Could someone tell me what does light skin and dark skin mean in this context? Especially when it is referred as darker skin. Darker than what? Are we talking about red hair white skin, burns to crisp on the sun, Estonian light. Or are we talking about brown hair light skin, tans when needed Iranian light? Are we talking about Nilotic jet black dark or San milk chocolate dark or Iranian middle eastern dark? Are we talking about darker than night sky darker or darker than milk darker? Are native Americans dark skinned in this context? Or are we talking about "Meh, Europeans probably had somewhat darker skin and hair than today."
For being a half hour recorded phone call with an academic, this was hella interesting. I really appreciate the work you put into this channel. Thanks!
I really like your documentary-style prehistory videos. This is what the History Channel and Discovery Channel used to be. These are very well edited videos.
@@bc4198 Haha obviously aliens, of course and don't forget looking for gold and when they reach bedrock there *COULD* be a fortune in gold sitting on top of it...but alas there never is.
Those old school productions were overblown and overproduced. Stefan's to the point style and personality blow them out of the water. This is why I love TH-cam. Hopefully the algorithm doesn't ruin it!
Man I love it when you have experts on to talk about their specific area of study - fascinating to hear the information straight from the folks who are doing the research on it. I hope you continue to make videos like this
Seems the main reason why ancient Europeans contributed so little would simply be because the small original population was simply diluted by the many waves of later migrants who bit by bit diluted the original DNA.
What a great interview. This is my favorite area of study. Dr. Posth was fantastic and you were asking some great questions. This is why the internet should exist.
Yes I could go on for hours listening to this conversation of yours. Because it contains such interesting information, I keep coming back to it over and over again. Thanks. .
So, the earliest modern humans in Europe contributed comparatively little to modern European DNA, but I would have loved to hear some stats on later paleolithic cultures contributions to modern European DNA, and if any of these groups contributed significantly to any non European populations. The paleolithic is such a criminally overlooked period of human history, despite being 95%+ of it.
What a good interview with each person listening to the other. And such a great supplement to your aurignacian video. Thank you. Look forward to the five hours with Dr. Posth.
Actually several dozen locations, mostly in Europe. This one is the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. See WIKI page for list of about 60 others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Max_Planck_Institutes
This is really fascinating. Thank you Stefan for the Video and thank you Dr Posth for the interview. I did not know about the replacement of the hunter gatherer population by another hunter gatherer population later in the Mesolithic.
16:51: "Around 14 000 years ago, there's a very important event called bowling alert" says the subtitles. That's hilarious. The Bølling-Allerød warming is named after a site (actually two) in Denmark in northern Sjælland. The warm period ended with the younger Dryas. Speaking of Denmark: Lola from Lolland (Syltholm) is a 5700 old genome extracted from a piece of chewing gum (chewing pitch , really). The individual who chewed the pitch was a woman with dark skin and hair and blue eyes. (Western european hunter gatherer) Her latest meal before she chewed gum was included hazelnuts and and mallard. She was also likely lactose intolerant. I never get tired of telling people about the island in Denmark that is actually called Lol-land. It's not a joke, that is the name.
24:30 it should read "and then admixing" not "and then not mixing", quite the opposite! (Sorry I know this comment and video are old, but I found that mistake to be quite the mistranscription and I'm grifting onto this sort of related thread)
@@fudgedogbannana Not so, the remains of the mastodon found in Siberia indicate that 12,000 years ago, it was a very pleasant place, with moderate temperatures and lots of grazing opportunities for herds of hundreds of thousands of individuals.
I imagine in to be similar to the tundra in canada is today, just colder when the bearing sea bridge was opened the ice receded eastward and people followed the caribou into what we call north America. The Gwich'en in the arctic have stories that go back generations 10's of thousands of years. Inuit and other Natives have stories of multiple mass migrations to North America. More genome tracing needs to be done but I do remember hearing that theres a variation showing they could survive in extremely cold conditions similar to the way Sherpa in the Himalayan mountains can survive at extremely high altitudes
This is very interesting as ever, thanks When the Dr said that they had found the ancestral form of the genes that encode for lighter skin in the ice age genomes, I thought “I wonder though if maybe they had mutations in different genes that gave them pale skin and we have pale skin as well through convergent evolution?”, and then he said the same thing, which made me feel like chuffed
What neither of them said was why they were looking wistfully for evidence of earlier whiteness when there isn't any. The point is that the grain based low vitamin D diet is a pretty good reason for that mutation to survive and expand over territory. Poor but reliable diet and cloudy skies.
