This reminds me of an experiment I had conducted with guppies. Once upon a time I had a burgeoning population of feeder guppies. In a later setup, I had mixed populations of both feeder guppies and fancy guppies. The populations readily interbred, creating a hybrid with unique but consistent traits that were not found in either parent populations. The guppy populations collapsed. My hypothesis was that the hybrids were mules of a sort, but were also more desirable than the purebreds. This is a phenomenon that can be seen in other breeding hybrid breeds such as savannah cat pets trade where chromosomes in a single specimen from different species will disagree and can result in gender based sterility or where genetic viability can only be achieved by selectedly breeding with one species or another. Perhaps Neanderthal-cromagnon hybrid populations were only able to continue breeding with cromagnon males.
Or there was not much deference between the two groups to begin with. Such as all dogs can breed with wolves. Also when one group of humans move in or trade with another group, virus and plagues kill off 60 to 80 % of the local populations.
The word 'human' does not mean 'Homo sapien'. The word 'human' refers to the genus 'Homo'. Neanderthals were humans, with human DNA, as was the Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis and all other hominins. Hominins are the humans. As such all species classified Homo contained human DNA. Sorry for correction. Misuse of the word 'human' specifically for Homo sapiens is a common mistake. We are just one of many kinds of humans that have existed. (I hold a recent MSc in this) Your science is good, it's just that one terminology error that troubled me.
@@TimberWulfIsHere Homo sapiens, Homo ergaster, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo habilis are all genetically human. The word 'human' does not mean 'Homo sapien'. It refers to a genus of several different species. Homo sapiens are one of many species of human (the hominins). Homo sapiens are also a species of great ape (the hominids). The word 'human' (the homo genus) does not mean 'homo sapien'. It refers to the genus, which once contained many different species. Look at it like this: Another genus is the Panthera (the 'big cats'). Lions and tigers are both of the genus Panthera, like Homo sapiens and Homo ergaster are both of the Human genus. But lions are not tigers and tigers are not lions. They are a different species. However... What marks a species or subspecies is the ability to breed and produce fertile young. If Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis could breed and produce fertile young they could have been the same species or both be a subspecies of the ancient human Homo erectus. That would make us Homo erectus sapiens and Neanderthals would be Homo erectus neanderthalensis, if we were both subspecies. Or we are actually 100% Neanderthals ourselves. That's a mindblower!
@@outsidersongs2682 yes, I have education in biology lol, no need for the paragraphs mate. What I was infering poorly, was that due to modern investigation and DNA sequencing of Neaderthals that we are the same species as them, not just the same genus, if that makes sense? I think you got it though.
@@TimberWulfIsHere I have wondered the same but remember that all the ancient species were genetically human without being Homo sapiens. I think, personally, based on current understanding, that Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and the Denisovans are all subspecies of the Homo erectus. (I always write in paragraphs. I'm old fashioned).
When it's 2:30 in the morning, and you're 10 rotting, fermented fruits deep, giving you that weird but fun floaty feeling you don't understand, the neanderthal girls start looking kinda cute...
There's actually a lot of merit to genetic conquest over empire-building purely through political means. An empire has to pay to control the administration of a conquered nation and keep a standing army to keep them in line. The number one way an empire fails is by succeeding too much. If instead, they slaughtered the majority of the target's males through war and then sent in a bunch of civilians to go live in the conquered country and interbreed, in the next generations you'll have a significant fraction of that country's citizens influencing politics in your direction rather than solely theirs. They still pay for their government and armies, but they will be passing laws favoring your country all on their own. It's even easier against modern western countries since you don't even have to win a war first to start sending in your civilians. If we enter the galactic stage and discover xenos, we would be remiss to not genetically engineer ourselves to enable xeno hybridization and ally ourselves with xenos who would be interesting in letting us bed them. Filling the galaxy with Human-xeno hybrids means you'll have some human favoritism even in sovereignties not under your direct control.
I remember 2 years ago a paper came out where scientists discovered that some small amount of paternal mitochondrial DNA is also inherited and how now we need to reassess a lot of constructed lineages. I wonder how that would change what we know about Neanderthals and humans.
On 23andme I have more Neanderthal than 96% of 23andme users. I have 318 genetic variants that can be traced to the Neanderthals. My ancestors definitely enjoyed mixing things up a bit. That song from Die Antwood comes to mind... " I think you freaky and I like you a lot" hahaha
Nights-in -Neon I know what you mean. I got 98% according to 23 and me. It almost makes me proud. I wish my parents were alive to find out who had the most. I bet it was my mother (although my dad had hair from neck to foot).
I don't understand the way we talk about prehistoric humans. If "our ancestors" interbred with Neanderthals, aren't Neanderthals also our ancestors? Also, why are a chihuahua, a poodle, and a golden retriever all considered the same species, while Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are all considered separate species?
Yes, Neanderthals are also _our_ ancestors, if by _we_ we refer to us as we are today. If by _we_ we mean the species of homo sapiens, then no, Neanderthals are not our ancestors. That's the difference. The difference between a species and a variation (or a race) is more or less an arbitrary definition. Like until when is something just another dialect and from where on you have to call it a different language? That's just convention we agreed upon.
@@lonestarr1490 I find it weird to refer to the species as we, in a way that is exclusive with respect to we, as in, those who live today. This immediately suggests that some of we, who live today, are not the same species.
The different dog breeds were made through artificial selection within the last few thousand years, so none of them have had time to become their own species. In fact, none of them have even had time to become a completely distinct species from the gray wolf - they're only a subspecies. They look so drastically different just because they were bred for those features.
I’m supposedly in the 89th percentile for Neanderthal DNA markers. My lengthy caveman arms and brow ridge agree. Also by human you mean Homo sapiens. Those aren’t equivalent terms.
i mean homo erectus split into homo sapiens and neanderthals, right? and also denisovans. before all 3 were around is was just homo erectus before em all, right? so at the time of all 3, all 3 should be able to easily breed i'd (totally) guess.
Actually, H. erectus took a transitionary form called H. heidelbergensis, which migrated back to Africa and gave rise to H. sapiens sapiens, us. It is thought that Neanderthals and Denisovans evolved from H. erectus, but they also coexisted with erectus for many hundreds of thousands of years. The ancient history of hominins is so fascinating!
@@matthewtopping2061 cool! Do we have many homo erectus-es (or however ya...) ? I mean if it was around for that long, surely there'd be a lotta variations ya'd think. Ah well. It's good to know what we do. A lot better than what I learned in college taking whatever intro class i had :) Ardipithicus is my favorite. Those toes!! :)
@@SteveHazel Pardon me, it seems what I said was inaccurate. Sapiens, Neanderthal and Denisovan all appear to have evolved from H. heidelbergensis starting around 800-700tybp. They are separated evolutionarily from erectus by about 1my so they probably didn't interbreed with erectus. With the arrival of newer hominin species, erectus was pushed east and confined to what is now China and SE Asia. Check out Peking Man.
