Glad you enjoyed it! See this video here to find out how DNA is used to tell the migration path and timing of Modern Humans out of Africa: th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
I am glad you liked it. Other videos have much more detail however this one gets to the point. I have other videos that do go in more depth and explain the archeology sites and DNA surrounding the migration out of Africa at these sites. th-cam.com/video/mWmUOW5LmGM/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/D06FYg4AalI/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/2YoG45Qa_NQ/w-d-xo.html
Personally, I do not think that human's migration out of Africa would have required a 'push factor' like climate or ecological change. Man is a hugely curious beast. With every generation they'd have stared and wondered at every obstacle in their paths: the mountains, the seas, the forests, lakes and deserts and would have contemplated what lay within and beyond. The intrepid amongst them would have explored - just as we did (and still do) in our more recent past.
Pretty good stuff. Worth to mention is that northern europes first people followed the receeding ice and settled around 20-25k years ago. The 12k years is the second migration into these lands.
Indian subcontinent and central asia(China )were the most populated part in medical period 😮. In modern period, they are the most populated regions in whole world. Crazy
Great video! Unfortunately, in the short time since it was released new findings have been published pushing back the earliest date of human migrations to the Americas. Footprints in White Sands National Park in Colorado have been dated to about 21 thousand years, adding to the growing body of evidence that humans came to the Americas much earlier than we previously thought.
In 2022, skeptics noted that age estimates relied on carbon dating Ruppia cirrhosa seeds, whose parent plants can intake carbon from groundwater, thereby potentially resulting in dates thousands of years too old. Another study in 2023 study that included radiocarbon dating of pollen and optically stimulated luminescence dating of quartz grains within the footprint layers corroborated the dates obtained from the seeds. I look forward to more evidence including fossilized bones or other artifacts we can study.
Given the period in which the Sahara was green, could not much of the migration out of Africa be simple population growth and expansion to new hunting grounds rather than compete with others still hunting in the older grounds, where the prey has learned to be wary of humans, while in new grounds, the prey is niave to humans?
There were larger ice sheets in North West Eurasia and most of Canada and Great lakes, and some ice sheets in Patagonia . Sea levels were however shallow by upto 120 M ( nearly 400 Feet) ,and many islands outside polar latitudes were larger in area . due to high pressure ones caused by cold air on ice sheets, the Jet Stream and its moisture bearing winds created more cloudy conditions over Mediterranean, North India, Iran and West Asia , as well as much of the United States. Tibet had an ice sheet and was uninhabited.
I believe on the subject of early humans not migrating migrating only towards east and not west is not because of "Neanderthals" but the ability for humans to adapt to colder weather with better clothing & better management of fire wood, oils etc to sustain prolonged winter. Once they had this ability they were able to migrate not just west but also towards the colder fronts like siberia.
the edge of the land was much closer to the east from Africa than to the west. I would think it's more likely the fact that the east had tons of uncharted land free from competition. If the land were a petri dish and you set the culture to one side then its simple math that the bacteria will take longer to inhabit the nutrient medium further away from the point that the life form originated from.
Recently it was found evidence of Polynesian people here in south America (Brazil), meaning that it is possible that we didn't come only from land expansions
My Brazilian friend showed me videos of tribes she suspected of having Polynesian roots Dancing. I'm Samoan, and, I saw a connection linguistically, and, through the dance. Also DNA of Chickens traced back to an Island groups Tonga,and, Samoa. Hence the chicken in Moana paying homage to the voyagers traveling with Chickens, and, Pigs in case they got stuck in a foreign place. They had everything needed to resettlement. Like modern man going to Mars.
Whats not talked about is how these early people even knew about other lands. Why would a group of people MAKE A RAFT in the first place? How did they know to travel the sea and what direction to go? Why go into the ocean, an unknown place in every aspect?
All great questions. When the sea level was lower between Asia and Australia because of the ice age (sea levels lowered by 300 to 400ft) I think they may have be able to see islands in-between the continents. Because of sea levels being lower, the largest sea crossing would be about 50 miles from one island to the next. Its not a huge ocean crossing journey. This video at @4:28 shows how the migration to Australia could have happened with island hopping. th-cam.com/video/gM-8awHljg4/w-d-xo.html. For the reason they did such a treacherous journey I cannot say with any confidence except to hypothesize: Its the same reasons why Columbus sailed across the Atlantic to America or why we went to the moon.
I don't think they had any idea about what direction to go . They gave zero f**ks because they had little to lose in terms of comfort and humans are adventurous .
India was the staging point out of africa. One linguist had once mentioned to me that many languages were invented in Indian subcontinent. I don't know how true it is. He said many kingdoms especially in east Asia used to send scholars to learn how to create languages. This would explain the existence of 1600+ languages in India and why so many languages around the world are related to Indian languages. Again, this is not a rigorous study, just random bits of information that I have come across.
Vedic scriptures and literatures have documented this migration of peoples from Indian Subcontinent into central asia, west asia, europe .....and also later of migration into India from central asia, west asia, east asia---for both types of migrations out and into Indian Subcontinent--the vedic literatue has plenty of documentation about their communities, tribes, people and tribal names, their languages, customs, writings, stories, rituals, gods, ethics, morals, societies, rules, goods and services, skills......along with geological markers, tsunami like, volcano like events plus astral markings of stars, planets, comets, supernovas, along with kings/ruler names, their lineages and what actually happened as human and geological events.
an excellent short presentation. will use as a way to explain to beginners for an overview. the only possible suggestion I have is to match the geography to the timeline ie Sahul and Sunda would be more correct when indigenous Australians migrated 60,000 years ago
There's a theory that the polynesians, also many thousands of years ago, with wayfinding techniques not only inhabited Hawaii but continued on to the Americas.
I like your thought experiment. All your comrades you hunt with would think you are crazy if you talked about your knowledge. How about this. Image living 100,000 years in the future and where humans might be.
In fact, Homo Sapinens had arrived in Eastern Europe at least 32000 years ago as is evident by Kostyonki-Borshchyovo archaeological complex near the city of Voronezh.
The first homo sapiens to enter Europe were already lighter skinned due to long term depigmentation caused by reduced sunlight in upper Middle East, Caucasus, central Asia , Iran, Northwest India etc . Surprise surprise - not much really.
Some weeks ago I was at the Neanderthal Museum near Düsseldorf in Germany, located in the actual Neanderthal. It is beautifully prepared to offer insights on an intellectual, visual as well as on a haptic level. Many things are to be touched and understood by using them as tools. But even some bones are reproductions, so you can get an idea of the sizes and shapes. Great for entire families.
Weird how you failed to mention that New Guinea was first settled by humans around the same time as in Australia, what's significant there is that these early humans interbred with denisovans
Thanks for your comment. It was the intention of this video was to clearly and succinctly explain human migration. I will review this subject for another video.
Tepsters Tips had a huge number of choices to make involving what to include and what leave for another video. Leaving out New Guinea was but one of them. I mean, I find value in your comment, since I did not know about it, and I note often how Denisovans get so little attention, so much so that I know very little about them, but I'm also hesitant to fault the producer's choices, since there no doubt were many choices made in creating an 8 minute video covering the broad sweep of migratory movementsof homo sapiens.
6:27 Northern expansion to Russia==> Your arrow shows from Uzbekistan to Bering Sea. But where did those in Uzbekistan come from? : Current India or China?
Likely India. I did a video on Q - DNA haplogroup migration and used the "World map of Y-DNA haplogroups." It shows at least the male haplogroups moving from India to Uzbekistan region. You can view that video here: th-cam.com/video/2YoG45Qa_NQ/w-d-xo.html
@@strafrag1 only Islam foretold that 1-human came from single human -Adam. 2-human is tribal by nature. and because of this to constantly learn out of each other and be respectful (christian and jewish might teach this number 1. other religion/faith might promote number 2. but only Islam complement both each other)
@@fktaufik9252 you don't have to be Islamic to know that humans are tribal ...every human knows this before the 7th century beginnings of Islam For millions of years beforehand
Nice succinct presentation on a vast subject. I thought the migration out of Africa had a fork on the road in the middle east, in Mesopotamia. One branch went to the East, and later the other to the the west, to southern europe & northern Africa. Also, recent studies and findings on the migration to the American continent show that (for now) human fossils found in South America pre-date those found in North America (so the Bering strait was not the only way to get here). Looking at the world map, I can see people getting on boats from the coasts of China and southeast Asia and landing in different points in the Americas ahead of the migration through the Bering strait. I wish we had well-qualified geneticists talking on these most recent events. South Pacific genes found in the middle of the Amazon?
There are 2 western branches that support a limited westerly migration from Africa via the Levant - one can be linked to YDNA Haplogroup E* - found in North Africa, middle east and South Europe but almost non existent in India , and another of Y DNA haplogroup IJ - which originated in the Zagros region and its child haplogroup I - found largely in Balkans Europe and rare to east of Iranian Zagros.