@@bmoneybby The essential thing to know about genes and evolution is that survival is what matters. Random mutations are thrown up. Some favour survival and production of progeny who survive, others not. Those that favour survival e.g. ability to digest grain and milk, in a farming culture, will survive through crises much better than those who can't and will pass these mutations on to their children. And those who have light skin will absorb more vitamin D will not get rickets so will not die in childbirth and will experience more live births. I checked maps. There is only very broad correlation between solar radiation and light or dark skin. There is very close correlation between the post 8,000 bc grain farming areas and light skin and close correlation with very light skin and lactose tolerance ( This appeared mainly 5,000 bc onwards). In northern climates clothes are worn and less sun received to make Vit D. Vit D enables healthy childbirth and helps resist infection. This would in my view entirely explain the prevailing patterns of skin colour. No skin colour is in any way superior to any other. They are merely the result of food + climate.
@@casteretpollux Having read your earlier comment, and maybe I'm wrong, but you almost suggest that they have an agenda for looking for earlier whiteness in populations. What you say later makes sense, but I think they are just interested in finding out the truth and if you don't investigate you'll never know. The scientific method isn't too say, here's a hypothesis, that makes sense, that just be true. It may have occurred earlier, we just don't know, we are learning all the time. At present the evidence suggests it was adaptation to the environment, but I think Stefan's questions were excellent and very interesting ones. I'm certain white skin developed as a beneficial gene mutation to living in a more northerly, cooler climates and all the effects that go with this, reduced sunlight, ice, diet possible in areas with this kind of climate. Knowing when it occurred and in which populations in and around the last ice age I find very interesting and is nothing to do with trying to prove something. The scientific method is that you put forward a hypothesis, you collect the data, analyse it, and then form a conclusion. It isn't that you form a hypothesis and then go and find evidence to back it up whilst discarding evidence that doesn't. That is what some pseudo scientists do, but I don't think that's what's going on here.
So pleased I found this chennel, this was a really interesting talk. I wish there was an animation to go along with it really: it gets so confusing trying to picture all the cultures, peoples and their migrations, I can't help think it would be a great learning aid, especially for how the hunter gatherers mixed with one another. Like I said, excellent content. 😜👍
I watched the series from Stanford Intro to Human Behavioural Biology, and he said one of the keys to fast evolution rather than the slow genetic clock was having genes (so called junk DNA) that govern series of other genes, kind of trigger mechanisms, where small changes in the governors could produce great changes for the entire series of individual gene expressions, so the presence of one gene wouldn't necessarily be functional without the particular governor.
Dear Stefan , I love your channel. Have you ever considered attempting to interview one of the many “scientists” ppl who believe in some kind of technological antediluvian civilisation? It would be very interesting imho
Cutting edge research done and taught here 100% . To me this is my candy so thank you so so much for bringing this to us. I always knew your jeans wear good he he .♥️🤸♂️
thanks for asking that last question, I didn't know that they had updated the Neanderthal the study, I'm glad to know that we aren't losing them, they live through us
So Cosimo says there may be other areas of the genome affecting complexion so we cannot be certain what colour skin Aurignacians had. The skulls are not typical of sub saharan africans and they lived many thousands of years after the out of africa migration so I do not agree with Stefan's decision to depict them as sub saharan africans. selection pressure was for lighter skin - and the overall morphology was distinct from that we associate with modern sub saharan african features
The inhabitants of Europe today has some neanderthal DNA, so obviously the hybrids was never entirely de-throned. And my guess is the hybrids who had more pigmentational dna would survive the best. Neanderthals were not black.
I'm actually *of* Sub-Saharan African descent, and I can tell you that they do not look like me, even with their dark skin. Early Europeans most likely looked like Europeans today when it comes to phenotype, but with *much* darker skin, and dark hair and eyes.
Perhaps not autosomally, however, as someone belonging to the I1 haplogroup, my direct partilineal descendents were, beyond doubt, the first Europeans. The oldest paleolithic remains found in Europe belong to haplogroup I, and there are no paleolithic remains of haplogroup I found outside Europe. It's also the dominant haplogroup in Europe during the paleolithic.
