To add to the incest issue. there have been a few times in history where humans got knocked down massively in population which shrank our ancestors' dating options pretty severely.
Also relevant is that incest alone isn't going to magically create all the problems associated with it. The danger of incest is it greatly increases the chance of negative recessive traits being expressed in the offspring. Theoretically 2 people with perfect genetics (no negative recessive traits) could inbreed without risk. Its just most people dont have perfect genetics proven to have 0 negative recessive traits.
one interesting example of a bottleneck like this are ashkenazim--every modern ashki jew is descended from 300~ or so people, and theyre all 30th cousins. this is why so many ashkis are at risk of the same diseases, like 1/12 have the gene for gaucher disease as opposed to 1/850 in the general population (there are probably better examples im just ashki so this is the one im most aware of)
@@doineedtocomeupwithsomethi9529 It is. The most extreme case we know of was almost a million years ago, where it's estimated our population got widdled down to a little over a thousand people. Fun fact, there is more genetic diversity in a tribe of chimpanzees than the entirety of humanity now, partially because of said bottleneck.
@@scorpioneldar Compared to the size of the whole genome and the effects of recombination, that’s not a lot, especially considering most of them don’t have any effect either way.
@@ragnkja personally I wouldn't say something that happens even once every single time a person is born is rare... much less something that happens 35 times any person is born even if it comes packaged in a set of 3 billion things that happen for every new person.
@@ragnkja to me a rare even would only happen occasionally... like say. being born intersex. that happens around 1% of all births. That is rare. (even still from another perspective. you could argue that out of 8 billion people that means 80,000,000 million people are born as such... which... I mean is it really rare if its more common than being French (roughly 68,551,000 people and 20th largest country by population) but less common than being German? (19th largest at roughly 84,746,000)
Knowing this helped me understand the joke some podcasters made while mocking Dan Brown’s _The DaVinci Code:_ “If Jesus somehow has living ancestors today, it’s not some lone woman in France-it’s ALL OF US.”
@@ragnkja Well, i'm Finnish and i don't know any of our relatives who would've left Finland or come here to join the family and the family records go back into the late 1500-century. Our family farmed the one big plot since 1637 and no non-Finns has been in the family. Also, no highborns of any kind. So, Charlamange having some child that moves into artic forest in the north to freeze his butt off? Gonna press "doubt" on that.... And i find it really, really hard to believe this would be rare. Most rural areas and peasants living in them in Europe were rather isolated and few knew nobility who might have been relative to Charlamange. It's a awesome story but i'm not buying it.
Not only that, I know of a part of my family that married their 3 sons to another family's 3 daughters. That practice used to be common just a few generations back.
I don’t remember exactly where, but in my family tree we have two sisters, married two brothers, the sisters’ father died, and the mother married the third brother.
@@Ultra206most dna testing checks only if you're descended to a total of 84 native americans, cause those were the only native Americans who weren't half European or black by the time the technology needed to store genetic records were created. Thus it's estimated that the number of people with native ancestry is multiple times that testing shows, especially in black people since slaves were forcefully bred with natives to produce children who the eugencists thought would be better workers.
i have native american ancestry that i know of from researching genealogy but 0% on my DNA tests. however i do have shovel shaped incisors which is very rare in european populations, which is the rest of my DNA! my grandma also has senegambian DNA but i have none, and i figured out who in our lineage it came from!! very interesting
It also gets complicated to graph when you consider the effect of people having kids at different ages. The duplicate entries in your "complete" ancestor tree might not be both at the same level. For example, you could have a set of X generation grandparents who were married and had a common ancestor. But the man might be the 4th generation child of that ancestor, while the woman is the 3rd generation child. There would be two children of that common ancestor, one of which had children earlier, and whose children also had children at an earlier age, compared to the sibling that had children later in life. 150 years later, one lineage has had 4 generation and the other 3 generations to produce people at about the same age to become married.
My brother is so much older than me that if he had kids, I could have the same age nephew and boyfriend. My mother’s sister is the same age as my brother, they could have dated in the olden times.
@JasminMiettunen my great grandparents had so many kids that some of the older kids had kids who had kids who got married and had kids thus, i have nieces and nephews some of which are older than me, while some of the younger ones had their kids a little later so those uncles and aunts children are slightly older than me and some have kids who are younger than me, so my parents also have cousins younger than me which is weird af to think abt, and it's both sides. It doesnt help that every1 married different ppl and somehow the majority of us are still alive.