Some of scientists think that indians have migrated to northeast asia 25k years ago as you also shown at 6:25 of this video, but I think this is not true according to genetics. If we look at both ydna and mtdna, human migration routes continue from india to southeast asia and then southeast asians separate to east austronesia and northern east asia directions. Then, northern east asians separate to americas and central asia directions (back to europe, middle east and india). Siberians are not a mixture of indoeuropean + northern east asian. Siberians already are a continuation of northern east asians and their descendant northeast asians. Ydna shows this by continuation of some ydna haplogroups, southeast asian C1b, C2, D1, K2b ydna continue to northern east asia as mutated to C3, D3, N2, N3, O3, P1 ydna. (Indoeuropean ydna are F, G, H, I, J, K1, K2a, L, T ydna). Then, northern east asian P1 ydna continue to northeast asia, siberia as mutated to Q, R ydna. Major Q1b, minor R, C3 ydna migrate to americas. C3, N2, N3, P1, Q1a, R, R1a, R1b, R2 ydna migrate to central asia and then further europe, middle east, india. Similarly, M, N major mtdna haplogroups migrate from india to southeast asia as mutated to sub mtdna haplogroups like M, E, Q, O, C-Z, D, G, N, A-X, I-W, Y, S mtdna. (R partly migrate to europe as mutated H-V, J-T, U-K mtdna subgroup, partly migrate to southeast asia as B-P, F mtdna.) Southeast asian mtdna haplogroups separate to austronesia, australia, melanesia, polynesia and to southern east asia, northern east asia, northeast asia, siberia. Then, northern east asian, northeast asian, siberian B, C-Z, D, E, G, N, A-X, I-W, Y mtdna separate to americas and central asia. Partly A-X, B, C, D mtdna reach to americas. C-Z, D, E, G, N, A-X, I-W, Y mtdna reach to central asia. Even they have spread into europe, middle east as minor percentages. So, I mean both ydna and mtdna migration routes show mostly east asian migration route instead of direct migration route to siberia. Siberians were already northern east asian originated both ydna and mtdna genetically. Also, native american fenotypes resemble to northern east asian, siberian fenotypes. In my opinion, R1a, R1b ydna and A-X, I-W, N mtdna haplogroups are not european genetics. Instead, those are altaic siberia originated people who have reached to indoeurope (europe, middle east, india) and mixed with original indoeuropeans. Those haplogroups are uralic-altaic, dene-caucasian language speaking people originated from altaian siberia.
Most of those agglutinative N2, N3, Q1a, R1a, R1b ydna paternal linages of europe have intermixed with european H-V, J-T, U-K mtdna maternal linages. This is why they have converted to maternal indoeuropean languages and cultures.
Except 13,000 year old remains in North America have east asian dna along with almost every native american and we know they were here for atleast 25,000 years based off available evidence. The gault site, White sands, etc.
"Several prehistoric sites in Greece (Arcadia) reveal that our human ancestors hunted hippos and elephants between 280,000 and 700,000 years ago. The oldest site pushes back the earliest known hominin presence in the region (Greece) by up to 250,000 years." - Archaeologist Kristina Killgrove (Live Science)
Recently in 2017, a dig has found 315,000 year old fossils from Morocco could be earliest record of Homo Sapiens. In a cave at what is known as the Jebel Irhoud site, 5 ancient individuals were discovered. The researchers claim that this is a Homo Sapiens is still controversial, however because anthropologist are still debating exactly what physical features distinguish homo sapiens from our more primitive ancestors. I included on the map however didn't call it out verbally because it is still being discussed and scientist don't have a consensus on this site as Homo Sapiens.
Thanks for the great presentation! I understand that the harsh African climate makes it nearly impossible to preserve evidence of their existence, but a follow up program about the tools found in Africa (small tools, large tools, and other things) would be excellent!
Thank you for your comment. There are even claims of 120 thousand years ago however they are questionable on human occupation at that time. I review the archeology evidence in Australia in this video: th-cam.com/video/mWmUOW5LmGM/w-d-xo.html
Great question... I would like to know that too. Please see the other video I created on "Neanderthals out of Africa" here: th-cam.com/video/ykjgN6TxCPI/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for your question. The 300 red spot is a fossil finding in Jebel Irhoud in Morocco that dated back 315K years ago. Homo sapiens probably were in Africa earlier than 200K years ago and this could be evidence of this. However scientist have never found local indigenous DNA matches in Northern Africa that matches our direct early ancestors. Because of this, the fossils found in Morocco are likely not OUR Modern Human ancestors that left Africa but Homo Sapiens branch that died out. I explain it better in this video. th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
7:08, you can see the movement of humans from Southeastern Asia to Madagascar, a most unexpected turn of events. The modern people of Madagascar have more in common genetically with the aboriginals of Taiwan than they do with modern-day East Africans.
Recently in 2017, a dig has found 315,000 year old fossils from Morocco could be earliest record of Homo Sapiens. In a cave at what is known as the Jebel Irhoud site, 5 ancient individuals were discovered. The researchers claim that this is a Homo Sapiens is still controversial, however because anthropologist are still debating exactly what physical features distinguish homo sapiens from our more primitive ancestors. I included on the map however didn't call it out verbally because it is still being discussed and scientist don't have a consensus on this site as Homo Sapiens. In all cases homo sapiens did originated in Africa with other primates.
Thank you for your question. The 300 red spot is a fossil finding in Jebel Irhoud in Morocco that dated back 315K years ago. Homo sapiens probably were in Africa earlier than 200K years ago and this could be evidence of this. However scientist have never found local indigenous DNA matches in Northern Africa that matches our direct early ancestors. Because of this, the fossils found in Morocco are likely not OUR Modern Human ancestors that left Africa but Homo Sapiens branch that died out. I explain it better in this video. th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
In any group of humans, finding themselves in a new environment, there will be some of the more curious, more adventuresome, and more physically fit individuals who set out to explore new areas. Not all of these original homosapiens migrated. The ones who did not migrate are the ancestors of present-day Africa populations.
Please watch video again for clarity. There were other human species that left Africa however none were directly related to modern humans that are alive today.
They same way a wolf turns into a German Shepherd dog. We evolve to fit our environment. There is a great video here on this subject th-cam.com/video/D-Eh0jPstJY/w-d-xo.html
The BBC did a brilliant TV series on this called The Incredible Human Journey presented by Dr Alice Roberts. Absolutely fascinating and well worth watching. Apparently the Chinese are convinced that they derive from a completely separate source, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
@@karsaorlong3761 Two things: don't be so rude and insulting to anyone, especially someone you don't know and the theory hasn't been debunked. The theory now is that humans may well come from multiple sources, but all of them in Africa.
@@Lily_The_Pink972 how they can all come from africa if they discovered ancient humans in europe and asia before they migrated out of africa supposedly? out of africa theory is just a woke narrative liberals trying to spread, like other fake news, similar to the climate change hoax, try to keep up simpleton🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 look at all the propaganda west putting out in their proxy war in ukraine, same thing for this topic😂😂😂 so like 50,000 years ago, humans migrated out of africa and then magically turned to whites and asians, thats laughable🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 thats totally hilarious there are minds simple and coping desperate enough to believe that nonsense 🤣🤣🤣
@@stargazer-elite Kind of explains why a 'small band of humans' left Africa. Actually there may have been multiple waves of modern human migration , but one wave was more successful than every other.
Because humans and Neanderthals aren't really different species. We're considered two subspecies of the species Homo sapiens. I suppose a non-human analogy would be the different subspecies of tigers. If a male and a female from two different tiger subspecies, eg. a Bengal (Indian) tiger and an Amur (Siberian) tiger, which have significant physical differences, are put together in a zoo, they can breed and produce healthy and fertile offspring. But it means those offspring won't be well-adapted to live in either parent's natural environment. This is the reason most zoos don't allow the cross-breeding of different subspecies anymore, because if they're geared toward species conservation in the long term they have to think about more than just the immediate health and fertility of offspring. In the case of anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals, we hadn't been geographically separated long enough to evolve into two really distinct species. And as it turned out, humans interbreeding with Neanderthals once they migrated out of Africa turned out to be advantageous to their descendants, giving them better cold weather adaptation. But there were enough distinctive anatomical differences between Neanderthals and all living humans for science to classify them as a different subspecies. If we saw one now we would no doubt see him or her at first as not quite human, or at least a very strange-looking human. The thing is, though, it's not an exact science; in biology there's no clear cut-off point in which two species really become separate species. It all depends on the individuals' DNA, whether they can produce fertile offspring. Occasionally, even cross-species hybrids are fertile.
@@KathyPrendergast-cu5ci Two subspecies of the genus Homo, although one does see neanderthals called Homo sapiens neanderthalis in addition to plain Homo neanderthalis, suggesting that they were perhaps the result of an earlier wave of migration out of Africa, which ventured northwards into the Middle East region rather than hugging the coast.
@@grantogilvie3458 Very rarely; I think when the mother is a lioness and the father is a tiger the chances of it being fertile are different from that of the offspring of a lion and tigress, but either way these are matings that only occur in artificial zoo breeding situations, never in the wild. Wild lions and tigers would never go near each other, or if they did they’d just try to kill each other, not mate. There are some Asiatic lions but I don’t think they share any habitats with tigers. The offspring of lions and tigers are usually abnormally large (not advantageous for a wild animal) and have other physical compromises that makes the breeding of them pointless for species conservation.
Interesting i hadnt heard the theory that Homo Sapiens out of the Indian Subcontinent were the ones who initially populated Europe and western Eurasia.. i always figured there were 2 main routes of population one along the southern coastlines crossing the Yemen Arabian coasts toward South Asia, and another that followed the Nile and then through the Sinai and the Levant toward Europe. and not just once but in multiple waves, especially after the Toba eruption. Interesting how theres always a new way of looking at things, we know so little but theres a new piece to the puzzle being found every day. And just one when u think its all figured out a new piece enters the picture!