@@chrisinnes2128 As well as "David and Goliath" among many others that have probably been edited to "make more sense" since they were written from the perspective of a world with multiple "human races".
Andrew Mayo I mean keep in mind that is not because of different results, you should go and change cultures. But it was cool to see where my DNA bits came from. I am from Cuba so I expected to have more of a mix but not so much...Mostly Colonizer 🤣 th-cam.com/video/Fkc8H8qL4Mw/w-d-xo.html
@@Sausketo Funny story we share the same last name. I am Mayo from my Mother's side. I did dropped it when I became a Citizen just to make it easy for forms and legal stuff.
@@YunierViada wow, good video, your results look more detailed too! Mine has France-35% (makes sense because my moms family is french canadian) England & Northwestern Europe-29% Germanic Europe-13% Scotland-11% Wales-6% Ireland-3% Eastern Europe & Russia-2% Indiginous Americas--North-1%
I would throw my hat into the camp of anthropology/paleoanthropology that argues that Neanderthals, Denisovans and anatomically modern humans are basically the same species and should be referred to as 'Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis, Homo Sapiens Denisovans and Homo Sapiens Sapiens, respectively.
So what you're saying is that eventually the male neanderthals who had male neanderthal y chromosomes stopped contributing to the species. Like what would happen, for instance, if homo sapiens had a tendency to kill all of the men but leave all of the women alive when encountering the species?
While an evolutionary benefit to y-chromosome replacement is one important aspect to research, I would think a cultural benefit may be another possible factor worth looking in to, especially if evolutionary benefits prove hard to find. A difference in how early humans and neanderthals treated hybrids born from a human father vs a neanderthal father may have existed.
In the 1990s I took anthropology classes from Dr. Sam Dunlap at Northern Virginia Community College. He believed we are Neanderthals. Different shapes of skulls are only superficial differences. Inuit and other ethnic groups that have been isolated from larger groups until about 300 years ago have similar facial proportions to Neanderthals. Skulls from the period when Neanderthals and 'Modern' humans came in contact show characteristics of both groups. Smaller jaws may have evolved due to a new availability of cooked food cut into small pieces. If babies with smaller jaws had been born before the knowledge of fire, they would not live, due to being unable to bite into raw food. There was a story in the news at the time I went there that claimed to prove from DNA that Neanderthals were a different species. Dr. Dunlap claimed the gene sample used was way too small for a conclusive result. Also, it was still the rule at the time that members of different species could not have offspring capable of having offspring of their own. So how could we possibly have 'Neanderthal DNA' if they were a separate species?
Minor clarification, not actually important: at 2:15 credit "Демин Алексей Барнаул" reads weird. Without any punctuation it looks like a 3-word full Russian name: first name, patronymic, last name. But Алексей is obviously the first name, and there is no patronymic. So is it maybe Демин Алексей *comma* Барнаул, Barnaul being the capital of the region where Denisova cave is located?
This is yet another genetics discovery that fits and supports Lloyd Pye's extraordinary findings in the lecture "Everything you know is wrong" which lays out the evidence in our chromosomes that we are a genetically modified species. I've cued this clip up to the relevant point at the end, but the whole lecture is well worth watching. Here, he discusses some quite obvious splicing of our second chromosome, explaining why we only have 46 chromosomes and all our primate and hominid ancestors have 48: th-cam.com/video/e5qJYwfAju8/w-d-xo.html
Sort of like a lion and tiger being able to breed. In the human/Neanderthal case, they were close enough that their offspring could still breed, at least, some of the time. Close but not the same. That's my simplified understanding of it, anyway.
@@JackHaveman52 I guess it's more like wolves and coyotes. Lions and tigers can breed in captivity, but their offspring are infertile. Wolves and coyotes rarely breed in the wild, but when they do, their offspring are able to reproduce.
Were essentially subspecies. So while different, we could produce viable offspring. That's one of the key definitions of species. I can't breed a duck and donkey for instance. Not yet. Not until I finish my research
I feel it really sad that you had to explain what you meant by male and female when you were talking about genetic exchange with the neanderthals and the denisovans.
So I’m wondering, modern humans exhibit a variety of distinctive features among our various regional populations. Has natural selection had time to create these features or do these variations result from different levels and combinations of interbreeding with these other species? For example, do stereotypical European traits come from more interbreeding with Neanderthals than the people’s of Southern Africa or east asia or have these groups had time to evolve these features through natural selection?
I referred to the headline "How Neanderthals ended up with human chromosomes", which implies that Neanderthals were not humans. But Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis etc. were humans. "Homo" (latin) = person / human. humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree
@Ken Relative difference is... relative. I'm genetically distinct from people who have different body hair patterns and a different nose shape than me. You're only 50% related to either of your biological parents from a genetics standpoint. Identical (monozygitic) twins are 99.whatever% related, depending upon mutation and epigenetics. If they can interbreed successfully then they are the same species.
Well sex like X and Y are also on are spectrum and not a binary thing. So yeah it should be explained. There are females with XY who are cisgender who can reproduce and cisgender males who have XX who can reproduce and are not necessarily considered intersex. Then there are also intersex people and this isn't even getting into the topic of gender. Non-binary and third genders have also existed in cultures around the world from the like the beginnings of human history. Like early biblical/Hebrew texts even have 5 genders. And this is a show about science so acknowledging how male and female is being defined is important because both within biology, sociology, anthropologie there are not a clear-cut binary or idea. Science says we need to define these kinds of terms because that's how science works.
@bic boi Well I would recommend Hank Green on this channel for education about sex. Or sexploitations a channel started by complexly both for explains of sex and gender being on a spectrum. And history on third gender people. There are a few really good Radio Labs about this like an entire 6 part series called Gonads. There is a thing to look into. "More than Just Male and Female: The Six Genders in Ancient Jewish Thought." Freidson, Sarah. Sefaria, 10 June 2016
@bic boi yeah I don't have enough time to be educating people on what's been accepted for like over 50 years in science. All of the things I talked about provide sources. This isn't a speech and debate competition being graded for points. Like seriously Radio Lab is put out by PRI. Like do you have a paper do? I don't have the time to go to a library to find papers from the 1950s. Are you planning on paying for all the peer-reviewed sources that all end up being behind pay walls? You can also go read about it on the WHO website.