Only 1000 days is the difference between the Dutch Bible Belt 2.5% 450k 18 million 97.5%. Roughly 50 towns with 9000 is 450k. 450k is from the 2017 interactive map at the Central Bureau of Statistics Netherlands. One in a Hundred Mothers have more than five children. As for the 1000 days reference. That is also from Central Bureau of Statistics, but the title says 35. It is important to keep in mind that is for first time mothers and the statistics goes back to 1975 & 1950. More First Time Mothers Beyond the Age of 35.
I guess this happens due to isolation and location. Wasn't there some movie "Seven brothers for seven sisters"? Wanna make sure you take home the correct children after family reunion! They will all look similar. Could lead to some skull dugery by the kids.
I have hundreds of double cousins. Two of my great grandparents had siblings that married each other so all of their collective descendants share two sets of common ancestors with me rather than just one.
2:30 "If you do the math - which is complicated - you have only a 50% chance of having inherited any DNA at all from a randomly selected ancestor 10 generations back" - Did you include all these duplications discussed before in the math? If I have 10 ways of possibly inheriting genes from a certain ancestor, this first increases the chance to randomly pick them, and also increases their chance of passing down genes. There are also a few "privileged" ancestors, which will certainly pass DNA along: The ones in the male-only line (for males, passing along the Y-chromosome) and the female line (passing along the mitochondrial DNA).
small problem: exactly what ratio of relatives are duplicated is different for almost everyone except siblings and double first cousins. it would be "up to" that percentage, but just how much lower than that is nigh impossible to predict accurately without a 100% accurate and complete genealogy going back however many generations you want to know (which is impossible to obtain with today's technology, in the case of stupidly large numbers like 100 generations...)
Maybe, but the Y chromosome almost never has any recombination while X chromosomes and autosomal chromosomes almost always do to some extent. So that distant male ancestor might have only given you that portion of their DNA.
There could be some kind of selection pressure. Perhaps in paleolithic Europe those people who had higher portions of Neanderthal DNA might have been better able to survive Ice Age Europe than those with a smaller percentage.
Psychedelics are just an exceptional mental health breakthrough. It's quite fascinating how effective they are against depression and anxiety. Saved my life.
Can you help with the reliable source I would really appreciate it. Many people talk about mushrooms and psychedelics but nobody talks about where to get them. Very hard to get a reliable source here in Australia. Really need!
Psychedelic is the answer to most severe anxiety and depression. The use of magic mushrooms completely helps one get over depression and makes you feel like yourself.
I remember that the Percy Jackson books addressed this by explaining that the gods don’t have genes and thus are incapable of causing defects from inbreeding, so it’s totally cool and still not at all creepy haha (still weird).
It was long believed that mitochondrial DNA was passed down only from the mother and was unchanged from generation to generation except for random mutations. It has however been found that the father's sperm's single mitochondrion can contribute to the child's DNA. The sperm's single mitochondrion does not always enter the egg, is often broken down by lysosomes once inside, and usually has a negligible influence on the child's mitochondria because it is outnumbered more than a thousand to one by the egg's many mitochondria, but in a few rare cases where the mother had a mitochondrial genetic disease the father's mitochondria was able to contribute more functional genes that made the child not suffer from the same malady.
My favourite piece of trivia is that every single human on Earth can trace a matrilineal line to one woman who lived between 100 to 200 thousands years ago.
Yeah, i had heard that too. The interbreeding and incest would have also caused mutations which could slowly grow into the various differences people have. Not to mention environmental mutations
There is no paradox. There is an illogical and unthinking mathematical extension. Simply put, small groups tend to interbreed and you get a lot of some-what-related cousins making babies. This is for ALL animals -- cats, lizards, birds, fish...
True. Even with just a male and a female you can extend a big population. If they are well fed and move to different places they're gonna evolve and create a big healthy population. Just try to put the paradoxe ancestor to rabbits and you should have billions of billions of billions of rabbits ancestors 200y ago 😂
@@kaitlynethylia Just like Apple/iPhone XD. During 2020 pandemic a LOT of people got old photos showing up from 2013-2016. What does this mean? EVERYTHING that was deleted on an Apple product is backed-up to a secret server at Apple HQ. A corporation is breaking the law and nothing is done since they're a trillion dollar industry.