Genetically Europeans are quite similar to most South Asian people, even if most them have lighter skin and hair coloring; in the old four-race human classification system, both European and South Asian people were classified as Caucasians. They’re all believed to share a common ancestry with people who inhabited the Indian subcontinent for tens of thousands of years. They also share the same language family, Indo-European. Basically, linguists believe that most European languages, most of those spoken in the Indian subcontinent, and many others, all evolved from a single language called Proto Indo-European, which could have been spoken as long as 40,000 years ago.
@@KathyPrendergast-cu5ci Yes makes sense. havent heard of indo european being that old specifically myself, although in sure it must have root itself in older Eurasian languages. it is the subtleties and directions of population routes that are fascinating. there are many lines involved over time. and in some cases genes can also travel with out direct interactions through intermediate populations. although direct contact happens as well
Thanks for your comments. DNA is the key bit of evidence that I used with fossil information. DNA tells how each of us are related all the way back to Africa. Using DNA to define where "Eve" could have lived leads us to southern and eastern Africa as scientist have tested the local native population and found their mitochondrial DNA is the root DNA of modern humans today.
@@KathyPrendergast-cu5ci Indian subcontinent( & likely Iran) incubated homo sapiens for its journey to colder latitudes.The earliest humans were opportunistic beachcombers who stuck to warm weathered coasts hence explaining why they reached Australia pretty early on. It took a prolonged time for humans in India, Iran, Iraq etc to forge into colder latitudes of West Eurasia, and similarly China incubated humans before they expanded into temperate East Eurasia and Americas. During these times humans likely interbred with cold adapted Neanderthals and Denisovans also , and these older hominids had acquired genes & cultural adaptation to colder weather from even earlier hominids like Asiatic H Erectus.
My DNA results show that I am a R1A1. Ancestors of this DNA passed thru Indian subcontinent 70000 years ago, traveled to Southern China , Northern China, arriving in Siberia 26000 years ago. From there it went to Ukrine, Iran and finally India.
As a layman, I ponder why the constant thrust into new lands, more so movements over seas. Arguments due lack of resources, climate, etc; don’t cut it as populations were left behind. Or did more superior beings push the lesser on?
Recently in 2017, a dig has found 315,000 year old fossils from Morocco could be earliest record of Homo Sapiens. In a cave at what is known as the Jebel Irhoud site, 5 ancient individuals were discovered. The researchers claim that this is a Homo Sapiens is still controversial, however because anthropologist are still debating exactly what physical features distinguish homo sapiens from our more primitive ancestors. I included on the map however didn't call it out verbally because it is still being discussed and scientist don't have a consensus on this site as Homo Sapiens.
We are discussing two different time frames here. Human migration happened fairly recently 70,000 years ago. Continental drift started 200 million years ago The continents have drifted less than 1 mile in the last 70,000 years. What’s has changed in the last 70,000 years is sea levels were lower 300 to 400 feet. See other video “human migration with ice age maps” on this channel for what that meant for human how the continents might have looked. th-cam.com/video/GX2n6sHa25w/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for your comment and Yes, I agree. I have a video on that one to called "Map of first humans migration to Australia" located here th-cam.com/video/mWmUOW5LmGM/w-d-xo.html
Remember that these types of explanations are extreme simplifications. Actual human migration patterns/ history is a MESS since people moved in EVERY direction back and forth again. There were no single direct migrations over long distances. A surprising bit of genetic trivia is that the people MOST genetically different from people in Africa today are other Africans. There's more genetic differences within Africa today than there is between Africa and the other continents.
@bridgecross Indeed. One hypothesis is coastal paths were easier to migrate and the Denisovans that may have lived on the coast were easier to overwhelm than the Neanderthal path.
It's NOT just "only" climate conditions that made him sapiens TRAVERSE across continents, IT'S ALSO about CURIOSITY and the NEED to CLAIM new lands / areas as "their OWN" as well.✅✅✅
hes said rapid expansion in 2000 years from Canada to south America. thats a lot of time in last 2 k years the amount of world history. ots same amount of time.
In discussions like this, I find it useful to remember that the time period between, say, evidence of humans in SE Asia and the first evidence of humans in Australia is 15,000 years! That is roughly the same amount of time as between the first agriculture and the modern day. Why are we asking about one voyage (on purpose or accidental) to Australia? 15,000 years is a VERY LONG TIME. There could have been centuries of exploration and generations of sailors which finally ended up with land fall on the newly discovered continent. That is the interesting question. We don't need to ask the question of whether it was an accident or not. We just need to remember that it took 15,000 of culture and humans sailing little boats. And then we can delve into the history of Australians and the 3000 years or so it took for ALL the large animals on that continent to be hunted and driven to extinction.
75,000 years and counting - witness the change of the landscape, from the ice age to the times of sea rise all the stories are firsthand accounts passed down through each generation. Megafauna hunted to extinction? Megafauna died out because of the change in climate over the many thousands of years. 15,000 years is a long way off
Much of it is proven through DNA testing, human fossils that are found, carbon dating, tools and weapons, soil layer dating and other science. DNA testing has brought a whole new science to archeology.
@@tepsterstips So human remains were found and DNA and carbon dating was done to them to determine how old they were and where they came from? How does that necessarily indicate a specific travel path? Is it like breadcrumbs with dead bodies? Also what does the 300 near morocco mean?
Please see this video on this channel that explains how DNA haplogroups, subclades and molecular clocks that determine which DNA was present first in an region and the timing of migrations. th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html By testing living indigenous human DNA we can determine which haplogroup originated in each region and by determining which haplogroup is a subclade of another we can determine path.
How can the "out of Africa' theory be true if all modern races have the most DNA in common with the people of Indonesia??? Pretty strong evidence that hominids originated in Indonesia and then moved into Africa...not the other way around...
The root Y haplogroup A00 originated in Africa. Indonesia DNA are subclades to the African DNA making them younger. Check out this video on the DNA testing evidence Humans out of Africa || DNA results are in th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
The stone tools discovered in Athirampakkam, Tamil Nadu dates back more than 3 lakh years .. Then how come out of Africa theory be true? This pushes human migration some 2 lakh years back or some other reason? Kindly explain
Thank you for your comment. The tools were likely Denisovans or their earlier ancient human ancestors that did not survive to be our direct ancestors. There were more than 9 human species that have been identified by fossil records. Some of them exited Africa earlier than modern humans however they didn't survive to be our direct ancestors. The map in the video explains when and how our direct ancestors left Africa. Recently we found out they left Africa 70,000 years ago because of DNA sequencing technology. th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html This video explains how DNA can tell the history of our ancestors:
This find is interesting. This video explains why these numbers are disputed and consensus has not been established if dates are reliable. th-cam.com/video/mWmUOW5LmGM/w-d-xo.html
It comes with the subject. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. What I would like is to see in comments is competing theories with evidence and not a hate for scientific approach to understanding our pre-historic origins.
Thank you for your comment. There are no fossil evidence of humans being older than about 14 thousand year old in SA or linking them to evolution from other species in SA.
There were modern humans in the southern part of North America 26,000 years ago as evidenced by the footprints found at White Sands in New Mexico, also why would they travel across Siberia and to North America but not settle anywhere on the way until 12,000 years ago? The rapid expansion of humans into the Americas is easily explained by two factors, first off they were there at least twice as long as previously believed and adds more that 10,000 years to the equation and secondly there were no other humans here. In every other part of the world there were other species of humans to compete against (except Australia).
@@tepsterstips www.nps.gov/whsa/learn/nature/fossilized-footprints.htm www.usgs.gov/programs/climate-research-and-development-program/news/discovery-ancient-human-footprints-white I did miss remember the date, it is 23,000 and not 26,000 years ago but the point still stands.
According to research, data and studies, Homosapien is only 500 000 years old,,, According to the Lucy theory it is 2 000 000 years old,,, I think there was multiple human species, and developped in different regions,,, Yes we might share some DNA resemblance, or vstructural resemblance, but we are not all descendents from the same species,,, Australian Indegineous people are still the same for thousands of years and nothing proves that they interacyed with the other Homoerectus or other human species,,, Either there was an external intervention, or arrival, which created a mixture, some archeological evidence show that option very plausable,,,
Thanks for your comment. Lucy was not a homo sapiens species she was a Australopithecus Afarensis. As for human species there were at least nine of them and some of them evolved outside of Africa. Our DNA tells us the history of our ancestors and how we are related to each other as Modern Homo Sapiens. We could only do this in the last 20 years or so and our database is large enough now that we are sure our Homo Sapiens ancestors came out of Africa. Africa is where the oldest DNA haplogroup is present. It is interesting that all the other human species died out and what was left is the Homo Sapiens who migrated from Africa 70,000 years ago. This video on the channel discusses how DNA is used to tell when and where our ancestors migrated from. th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
@@tepsterstips Homo sapiens fossil in Greece at Apidima Cave dated at around 210,000 years ago was found,,, Also, we are always missing the beginning of any of our ancestral species,,, We assume that the Homosapien Sapien is round 495000 yeras old, but where did come from,,, We know a lot of species desappeared, but there is a big gap between the disappearing specie and the new appearing species,,,
@@tepsterstips - As I understand it, Lucy was the perfect size … 100 cm (just a bit over 3’), with a flat head so you could set a beer on top … That’s why the male Homosapiens of the day so liked the female Australopithecuses …
Good question: I responded to a similar question 6 days ago and I will repost the answer here. Recently in 2017, a dig has found 315,000 year old fossils from Morocco could be earliest record of Homo Sapiens. In a cave at what is known as the Jebel Irhoud site, 5 ancient individuals were discovered. The researchers claim that this is a Homo Sapien is still controversial, however because anthropologist are still debating exactly what physical features distinguish homo sapiens from our more primitive ancestors. I included on the map however didn't call it out verbally because it is still being discussed and scientist don't have a consensus on this site as Homo Sapiens. In all cases homo sapiens did originated in Africa with other primates. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebel_Irhoud
This video explains and show how key migration regions looked during the Ice Age. th-cam.com/video/IcdRkeTb6gM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=q5Z381skXg60hOji. Ice age sea levels were included in the analysis in the original video. However this video makes it clear.
