's better to just say "Nah, first cousins bad for child"
@@ungulatemanalpha there's a social and genetic element, I feel like marrying a step-sibling you grew up with your whole life seems weirder than marrying a long lost sibling you never met before you started dating, that’s not about genes. I'm not sure if the factor about growing up near your cousin when you don’t live in the same house is the reason it’s frowned upon, because nobody questions it if you start dating your childhood best friend you grew alongside, so that’s not about proximity. One being stronger is reason enough on its own (raised in the same house or being siblings), but the two combined don’t need to be as strong to create an aversion (seeing your cousin a lot growing up).
St. Augustine in the City of God clearly writes that it is much better for people to marry far outside their family tree as it joins disparate families together and gives them shared interest which increases earthly peace (countries, states, cities are more unlikely to go to war with one another if there has been commingling)
The freaking out revealed by the voice at the idea of first cousin marriages tells me you're from the US. The 30 US states that prohibit cousin marriages are pretty much the only places in the western world outside of the Balkans that gets its knickers in a knot about it o
Also, take into account that a lot of parents have a lot of children most of the time.
Keep up the good work bro
Considering mutations, how related actually are you to even your parents?
**Vsauce jingle starts**
To your parents? very, but I suppose if you go further back then it becomes more significant
Still around 50%. On average human DNA makes one unfixed base pair mutation every Billion base pairs. With 3 billion base pairs That is 3 every mitosis. The hayflick limit(where cells telomere DNA is to short from dividing) in humans is 40-60 dependent on cell type. So 120- 180 unfixed unique mutations in each cell lineage. However mutations are random so each 120-180 is in a different spot. This isn't much but adds up with age, and through generations. It is also lowered as any mutation that makes cells cancer is hunted down and killed by the natural killer cells in your immune system. This is even lower if you only count mutation in your gamete producing cells(the ones that pass down your DNA.
Any relation further than 8 generations away shares the same number of common genes with you as the next stranger.
The only problem with using data from someone else's tree is that they COULD have gotten stuff wrong. I'm using a competitor of MyHeritage and if you pick a tree created by a careless person, you get all sorts of anomalies in the tree.
1:18 "It's only good when they are blood-related!"
-Suou Yuki
I was just asking this question, searched this up on TH-cam and coincidentally, this video only uploaded 6 hours ago perfectly answers my question...
Does the math in the second half of the video consider the possibility that some of the genes you don't inherit from one parent might still be inherited from the other parent? E.g if an ancestor on your mother's side has their genes filtered out, is it possible that they could still show up in your genetic profile because their ancestors were also present on your father's side?
No two people from the same ethnic background are more distantly related than about fifth cousins.
With global travel increasing, this is currently changing! Today's children should on average be more distantly related than today's elderly.
Ironically, this also means that with the exception of isolated tribes, humanity on average is getting more closely related, but individuals are getting more genetically distant from people they live near.
Still, most of humanity's genetic diversity is in Africa, and it will be many generations before this changes.
What is the smallest N for which some nonhuman mammal is your Nth cousin? (Uncle Larry doesn't count.)
Surprised you didn’t try to do the math connecting the theory from where supposedly one time in human history where people became nearly extinct and had to bounce back from like 1000 people left
that's just a theory
For animal conservation purposes, a pool of 500 individuals is considered the minimal group needed for repopulation without significant inbreeding or genetic issues
@LoraLoibu so is gravity. Idk why you would say "just" a theory when there isn't any step above one
I'd also imagine that even without inbreeding, the chances of having duplicates also increases the higher you go up the tree
It's impossible for it to not be inbreeding.
my uncle was thrown out of the genepool for doing cannonballs.
he was also disqualified from the human race for shoving the other contestants.
I remember that Randal from XKCD covered this in his second book. Covered it slightly differently so I would recommend people watch Minute earth and read How to.
Hey, what is in the script @0:29? There looks like either Hindi or Thai script written in the white spitoon cloud? 0:29
I know Hindi script, and that's not Hindi script.
@@TheDunestrider Not to be the nitpicker but you mean you know the Devanagari script?
This is one of the first things we were taught in science class, to show us that models and simple extensions of graphs don't work indefinitely.
My mum says that Sir Apirana Ngata is her great great grand papa!
Personally, I think it’s a lot less about the blood or jeans you get more of the spiritual reality that you are descended from people who survived long enough to reproduce since the dawn of time
which is depressing since people are so weak today.....
Not even 45 seconds in and my brain hurts
Also, one thing I didn't see mention in the video, but historically speaking, there was a LOT more baby making going on, and women were busy being mothers at much younger ages than today, giving those women more time to raise more kids. Before modern medicine and the eradication of several major diseases, infant mortality was historically much higher and people were dying at much younger ages on average than we do now, so women needed to produce more kids to make up for the loses. Plus, child labor was also much more widespread back then than it is now and MUCH less frowned upon, so families with lots of kids would use them to help out the adults with chores.