There's a NASA expert who wrote a book in the late 1970's and says the Neanderthals were seeded from extraterrestrials (astronauts): "Astronauts from another planet in another solar system landed on Earth and mated with Neanderthal women. Thus, producing the Cro Magnon!". -Chatelain, Maurice. "Our Ancestors Came from Outer Space: A NASA Expert confirms Mankind's Extraterrestrial Origins". Dell Publishing Company, 1979
@@ghostagent3552 who is talking about micro and macro evolution? Those are terms creationists use mostly to try deny speciation. I do not. I try to argue that Neanderthal is human too as proven by interbreeding
Question: If we find the DNA of a half-homosapien half-neandethal person, how would we classify that? Have we maybe found one with a sapiens-father with a sapiens-y-chromosome and classified it as a Neanderthal with a weird y-chromosome for some reason? You know what I mean? At which point does it stop to make sense talking about different species when both have inherited genetic material from each other for millenia, can interbreed perfectly with each other, swap chromosomes around etc?
I have problems with our current estimation of historical Neanderthal populations. Most notably, the fact that they're in no small part ex nihilo determinations. In the early days, sites were largely determined by the population size, with an automatic assumption that the larger sites were Homo Sapiens, and the smaller ones were Neanderthal. As more Neanderthal sites were discovered, with more direct evidence as to the inhabitants, those assumptions seemed to bear out, but the are problems with that. In many cases, the sites were inhabited earlier by Neanderthals, abandoned, then taken by homo sapiens, and the sapiens settlements were typically larger, however, due to the latitude and the time difference, these areas often had a significantly lower carrying capacity during the period of Neanderthal occupation. There are sadly few currently known examples of places nearby and of similar (contemporary, not present) climate to one another with concurrent sapiens and Neanderthal occupation to compare, so it would be difficult to prove, but I find it likely that population densities were similar in similar climates.
3:00 Total replacement of the Neanderthal Y chromosome with that of anatomically modern humans paints a very clear picture of genicide. I have heard from other videos that the match of AMH male with Neanderthal female was a stable hybrid but the reverse was not. Perhaps it didn’t occur. I believe the same thing has happened in Britain in recent years.
Hmmm good job there, more questions than you answered. 1) what in the genome can be definitely assigned to a male parent (other than the Y chromosome) 2) When you say Neanderthal remains from Spain a little corner of my paleoanthro class surfaces and says that the LAST neanderthals found were in Spain. Are these the Neanderthals this information was obtained from? If so they are certainly the most likely to carry homo sapien Y chromosome. Surprising that these Y's are not more like 100K old 3) in human cultures it is most common for the females to marry into adjoining tribes (ahhh Margret Meade, I love you). Can this account for these mitochondria? 4) A short look at modern homo sapiens would convince the observer than the modern male will mate with anything, certainly anything within Mammalia, the females are somewhat more particular. If this bias existed within the neanderthals how would this affected our genetic record? How would a reversal of the sapiens' gender sexuality behaviors affect the chance of this chromosome shift possibly existing?
Seemingly random, totally incompatible species breed surprisingly commonly. When they are genetically compatible ones do it, it can lead to offspring. Enough times with enough built up changes can result in speciation.
@@massimookissed1023 Yeah there isn't much most of the Early finds were found among the remains of various animals which at least in the case of the Denisovian X Neanderthal hybrid girl appear to have been brought to the cave by cave hyenas. I don't know much about the conditions of other bones there but that cave seems to have been more of a lair of predators than a place of human habitation which may explain the very fragmentary nature of bones there. We do also have a Denisovan jaw bone if memory serves found in a cave controlled by Tibetan Monks. Sadly Its DNA isn't sequenceable but protein analysis show its Denisovan affinity. There is an additional reason Teeth were likely used as their mineralized structure helps to give them more robust DNA preservation than other parts of the body.
Is there anywhere a good video that shows how far back we can trace our DNA / genes and to what areas... Like, where OG humans come from? Someone told me they’ve traced it back to one specific area in Africa?
Now for my favorite question here - can my favorite science for everybody answer this one. Say at 100,000 years ago were Neandtherals as closely related to us as say Dogs are to Wolves? Dogs are to Foxes? Obviously they were closer than donkeys to horses. Were they perhaps as closely related as Eskimos to Watusi's? (this is NOT a racist comment, a quick inspection will show that even over a very short time the freezing cold of the artic and the terrible humid heat of Africa changes those who survive. My ancestors came from the Northland and you can tell by the short height, stocky build, chubby fingers, ratio of calf to thigh, blue eyes , tendency to sunburn).This I would love to see you handle, first what are the traceable environmental effects on existing humans and then existing humans and our ancestors. I have seen statements that a mere 2 - 10 million years is the span of most species, by then extinction or simpatric speciation. Why don't you guys move down here to the West? I would pay money to help build your pieces, they are just wonderful and your all just great to be doing it.
They did. There are people from South-East-Asia with Denisovan, Neanderthal and Homo-Sapien DNA. 3 different species. Europeans only have Homo-Sapien and Neanderthal DNA and no Denisovan. There are these islands in South-East Asia where people naturally have blonde hair, a gene that comes from the Denisovans. Also, there are people living in Tibet high up in the mountains and a lot of these people carry genes inherited from Denisovans that help produce more red bloodcells in the blood to survive on higher altitudes.
What makes homosapiens, neanderthals, and denisovans different species as opposed to different races? I thought a species was defined as “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.” Wouldn’t that make the three all part of the same species?
Freedom Anderson No, but they can’t crossbreed and have fertile offspring. Crossbreeding ends at the first generation for them. Not the same for homosapiens, neanderthals, and denisonvans.
I have a question for anyone well versed in genetics to answer. At the start of the video Hank says we've been able to reconstruct parts of the genomes for our relative homonids from fossils, but I thought it was impossible to preserve DNA in fossil form. That's one of the reasons I've always heard used to explain why something like Jurassic Park could never happen in the real world. Fossils are just stone, right? Stone in the form of a once living organism, but still stone. How can they get neanderthal DNA from fossils, but not, say, raptor or tyrannosaurus Rex DNA? Thanks to anyone who can answer this in advance!
We have old bones, actual bones. Some of them are pretty good at preserving DNA inside them. The hard bone behind our ears, for example. We are also pretty good at reading/reconstructing damaged DNA these days. The DNA we get from old Neanderthal bones is not intact at all. It is broken into many, many pieces and there are other errors here and there. But if we can read many differently broken DNA pieces from the same individual, then we can piece together how the original DNA looked. Fossils happen when something that was alive becomes partly or completely replaced by stone. That is not what we are talking about here. Non-avian dinosaurs (= those that aren’t birds) lived so long ago that their DNA is totally destroyed. Neanderthals and denisovans lived very close to the present in comparison. DNA destruction is not a linear but an exponential process: every year, the DNA gets destroyed x% more. In other words, it has a half-time. If 5% is left after 10000 years, only 5% of 5% will be left after 20000 years and 5% of 5% of 5% after 30000. The numbers are just pulled out of a hat, but that is the general pattern for DNA preservation. Now imagine we are talking about a 60,000,000 year old dino bone...