This ought to be interesting. I know one of the stories is that the original inhabitants of Europe were mostly poor wholly wiped out by either the Neolithic farmers or the later Indo-Europeans, but that always rang false to me. Huh. So the original human inhabitants *were* mostly pushed out, under ten percent puts them only slightly ahead of Neanderthals. The light skin thing didn't surprise me, although I hadn't thought of it until just a bit before he specifically mentioned the possibility of other, as yet unknown mutations that could code for paler skin. The association with farming caught me by surprise, but thinking on it, you can kinda see it even in more equatorial areas where you'd expect darker skin to still have selective pressure, so it makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I could've listened to him for five hours, probably not consecutively, but... Another excellent video, these interviews are quite useful to help get information directly from the writers of some of the papers you reference, as well as their unwritten insights and more up to date information that might be harder to access or find unless you know what you're looking for.
I'm pretty sure some Europeans have significantly more than 10% Mesolithic (WHG/Western Hunter-Gatherer) European dna. It depends on the region (sometimes as high as 20-30% or 20-25%, give or take); it's usually higher toward in/Northern Europe, and to some extent far western/southwestern Europe. I believe it's highest in the Baltic area.
There was more than one wave of (pre-Neolithic) hunter-gatherers into Europe; some contributed to modern Europeans more than others. The Aurignacians were mostly replaced (and left 10% or less). But the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers came (mostly) from a somewhat later wave which contributed more to modern Europeans' genetics (more like about 15-25% varying by region).
There are two populations on the european continent, which practically do not overlap in certain aspects of phenotype, except when they are obviously in mixed places (France, Austria, Northern Italy, ...). Go to Sweden, in some regions, blue-eyed, blonde, nordic people are the only people you'll see, no hook-noses, non-square faces, ... The romans already described this. How come that Blue eyes and other traits are near 100% of the population, if geneticists tell the truth? Assuming generations of 25 years, there have been about 160 generations in the 4000 years between the roman accounts and the supposed quasi-replacement of indigenous populations, do you really believe that evolutionary pressures are enough for a trait like blue eyes to create such a marked difference?
Hang on... Europeans have typically about 2% Neanderthal DNA from circa 40kya as compared with the DNA found in the Denisovan cave. Does this imply that we Europeans have been isolated from African populations, but partly mixed with Asian populations for all this time? It would be great to see maps and animations showing the expansion, movement, blending and demise of specific genetic groups.
Yes, in fact, if I can remember correctly, certain studies seem to indicate that Europeans and east Asians have been separated from sub Saharan African lineages for over 120,000 years
@@alexdunphy3716 No, that is not true. The proto amerindian population was a mix of about one third what became western European and two thirds what became East Asian. That mix occurred about 25-30,000 years ago in Central Siberia. Edit: you mean both separated from sub-saharan African populations... yes that sounds about right.
@@angrytedtalks yes, as in non-sub Saharans separated genetically around that time. I'm aware of the ancient north Eurasian ancestry of Europeans and Amerindians as well
The Neanderthal DNA is a higher risk of a more severe form of Covid-19. Africans whose ancestors have never left Africa have no Neanderthal DNA which is why Africa has been much less affected by the virus. th-cam.com/video/A2e0gEZjgY4/w-d-xo.html
@@patm6704 That isn't because it is Neanderthal, because over the past 50,000 years mutations without benefit have died out. The "autoimmune" reactions do sometimes come from the tiny surviving Neanderthal DNA. The primary two reasons for slower spread in Africa is lower population density (hence lower transmission rates) and hotter climate (acting as sterilisation). In the UK, the worst hit population are the people with African descent, but that is due to diet and partly vitamin D deficiency. Blood groups are more of an issue, A being the most vulnerable.
That last question you got in was huge in my opinion. I have often found myself wondering that very thing and not to toot my own horn I came to conclusion that the genetic input from our neanderthal cousins had to be stable. Being that it's still here after 35 millennia or more and is rather uniform across all of eurasia, any population or group coming into europe from eurasia would be injecting a similar percentage. Where it gets interesting is if we looked at the neanderthal gene input through populations who haven't moved around much throughout eurasia, what neanderthal genes would they carry that another stagnant population across eurasia do not? Say an east asian man compared to a scandinavian man? What are the neanderthal genes doing in each man and where are they located on the genome? What about merging people groups from different ancestral parts of eurasia? If a man and woman from those separate groups married and each had two percent neanderthal dna but in completely different parts of their respective genomes, would their child have a higher percentage of neanderthal dna or would the homo sapien genes be dominant? Now toss in the denisovan and we've got a party.