Not true. There were two actual Eves: one was the first human Eve (Either God created or evolved from something non-human: it doesn’t matter how creation is viewed. I hope you are not suggesting a clan evolved all at once.) The second was the first woman with the mtDNA. The women must have actually, not only existed, but had at least one child who survived until they reproduced. So your statement about not an actual Eve is elegant, bring twice absolutely incorrect. It is hard to be so incorrect. You are also incorrect in saying that a water migration had to be by raft. Have they found an artifact or is it just you can not think of another way this could have occurred. I would have similar respect if you said that the woman must have carried all small children or no children accompanied the migration: families were only raised after the migration was complete. Might be right, but based in pure speculation.
100% Wrong. Humans invented the Biblical story because they had Zero Science to base anything on. The human race was on earth thousands of years before the invention of religion. Do yourself a favor and get some education.
what doesnt make sense on your map is how you said humans only went into sibiria 12,000 years ago due to icecaps retreating but then you later said people went thru russia to america 25,000 years ago.. that doesnt really make sense, at least in the way you describe it... cos people migrate bit by bit.. they wouldnt just cross the entirety of russia in one go.. one family looking randomly for america.. surely theyd have settled in russia first or the coastlines of russia north east of korea.. before going to north america?
@@jacksonmacd there are plenty of theories that various other people arrived in the americas at different times.. from vikings.. to chinese... to africans... but these were mostly much later in history... have they ever done proper genetic studies of any remaining indigenous peoples from each area? there are still mapuche in chile, maya/aztec origin people in guatemala... native tribes in north america.. it would be easier to see the real truth of migration if one had a complete genetic coding.. although whether these people would want that is the thing..
The Ice sheets over Europe during the last ice age extended into Northern Europe and Northwestern Asia however because of different weather patterns the area in Northeast Asia was Ice free allowing the earlier migration of humans into Americas. www.usgs.gov/media/images/glaciers-extended-over-much-europe-during-last-ice-age
The Karoo Ice Age, also known as the Late Paleozoic Ice Age was an ice age that began in the Late Devonian and ended in the Late Permian, occurring from 360 to 255 million years ago. This was a long time before humans existed. Our remote ancestors were probably on the Gondwana supercontinent.
@@Cove-o4d 𝐈𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐞. The question I was responding to was about the Karoo Ice Age which finished about 255 million years ago. At this time, our ancestors had been terrestrial for millions of years.
The sea levels were much lower 50k years ago so first humans to Australia would not have needed to cover large ocean journey. More like island hopping.
With sea levels 50K years ago they would have needed to travel 60 miles in open ocean for the largest part of the sea going journey. But I agree its not a trans-Pacific journey.
I don’t believe we are seeing where humans originated from. I believe we are seeing where humanity survived a catastrophic event that was so severe that the only people who survived it were in East Africa and a few other remote locations
@richardcrainium I certainly agree. Thanks for watching the video and making this clarifying point. Humans, as a species, and there were at least 9 of them, were around much longer than 200 thousand years ago. DNA from current native populations in Africa, shows our modern human ancestors were the lucky survivors in East Africa that went on to populate the world.
Good question: I responded to a similar question 6 days ago and I will repost the answer here. Recently in 2017, a dig has found 315,000 year old fossils from Morocco could be earliest record of Homo Sapiens. In a cave at what is known as the Jebel Irhoud site, 5 ancient individuals were discovered. The researchers claim that this is a Homo Sapien is still controversial, however because anthropologist are still debating exactly what physical features distinguish homo sapiens from our more primitive ancestors. I included on the map however didn't call it out verbally because it is still being discussed and scientist don't have a consensus on this site as Homo Sapiens. In all cases homo sapiens did originated in Africa with other primates. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebel_Irhoud
Why and how humans evolved only from Africa? other areas in inhabitable? Is that humans big bang???? Does maternal mRNA and other genetics say that is started there and exactly that many years ago? How??
First migration out,of Africa confined below tropical pathwayway of the sun in circumference to the planet due to climate change brought on by numerous volcanic activities many from Indonesia,that reached the African continent the rest for Geologists to analyse its historical occurrence occurrence.
Great job. This is more clearly and succinctly explained than any videos I've seen on the subject.
Glad you enjoyed it! See this video here to find out how DNA is used to tell the migration path and timing of Modern Humans out of Africa: th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
Massive respect for these early homosapiens! I'm having trouble migrating off my lounge to the kitchen to get a drink....
I migrated to the fridge and made a chicken sandwich then migrated back to watch the video. One heck of a journey .
Extremely clear and concise presentation. The simplicity, graphics and dates enabled even me to follow it. Compliments.
I am glad you liked it. Other videos have much more detail however this one gets to the point. I have other videos that do go in more depth and explain the archeology sites and DNA surrounding the migration out of Africa at these sites.
th-cam.com/video/mWmUOW5LmGM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/D06FYg4AalI/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/2YoG45Qa_NQ/w-d-xo.html
100% false
Personally, I do not think that human's migration out of Africa would have required a 'push factor' like climate or ecological change. Man is a hugely curious beast. With every generation they'd have stared and wondered at every obstacle in their paths: the mountains, the seas, the forests, lakes and deserts and would have contemplated what lay within and beyond. The intrepid amongst them would have explored - just as we did (and still do) in our more recent past.
First time I've seen a reference to the 2k years to migrate from Alaska to the tip of South America. Thanks. Enjoyed the whole video.
Wow, that's actually pretty fast, from the North to way down South!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Pretty good stuff. Worth to mention is that northern europes first people followed the receeding ice and settled around 20-25k years ago. The 12k years is the second migration into these lands.
While the ocean voyage to Australia is significant, recall that lower sea levels brought Indonesia and Australia much closer together.
Yes. I encourage you to watch other videos on this channel about this subject. th-cam.com/video/gM-8awHljg4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=QilAMm1glVIWh79Y
Indian subcontinent and central asia(China )were the most populated part in medical period 😮. In modern period, they are the most populated regions in whole world. Crazy
A very informative history of human migration. Thanks a lot for this very good video.
Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching.
Great video! Unfortunately, in the short time since it was released new findings have been published pushing back the earliest date of human migrations to the Americas. Footprints in White Sands National Park in Colorado have been dated to about 21 thousand years, adding to the growing body of evidence that humans came to the Americas much earlier than we previously thought.
In 2022, skeptics noted that age estimates relied on carbon dating Ruppia cirrhosa seeds, whose parent plants can intake carbon from groundwater, thereby potentially resulting in dates thousands of years too old. Another study in 2023 study that included radiocarbon dating of pollen and optically stimulated luminescence dating of quartz grains within the footprint layers corroborated the dates obtained from the seeds. I look forward to more evidence including fossilized bones or other artifacts we can study.
Given the period in which the Sahara was green, could not much of the migration out of Africa be simple population growth and expansion to new hunting grounds rather than compete with others still hunting in the older grounds, where the prey has learned to be wary of humans, while in new grounds, the prey is niave to humans?
I believe "getting away from your family" was the driver for trans-global human migration
What did the area look like 170,000 years ago? Sea levels, rivers, seas would have been different and mountains are a major factor in migration.
There were larger ice sheets in North West Eurasia and most of Canada and Great lakes, and some ice sheets in Patagonia . Sea levels were however shallow by upto 120 M ( nearly 400 Feet) ,and many islands outside polar latitudes were larger in area . due to high pressure ones caused by cold air on ice sheets, the Jet Stream and its moisture bearing winds created more cloudy conditions over Mediterranean, North India, Iran and West Asia , as well as much of the United States. Tibet had an ice sheet and was uninhabited.
@@ArrowBast Yep and Australia was joined to Papua New guinea for most of this period. They could have walked most of the way.
Nicely done. ✔️ G'day from Australia 🇦🇺
Thanks 👍
I believe on the subject of early humans not migrating migrating only towards east and not west is not because of "Neanderthals" but the ability for humans to adapt to colder weather with better clothing & better management of fire wood, oils etc to sustain prolonged winter. Once they had this ability they were able to migrate not just west but also towards the colder fronts like siberia.