@@peterfireflylund I kind of imagined it had to be something along those lines. The massive difference in the age of the two kinds of fossils was the only thing I could think of. Thanks for clearing that up! 👍
Probably but the only suitable surrogate would be a human and then there are ethical concerns around experimenting on human egg cells to replace the genetic material with neanderthal DNA and actually ending up with a baby neanderthal if the experiment doesn't abort the fetus.
@@mme.veronica735 Ethics always funny when ethics steps in. Humanity destroys everything around by default. But to create new lifeforms is a problem lol
The insert card with two humanoids on your poster. What's with the humongous club? Giant dude with terrible poster, is that supposed to be the Neanderthal? Dang.
It's very frightening how many people go ;-) and most of the comments or talk about the dirty implications of this period but in reality it was probably a very terrible time it's been proven over and over again that early humans were horrible and the point that they ultimately wiped out two other groups of earlier humanoid individuals right frankly is a horrible thing . Always wonder where they came from genetically as the original species that were here that you survived them appearing I guess. And you can tell that they weren't meant to be here as they needed that genetic mutation to be able to survive on this planet. Even still having consequences to this day it's really disturbing.
@Teva Devere talking about the chromosome that makes people male, is just barely there, meaning males almost didn’t happen so think of it like “made it by the skin of your teeth”, or possibly something else would happen, as Minny suggests that it’ll just jump? I’m not well versed in it.
We call denisovans and Neanderthals different from humans but. We have their DNA. They had ours. Wouldn't it be more accurate to think of them simply as our ancestors?
Are most of the techniques used for these generic studies destructive? Theoretically there's a finite number of ancient human remains to be found. Are we at risk of running out?
Why are Neanderthals not considered human? we are the same species right? after all as long as 2 organisms can produce offspring together and said offspring can also reproduce they're considered the same species right?
This reminds me of an experiment I had conducted with guppies.
Once upon a time I had a burgeoning population of feeder guppies.
In a later setup, I had mixed populations of both feeder guppies and fancy guppies.
The populations readily interbred, creating a hybrid with unique but consistent traits that were not found in either parent populations.
The guppy populations collapsed.
My hypothesis was that the hybrids were mules of a sort, but were also more desirable than the purebreds.
This is a phenomenon that can be seen in other breeding hybrid breeds such as savannah cat pets trade where chromosomes in a single specimen from different species will disagree and can result in gender based sterility or where genetic viability can only be achieved by selectedly breeding with one species or another.
Perhaps Neanderthal-cromagnon hybrid populations were only able to continue breeding with cromagnon males.
Or there was not much deference between the two groups to begin with. Such as all dogs can breed with wolves.
Also when one group of humans move in or trade with another group, virus and plagues kill off 60 to 80 % of the local populations.
The word 'human' does not mean 'Homo sapien'. The word 'human' refers to the genus 'Homo'.
Neanderthals were humans, with human DNA, as was the Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis and all other hominins. Hominins are the humans. As such all species classified Homo contained human DNA.
Sorry for correction. Misuse of the word 'human' specifically for Homo sapiens is a common mistake.
We are just one of many kinds of humans that have existed.
(I hold a recent MSc in this)
Your science is good, it's just that one terminology error that troubled me.
surprised this isnt top comment
Although, you could play Neanderthals as homo sapians, given that they are genetically human.
@@TimberWulfIsHere Homo sapiens, Homo ergaster, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo habilis are all genetically human.
The word 'human' does not mean 'Homo sapien'. It refers to a genus of several different species.
Homo sapiens are one of many species of human (the hominins). Homo sapiens are also a species of great ape (the hominids).
The word 'human' (the homo genus) does not mean 'homo sapien'. It refers to the genus, which once contained many different species.
Look at it like this:
Another genus is the Panthera (the 'big cats'). Lions and tigers are both of the genus Panthera, like Homo sapiens and Homo ergaster are both of the Human genus. But lions are not tigers and tigers are not lions. They are a different species.
However...
What marks a species or subspecies is the ability to breed and produce fertile young. If Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis could breed and produce fertile young they could have been the same species or both be a subspecies of the ancient human Homo erectus. That would make us Homo erectus sapiens and Neanderthals would be Homo erectus neanderthalensis, if we were both subspecies. Or we are actually 100% Neanderthals ourselves. That's a mindblower!
@@outsidersongs2682 yes, I have education in biology lol, no need for the paragraphs mate. What I was infering poorly, was that due to modern investigation and DNA sequencing of Neaderthals that we are the same species as them, not just the same genus, if that makes sense? I think you got it though.
@@TimberWulfIsHere I have wondered the same but remember that all the ancient species were genetically human without being Homo sapiens.
I think, personally, based on current understanding, that Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and the Denisovans are all subspecies of the Homo erectus.
(I always write in paragraphs. I'm old fashioned).
Gives the term Homo Erectus a whole new meaning.
🤣
hahhahahahahahhahah, stop giving me lewd thoughts.
When it's 2:30 in the morning, and you're 10 rotting, fermented fruits deep, giving you that weird but fun floaty feeling you don't understand, the neanderthal girls start looking kinda cute...
Neanderthal's do be looking kinda thicc.
@@jorgegwydirrangel3377 I could see that. We'll never know since the soft tissue wasn't preserved. :(
The wearing of beer goggles would most certainly have been advantageous :/-
Dat brow is thicc!
😁 😁 😁 😁 😁
Skull skull tooth
New game.
I'd play ngl
🙄 Humans
We either kill it....or “date it”.
Or we were just raped? 😂😂
...or both. Sorry
Have you seen the internet, we ain't even limited to "or"
There's actually a lot of merit to genetic conquest over empire-building purely through political means. An empire has to pay to control the administration of a conquered nation and keep a standing army to keep them in line. The number one way an empire fails is by succeeding too much. If instead, they slaughtered the majority of the target's males through war and then sent in a bunch of civilians to go live in the conquered country and interbreed, in the next generations you'll have a significant fraction of that country's citizens influencing politics in your direction rather than solely theirs. They still pay for their government and armies, but they will be passing laws favoring your country all on their own.
It's even easier against modern western countries since you don't even have to win a war first to start sending in your civilians.
If we enter the galactic stage and discover xenos, we would be remiss to not genetically engineer ourselves to enable xeno hybridization and ally ourselves with xenos who would be interesting in letting us bed them. Filling the galaxy with Human-xeno hybrids means you'll have some human favoritism even in sovereignties not under your direct control.
Human: preferred classes; Fighter, Bard.
I remember 2 years ago a paper came out where scientists discovered that some small amount of paternal mitochondrial DNA is also inherited and how now we need to reassess a lot of constructed lineages. I wonder how that would change what we know about Neanderthals and humans.
