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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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
"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)
Early Homo Sapiens were all dark skinned because that was the best adaptation against the ruthless African sun. The dark skin feature has still survived in the Indigenous peoples of India and Australia, perhaps because of the tropical climate in both these places favoured its selection. Strangely however, other features have changed quite drastically, like the nature of body hair. Both Indian and Australian native peoples have wavy and pretty thick body hair, in contrast to the characteristic woolly hair of Africans. I wonder what could have triggered these changes within a time-scale of only 10 to 20,000 years?
From what i've read, UV light is responsible (or lack thereof). In regions with less UV light forced a genetic trigger that reduce melanin in the skin so that more UV light could be absorbed.
@@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 🤣🤣🤣
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.✅✅✅
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.
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
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 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:
I lived in China for 5 years. Everyone I ever discussed this subject with said that Beijing Man was the first real man. However Western powers took his skeleton from a Beijing museum and removed it from the country. Then the boat was sunk by the Japanese in WWII. That’s why there are no bones. Ask anyone educated in China and you’ll find out that Beijing Man is the oldest, it’s taught in all the schools.
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.
When humankind was born in Africa, when did their ancestors came from Crete and Bulgaria to Africa!? The oldest jawbones of humans were found there! ☝️🤣
Please watch video again for clarity. There were other human species (including Neanderthals' and Denisovans) that left Africa however none were directly related to modern humans that are alive today.
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
@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.
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.
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
@@muskyoxesabraham and solomon were black african people? And why no mention of neanderthals in any of abrahamic religion books? You can surely find mention of monkey like(possibly predecessors of homo sapiens) human and other neanderthal like people in our hindu epic ramayan.
@tonkatoytruck Thank you for your comment. This is based on DNA evidence tracing back Modern Humans to Africa. DNA tested on indigenous populations in Africa and Eurasia strongly supports that the original A00 haplogroup of modern human originated in Africa. Using the Y-DNA and mtDNA, today we can trace our Modern Human ancestors back to Africa. This is something the Eurasians origin theory has not done. See how it is done in this video" th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
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.
A long trek brought motivated by scarcity at home is possible, but how is a paleolithic or pre-paleolithic group to know that a long trek will end in anything but exhausted starvation. When conditions were good enough for group populations to increase, separation of groups would come about as a result of intra-group dynamics. Former band-mates would become competitors and then enemies and one group would need to put distance between itself and the other fraction of the parent group. Multiplication, splitting and mutual repulsion would cause human population to spread in any direction in which life could be sustained. There was certainly no master plan of exploration and settlement.
What about the pangaea? 200 million years ago Africa does not exist as today, your hypothesis does not take into account this to explain the migration of peoples. You rely on current maps which distorts the reasoning
@jfbft5007 Thanks for your comment. We are discussing two different time periods when we talk about Pangaea and Humans. Pangaea was a super continent 200 million years ago when it started to break apart into different continents. Modern Human migration out of Africa happen about 70 thousand years ago. In the last 70 thousand years the continents have shifted less than 1 mile from each other which is negligible for human migration. What is more significant is the sea level was 300 to 400 ft lower than today allowing easier migration across and around oceans like seen in this video on the channel: th-cam.com/video/GX2n6sHa25w/w-d-xo.html. If you would like to know why scientist know the path and timing of Modern human migration out of Africa please see this video on the channel: th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html. I used the current world map so it would be easier and more people could relate in today's map how migration happened.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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??
Missing is the path which is similar but also differenet w.r.t. Y chromosome adam! Who seems to originate somewhat on the West coast side of Africa of Mitochondrial Eve's location.
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
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
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.
For once, someone put up a video saying that people used boats for ocean trips. Please note that catamarans are far more seaworthy than just a canoe. Another point that I am surprised that wasn’t mentioned was that humans were in White Sands, New Mexico, USA 22,000 years ago. The only way their ancestors could make it to the Americas was by boat. There was no land path from Beringia to the Americas prior to 22,000 years ago. Even if there was a temporary land path between the glaciers, life does not spring up overnight because it would be very cold and dry. Plants and thus animals would be very hard pressed to get established between the glaciers. It would take months of constant transit to make it through. The only realistic way to get to the Americas before 22,000 years ago was by boat.
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.
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 .
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Nicely done. ✔️ G'day from Australia 🇦🇺
Thanks 👍
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.
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.
Many people where I live still have family in Africa. They look like early people too
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.
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
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
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.
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 .
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.
Very well done. Very informative!
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Thank you. Briefly explained.
Glad it was helpful!
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 .
"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)
Very knowledgeable video 🤳
Glad you think so! Thanks for watching
Early Homo Sapiens were all dark skinned because that was the best adaptation against the ruthless African sun. The dark skin feature has still survived in the Indigenous peoples of India and Australia, perhaps because of the tropical climate in both these places favoured its selection. Strangely however, other features have changed quite drastically, like the nature of body hair. Both Indian and Australian native peoples have wavy and pretty thick body hair, in contrast to the characteristic woolly hair of Africans. I wonder what could have triggered these changes within a time-scale of only 10 to 20,000 years?
From what i've read, UV light is responsible (or lack thereof). In regions with less UV light forced a genetic trigger that reduce melanin in the skin so that more UV light could be absorbed.
Thank you very much for clear and professional presentation.
You are welcome. I appreciate your subscription.
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
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 :)
Well done. I learned quite a bit. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Mito-Eve must have been beautiful. Look at all of us!