I was thinking the same thing. But at the same time, how did Neanderthals adapt to the cold too?
the edge of the land was much closer to the east from Africa than to the west. I would think it's more likely the fact that the east had tons of uncharted land free from competition. If the land were a petri dish and you set the culture to one side then its simple math that the bacteria will take longer to inhabit the nutrient medium further away from the point that the life form originated from.
Recently it was found evidence of Polynesian people here in south America (Brazil), meaning that it is possible that we didn't come only from land expansions
Yeah but there another theory that has only been put on the table that natives went to Polynesian islands
Also I thought the evidence was found in easter island
@@roblogs7168 Easter Island was inhabited before Polynesian people showed up. This is known history among the people on Easter Island.
@@ccoodd26 yes I heard hence why some people speculate that native Americans could have gone to Polynesian islands as well
My Brazilian friend showed me videos of tribes she suspected of having Polynesian roots Dancing. I'm Samoan, and, I saw a connection linguistically, and, through the dance. Also DNA of Chickens traced back to an Island groups Tonga,and, Samoa. Hence the chicken in Moana paying homage to the voyagers traveling with Chickens, and, Pigs in case they got stuck in a foreign place. They had everything needed to resettlement. Like modern man going to Mars.
Well done my friend. Well organized, clear interesting voice. I learned something. Thanks
I especially like your narration. I generally abort viewing anything with a robovoice!👍🌹
You have learned nothing but lies
Glad you enjoyed it
Whats not talked about is how these early people even knew about other lands. Why would a group of people MAKE A RAFT in the first place? How did they know to travel the sea and what direction to go? Why go into the ocean, an unknown place in every aspect?
All great questions. When the sea level was lower between Asia and Australia because of the ice age (sea levels lowered by 300 to 400ft) I think they may have be able to see islands in-between the continents. Because of sea levels being lower, the largest sea crossing would be about 50 miles from one island to the next. Its not a huge ocean crossing journey.
This video at @4:28 shows how the migration to Australia could have happened with island hopping. th-cam.com/video/gM-8awHljg4/w-d-xo.html. For the reason they did such a treacherous journey I cannot say with any confidence except to hypothesize: Its the same reasons why Columbus sailed across the Atlantic to America or why we went to the moon.
I don't think they had any idea about what direction to go . They gave zero f**ks because they had little to lose in terms of comfort and humans are adventurous .
India was the staging point out of africa. One linguist had once mentioned to me that many languages were invented in Indian subcontinent. I don't know how true it is. He said many kingdoms especially in east Asia used to send scholars to learn how to create languages. This would explain the existence of 1600+ languages in India and why so many languages around the world are related to Indian languages. Again, this is not a rigorous study, just random bits of information that I have come across.
Vedic scriptures and literatures have documented this migration of peoples from Indian Subcontinent into central asia, west asia, europe .....and also later of migration into India from central asia, west asia, east asia---for both types of migrations out and into Indian Subcontinent--the vedic literatue has plenty of documentation about their communities, tribes, people and tribal names, their languages, customs, writings, stories, rituals, gods, ethics, morals, societies, rules, goods and services, skills......along with geological markers, tsunami like, volcano like events plus astral markings of stars, planets, comets, supernovas, along with kings/ruler names, their lineages and what actually happened as human and geological events.
an excellent short presentation. will use as a way to explain to beginners for an overview.
the only possible suggestion I have is to match the geography to the timeline ie Sahul and Sunda would be more correct when indigenous Australians migrated 60,000 years ago
Thank you for your comment. Please see this video that addresses your suggested edits. th-cam.com/video/GX2n6sHa25w/w-d-xo.htmlsi=oHZffOf9Jrc4EDzD
There's a theory that the polynesians, also many thousands of years ago, with wayfinding techniques not only inhabited Hawaii but continued on to the Americas.
The Polynesians settled the islands relatively recently, some as late as around 1200 CE
Imagine living 100,000+ years ago with the knowledge you have today? Crazy thought experiment!
I like your thought experiment. All your comrades you hunt with would think you are crazy if you talked about your knowledge. How about this. Image living 100,000 years in the future and where humans might be.
In fact, Homo Sapinens had arrived in Eastern Europe at least 32000 years ago as is evident by Kostyonki-Borshchyovo archaeological complex near the city of Voronezh.
The first homo sapiens to enter Europe were already lighter skinned due to long term depigmentation caused by reduced sunlight in upper Middle East, Caucasus, central Asia , Iran, Northwest India etc . Surprise surprise - not much really.
Filthy Slav Untermensch of course you'd say that and thats not true the nordic region and southern regions of Europe were inhabited first
Some weeks ago I was at the Neanderthal Museum near Düsseldorf in Germany, located in the actual Neanderthal. It is beautifully prepared to offer insights on an intellectual, visual as well as on a haptic level. Many things are to be touched and understood by using them as tools. But even some bones are reproductions, so you can get an idea of the sizes and shapes. Great for entire families.
Weird how you failed to mention that New Guinea was first settled by humans around the same time as in Australia, what's significant there is that these early humans interbred with denisovans
@@andrewcarr3650What kind of sick racist freak fo you have to be? Neanderthal a ss mf
@@andrewcarr3650 "astonishingly monkey like individual". Denisovans aren't monkeys, they looked pretty similar to humans.
Thanks for your comment. It was the intention of this video was to clearly and succinctly explain human migration. I will review this subject for another video.
Tepsters Tips had a huge number of choices to make involving what to include and what leave for another video. Leaving out New Guinea was but one of them. I mean, I find value in your comment, since I did not know about it, and I note often how Denisovans get so little attention, so much so that I know very little about them, but I'm also hesitant to fault the producer's choices, since there no doubt were many choices made in creating an 8 minute video covering the broad sweep of migratory movementsof homo sapiens.
Well said
6:27 Northern expansion to Russia==> Your arrow shows from Uzbekistan to Bering Sea. But where did those in Uzbekistan come from? : Current India or China?
Likely India. I did a video on Q - DNA haplogroup migration and used the "World map of Y-DNA haplogroups." It shows at least the male haplogroups moving from India to Uzbekistan region. You can view that video here:
th-cam.com/video/2YoG45Qa_NQ/w-d-xo.html
@@tepsterstips I have Central Asian background, close to Uzbekistan. So, we were Indians before :)
Fabulous science. We are all one. When will we ever learn?
Human nature is purely tribal ..there's nothing more to learn on top of this entrenched characteristic
We’re not all one though are we.
@@stevendavis2122 No, because of human nature, religions and prejudice.
@@strafrag1 only Islam foretold that
1-human came from single human -Adam.
2-human is tribal by nature. and because of this to constantly learn out of each other and be respectful
(christian and jewish might teach this number 1. other religion/faith might promote number 2. but only Islam complement both each other)
@@fktaufik9252 you don't have to be Islamic to know that humans are tribal ...every human knows this before the 7th century beginnings of Islam
For millions of years beforehand
Very knowledgeable video 🤳
Glad you think so! Thanks for watching
Very informative.
I am Glad you liked it
Nice succinct presentation on a vast subject. I thought the migration out of Africa had a fork on the road in the middle east, in Mesopotamia. One branch went to the East, and later the other to the the west, to southern europe & northern Africa. Also, recent studies and findings on the migration to the American continent show that (for now) human fossils found in South America pre-date those found in North America (so the Bering strait was not the only way to get here). Looking at the world map, I can see people getting on boats from the coasts of China and southeast Asia and landing in different points in the Americas ahead of the migration through the Bering strait. I wish we had well-qualified geneticists talking on these most recent events. South Pacific genes found in the middle of the Amazon?
There are 2 western branches that support a limited westerly migration from Africa via the Levant - one can be linked to YDNA Haplogroup E* - found in North Africa, middle east and South Europe but almost non existent in India , and another of Y DNA haplogroup IJ - which originated in the Zagros region and its child haplogroup I - found largely in Balkans Europe and rare to east of Iranian Zagros.
100% false
Well done. I learned quite a bit. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Some of scientists think that indians have migrated to northeast asia 25k years ago as you also shown at 6:25 of this video, but I think this is not true according to genetics.
If we look at both ydna and mtdna, human migration routes continue from india to southeast asia and then southeast asians separate to east austronesia and northern east asia directions. Then, northern east asians separate to americas and central asia directions (back to europe, middle east and india).
Siberians are not a mixture of indoeuropean + northern east asian. Siberians already are a continuation of northern east asians and their descendant northeast asians.
Ydna shows this by continuation of some ydna haplogroups, southeast asian C1b, C2, D1, K2b ydna continue to northern east asia as mutated to C3, D3, N2, N3, O3, P1 ydna. (Indoeuropean ydna are F, G, H, I, J, K1, K2a, L, T ydna).
Then, northern east asian P1 ydna continue to northeast asia, siberia as mutated to Q, R ydna. Major Q1b, minor R, C3 ydna migrate to americas. C3, N2, N3, P1, Q1a, R, R1a, R1b, R2 ydna migrate to central asia and then further europe, middle east, india.
Similarly, M, N major mtdna haplogroups migrate from india to southeast asia as mutated to sub mtdna haplogroups like M, E, Q, O, C-Z, D, G, N, A-X, I-W, Y, S mtdna. (R partly migrate to europe as mutated H-V, J-T, U-K mtdna subgroup, partly migrate to southeast asia as B-P, F mtdna.)