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810946115
Link to article if anyone interested
I love that we can do this sort of research, mind blowing. Broken fragments of things far too small to see tell us who we used to be.
This topic was interesting, but I really need to know where Hank got that amazing shark shirt
+
IDK where he got his but I have a similar one, opposite colors, light shirt dark sharks. I got it at Cropp, which I believe is a Polish clothing brand
This topic is way more interesting!
a
a
On 23andme I have more Neanderthal than 96% of 23andme users. I have 318 genetic variants that can be traced to the Neanderthals.
My ancestors definitely enjoyed mixing things up a bit. That song from Die Antwood comes to mind...
" I think you freaky and I like you a lot" hahaha
@Budo Ka lol
Nights-in -Neon I know what you mean. I got 98% according to 23 and me. It almost makes me proud. I wish my parents were alive to find out who had the most. I bet it was my mother (although my dad had hair from neck to foot).
Where are you from? I mean your ancestors.
@@maiaallman4635 England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Germany.
Sounds like Grunk was cheating on Ugg with Ooma.
I'm pretty sure Ugg is a man
UGG SMASH
I don't understand the way we talk about prehistoric humans. If "our ancestors" interbred with Neanderthals, aren't Neanderthals also our ancestors? Also, why are a chihuahua, a poodle, and a golden retriever all considered the same species, while Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are all considered separate species?
Yes, Neanderthals are also _our_ ancestors, if by _we_ we refer to us as we are today. If by _we_ we mean the species of homo sapiens, then no, Neanderthals are not our ancestors. That's the difference.
The difference between a species and a variation (or a race) is more or less an arbitrary definition. Like until when is something just another dialect and from where on you have to call it a different language? That's just convention we agreed upon.
@@lonestarr1490 I find it weird to refer to the species as we, in a way that is exclusive with respect to we, as in, those who live today. This immediately suggests that some of we, who live today, are not the same species.
The different dog breeds were made through artificial selection within the last few thousand years, so none of them have had time to become their own species. In fact, none of them have even had time to become a completely distinct species from the gray wolf - they're only a subspecies. They look so drastically different just because they were bred for those features.
1:44 lol, walking on eggshells with this one.
I’m supposedly in the 89th percentile for Neanderthal DNA markers. My lengthy caveman arms and brow ridge agree. Also by human you mean Homo sapiens. Those aren’t equivalent terms.
Do you have a little knob in the back of your head? The "occipital bun", at least that's a suspicion of a trait. It could be inaccurate correlation. 🤔
That’s why you hear “modern human” I guess.
4:56 “Interbreeding between ancient humans isn’t just a scandalous secret in our family tree...” 🤣
"How Neanderthals ended up with human chromosomes"
OOGA BOOGA LOVE NOISES
i mean homo erectus split into homo sapiens and neanderthals, right? and also denisovans. before all 3 were around is was just homo erectus before em all, right? so at the time of all 3, all 3 should be able to easily breed i'd (totally) guess.
Actually, H. erectus took a transitionary form called H. heidelbergensis, which migrated back to Africa and gave rise to H. sapiens sapiens, us. It is thought that Neanderthals and Denisovans evolved from H. erectus, but they also coexisted with erectus for many hundreds of thousands of years. The ancient history of hominins is so fascinating!
@@matthewtopping2061 cool! Do we have many homo erectus-es (or however ya...) ? I mean if it was around for that long, surely there'd be a lotta variations ya'd think. Ah well. It's good to know what we do. A lot better than what I learned in college taking whatever intro class i had :) Ardipithicus is my favorite. Those toes!! :)
@@SteveHazel Pardon me, it seems what I said was inaccurate. Sapiens, Neanderthal and Denisovan all appear to have evolved from H. heidelbergensis starting around 800-700tybp. They are separated evolutionarily from erectus by about 1my so they probably didn't interbreed with erectus. With the arrival of newer hominin species, erectus was pushed east and confined to what is now China and SE Asia. Check out Peking Man.
@@matthewtopping2061: Check out Peking Man while he's peeking at you? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@@sdfkjgh Or maybe pecking 🐦
When a Cro-Magnon and neanderthal love each other very much
Love how you had to explain male/female. Goodness gracious
For me? No. Its a new age, anything goes. Be the you that you want to be.
"How Neanderthals Ended Up With Human Chromosomes"
Is this going to be a "birds and the bees" video?
Ancient European mythology and legends are certainly starting to make so much more sense now. ;D
Yes gog and magog perhaps
@@chrisinnes2128 As well as "David and Goliath" among many others that have probably been edited to "make more sense" since they were written from the perspective of a world with multiple "human races".
Yay! I have some I just did my 23&Me
How is the 23&me test? I did the ancestry dna test and my % are different than i expected, like i should be alot more irish i think
Andrew Mayo I mean keep in mind that is not because of different results, you should go and change cultures. But it was cool to see where my DNA bits came from. I am from Cuba so I expected to have more of a mix but not so much...Mostly Colonizer 🤣 th-cam.com/video/Fkc8H8qL4Mw/w-d-xo.html
@@Sausketo Funny story we share the same last name. I am Mayo from my Mother's side. I did dropped it when I became a Citizen just to make it easy for forms and legal stuff.
@@YunierViada wow, good video, your results look more detailed too! Mine has
France-35% (makes sense because my moms family is french canadian)
England & Northwestern Europe-29%
Germanic Europe-13%
Scotland-11%
Wales-6%
Ireland-3%
Eastern Europe & Russia-2%
Indiginous Americas--North-1%
@@YunierViada also wow on the last name!
Thank you for helping me educate myself SciShow!
Nobody:
Hank: THIS IS A DRAMATIC FINDING
ok kirstin
best episode in awhile, thoroughly enjoyed it, thank you.
"How did Neanderthals get human DNA?"
*Insert lewd comment here*
Someone inserted SOMETHING anyway
@@jasepoag8930 You're insinuating insertion ?
@@jasepoag8930 God Tier Comment 😂😂😂😂
😅🤣😅
Bow chicka wowow
I would throw my hat into the camp of anthropology/paleoanthropology that argues that Neanderthals, Denisovans and anatomically modern humans are basically the same species and should be referred to as 'Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis, Homo Sapiens Denisovans and Homo Sapiens Sapiens, respectively.
So what you're saying is that eventually the male neanderthals who had male neanderthal y chromosomes stopped contributing to the species. Like what would happen, for instance, if homo sapiens had a tendency to kill all of the men but leave all of the women alive when encountering the species?
Are you suggesting that our ancestors went to war, killed all men and raped the women? I guess some things never change
It's starting to look more like the Neanderthals and Denisovans were not so much different subspecies, but different tribes of humans.