Latest studies show that East Asians, Melanesians, and Pacific Islanders carry Denisovan genes as well as Neandertal genes - and that there were at least two different branches of the Denisovan tree. One in Siberia contributed to the East Asian gene pool, while one in Southeast Asia contributed to those in Australia, Melanesia, and the Pacific Islands. My own humble opinion is that these genes from our cousins must be essential in some way to our survival, so they have been conserved in our modern genomes over vast periods of time in spite of all our migrations, intermixing, different environmental pressures, and so forth.
It'd be nice if dr. Cosimo could reach you out to Vanessa Villalba-Mouco to talk about the genetics of the Iberian peninsula, were it seems there was an even mixture of villabruna and magdalenian associated Goyet ancestry.
With respect to that last question about the percentage of Neanderthal DNA in our genome: could you say that if from 35.000 years ago the percentage did not change anymore, that one could calculate the extinction date of Neanderthals? At least the last time Neanderthals added their genes to our genome?
@F.W. And how much did the sapiens contribution to the Neaderthal genome increase over time from earliest contact to Neanderthal extinction? No one seems to address this question.
Double release! Check out my vid on life during the aurignacian here: th-cam.com/video/pv0RscAummQ/w-d-xo.html
Hey Stefan can we have access to the thumbnails and beautiful paintings.
can we get a Stefan Milo Only Fans with different early hominid poses
I was missing your videos Stefan, great as always!!
Could someone tell me what does light skin and dark skin mean in this context? Especially when it is referred as darker skin. Darker than what? Are we talking about red hair white skin, burns to crisp on the sun, Estonian light. Or are we talking about brown hair light skin, tans when needed Iranian light? Are we talking about Nilotic jet black dark or San milk chocolate dark or Iranian middle eastern dark? Are we talking about darker than night sky darker or darker than milk darker? Are native Americans dark skinned in this context?
Or are we talking about "Meh, Europeans probably had somewhat darker skin and hair than today."
Thanks for spelling Aurignacion. I thought you were saying Auroch Nation, as in the Aurochs, which would be a cool name for an ancient society.
I 100% could and WOULD listen to 5 hours of this fascinating conversation.
For being a half hour recorded phone call with an academic, this was hella interesting. I really appreciate the work you put into this channel. Thanks!
I missed you man, thank you again for posting
Thanks for watching!
Ditto.
Same here.
I've been wondering about the lack of recommendations about you. 😁
I really like your documentary-style prehistory videos. This is what the History Channel and Discovery Channel used to be. These are very well edited videos.
Yes 👍
That change can only mean one thing: aliens.
@@bc4198 Haha obviously aliens, of course and don't forget looking for gold and when they reach bedrock there *COULD* be a fortune in gold sitting on top of it...but alas there never is.
@@bc4198 definitely aliens… either lots of them, or one giant robotic one.
Those old school productions were overblown and overproduced. Stefan's to the point style and personality blow them out of the water. This is why I love TH-cam. Hopefully the algorithm doesn't ruin it!
Man I love it when you have experts on to talk about their specific area of study - fascinating to hear the information straight from the folks who are doing the research on it. I hope you continue to make videos like this
Thanks for your interview with Dr. Cosimo Posth. He was so clear and very enlightening.
This is sooooo valuable. Its advanced genetic anthropologic science journalism. Taking the complex and giving it to us lamens
Totally worth the time. I could listen to him for hours on this topic.
The fact that you published this video when this is a topic I've been researching in my free time..I'm loving this so much
Was hoping this would last a good hour or so. Love it cant wait for you to have him back.
I can't wait for more ancient DNA to be found and compared. It's such an exciting time.
Check out Milo's current view on DNA. th-cam.com/users/shorts_sqJvszNdd4?si=GCBkzt1yoC5rI9K0
Seems the main reason why ancient Europeans contributed so little would simply be because the small original population was simply diluted by the many waves of later migrants who bit by bit diluted the original DNA.
We should have better learned it)))) not to lose our one)
It continues to amaze me what is found and how long we've actually been around. Great work, thank you.
Absolutely fascinating conversation! Thank you Dr Cosimo Posth for the detailed and expert knowledge.
Whoa, double upload?? You're really coming through for me Thursday.
No doubt! I could stay over 5 hours listening to this guy. Thanks for your extremely interesting Chanel.
What a great interview. This is my favorite area of study. Dr. Posth was fantastic and you were asking some great questions. This is why the internet should exist.
This was an excellent interview with a knowledgeable guest, very informative and an interesting subject as well. Thanks so much!
I really could listen to Dr. Posth's accent for like 10 hours.
Stefan Milo is my spirit animal.