Southeast asian mtdna haplogroups separate to austronesia, australia, melanesia, polynesia and to southern east asia, northern east asia, northeast asia, siberia.
Then, northern east asian, northeast asian, siberian B, C-Z, D, E, G, N, A-X, I-W, Y mtdna separate to americas and central asia. Partly A-X, B, C, D mtdna reach to americas. C-Z, D, E, G, N, A-X, I-W, Y mtdna reach to central asia. Even they have spread into europe, middle east as minor percentages.
So, I mean both ydna and mtdna migration routes show mostly east asian migration route instead of direct migration route to siberia. Siberians were already northern east asian originated both ydna and mtdna genetically. Also, native american fenotypes resemble to northern east asian, siberian fenotypes.
In my opinion, R1a, R1b ydna and A-X, I-W, N mtdna haplogroups are not european genetics. Instead, those are altaic siberia originated people who have reached to indoeurope (europe, middle east, india) and mixed with original indoeuropeans. Those haplogroups are uralic-altaic, dene-caucasian language speaking people originated from altaian siberia.
Most of those agglutinative N2, N3, Q1a, R1a, R1b ydna paternal linages of europe have intermixed with european H-V, J-T, U-K mtdna maternal linages. This is why they have converted to maternal indoeuropean languages and cultures.
Thank you for your comments. They are very informative.
That's correct - North East India to Interior South East Asia ( Myanmar, Thailand Laos) and then one branch moves north to Central China via Yunnan .
Except 13,000 year old remains in North America have east asian dna along with almost every native american and we know they were here for atleast 25,000 years based off available evidence. The gault site, White sands, etc.
i enjoyed this presentation.
Glad you enjoyed it!
"Several prehistoric sites in Greece (Arcadia) reveal that our human ancestors hunted hippos and elephants between 280,000 and 700,000 years ago. The oldest site pushes back the earliest known hominin presence in the region (Greece) by up to 250,000 years." - Archaeologist Kristina Killgrove (Live Science)
The "300" in northwest Algeria is intriguing. Please explain this highest number.
Recently in 2017, a dig has found 315,000 year old fossils from Morocco could be earliest record of Homo Sapiens. In a cave at what is known as the Jebel Irhoud site, 5 ancient individuals were discovered. The researchers claim that this is a Homo Sapiens is still controversial, however because anthropologist are still debating exactly what physical features distinguish homo sapiens from our more primitive ancestors. I included on the map however didn't call it out verbally because it is still being discussed and scientist don't have a consensus on this site as Homo Sapiens.
Most valuable and interesting video; good reasons to appreciate your effort -- 😝🎉
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you very much for clear and professional presentation.
You are welcome. I appreciate your subscription.
Very well done. Very informative!
Thanks for the great presentation! I understand that the harsh African climate makes it nearly impossible to preserve evidence of their existence, but a follow up program about the tools found in Africa (small tools, large tools, and other things) would be excellent!
Thanks for your comment.
100% false
Meaning...@@Anton37-wc9sh
You may want to recheck your source material. There are sites in Australia which date aboriginal occupation at 80,000 years ago.
Thank you for your comment. There are even claims of 120 thousand years ago however they are questionable on human occupation at that time. I review the archeology evidence in Australia in this video: th-cam.com/video/mWmUOW5LmGM/w-d-xo.html
The abo haven't been here for that long they say 40 to 65 but you no it's not true .
How did the Neanderthals get to Europe before the others?
Great question... I would like to know that too. Please see the other video I created on "Neanderthals out of Africa" here:
th-cam.com/video/ykjgN6TxCPI/w-d-xo.html
What's the 300 in Maroco?
Thank you for your question. The 300 red spot is a fossil finding in Jebel Irhoud in Morocco that dated back 315K years ago. Homo sapiens probably were in Africa earlier than 200K years ago and this could be evidence of this. However scientist have never found local indigenous DNA matches in Northern Africa that matches our direct early ancestors. Because of this, the fossils found in Morocco are likely not OUR Modern Human ancestors that left Africa but Homo Sapiens branch that died out. I explain it better in this video. th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
7:08, you can see the movement of humans from Southeastern Asia to Madagascar, a most unexpected turn of events. The modern people of Madagascar have more in common genetically with the aboriginals of Taiwan than they do with modern-day East Africans.
Oh wow! That's interesting!!
What does the number 300 in Morocco mean? Just comes up and doesnt get mentioned.
Recently in 2017, a dig has found 315,000 year old fossils from Morocco could be earliest record of Homo Sapiens. In a cave at what is known as the Jebel Irhoud site, 5 ancient individuals were discovered. The researchers claim that this is a Homo Sapiens is still controversial, however because anthropologist are still debating exactly what physical features distinguish homo sapiens from our more primitive ancestors. I included on the map however didn't call it out verbally because it is still being discussed and scientist don't have a consensus on this site as Homo Sapiens. In all cases homo sapiens did originated in Africa with other primates.
Whats the 300 red spot in Morocco?
Thank you for your question. The 300 red spot is a fossil finding in Jebel Irhoud in Morocco that dated back 315K years ago. Homo sapiens probably were in Africa earlier than 200K years ago and this could be evidence of this. However scientist have never found local indigenous DNA matches in Northern Africa that matches our direct early ancestors. Because of this, the fossils found in Morocco are likely not OUR Modern Human ancestors that left Africa but Homo Sapiens branch that died out. I explain it better in this video. th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
In any group of humans, finding themselves in a new environment, there will be some of the more curious, more adventuresome, and more physically fit individuals who set out to explore new areas. Not all of these original homosapiens migrated. The ones who did not migrate are the ancestors of present-day Africa populations.
Weird, because I was just reading that humans first showed up in the Aegean islands 100,000 years ago.
Please watch video again for clarity. There were other human species that left Africa however none were directly related to modern humans that are alive today.
Good theory!!
how do you turn into a Chinese from African that's what i want to know?????
They same way a wolf turns into a German Shepherd dog. We evolve to fit our environment. There is a great video here on this subject th-cam.com/video/D-Eh0jPstJY/w-d-xo.html
The BBC did a brilliant TV series on this called The Incredible Human Journey presented by Dr Alice Roberts. Absolutely fascinating and well worth watching. Apparently the Chinese are convinced that they derive from a completely separate source, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
@@karsaorlong3761 Two things: don't be so rude and insulting to anyone, especially someone you don't know and the theory hasn't been debunked. The theory now is that humans may well come from multiple sources, but all of them in Africa.
@@Lily_The_Pink972 how they can all come from africa if they discovered ancient humans in europe and asia before they migrated out of africa supposedly? out of africa theory is just a woke narrative liberals trying to spread, like other fake news, similar to the climate change hoax, try to keep up simpleton🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 look at all the propaganda west putting out in their proxy war in ukraine, same thing for this topic😂😂😂 so like 50,000 years ago, humans migrated out of africa and then magically turned to whites and asians, thats laughable🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 thats totally hilarious there are minds simple and coping desperate enough to believe that nonsense 🤣🤣🤣
One key element missing…impact of changing ocean heights by as much as 200m due to ice age melt which ended around 12,000 years ago.
Please see this video for human migration that includes ice age maps: th-cam.com/video/GX2n6sHa25w/w-d-xo.html
Everyone in this comment section has a common relative, but ironically, can't agree on a damn thing.
Which may be a good thing ironically .
It’s classic family feuding
@@stargazer-elite Kind of explains why a 'small band of humans' left Africa. Actually there may have been multiple waves of modern human migration , but one wave was more successful than every other.
I bet they all agree on having a common relative
i've always had a question about the interbreeding theory beetween neanthertals and sapiens,how can two species have a non sterile off spring ?
Because humans and Neanderthals aren't really different species. We're considered two subspecies of the species Homo sapiens. I suppose a non-human analogy would be the different subspecies of tigers. If a male and a female from two different tiger subspecies, eg. a Bengal (Indian) tiger and an Amur (Siberian) tiger, which have significant physical differences, are put together in a zoo, they can breed and produce healthy and fertile offspring. But it means those offspring won't be well-adapted to live in either parent's natural environment. This is the reason most zoos don't allow the cross-breeding of different subspecies anymore, because if they're geared toward species conservation in the long term they have to think about more than just the immediate health and fertility of offspring. In the case of anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals, we hadn't been geographically separated long enough to evolve into two really distinct species. And as it turned out, humans interbreeding with Neanderthals once they migrated out of Africa turned out to be advantageous to their descendants, giving them better cold weather adaptation. But there were enough distinctive anatomical differences between Neanderthals and all living humans for science to classify them as a different subspecies. If we saw one now we would no doubt see him or her at first as not quite human, or at least a very strange-looking human. The thing is, though, it's not an exact science; in biology there's no clear cut-off point in which two species really become separate species. It all depends on the individuals' DNA, whether they can produce fertile offspring. Occasionally, even cross-species hybrids are fertile.