While an evolutionary benefit to y-chromosome replacement is one important aspect to research, I would think a cultural benefit may be another possible factor worth looking in to, especially if evolutionary benefits prove hard to find. A difference in how early humans and neanderthals treated hybrids born from a human father vs a neanderthal father may have existed.
_HMMMMMMM I wonder how that happened_ 🤔
Diversity is good for our dna.
If alcohol was available around that time, it would’ve been a great help!
The clapping of the cheeks was aplenty 😂
Thomas E.S 😂😂
Horizontal mambo
In the 1990s I took anthropology classes from Dr. Sam Dunlap at Northern Virginia Community College. He believed we are Neanderthals. Different shapes of skulls are only superficial differences. Inuit and other ethnic groups that have been isolated from larger groups until about 300 years ago have similar facial proportions to Neanderthals. Skulls from the period when Neanderthals and 'Modern' humans came in contact show characteristics of both groups. Smaller jaws may have evolved due to a new availability of cooked food cut into small pieces. If babies with smaller jaws had been born before the knowledge of fire, they would not live, due to being unable to bite into raw food. There was a story in the news at the time I went there that claimed to prove from DNA that Neanderthals were a different species. Dr. Dunlap claimed the gene sample used was way too small for a conclusive result. Also, it was still the rule at the time that members of different species could not have offspring capable of having offspring of their own. So how could we possibly have 'Neanderthal DNA' if they were a separate species?
Was he just respectfull to the gender identity of prehistoric people? Nice! Well done! You get a gold star.
Minor clarification, not actually important: at 2:15 credit "Демин Алексей Барнаул" reads weird. Without any punctuation it looks like a 3-word full Russian name: first name, patronymic, last name. But Алексей is obviously the first name, and there is no patronymic. So is it maybe Демин Алексей *comma* Барнаул, Barnaul being the capital of the region where Denisova cave is located?
This is yet another genetics discovery that fits and supports Lloyd Pye's extraordinary findings in the lecture "Everything you know is wrong" which lays out the evidence in our chromosomes that we are a genetically modified species. I've cued this clip up to the relevant point at the end, but the whole lecture is well worth watching. Here, he discusses some quite obvious splicing of our second chromosome, explaining why we only have 46 chromosomes and all our primate and hominid ancestors have 48:
th-cam.com/video/e5qJYwfAju8/w-d-xo.html
Were Neanderthals a different species though? What does it mean when we make the distinction between humans and Neanderthals?
Distinctions between species is often pretty fuzzy, especially when the two groups are so closely related they produce fertile offspring.
Sort of like a lion and tiger being able to breed. In the human/Neanderthal case, they were close enough that their offspring could still breed, at least, some of the time. Close but not the same. That's my simplified understanding of it, anyway.
@@JackHaveman52 I guess it's more like wolves and coyotes. Lions and tigers can breed in captivity, but their offspring are infertile. Wolves and coyotes rarely breed in the wild, but when they do, their offspring are able to reproduce.
Male ligers are infertile but female ligers are fertile.
Were essentially subspecies. So while different, we could produce viable offspring.
That's one of the key definitions of species. I can't breed a duck and donkey for instance. Not yet. Not until I finish my research
Neanderthal reconstruction at 0:20 looks exactly like my grandpabby 🤖🤣🤣🤣🤣
I did read "how the Netherlands ended up with human cromosomes" *chuckles*
Incorrect video title. It's should be "How did Neanderthal's end up with Homosapien DNA". Denisovan and Neanderthals were humans too.
Incorrect punctuation.
I feel it really sad that you had to explain what you meant by male and female when you were talking about genetic exchange with the neanderthals and the denisovans.
So I’m wondering, modern humans exhibit a variety of distinctive features among our various regional populations. Has natural selection had time to create these features or do these variations result from different levels and combinations of interbreeding with these other species? For example, do stereotypical European traits come from more interbreeding with Neanderthals than the people’s of Southern Africa or east asia or have these groups had time to evolve these features through natural selection?
At 0:55 you might have added “among others”.
Please consider adding all credits to instead to another part of the screen. It is difficult to see them when viewing videos with captions on.
300,000 years ago is nothing in evolutionary terms. I wish we knew more about this.
Hell, what we did to the domesticated species was blazingly fast
And I thought Neanderthals WERE humans...
Humans generally refers to Homo Sapiens not Neanderthals they're a slightly different species of the Homo lineage
@@mme.veronica735 homo sapien a species name that is now considered to apply to both modern humans and Neanderthals.
I referred to the headline "How Neanderthals ended up with human chromosomes", which implies that Neanderthals were not humans. But Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis etc. were humans.
"Homo" (latin) = person / human.
humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree
@Ken Relative difference is... relative. I'm genetically distinct from people who have different body hair patterns and a different nose shape than me. You're only 50% related to either of your biological parents from a genetics standpoint. Identical (monozygitic) twins are 99.whatever% related, depending upon mutation and epigenetics.
If they can interbreed successfully then they are the same species.
@Ken They are part of us, unless you're African. There were no Neanderthals in Africa.
Wait... What happened to SR Foxley?
So, our family tree is more like a family tumble weed?
Or a family jungle.
Random fact
The dot on top of the letter "i" is called a tittle.
-The Shades
Whew, thanks for defining the terms “male” and “female” for us
I was thinking the same thing... I played it back because I thought I heard it incorrectly.. seriously snowflakes?
Well sex like X and Y are also on are spectrum and not a binary thing. So yeah it should be explained. There are females with XY who are cisgender who can reproduce and cisgender males who have XX who can reproduce and are not necessarily considered intersex. Then there are also intersex people and this isn't even getting into the topic of gender.
Non-binary and third genders have also existed in cultures around the world from the like the beginnings of human history. Like early biblical/Hebrew texts even have 5 genders.
And this is a show about science so acknowledging how male and female is being defined is important because both within biology, sociology, anthropologie there are not a clear-cut binary or idea. Science says we need to define these kinds of terms because that's how science works.
@bic boi Well I would recommend Hank Green on this channel for education about sex. Or sexploitations a channel started by complexly both for explains of sex and gender being on a spectrum. And history on third gender people.
There are a few really good Radio Labs about this like an entire 6 part series called Gonads.
There is a thing to look into.
"More than Just Male and Female: The Six Genders in Ancient Jewish Thought." Freidson, Sarah. Sefaria, 10 June 2016
@bic boi yeah I don't have enough time to be educating people on what's been accepted for like over 50 years in science.
All of the things I talked about provide sources. This isn't a speech and debate competition being graded for points.
Like seriously Radio Lab is put out by PRI.
Like do you have a paper do? I don't have the time to go to a library to find papers from the 1950s. Are you planning on paying for all the peer-reviewed sources that all end up being behind pay walls?
You can also go read about it on the WHO website.