The Habsburgs didn't necessarily encourage marrying close relatives, they just wanted high-status single Catholic women for their male heirs, which were in short supply after the reformation. Unless you count the counts. But they generally preferred daughters of dukes, daughters of Kings, or at least great granddaughters of kings and Emperors, which generally was their own family and a countess generally was just seen as "not good enough."
So all those noble titles, baron(ess), duke(duchess), count(ess), etc are just to indicate their eligibility to be married back into the main royal line?
@@keriannekerr1876 the noble titles are to show where they are on the feudal ladder. The higher up you were the more attractive you were as a marriage option
@@keriannekerr1876No, noble titles indicate having some land. The Habsburgs liked to marry high status Catholics, and apparently countesses just weren't good enough most of the time, so often times the only high ranking single Catholics around would be each other. Put if this way, you can say the family preferred incest and it would be consistent with their marriages. But you can also say they preferred high ranking single Catholics and it would be consistent with their marriages _and_ fathers said they were looking for in their children's marriages.
@keriannekerr1876 no noble titles were earned and given by the king then inherited by generations except dukes which branch of the royal family as duke is almost exclusively given to royals who lost the fight for the throne or gve up on their own.
I think it's because they're the only well-known example from Europe. Point out this sort of thing in any non-European population, you're suddenly in a minefield of words like _racism_ and _cultural imperialism._ Safest by far to stick to European examples when you can find them.
@yoshiplasma Yeah, that's probably right. I was tempted to say that we do have plenty of documentation of how messed up the Pharoh's were - but then I remembered a complication. So we have paintings, descriptions, and the actual corpse of King Tut, for instance. We know from all this that he relied on a cane to walk, and his early death likely had something to do with his genetic deformities. In paintings, he's depicted with the afore-mentioned cane, but Eyptian art tended to be more stylized. Pharaohs were depicted according to the ideal human form, so the paintings themselves make him look like a normal dude (his grandfather, IIRC, tried to change everything and promoted artistic realism, but he's less famous today and also less inbred than Tut). Meanwhile, the Hasburgs are not only more recent, but there's a completely different art style to remember them by. In those days (the Early Modern Period) the hyper-realistic painting style we associate with "the Renaissance" was in vouge. Charles V was depicted with his Hasburg jaw in all of its weirdness. I guess, then, part of it is that the Hasburgs were just more visibly honest about how ugly they were. Either that, or I'm overthinking this and completely off-base.
Don't forget to factor in parents who had multiple partners, either out of wedlock, divorced couples who had kids before the divorce then went on to have kids with other partners after the split, polygamous mariiages, or parents who had kids with a spouse who later died then got remarried and had kids with another spouse. All of these can reduce the nu.her of ancestors quite a bit as well.
I don't think any of that is relevant, as the ancestry tree is about who provided which egg and which sperm, and that's all unrelated to divorce/widow/polygamous/infidelity/etc.
Seems the question switched halfway though. The issue is numbers, you had parents, they had parents, they had parents. Going back too far you start to get incredible numbers of people. Unless your mother is also your grandmother, that's still two unique parents required. Everyone has a mother, their mother a mother and so on. But one man could be a grandfather and father, as distasteful as that sounds, it's not as culturally acceptable as family mating. Ultimately I feel the question wasn't answered. And if one wants to claim more then 37 generations the numbers continue to multiply
@@feynstein1004 The only solution is loads of incest but that's hand-waiving the problem without providing numbers which he gives some vague estimate without any real backing, then changes the question.
The part about how many genes you did or didn't get from any specific ancestor is possibly not literally incorrect but is definitely incredibly misleading. Just because you didn't directly receive your copy of any given gene through the line (or, as becomes much more appropriate as you go further back, ANY one of the lines) of inheritance that go through that ancestor, doesn't mean they didn't have an identical copy to the one you received. for instance it could've easily been a gene they got from their father and despite not passing it onto the line that led to you, their father also passed it onto another line which did. In the extreme, but incredibly common case, where both of your parents has a copy of the gene which originally came from one specific line, but the more recent ends of that line diverged a bit, it doesn't really matter whether or not your copy was based on the one from your father or your mother and you almost certainly have no way of knowing anyway, but following a strict understanding of inheritance one of those branches contains ancestors you didn't inherit the gene from even though there's an unbroken line of descent from them to you, all of which have the exact same gene. And taking that same situation further, it will have happened countless times in each of your ancestors themselves across the whole of the genome, so each of those times you're discounting an inheritance which is just about as real as any inheritance should hope to be.