…… and a lot more women dying in childbirth.
Thus the frequency of men having 2 or 3 wives sequentially, in history. The first wives died having babies.
And also thus the common “evil stepmother” trope.
My 3rd great grandmother was a descendant of the first laird of Argyle. 2 of my children married descendants of the first laird of Argyle that are at least 5th cousins.
A few years ago there was a church event where we were asked to link into “relatives near me”. I am a transplant yet of the thirty people that linked twenty-nine were relatives to me.
This sounds wrong, like scientifically. It sounds like the candy metaphore is about chromosomes and sure you get only a certain cpmbination of chromosomes. The problem is during meiosis the DNA in these chromosomes combines and recombinates so saying you don't have DNA from most of your ancestors is not correct I think
By natire, there can only be a finite number of building blocks, be they chromosomes, genes or aminoacids, in an individual's DNA code.
Furthermore, most of these are common to all humans, there is no variation. So we speak'about the variable human part.
On the other hand, going back, for example, 5000 years = 220~270 genrations, we have about 2^250 theoretical ancestors ~ 10^75.
Much more than the nbr of aminoacids in your genome.
(If I remember correctly, the Universe consists of 10^75 particles. Check.)
Pretty much every president is descended from some Plantagenet royal from like 1150
Pretty much everybody from Western Europe descent.
The percentage of blood kinship between first-degree cousins is only 12%, and second-degree cousins 3% That is, you are barely engaged, there is nothing preventing marriage
On the contrary: there was a lot of forking going on in our trees.
One of my friends found out he and his wife are related because 6 generations back their great great great great grandmothers were sisters.
Which is really funny because before that became known my friends father was up in arms about it being an "interracial" marriage.
Goes to show that it really dosen't take too long for genes pools to get divergent.
Hell as a red head with blue eyes and attached earlobes, I have a lot more immediately noticable recessive genes than most folks.
If me and a clone both had kids with separate partners I'd wager in 3 generations the grand kids would look very different from each other.
2:51 can you talk about how many people contributed that DNA? If my DNA is only comprised of a tiny slice of my ancestors from 1000AD, how many ancestors?
Right now, I have 100% DNA in common with 2 of my 2 parents 1 generation back, 100% in common with my 4 of my 4 grandparents 2 generations back, and supposedly entire portions of the tree will start to go missing as I fail to inherit everything from every ancestor, so I might have 100% in common with 900 of my 30000 ancestors 15 generations back (or whatever the math is).
What does the graph of that number look like as it goes from 2, to 4, to 900, and beyond? Does it converge towards some constant or no?
There is way too much uncertainty in that number. Yes, it is true that 100% of your inherited genes would come from the 4 grandparents collectively, but it is possible that the 100% is only coming from 3 or even just 2 of them, so the others being included in that number are already extraneous. It would be like saying 100% of your genes come from your parents and aunts and uncles. While technically true, the parents part of that statement is what covers the 100% since your aunts and uncles didn't contribute at all (though you are still likely to share genes with them). So, though it would still be accurate to say you have 100% from all 32,768 ancestors from 15 generations ago, there is no way to know how many of those are extraneous.
Once you get past your parents, it is going to wind up being a range from zero to some maximum of what each ancestor could have possibly passed to you. For grandparents, each one can provide 0-50% genes to you but will average around 25%. For great-grandparents, each one can provide 0-x% genes to you (where x is the amount that the corresponding grandparent is related), which will generally average to 12.5%. And so on. Of course, once overlap starts occurring, the likelihood of you having more genes from someone that comes from different sides of your family tree gets higher. I would think this is way too variable to produce any useful graph.
You don't inherit 100% from both parents... You get a semi-random 50% from each.
@@Ricksteady8 I know
When your uncle, your mother's half-brother, is her cousin on a certain level, you know this thing of billions of ancestors is nonsense.
I love the explanation of the ancestor paradox in the first part of the video, very nice for something not that intuitive. But doesn't the second part about inherited genes ignore what we just learned?
If we have much fewer ancestors that the 2^'number of generations' like you explained, does the math still work out to 50% chance of no genes inherited 10 generations back? Did you take the "inbreeing" into account in that calculation?
Interesting, though I do like the idea that "You are the result of an unbroken chain of ancestors dating back to the first cells". It makes people who are child free by choice even more badass, "I break the billions year old chain"
Going back 15 generations, I am the first born son of the first born son (records are spotty during the 18th century), and before that it goes back even further. My lineage fairly easy to track along that line, but beyond that it hurts the brain worse than my computer lags at the end of a game of Crusader Kings III when I open the family tree to track the 600 years of my dynasty (and my family has nearly 1000 years of recorded history).
also some candy(dna) packets might be so small that some of your ancestors might share a total copy making the total important ancestors less important. all of this is really good for the actual grandfather paradox of time travel, because maybe it's not really that important that that's your grandfather, when things mostly end up mostly the same anyway, cause being well less important to effect as multiple causes can bring about the same effect. really cuts down on many worlds problems too because multiple worlds can converge on a frame world that is the same.