@@KathyPrendergast-cu5ci thanks my friend🙏
@@KathyPrendergast-cu5ci Two subspecies of the genus Homo, although one does see neanderthals called Homo sapiens neanderthalis in addition to plain Homo neanderthalis, suggesting that they were perhaps the result of an earlier wave of migration out of Africa, which ventured northwards into the Middle East region rather than hugging the coast.
lions and tigers can mate and have fertile offspring
@@grantogilvie3458 Very rarely; I think when the mother is a lioness and the father is a tiger the chances of it being fertile are different from that of the offspring of a lion and tigress, but either way these are matings that only occur in artificial zoo breeding situations, never in the wild. Wild lions and tigers would never go near each other, or if they did they’d just try to kill each other, not mate. There are some Asiatic lions but I don’t think they share any habitats with tigers. The offspring of lions and tigers are usually abnormally large (not advantageous for a wild animal) and have other physical compromises that makes the breeding of them pointless for species conservation.
Interesting i hadnt heard the theory that Homo Sapiens out of the Indian Subcontinent were the ones who initially populated Europe and western Eurasia.. i always figured there were 2 main routes of population one along the southern coastlines crossing the Yemen Arabian coasts toward South Asia, and another that followed the Nile and then through the Sinai and the Levant toward Europe. and not just once but in multiple waves, especially after the Toba eruption.
Interesting how theres always a new way of looking at things, we know so little but theres a new piece to the puzzle being found every day. And just one when u think its all figured out a new piece enters the picture!
Genetically Europeans are quite similar to most South Asian people, even if most them have lighter skin and hair coloring; in the old four-race human classification system, both European and South Asian people were classified as Caucasians. They’re all believed to share a common ancestry with people who inhabited the Indian subcontinent for tens of thousands of years. They also share the same language family, Indo-European. Basically, linguists believe that most European languages, most of those spoken in the Indian subcontinent, and many others, all evolved from a single language called Proto Indo-European, which could have been spoken as long as 40,000 years ago.
@@KathyPrendergast-cu5ci
Yes makes sense. havent heard of indo european being that old specifically myself, although in sure it must have root itself in older Eurasian languages. it is the subtleties and directions of population routes that are fascinating. there are many lines involved over time. and in some cases genes can also travel with out direct interactions through intermediate populations. although direct contact happens as well
Thanks for your comments. DNA is the key bit of evidence that I used with fossil information. DNA tells how each of us are related all the way back to Africa. Using DNA to define where "Eve" could have lived leads us to southern and eastern Africa as scientist have tested the local native population and found their mitochondrial DNA is the root DNA of modern humans today.
@@KathyPrendergast-cu5ci Indian subcontinent( & likely Iran) incubated homo sapiens for its journey to colder latitudes.The earliest humans were opportunistic beachcombers who stuck to warm weathered coasts hence explaining why they reached Australia pretty early on. It took a prolonged time for humans in India, Iran, Iraq etc to forge into colder latitudes of West Eurasia, and similarly China incubated humans before they expanded into temperate East Eurasia and Americas. During these times humans likely interbred with cold adapted Neanderthals and Denisovans also , and these older hominids had acquired genes & cultural adaptation to colder weather from even earlier hominids like Asiatic H Erectus.
My DNA results show that I am a R1A1. Ancestors of this DNA passed thru Indian subcontinent 70000 years ago, traveled to Southern China , Northern China, arriving in Siberia 26000 years ago. From there it went to Ukrine, Iran and finally India.
As a layman, I ponder why the constant thrust into new lands, more so movements over seas. Arguments due lack of resources, climate, etc; don’t cut it as populations were left behind. Or did more superior beings push the lesser on?
2:17 Modern humans left Africa to differentiate, and the blueprint is still in africa.
no
@@africanmate8036 why
I’m actually glad someone commented this. Africa has been and will always be the blueprint.
w
What is that red dot 300 in morocco?
Recently in 2017, a dig has found 315,000 year old fossils from Morocco could be earliest record of Homo Sapiens. In a cave at what is known as the Jebel Irhoud site, 5 ancient individuals were discovered. The researchers claim that this is a Homo Sapiens is still controversial, however because anthropologist are still debating exactly what physical features distinguish homo sapiens from our more primitive ancestors. I included on the map however didn't call it out verbally because it is still being discussed and scientist don't have a consensus on this site as Homo Sapiens.
Enjoyed immensely. But confused. I didn’t see how the Neanderthals got to Europe. Did I missed it?
Thanks for your comment. Please see this video on my channel to see how they got there. th-cam.com/video/ykjgN6TxCPI/w-d-xo.html
Your videos should show where the sea levels were at the time of various migrations.
Thanks for your comment. Please see this video on my channel: th-cam.com/video/GX2n6sHa25w/w-d-xo.html
So all these years there were no continent drifts and shifts?
We are discussing two different time frames here. Human migration happened fairly recently 70,000 years ago. Continental drift started 200 million years ago The continents have drifted less than 1 mile in the last 70,000 years. What’s has changed in the last 70,000 years is sea levels were lower 300 to 400 feet. See other video “human migration with ice age maps” on this channel for what that meant for human how the continents might have looked. th-cam.com/video/GX2n6sHa25w/w-d-xo.html
The bearing straight land bridge would not have been the only one. Walking to Australia would almost have been possible too.
Thanks for your comment and Yes, I agree. I have a video on that one to called "Map of first humans migration to Australia" located here
th-cam.com/video/mWmUOW5LmGM/w-d-xo.html
Remember that these types of explanations are extreme simplifications. Actual human migration patterns/ history is a MESS since people moved in EVERY direction back and forth again. There were no single direct migrations over long distances. A surprising bit of genetic trivia is that the people MOST genetically different from people in Africa today are other Africans. There's more genetic differences within Africa today than there is between Africa and the other continents.
It's astounding to me that humans reached Australia before most parts of East Asia, China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, or Europe
@bridgecross Indeed. One hypothesis is coastal paths were easier to migrate and the Denisovans that may have lived on the coast were easier to overwhelm than the Neanderthal path.
Thanks
Welcome
Thank you. Briefly explained.
Glad it was helpful!
The migration to America happened much earlier as we have dated remains from about 26 thousand years ago
Please add the information you have that shows migration happened 26K years ago for this discussion board.
It's NOT just "only" climate conditions that made him sapiens TRAVERSE across continents, IT'S ALSO about CURIOSITY and the NEED to CLAIM new lands / areas as "their OWN" as well.✅✅✅
Origins of LIFE: Life is about Science, not history or religion.
Mito-Eve must have been beautiful. Look at all of us!
it looks like homo sapiens survived because of warmer temperatures.
How did Neanderthals get to Europe? Did they also leave Africa?
Please see this video on the channel that explains how this happened th-cam.com/video/ykjgN6TxCPI/w-d-xo.html
Although how and when are good questions to ask. I'm more interested in the WHY did they leave? I have my ideas.
Great question. Share your ideas and it could be in one of my next videos.
hes said rapid expansion in 2000 years from Canada to south America. thats a lot of time in last 2 k years the amount of world history. ots same amount of time.
In discussions like this, I find it useful to remember that the time period between, say, evidence of humans in SE Asia and the first evidence of humans in Australia is 15,000 years! That is roughly the same amount of time as between the first agriculture and the modern day. Why are we asking about one voyage (on purpose or accidental) to Australia? 15,000 years is a VERY LONG TIME. There could have been centuries of exploration and generations of sailors which finally ended up with land fall on the newly discovered continent. That is the interesting question.
We don't need to ask the question of whether it was an accident or not. We just need to remember that it took 15,000 of culture and humans sailing little boats.
And then we can delve into the history of Australians and the 3000 years or so it took for ALL the large animals on that continent to be hunted and driven to extinction.
75,000 years and counting - witness the change of the landscape, from the ice age to the times of sea rise all the stories are firsthand accounts passed down through each generation. Megafauna hunted to extinction? Megafauna died out because of the change in climate over the many thousands of years. 15,000 years is a long way off
How much of this is theoretically and how much is actually proven to be true?
Much of it is proven through DNA testing, human fossils that are found, carbon dating, tools and weapons, soil layer dating and other science. DNA testing has brought a whole new science to archeology.
@@tepsterstips So human remains were found and DNA and carbon dating was done to them to determine how old they were and where they came from? How does that necessarily indicate a specific travel path? Is it like breadcrumbs with dead bodies? Also what does the 300 near morocco mean?
Please see this video on this channel that explains how DNA haplogroups, subclades and molecular clocks that determine which DNA was present first in an region and the timing of migrations. th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html By testing living indigenous human DNA we can determine which haplogroup originated in each region and by determining which haplogroup is a subclade of another we can determine path.
So what about Morocco?
How closely related are Berbers and Neanderthals? Berbers and the Basque
Were there any languages 70000 years ago?
Estimates of the origin of language range from 40 thousand to 2 million years. Nobody has the slightest idea
How can the "out of Africa' theory be true if all modern races have the most DNA in common with the people of Indonesia??? Pretty strong evidence that hominids originated in Indonesia and then moved into Africa...not the other way around...
The root Y haplogroup A00 originated in Africa. Indonesia DNA are subclades to the African DNA making them younger. Check out this video on the DNA testing evidence Humans out of Africa || DNA results are in
th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
Indigenous Africans don't have Neanderthal DNA in them.
The stone tools discovered in Athirampakkam, Tamil Nadu dates back more than 3 lakh years .. Then how come out of Africa theory be true? This pushes human migration some 2 lakh years back or some other reason? Kindly explain
Thank you for your comment. The tools were likely Denisovans or their earlier ancient human ancestors that did not survive to be our direct ancestors. There were more than 9 human species that have been identified by fossil records. Some of them exited Africa earlier than modern humans however they didn't survive to be our direct ancestors. The map in the video explains when and how our direct ancestors left Africa. Recently we found out they left Africa 70,000 years ago because of DNA sequencing technology. th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html This video explains how DNA can tell the history of our ancestors:
Recent evidence is suggesting people arrived in Australia 65,000 years ago.