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!!
Very informative.
I am Glad you liked it
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.
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.
i enjoyed this presentation.
Glad you enjoyed it!
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.
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 🤣🤣🤣
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.✅✅✅
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.
Most valuable and interesting video; good reasons to appreciate your effort -- 😝🎉
Glad you enjoyed it!
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
Origins of LIFE: Life is about Science, not history or religion.
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 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:
I lived in China for 5 years. Everyone I ever discussed this subject with said that Beijing Man was the first real man. However Western powers took his skeleton from a Beijing museum and removed it from the country. Then the boat was sunk by the Japanese in WWII. That’s why there are no bones. Ask anyone educated in China and you’ll find out that Beijing Man is the oldest, it’s taught in all the schools.
That is an amazing story. I would love to see a video on how this is taught in Chinese schools.
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.
When humankind was born in Africa, when did their ancestors came from Crete and Bulgaria to Africa!?
The oldest jawbones of humans were found there! ☝️🤣
Please watch video again for clarity. There were other human species (including Neanderthals' and Denisovans) that left Africa however none were directly related to modern humans that are alive today.
it looks like homo sapiens survived because of warmer temperatures.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
This kind of blows Genesis out of the water and I'm sure these people had never heard of Jesus.
That took a weird turn. Would you expect Abraham or Solomon to have heard of Jesus?
@@muskyoxesabraham and solomon were black african people? And why no mention of neanderthals in any of abrahamic religion books?
You can surely find mention of monkey like(possibly predecessors of homo sapiens) human and other neanderthal like people in our hindu epic ramayan.
@@muskyoxesthose men didn't know Him as Jesus then. They only knew Him as God which He is.
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
Seasonal migration of herds of animals helped the earliest human migration.
This aged like milk. New discoveries strongly point to a Eurasian origin.
@tonkatoytruck Thank you for your comment. This is based on DNA evidence tracing back Modern Humans to Africa. DNA tested on indigenous populations in Africa and Eurasia strongly supports that the original A00 haplogroup of modern human originated in Africa. Using the Y-DNA and mtDNA, today we can trace our Modern Human ancestors back to Africa. This is something the Eurasians origin theory has not done. See how it is done in this video" th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html
Thanks
Welcome
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.
A long trek brought motivated by scarcity at home is possible, but how is a paleolithic or pre-paleolithic group to know that a long trek will end in anything but exhausted starvation. When conditions were good enough for group populations to increase, separation of groups would come about as a result of intra-group dynamics. Former band-mates would become competitors and then enemies and one group would need to put distance between itself and the other fraction of the parent group. Multiplication, splitting and mutual repulsion would cause human population to spread in any direction in which life could be sustained. There was certainly no master plan of exploration and settlement.
What about the pangaea? 200 million years ago Africa does not exist as today, your hypothesis does not take into account this to explain the migration of peoples. You rely on current maps which distorts the reasoning
@jfbft5007 Thanks for your comment. We are discussing two different time periods when we talk about Pangaea and Humans. Pangaea was a super continent 200 million years ago when it started to break apart into different continents. Modern Human migration out of Africa happen about 70 thousand years ago. In the last 70 thousand years the continents have shifted less than 1 mile from each other which is negligible for human migration. What is more significant is the sea level was 300 to 400 ft lower than today allowing easier migration across and around oceans like seen in this video on the channel: th-cam.com/video/GX2n6sHa25w/w-d-xo.html. If you would like to know why scientist know the path and timing of Modern human migration out of Africa please see this video on the channel: th-cam.com/video/M33T1oZfx5U/w-d-xo.html. I used the current world map so it would be easier and more people could relate in today's map how migration happened.
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.
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?
Sad to see so much YEC comment here.
with a bit of racism thrown in too.
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
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.
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.
Good theory!!
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 ".
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.
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.
Africa..the . beginning ..
Small flaw in that presentation in that the first record of humans in Australia is at least 60,000 old and not the 50,000 claimed there.
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.
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
Path of SOME humans out if Africa.
Your right other humans migrated earlier including Homo Neanderthals from Africa but they are not direct ancestors to people who are alive today.
So what about Morocco?
How closely related are Berbers and Neanderthals? Berbers and the Basque
Where did the Neanderthals come from ? Africa too?
@jane-em8et Thank your for your comment. Please see this video on the channel that explains this: th-cam.com/video/ykjgN6TxCPI/w-d-xo.html
Missing is the path which is similar but also differenet w.r.t. Y chromosome adam! Who seems to originate somewhat on the West coast side of Africa of Mitochondrial Eve's location.
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
Why is the 300 around Morocco in the beginning?
jebel irhoud
Same question, i was waiting that the analysis explain this but he didn’t.
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
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.
For once, someone put up a video saying that people used boats for ocean trips. Please note that catamarans are far more seaworthy than just a canoe.
Another point that I am surprised that wasn’t mentioned was that humans were in White Sands, New Mexico, USA 22,000 years ago. The only way their ancestors could make it to the Americas was by boat. There was no land path from Beringia to the Americas prior to 22,000 years ago. Even if there was a temporary land path between the glaciers, life does not spring up overnight because it would be very cold and dry. Plants and thus animals would be very hard pressed to get established between the glaciers. It would take months of constant transit to make it through. The only realistic way to get to the Americas before 22,000 years ago was by boat.
They were in texas before that even. Check out the Gault site in texas. They found points and tools 25,000 years old below a clovis camp.
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.