Yes it's all very well me getting together with someone with ancestors from different countries from me - because that is the day and age we live in, where lots of people travel around an awful lot. But 5-10 generations ago a lot of our ancestors will have married people from the same village
I’m about to finish Chapterhouse: Dune, and I’m so glad I didn’t see this video **before** i read the whole series. Lol, genetic memory plays a HUGE role, but this kinda chops into it. XD
I have a great grand uncle named Gustav who lived in Oklahoma
My favourite piece of trivia is that every single human on Earth can trace a matrilineal line to one woman who lived between 100 to 200 thousands years ago.
Great explanation.
Seems the question switched halfway though.
The issue is numbers, you had parents, they had parents, they had parents. Going back too far you start to get incredible numbers of people.
Unless your mother is also your grandmother, that's still two unique parents required. Everyone has a mother, their mother a mother and so on. But one man could be a grandfather and father, as distasteful as that sounds, it's not as culturally acceptable as family mating.
Ultimately I feel the question wasn't answered. And if one wants to claim more then 37 generations the numbers continue to multiply
Thank you for the video!
Nice video! 🎉😊
There's probably some degree of inbreeding in the family.
0:39 how’d you get that correct?
And most people dont know this
My mom and dad have the same last names before marriage. No relations between the two family trees for at least 150 years, but definitely some time in the past the two trees merge.
Depends on what the root word of the name is. If it's profession based (Smith, Baker) then it could mean two unrelated people worked in the same field and if it's location based (Dale, Ford) then it could mean they lived in different places of similar topography.
2:36 i wonder if this calculation accounts for crossing over
I understand that the MinuteEarth format has a strict time budget, but I do think it would be wise to talk a bit more about the paradox before moving on to a solution. Was the reason you stopped at 37 generations back just that that's when the ancestors outnumber lived humans? How far back is that in years? How many generations have there been of humans?
These things make it easier to follow the next bit 😜
They might not inherit their genes directly, but the genes other are made of, did come as a result of them.
Best example? 6000 years ago Humans had hands, today we still have hands as a result of evolution and genes we inherited.
Therefore this whole video is stupid and irrelevant.
For those whom it concerns, MyHeritage, the sponsor of this video, is an Israeli company. Do with that information what you will.
wonder how the family tree would look like if we took it all the way to LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)
i read somewhere that its some Vietnamese lady..and i'd love to see the math of that
@jabber1990 the last universal common ancestor literally existed before the cambrian explosion
LUCA analysis would be interesting. The top 100 dna ancestors of each country.
when you have to end a video with "im not married to my cousin i promise" youve made a really interesting video lol
I have a big family tree and that's just going with my Dad's mom's side of the family (as I haven't been able to find much records on my mom's side nor my Dad's dad's side.) and not only do I have paperwork showing me descending from Jan Van Eyck I have DNA that was passed down from that area, while I can't say for certain if it was Jan Van Eyck himself passing DNA, the possibility for it is very high.
Its crazy to think we're all descended from just 1000 humans that almost went extinct about 900,000 years ago
3:05
"Good news guys, my wife and I are NOT cousins. I checked." No guys, no.
So you are saying that going down the Alabama route with the family is not a bad or an unnatural decision afterall.
What about "genes" that were from mutations, meaning an even smaller percentage of YOUR genes could be traced back only so far before it isn't really the same "gene" anymore.
"A lot of trees that just don't fork very much" I see what you did there…
3:37 David's grandmother's name was Sayde?? i.e. Yiddish for "Grandfather"?
I guess this video is for newer societies like the ones in Europe and America. In India, we have a concept of gothra where, well, at least in theory, you don't have any shared ancestors if you marry someone from another gothra. Marrying within a gothra is kind of like inbreeding, so it's not allowed.
when you have to end a video with "im not married to my cousin i promise" youve made a really interesting video lol😊
rock on, using the magic number 37 a lot in this vid!
One thing you left out is common genes... genes that multiple relatives had... the common color candy that every relative might have shared.
Also dominate traits too.
The trees might not have forked, but our ancestors sure did.
1:30 Some of us doesn't even have that option so we become the leaves of the tree
Weird question, but how many ppl does one village need to sustain itself on their gene pool?
Doesn’t the historical practice of inbreeding call into question the size of a gene pool needed for a group to reproduce and sustain a population (essentially how much inbreeding is too much inbreeding…😅).
If a canoe with 10 or 20 people on it landed on an uninhabited island like Hawaii and remained isolated for a couple hundred years, would that population survive or die out from inbreeding?
Most places on earth it's ok to marry your first cousin. There are even places in the US that it's still legal. As long as it's not frequent there is little risk health wise. The reason it's been outlawed in most of the US was political, not morality.
we dont have a family tree, if you zoom out enough, it is always a network