Yes, to the good doctor. This viewer appreciates your participation, and the information you shared. Thank you.
Yes I could go on for hours listening to this conversation of yours. Because it contains such interesting information, I keep coming back to it over and over again.
Thanks.
.
So, the earliest modern humans in Europe contributed comparatively little to modern European DNA, but I would have loved to hear some stats on later paleolithic cultures contributions to modern European DNA, and if any of these groups contributed significantly to any non European populations.
The paleolithic is such a criminally overlooked period of human history, despite being 95%+ of it.
Haven't watched the video yet, but I just wanted to say that I'm super excited and thank you so so so much for all your great content
What a good interview with each person listening to the other. And such a great supplement to your aurignacian video. Thank you. Look forward to the five hours with Dr. Posth.
Such a humble, well-spoken man.
He seems to have a deeply objective pov (like a scientist).
Yes, I could definitely listen to him for 5 hours.
I just love saying "Max Planck Institute." It sounds so hard core.
Time stamp?
for me it's the daystrom institute from Star Trek. 🤣🤣🤣
Actually several dozen locations, mostly in Europe. This one is the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. See WIKI page for list of about 60 others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Max_Planck_Institutes
Perhaps the best audio recorded video I have heard. Sometimes a bit difficult to understand but so much information covered here. Thanks.
Wow... Great talk on a fascinating subject. Well done both of you!
Yeeeeaah, finaly New video!!
Wow! Thank You both for such a great discussion.
I'm loving this sudden burst of new content Stefan!
We ducking loved it. Thanks so much for your time Dr. Post.
MORE COSIMO!!!! Love it. and Stefan, you're a good interviewer, man. Keep it up
It's always a pleasure to listen to an expert in a field explain the latest scientific insights; thank you, Stefan. One life enriched!
This old video has just appeared in my feed. Looking forward to watching later when I can relax.
This is really fascinating. Thank you Stefan for the Video and thank you Dr Posth for the interview.
I did not know about the replacement of the hunter gatherer population by another hunter gatherer population later in the Mesolithic.
16:51: "Around 14 000 years ago, there's a very important event called bowling alert" says the subtitles. That's hilarious.
The Bølling-Allerød warming is named after a site (actually two) in Denmark in northern Sjælland. The warm period ended with the younger Dryas.
Speaking of Denmark: Lola from Lolland (Syltholm) is a 5700 old genome extracted from a piece of chewing gum (chewing pitch , really). The individual who chewed the pitch was a woman with dark skin and hair and blue eyes. (Western european hunter gatherer) Her latest meal before she chewed gum was included hazelnuts and and mallard. She was also likely lactose intolerant.
I never get tired of telling people about the island in Denmark that is actually called Lol-land. It's not a joke, that is the name.
Also in the subtitles: 'origination' should be 'Aurignacian'
24:30 it should read "and then admixing" not "and then not mixing", quite the opposite!
(Sorry I know this comment and video are old, but I found that mistake to be quite the mistranscription and I'm grifting onto this sort of related thread)
😎 Thanks Stefan Cosimo ⚓️
I've not long found your channel mate and it's thoroughly enjoyable and extremely interesting. Top work mate!!
Just wanted to say thanks for getting Me into our worlds history.
Fascinating! And yes, he could definitely listen to you both talk for hours!
A very interesting conversation, thank you.
Now this just makes me wonder more?like what was Siberia and East Asia like🤔
Siberia was largely home to a population called ancient north Eurasians, which are ancestors to both Europeans and native Americans
@@alexdunphy3716 and ancient north Siberian’s, as well as paleo Siberian’s
Siberia, icy. East Asia, very cold. We tend to forget that the ice age.
@@fudgedogbannana Not so, the remains of the mastodon found in Siberia indicate that 12,000 years ago, it was a very pleasant place, with moderate temperatures and lots of grazing opportunities for herds of hundreds of thousands of individuals.
I imagine in to be similar to the tundra in canada is today, just colder when the bearing sea bridge was opened the ice receded eastward and people followed the caribou into what we call north America. The Gwich'en in the arctic have stories that go back generations 10's of thousands of years. Inuit and other Natives have stories of multiple mass migrations to North America. More genome tracing needs to be done but I do remember hearing that theres a variation showing they could survive in extremely cold conditions similar to the way Sherpa in the Himalayan mountains can survive at extremely high altitudes
A really Great interview please talk more .
And what he has revealed allows us to shine a light into those hidden Ages.
Extremely interesting interview, thx for sharing Stefan.
excellent conversation, lots of great detail.