@2:15 sad cave is crying only on her left eye
There's a NASA expert who wrote a book in the late 1970's and says the Neanderthals were seeded from extraterrestrials (astronauts):
"Astronauts from another planet in another solar system landed on Earth and mated with Neanderthal women. Thus, producing the Cro Magnon!". -Chatelain, Maurice. "Our Ancestors Came from Outer Space: A NASA Expert confirms Mankind's Extraterrestrial Origins". Dell Publishing Company, 1979
"How did Neanderthals get human dna?" Because they -are- human? We are talking subspecies here.
Welp. I guess you can't tell the difference between your so-called Macroevolution and Microevolution huh?
They _might_ have been a subspecies. But most still classify them as a separate, but very closely related, species.
@@scaper8 Subspecies yes, but not a seperate species because then interbreeding would not be possible
@@ghostagent3552 who is talking about micro and macro evolution? Those are terms creationists use mostly to try deny speciation. I do not. I try to argue that Neanderthal is human too as proven by interbreeding
@@aristotlespupil136 Most species within a single genus can interbreed. Most scientists still classify Neanderthals as a separate species.
Question: If we find the DNA of a half-homosapien half-neandethal person, how would we classify that? Have we maybe found one with a sapiens-father with a sapiens-y-chromosome and classified it as a Neanderthal with a weird y-chromosome for some reason?
You know what I mean? At which point does it stop to make sense talking about different species when both have inherited genetic material from each other for millenia, can interbreed perfectly with each other, swap chromosomes around etc?
homo sapiens x homo neanderthalensis, that how it would be classified
Fascinating. Thank you.
Always nice to catch up on what the relatives are doing. :)
I have problems with our current estimation of historical Neanderthal populations. Most notably, the fact that they're in no small part ex nihilo determinations. In the early days, sites were largely determined by the population size, with an automatic assumption that the larger sites were Homo Sapiens, and the smaller ones were Neanderthal. As more Neanderthal sites were discovered, with more direct evidence as to the inhabitants, those assumptions seemed to bear out, but the are problems with that. In many cases, the sites were inhabited earlier by Neanderthals, abandoned, then taken by homo sapiens, and the sapiens settlements were typically larger, however, due to the latitude and the time difference, these areas often had a significantly lower carrying capacity during the period of Neanderthal occupation. There are sadly few currently known examples of places nearby and of similar (contemporary, not present) climate to one another with concurrent sapiens and Neanderthal occupation to compare, so it would be difficult to prove, but I find it likely that population densities were similar in similar climates.
1:48 Did I miss something? Why was that clarification needed?
Could it be because they ARE human?!
I know right? "How did frogs end up with frog DNA?!" We may never know.
Indeed.
0:09 *Jackie Chan Mel Brooks*
This summer, martial arts has never been funnier!
*KUNG FOOLS*
3:00 Total replacement of the Neanderthal Y chromosome with that of anatomically modern humans paints a very clear picture of genicide. I have heard from other videos that the match of AMH male with Neanderthal female was a stable hybrid but the reverse was not. Perhaps it didn’t occur.
I believe the same thing has happened in Britain in recent years.
Hmmm good job there, more questions than you answered. 1) what in the genome can be definitely assigned to a male parent (other than the Y chromosome) 2) When you say Neanderthal remains from Spain a little corner of my paleoanthro class surfaces and says that the LAST neanderthals found were in Spain. Are these the Neanderthals this information was obtained from? If so they are certainly the most likely to carry homo sapien Y chromosome. Surprising that these Y's are not more like 100K old 3) in human cultures it is most common for the females to marry into adjoining tribes (ahhh Margret Meade, I love you). Can this account for these mitochondria? 4) A short look at modern homo sapiens would convince the observer than the modern male will mate with anything, certainly anything within Mammalia, the females are somewhat more particular. If this bias existed within the neanderthals how would this affected our genetic record? How would a reversal of the sapiens' gender sexuality behaviors affect the chance of this chromosome shift possibly existing?
If you don’t know how by the age of 16 then your school system has failed you.
When I was 16, I learned nothing about this from school. Just saying. Lol
Or your parents.
I was literally born with this knowledge.
Step up your game, Mr. Denisenko. Oh wait you can't because you're a big dummy. amirite fellas?
@@General12th Umm, wouldn't go that far. Seems kinda middle schoolish to me.
@@LeatherNeck1833 Well I'll have you know I'm only six years old. My teachers think I'm very well-spoken. :)
Wow! Didn't see this coming, but it makes sense.😲
Is this kind of cross breeding unusual for other animals or do we just have more data on ourselves
This happens a lot with closer species
One common example of cross breeding I can think of is between foxes and coyotes.
Chances are its pretty common wherever possible. Its just more popular learning of our own lineage than a ducks
Seemingly random, totally incompatible species breed surprisingly commonly.
When they are genetically compatible ones do it, it can lead to offspring. Enough times with enough built up changes can result in speciation.
@@etheneinspenner3950 coyoxs or foxotes?
Are teeth the only fossils we have of denisovans?
I think there are some finger bones too, but really there isn't much.
@@massimookissed1023 Yeah there isn't much most of the Early finds were found among the remains of various animals which at least in the case of the Denisovian X Neanderthal hybrid girl appear to have been brought to the cave by cave hyenas. I don't know much about the conditions of other bones there but that cave seems to have been more of a lair of predators than a place of human habitation which may explain the very fragmentary nature of bones there.
We do also have a Denisovan jaw bone if memory serves found in a cave controlled by Tibetan Monks. Sadly Its DNA isn't sequenceable but protein analysis show its Denisovan affinity.
There is an additional reason Teeth were likely used as their mineralized structure helps to give them more robust DNA preservation than other parts of the body.
0:57 The way he pronounces it sounds so weird and wrong. I'd always heard it pronounced de-ni-SO-vans.
Is there anywhere a good video that shows how far back we can trace our DNA / genes and to what areas... Like, where OG humans come from? Someone told me they’ve traced it back to one specific area in Africa?
With a quick glance I misread it like "How Netherlands Ended Up With Human Chromosomes".
I want this video to just be hank popping up from below like v-sauce and saying "dey fuuuuck'd" - end credits.
Who is Denis and why do they have eggs?
We all know that Ayla did this. Read "Clan of the Cave Bear" by Jean Auel for the whole story! :)
You were doing so much better with this update than your prudish earlier video right till the end. You just had to add your opinion.