This find is interesting. This video explains why these numbers are disputed and consensus has not been established if dates are reliable. th-cam.com/video/mWmUOW5LmGM/w-d-xo.html
The amount of ignorance in the comments pains me 🤦♂️ I’m sorry your video is getting so much hate 😔
It comes with the subject. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
What I would like is to see in comments is competing theories with evidence and not a hate for scientific approach to understanding our pre-historic origins.
@@tepsterstips perfectly said
amusing video
Basically, China and India were the major hubs for human migration.
You never consider that one species of humans may have evolved in South America?
Thank you for your comment. There are no fossil evidence of humans being older than about 14 thousand year old in SA or linking them to evolution from other species in SA.
There were modern humans in the southern part of North America 26,000 years ago as evidenced by the footprints found at White Sands in New Mexico, also why would they travel across Siberia and to North America but not settle anywhere on the way until 12,000 years ago? The rapid expansion of humans into the Americas is easily explained by two factors, first off they were there at least twice as long as previously believed and adds more that 10,000 years to the equation and secondly there were no other humans here. In every other part of the world there were other species of humans to compete against (except Australia).
Thanks for your comment. I would like to see more evidence of human remains or campsites in North America 26K years ago before I update this video.
@@tepsterstips www.nps.gov/whsa/learn/nature/fossilized-footprints.htm
www.usgs.gov/programs/climate-research-and-development-program/news/discovery-ancient-human-footprints-white
I did miss remember the date, it is 23,000 and not 26,000 years ago but the point still stands.
But how did they turn from black to white in europe
Thanks for you comment. Please see this video for the answer. th-cam.com/video/ykjgN6TxCPI/w-d-xo.html
You must read Bruce R Fenton's "Into Africa, the history of human devolution's. You might change your opinion. I changed mine.
Evolution.
According to research, data and studies, Homosapien is only 500 000 years old,,, According to the Lucy theory it is 2 000 000 years old,,, I think there was multiple human species, and developped in different regions,,, Yes we might share some DNA resemblance, or vstructural resemblance, but we are not all descendents from the same species,,, Australian Indegineous people are still the same for thousands of years and nothing proves that they interacyed with the other Homoerectus or other human species,,, Either there was an external intervention, or arrival, which created a mixture, some archeological evidence show that option very plausable,,,
Thanks for your comment. Lucy was not a homo sapiens species she was a Australopithecus Afarensis. As for human species there were at least nine of them and some of them evolved outside of Africa. Our DNA tells us the history of our ancestors and how we are related to each other as Modern Homo Sapiens. We could only do this in the last 20 years or so and our database is large enough now that we are sure our Homo Sapiens ancestors came out of Africa. Africa is where the oldest DNA haplogroup is present. It is interesting that all the other human species died out and what was left is the Homo Sapiens who migrated from Africa 70,000 years ago. This video on the channel discusses how DNA is used to tell when and where our ancestors migrated from. th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
@@tepsterstips Homo sapiens fossil in Greece at Apidima Cave dated at around 210,000 years ago was found,,, Also, we are always missing the beginning of any of our ancestral species,,, We assume that the Homosapien Sapien is round 495000 yeras old, but where did come from,,, We know a lot of species desappeared, but there is a big gap between the disappearing specie and the new appearing species,,,
@@tepsterstips - As I understand it, Lucy was the perfect size … 100 cm (just a bit over 3’), with a flat head so you could set a beer on top … That’s why the male Homosapiens of the day so liked the female Australopithecuses …
Nice theory!
What is that red dot over Morocco labelled 300? That would predate the East African people.
Good question: I responded to a similar question 6 days ago and I will repost the answer here.
Recently in 2017, a dig has found 315,000 year old fossils from Morocco could be earliest record of Homo Sapiens. In a cave at what is known as the Jebel Irhoud site, 5 ancient individuals were discovered. The researchers claim that this is a Homo Sapien is still controversial, however because anthropologist are still debating exactly what physical features distinguish homo sapiens from our more primitive ancestors. I included on the map however didn't call it out verbally because it is still being discussed and scientist don't have a consensus on this site as Homo Sapiens. In all cases homo sapiens did originated in Africa with other primates.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebel_Irhoud
This is with assumption that at the Time of migration earth continent looked exactly like now.. Migration should have been around ice age period.
This video explains and show how key migration regions looked during the Ice Age. th-cam.com/video/IcdRkeTb6gM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=q5Z381skXg60hOji. Ice age sea levels were included in the analysis in the original video. However this video makes it clear.
Not true. There were two actual Eves: one was the first human Eve (Either God created or evolved from something non-human: it doesn’t matter how creation is viewed. I hope you are not suggesting a clan evolved all at once.) The second was the first woman with the mtDNA. The women must have actually, not only existed, but had at least one child who survived until they reproduced. So your statement about not an actual Eve is elegant, bring twice absolutely incorrect. It is hard to be so incorrect.
You are also incorrect in saying that a water migration had to be by raft. Have they found an artifact or is it just you can not think of another way this could have occurred. I would have similar respect if you said that the woman must have carried all small children or no children accompanied the migration: families were only raised after the migration was complete. Might be right, but based in pure speculation.
100% Wrong. Humans invented the Biblical story because they had Zero Science to base anything on. The human race was on earth thousands of years before the invention of religion. Do yourself a favor and get some education.
what doesnt make sense on your map is how you said humans only went into sibiria 12,000 years ago due to icecaps retreating but then you later said people went thru russia to america 25,000 years ago.. that doesnt really make sense, at least in the way you describe it... cos people migrate bit by bit.. they wouldnt just cross the entirety of russia in one go.. one family looking randomly for america.. surely theyd have settled in russia first or the coastlines of russia north east of korea.. before going to north america?
I noticed the same thing. Would like to hear an answer from the author.
@@jacksonmacd there are plenty of theories that various other people arrived in the americas at different times.. from vikings.. to chinese... to africans... but these were mostly much later in history... have they ever done proper genetic studies of any remaining indigenous peoples from each area? there are still mapuche in chile, maya/aztec origin people in guatemala... native tribes in north america.. it would be easier to see the real truth of migration if one had a complete genetic coding.. although whether these people would want that is the thing..
The Ice sheets over Europe during the last ice age extended into Northern Europe and Northwestern Asia however because of different weather patterns the area in Northeast Asia was Ice free allowing the earlier migration of humans into Americas.
www.usgs.gov/media/images/glaciers-extended-over-much-europe-during-last-ice-age
Where were humans during the Karoo Ice Age?
The Karoo Ice Age, also known as the Late Paleozoic Ice Age was an ice age that began in the Late Devonian and ended in the Late Permian, occurring from 360 to 255 million years ago.
This was a long time before humans existed. Our remote ancestors were probably on the Gondwana supercontinent.
@@Cove-o4d 𝐈𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐞.
The question I was responding to was about the Karoo Ice Age which finished about 255 million years ago. At this time, our ancestors had been terrestrial for millions of years.
Seasonal migration of herds of animals helped the earliest human migration.
445,000 Four hundred and fourty five thousand years ago our ancestors lived in most parts of this planet Earth
Indeed who else could have made "The Clacton Spear ".
The sea levels were much lower 50k years ago so first humans to Australia would not have needed to cover large ocean journey. More like island hopping.
With sea levels 50K years ago they would have needed to travel 60 miles in open ocean for the largest part of the sea going journey. But I agree its not a trans-Pacific journey.
I don’t believe we are seeing where humans originated from. I believe we are seeing where humanity survived a catastrophic event that was so severe that the only people who survived it were in East Africa and a few other remote locations
@richardcrainium I certainly agree. Thanks for watching the video and making this clarifying point. Humans, as a species, and there were at least 9 of them, were around much longer than 200 thousand years ago. DNA from current native populations in Africa, shows our modern human ancestors were the lucky survivors in East Africa that went on to populate the world.
Why doesn’t anybody speak about Morocco with 300.000 years?
Good question: I responded to a similar question 6 days ago and I will repost the answer here.
Recently in 2017, a dig has found 315,000 year old fossils from Morocco could be earliest record of Homo Sapiens. In a cave at what is known as the Jebel Irhoud site, 5 ancient individuals were discovered. The researchers claim that this is a Homo Sapien is still controversial, however because anthropologist are still debating exactly what physical features distinguish homo sapiens from our more primitive ancestors. I included on the map however didn't call it out verbally because it is still being discussed and scientist don't have a consensus on this site as Homo Sapiens. In all cases homo sapiens did originated in Africa with other primates.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebel_Irhoud
Why and how humans evolved only from Africa? other areas in inhabitable? Is that humans big bang???? Does maternal mRNA and other genetics say that is started there and exactly that many years ago? How??
Thanks for you comment. These are very good questions. I made this video to answer them. th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
First migration out,of Africa confined below tropical pathwayway of the sun in circumference to the planet due to climate change brought on by numerous volcanic activities many from Indonesia,that reached the African continent the rest for Geologists to analyse its historical occurrence occurrence.