Thanks for the interview. One Suggestion: Please consider using a few basic visual aids (maps, charts, graphs)) to assist the listener.
this👆🏻👆🏻
A colour coded timeline was what I was longing for.
@Pojka Go right ahead if you've got time.
I really enjoyed that interview.
Great stuff. Thanks again, Stefan!
Such a pleasure Stefan and Dr Posth
Yes, absolutely loved it! Thank you!
Fascinating interview, thank you very much!
A perfect start of the weekend. Thanks, mate.
Two videos? You really made my day
Your best video yet! Loved it.
Yea I wanted to hear more. Another great interview.
This is very interesting as ever, thanks
When the Dr said that they had found the ancestral form of the genes that encode for lighter skin in the ice age genomes, I thought “I wonder though if maybe they had mutations in different genes that gave them pale skin and we have pale skin as well through convergent evolution?”, and then he said the same thing, which made me feel like chuffed
Europeans and East Asians both have light skin due to convergent evolution. Different mutations arose in both populations.
What neither of them said was why they were looking wistfully for evidence of earlier whiteness when there isn't any. The point is that the grain based low vitamin D diet is a pretty good reason for that mutation to survive and expand over territory. Poor but reliable diet and cloudy skies.
@@casteretpollux I've seen your comments like this before. You should learn more about genetics first, then comment more.
@@bmoneybby The essential thing to know about genes and evolution is that survival is what matters. Random mutations are thrown up. Some favour survival and production of progeny who survive, others not. Those that favour survival e.g. ability to digest grain and milk, in a farming culture, will survive through crises much better than those who can't and will pass these mutations on to their children. And those who have light skin will absorb more vitamin D will not get rickets so will not die in childbirth and will experience more live births. I checked maps. There is only very broad correlation between solar radiation and light or dark skin. There is very close correlation between the post 8,000 bc grain farming areas and light skin and close correlation with very light skin and lactose tolerance ( This appeared mainly 5,000 bc onwards). In northern climates clothes are worn and less sun received to make Vit D. Vit D enables healthy childbirth and helps resist infection. This would in my view entirely explain the prevailing patterns of skin colour. No skin colour is in any way superior to any other. They are merely the result of food + climate.
@@casteretpollux Having read your earlier comment, and maybe I'm wrong, but you almost suggest that they have an agenda for looking for earlier whiteness in populations. What you say later makes sense, but I think they are just interested in finding out the truth and if you don't investigate you'll never know. The scientific method isn't too say, here's a hypothesis, that makes sense, that just be true. It may have occurred earlier, we just don't know, we are learning all the time.
At present the evidence suggests it was adaptation to the environment, but I think Stefan's questions were excellent and very interesting ones. I'm certain white skin developed as a beneficial gene mutation to living in a more northerly, cooler climates and all the effects that go with this, reduced sunlight, ice, diet possible in areas with this kind of climate. Knowing when it occurred and in which populations in and around the last ice age I find very interesting and is nothing to do with trying to prove something. The scientific method is that you put forward a hypothesis, you collect the data, analyse it, and then form a conclusion. It isn't that you form a hypothesis and then go and find evidence to back it up whilst discarding evidence that doesn't. That is what some pseudo scientists do, but I don't think that's what's going on here.
So pleased I found this chennel, this was a really interesting talk. I wish there was an animation to go along with it really: it gets so confusing trying to picture all the cultures, peoples and their migrations, I can't help think it would be a great learning aid, especially for how the hunter gatherers mixed with one another. Like I said, excellent content. 😜👍
€€$$££₽₽¥¥
@@MP-hh3lo qq
@@bobcrotty8726
Bob the boomer here trying to put down a perfectly normal idea, by using gamer speak from 10 years ago. Lol - gotta love it.
missed you. hope baby and mum are doing well. on with the show.
Great conversation, love these discussions you’re having, longer form works well for this kind of this IMO.
I watched the series from Stanford Intro to Human Behavioural Biology, and he said one of the keys to fast evolution rather than the slow genetic clock was having genes (so called junk DNA) that govern series of other genes, kind of trigger mechanisms, where small changes in the governors could produce great changes for the entire series of individual gene expressions, so the presence of one gene wouldn't necessarily be functional without the particular governor.
Look into the work of Warwick Collins. He died some years ago, and his research is now being vindicated.
So junk DNA isn't junk after all
@@mrblackmamba117 No and no. It is not.
Thankyou for this focus on other side of the study of our multiple groups of ancestors in pre history.