Now for my favorite question here - can my favorite science for everybody answer this one. Say at 100,000 years ago were Neandtherals as closely related to us as say Dogs are to Wolves? Dogs are to Foxes? Obviously they were closer than donkeys to horses. Were they perhaps as closely related as Eskimos to Watusi's? (this is NOT a racist comment, a quick inspection will show that even over a very short time the freezing cold of the artic and the terrible humid heat of Africa changes those who survive. My ancestors came from the Northland and you can tell by the short height, stocky build, chubby fingers, ratio of calf to thigh, blue eyes , tendency to sunburn).This I would love to see you handle, first what are the traceable environmental effects on existing humans and then existing humans and our ancestors. I have seen statements that a mere 2 - 10 million years is the span of most species, by then extinction or simpatric speciation.
Why don't you guys move down here to the West? I would pay money to help build your pieces, they are just wonderful and your all just great to be doing it.
Well, there's one way I know how DNA gets from one into another.............. :P
Next video, Yamnaya. See David Reich. Cool stuff. Thanks.
Presumably Denisovans and Neanderthals interbred as well?
They did. There are people from South-East-Asia with Denisovan, Neanderthal and Homo-Sapien DNA. 3 different species. Europeans only have Homo-Sapien and Neanderthal DNA and no Denisovan. There are these islands in South-East Asia where people naturally have blonde hair, a gene that comes from the Denisovans. Also, there are people living in Tibet high up in the mountains and a lot of these people carry genes inherited from Denisovans that help produce more red bloodcells in the blood to survive on higher altitudes.
They had different first contact protocols back then
What makes homosapiens, neanderthals, and denisovans different species as opposed to different races? I thought a species was defined as “a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.” Wouldn’t that make the three all part of the same species?
Are Lions and Tigers the same species?
Freedom Anderson
No, but they can’t crossbreed and have fertile offspring. Crossbreeding ends at the first generation for them. Not the same for homosapiens, neanderthals, and denisonvans.
ngl that European human at 0:10 kinda looked like my friend. I'm Indonesian btw.
Very nice information love from India
I still don't understand why there's no more findings of Denisovans
I have a question for anyone well versed in genetics to answer. At the start of the video Hank says we've been able to reconstruct parts of the genomes for our relative homonids from fossils, but I thought it was impossible to preserve DNA in fossil form. That's one of the reasons I've always heard used to explain why something like Jurassic Park could never happen in the real world. Fossils are just stone, right? Stone in the form of a once living organism, but still stone. How can they get neanderthal DNA from fossils, but not, say, raptor or tyrannosaurus Rex DNA? Thanks to anyone who can answer this in advance!
We have old bones, actual bones. Some of them are pretty good at preserving DNA inside them. The hard bone behind our ears, for example. We are also pretty good at reading/reconstructing damaged DNA these days. The DNA we get from old Neanderthal bones is not intact at all. It is broken into many, many pieces and there are other errors here and there. But if we can read many differently broken DNA pieces from the same individual, then we can piece together how the original DNA looked.
Fossils happen when something that was alive becomes partly or completely replaced by stone. That is not what we are talking about here.
Non-avian dinosaurs (= those that aren’t birds) lived so long ago that their DNA is totally destroyed. Neanderthals and denisovans lived very close to the present in comparison. DNA destruction is not a linear but an exponential process: every year, the DNA gets destroyed x% more. In other words, it has a half-time. If 5% is left after 10000 years, only 5% of 5% will be left after 20000 years and 5% of 5% of 5% after 30000. The numbers are just pulled out of a hat, but that is the general pattern for DNA preservation. Now imagine we are talking about a 60,000,000 year old dino bone...
@@peterfireflylund I kind of imagined it had to be something along those lines. The massive difference in the age of the two kinds of fossils was the only thing I could think of. Thanks for clearing that up! 👍
Is it possible to create a neanderthal from DNA?
Probably but the only suitable surrogate would be a human and then there are ethical concerns around experimenting on human egg cells to replace the genetic material with neanderthal DNA and actually ending up with a baby neanderthal if the experiment doesn't abort the fetus.
Not from a Jedi.
@@mme.veronica735 Ethics always funny when ethics steps in. Humanity destroys everything around by default. But to create new lifeforms is a problem lol
The insert card with two humanoids on your poster. What's with the humongous club? Giant dude with terrible poster, is that supposed to be the Neanderthal? Dang.
It's very frightening how many people go ;-) and most of the comments or talk about the dirty implications of this period but in reality it was probably a very terrible time it's been proven over and over again that early humans were horrible and the point that they ultimately wiped out two other groups of earlier humanoid individuals right frankly is a horrible thing . Always wonder where they came from genetically as the original species that were here that you survived them appearing I guess.
And you can tell that they weren't meant to be here as they needed that genetic mutation to be able to survive on this planet. Even still having consequences to this day it's really disturbing.
If the Y chromosome gets to small the XRY would just jump to another chromosome men are not going extinct
Wtf are you trying to say
@Teva Devere talking about the chromosome that makes people male, is just barely there, meaning males almost didn’t happen so think of it like “made it by the skin of your teeth”, or possibly something else would happen, as Minny suggests that it’ll just jump? I’m not well versed in it.
Futanari future confirmed? Mothers baby, fathers maybe...
Where's all the nonebinery specimens surely there dnd would be of interest
We call denisovans and Neanderthals different from humans but. We have their DNA. They had ours. Wouldn't it be more accurate to think of them simply as our ancestors?
Kinda but not really we seem to have eliminated essentially all thier Gene's
I'll would just like to point out that simple probability means all else equal the more fecundant variant will tend to out compete the less fecundant
Since we breed like the hominid equivalent of rabbits, and have the ability to have twins and triplets; it really is no wonder we outbreed them.
@@tyvernoverlord5363 exactly, if we reproduced faster our genes needed be superior, just not significantly worse
Why did he say "most of us" ?
Denisovans? Can do an info video on this, it’s totally new to me.
th-cam.com/video/ytktpNIN3OM/w-d-xo.html
Kelly Clowers thank youn
I really don't think an explanation is necessary , but I'll allow it.
Good thing you defined "male and female". You could of been canceled
Are most of the techniques used for these generic studies destructive? Theoretically there's a finite number of ancient human remains to be found. Are we at risk of running out?
You only need a tiny bit to get the DNA. Moreover, once you've got the sample, you're done. Load it on a flash stick and distribute at will
I was on the interstate earlier today and I'm pretty sure the car in front of me was driven by a Neanderthal.
......That was no Neanderthal...that was an Ohioan......Neanderthals are great drivers by comparison.
How come Sapiens could breed with Neanderthals? I thought that two different kinds are not able to or that the offsprings won't.
big chuckle at having to explain what you actually mean by male/female
Are we considering neanderthal less than human? Sad. When will the prejudice end?
@JohanMDK I know. Just poking fun
Neanderthal lives matter.
Das racist
Does this apply to African or Asian DNA?
Why are Neanderthals not considered human? we are the same species right? after all as long as 2 organisms can produce offspring together and said offspring can also reproduce they're considered the same species right?