Two great new videos Stefan.
Thank you for this! Much love for the great content. Keep it up!
Dear Stefan , I love your channel. Have you ever considered attempting to interview one of the many “scientists” ppl who believe in some kind of technological antediluvian civilisation? It would be very interesting imho
Cutting edge research done and taught here 100% . To me this is my candy so thank you so so much for bringing this to us. I always knew your jeans wear good he he .♥️🤸♂️
Yes! Absolutely loved the talk.
thanks for asking that last question, I didn't know that they had updated the Neanderthal the study, I'm glad to know that we aren't losing them, they live through us
just when i had lost my tolerance to the drug that is this channel, you give me a double hit
Great interview. Thanks!
So Cosimo says there may be other areas of the genome affecting complexion so we cannot be certain what colour skin Aurignacians had. The skulls are not typical of sub saharan africans and they lived many thousands of years after the out of africa migration so I do not agree with Stefan's decision to depict them as sub saharan africans. selection pressure was for lighter skin - and the overall morphology was distinct from that we associate with modern sub saharan african features
Sometimes I wish I had a DeLorean.
The inhabitants of Europe today has some neanderthal DNA, so obviously the hybrids was never entirely de-throned.
And my guess is the hybrids who had more pigmentational dna would survive the best.
Neanderthals were not black.
How so?
Better question. How did you come to that conclusion?
I'm actually *of* Sub-Saharan African descent, and I can tell you that they do not look like me, even with their dark skin. Early Europeans most likely looked like Europeans today when it comes to phenotype, but with *much* darker skin, and dark hair and eyes.
Great stuff!! Grande Cosimo! Thanks for sharing
Fascinating topic. Missed your videos, hope you're doing well!
I'm so proud of you dude you went from unknown to a house hold name with your passion
The king has returned
fantastic interview for us lay-people :) Many thanks!
Converstaion/conversation, outstanding, thanks
Perhaps not autosomally, however, as someone belonging to the I1 haplogroup, my direct partilineal descendents were, beyond doubt, the first Europeans. The oldest paleolithic remains found in Europe belong to haplogroup I, and there are no paleolithic remains of haplogroup I found outside Europe. It's also the dominant haplogroup in Europe during the paleolithic.
*ancestors lol. They are not your descendants. You are a descendant of them ..just a matter of semantics
You're back! Hoorah!
This great video definitely helps with my research on this topic.
Excellent conversation, very interesting.
I'm up for 5 hours. Fascinating.
Awesome stuff, Gentlemen. Thank you.
This ought to be interesting. I know one of the stories is that the original inhabitants of Europe were mostly poor wholly wiped out by either the Neolithic farmers or the later Indo-Europeans, but that always rang false to me.
Huh. So the original human inhabitants *were* mostly pushed out, under ten percent puts them only slightly ahead of Neanderthals.
The light skin thing didn't surprise me, although I hadn't thought of it until just a bit before he specifically mentioned the possibility of other, as yet unknown mutations that could code for paler skin.
The association with farming caught me by surprise, but thinking on it, you can kinda see it even in more equatorial areas where you'd expect darker skin to still have selective pressure, so it makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, I could've listened to him for five hours, probably not consecutively, but...
Another excellent video, these interviews are quite useful to help get information directly from the writers of some of the papers you reference, as well as their unwritten insights and more up to date information that might be harder to access or find unless you know what you're looking for.
I'm pretty sure some Europeans have significantly more than 10% Mesolithic (WHG/Western Hunter-Gatherer) European dna. It depends on the region (sometimes as high as 20-30% or 20-25%, give or take); it's usually higher toward in/Northern Europe, and to some extent far western/southwestern Europe. I believe it's highest in the Baltic area.
There was more than one wave of (pre-Neolithic) hunter-gatherers into Europe; some contributed to modern Europeans more than others. The Aurignacians were mostly replaced (and left 10% or less). But the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers came (mostly) from a somewhat later wave which contributed more to modern Europeans' genetics (more like about 15-25% varying by region).
There are two populations on the european continent, which practically do not overlap in certain aspects of phenotype, except when they are obviously in mixed places (France, Austria, Northern Italy, ...). Go to Sweden, in some regions, blue-eyed, blonde, nordic people are the only people you'll see, no hook-noses, non-square faces, ... The romans already described this. How come that Blue eyes and other traits are near 100% of the population, if geneticists tell the truth? Assuming generations of 25 years, there have been about 160 generations in the 4000 years between the roman accounts and the supposed quasi-replacement of indigenous populations, do you really believe that evolutionary pressures are enough for a trait like blue eyes to create such a marked difference?
My god, you can't be English can you?
@@karimdelakarim What do you mean by that?
Both videos were really fascinating!
Congrats on 69k subs! (So glad to see new videos from you)
Hang on... Europeans have typically about 2% Neanderthal DNA from circa 40kya as compared with the DNA found in the Denisovan cave. Does this imply that we Europeans have been isolated from African populations, but partly mixed with Asian populations for all this time?
It would be great to see maps and animations showing the expansion, movement, blending and demise of specific genetic groups.
Yes, in fact, if I can remember correctly, certain studies seem to indicate that Europeans and east Asians have been separated from sub Saharan African lineages for over 120,000 years
@@alexdunphy3716 No, that is not true. The proto amerindian population was a mix of about one third what became western European and two thirds what became East Asian. That mix occurred about 25-30,000 years ago in Central Siberia.
Edit: you mean both separated from sub-saharan African populations... yes that sounds about right.
@@angrytedtalks yes, as in non-sub Saharans separated genetically around that time. I'm aware of the ancient north Eurasian ancestry of Europeans and Amerindians as well
The Neanderthal DNA is a higher risk of a more severe form of Covid-19. Africans whose ancestors have never left Africa have no Neanderthal DNA which is why Africa has been much less affected by the virus. th-cam.com/video/A2e0gEZjgY4/w-d-xo.html
@@patm6704 That isn't because it is Neanderthal, because over the past 50,000 years mutations without benefit have died out. The "autoimmune" reactions do sometimes come from the tiny surviving Neanderthal DNA.
The primary two reasons for slower spread in Africa is lower population density (hence lower transmission rates) and hotter climate (acting as sterilisation).
In the UK, the worst hit population are the people with African descent, but that is due to diet and partly vitamin D deficiency.
Blood groups are more of an issue, A being the most vulnerable.
Thank you !!
Very educational. Seems like a very smart guy.
Thank you for this!
The coolest intro music, Stefan! 🎵🎶😎
I live near Lydenburg in Mpumalanga South Africa. There are hand axes in the area from 500 000 years ago.
😲
there is no way to verify if those axes were made by ancestors of any of the people who have been there for the last 1000 years.
@@macrosense U hate axes, don't u ?
That last question you got in was huge in my opinion. I have often found myself wondering that very thing and not to toot my own horn I came to conclusion that the genetic input from our neanderthal cousins had to be stable. Being that it's still here after 35 millennia or more and is rather uniform across all of eurasia, any population or group coming into europe from eurasia would be injecting a similar percentage. Where it gets interesting is if we looked at the neanderthal gene input through populations who haven't moved around much throughout eurasia, what neanderthal genes would they carry that another stagnant population across eurasia do not? Say an east asian man compared to a scandinavian man? What are the neanderthal genes doing in each man and where are they located on the genome? What about merging people groups from different ancestral parts of eurasia? If a man and woman from those separate groups married and each had two percent neanderthal dna but in completely different parts of their respective genomes, would their child have a higher percentage of neanderthal dna or would the homo sapien genes be dominant? Now toss in the denisovan and we've got a party.
Latest studies show that East Asians, Melanesians, and Pacific Islanders carry Denisovan genes as well as Neandertal genes - and that there were at least two different branches of the Denisovan tree. One in Siberia contributed to the East Asian gene pool, while one in Southeast Asia contributed to those in Australia, Melanesia, and the Pacific Islands. My own humble opinion is that these genes from our cousins must be essential in some way to our survival, so they have been conserved in our modern genomes over vast periods of time in spite of all our migrations, intermixing, different environmental pressures, and so forth.
@@Pipsqwak I agree.
It'd be nice if dr. Cosimo could reach you out to Vanessa Villalba-Mouco to talk about the genetics of the Iberian peninsula, were it seems there was an even mixture of villabruna and magdalenian associated Goyet ancestry.
Great info. thanks for posting!
Thanks for the great upload.
With respect to that last question about the percentage of Neanderthal DNA in our genome: could you say that if from 35.000 years ago the percentage did not change anymore, that one could calculate the extinction date of Neanderthals? At least the last time Neanderthals added their genes to our genome?
@F.W. And how much did the sapiens contribution to the Neaderthal genome increase over time from earliest contact to Neanderthal extinction? No one seems to address this question.
very interesting, really enjoying your channel