That is true, and perhaps the bit about how related one is to an ancestor is a bit misleading, but it is due to the video's focus being on how inheritance itself works and not about gene propagation. Yes, practically speaking, one can be more related to someone because of a shared gene that was passed from a different source, but that equally applies to people that aren't in one's ancestry line at all, so it falls a bit outside the scope of the video.
@@SgtSupaman the key point that's missing is that for the vast majority of genetic sequences in your genome, many or even most of the ancestors you "did" and "didn't" inherit the gene from actually had copies of the exact same sequence. It's probably better to consider not where each gene you inherited physically came from, but instead to consider which differences there are between the different branches of your ancestry graph. It is notable that you inherited a novel mutation from one of those ancestors for instance.
I was confused about that, thank you for clearing it up. It’s kind of like combination versus permutation, it’s more of a combination and how and in what chronological order we get the genes doesn’t matter since most of our genes have copies elsewhere going back tens and even hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Even more interesting: even if you boned everyone on Earth 1000 years ago and went back to present you could bone everyone again and practically nothing would happen 😂
You're overlooking that many ancestors had the same genes, so they did pass along many of those genes. Your ties to your ancestors are far deeper and more complex than this video would have you believe.
It's called Ithkuil. It basically says in very paraphrased terms electromagnetic energy weapon a representation destroys a depiction of many different parent-child relationships.
I think it's worth pointing out here that even if we don't share a direct link to an ancient ancestor doesn't mean we aren't closely related to them. Rather we should think of ourselves as belonging to a gene pool or race, which doesn't change as much. Because the same genes get passed around in the community, the community retains its character over generations. You might lose the gene for black hair, but your kids could get it back later, for example. So I'm still much more closely related to my European ancestors 5,000 years ago than I would be to a non-European.
We are family I got all my sisters with me We are family Get up everybody and sing We are family I got all my sisters with me We are family Get up everybody and sing Everyone can see we're together As we walk on by (And) and we fly just like birds of a feather I won't tell no lie (All) all of the people around us they say Can they be that close Just let me state for the record We're giving love in a family dose We are family (hey, y'all) I got all my sisters with me We are family Get up everybody and sing (sing it to me) We are family I got all my sisters with me We are family Get up everybody and sing Living life is fun and we've just begun To get our share of this world's delights (High) high hopes we have for the future And our goal's in sight (We) no, we don't get depressed Here's what we call our golden rule Have faith in you and the things you do You won't go wrong, oh no This is our family jewel We are family (hey, sing it to me) I got all my sisters with me We are family (oh, I can hear you now) Get up everybody and sing We are family I got all my sisters with me We are family (get up, get up y'all) Get up everybody and sing We are family (I got my sisters with me) I got all my sisters with me We are family Get up everybody and sing (get up and sing it to me) We are family
I'm surprised you didn't mention the "demographic diamond". Basically, because your ancestry fans out backward through time from now, and the total human population fans out forward in time from a tiny population in prehistory, there is some time when your ancestor count is at its maximum. If I recall a course I took on demographics correctly, for most of us that time is around the 14th century CE.
My 5th great-grandfather had quite a few "relationships" and quite a few children. We literally had to do DNA to establish which child went to which mother. I descend from him four different ways through three of his children. I don't so much have a family tree as a twisted ficus.
I'd also like a video explaining the real genetic issues of incest, as from what I can understand it's severely overblown by most people and it takes a few generations of heavy inbreeding to start showing significant consequences
True. And those significant consequences are 'exaggerated traits', just like with dog-inbreeding. We have Cleopatra as an allegedly 'successfully' inbreed person (very intelligent), but than you get the defects, and human-life is obviously not up to gambling. A video on the degree of trait-increase would be real cool
Yeah it feels like a lot of people just assume that any inbreeding means instant deformities when that isn’t at all the case. Habsburgs didn’t become an inbred mess overnight. It took many generations of close-relative incest incentived by the political and social situation at the time to start really showing.
In plants, inbreeding is often done to eliminate deleterious genes, then two unrelated inbred lines are bred together to give a really strong, productive plant. F1 seeds are expensive but often worth it if you want uniform and heavy production.
No one wants to take the gamble with inbreeding again. No one wants to risk it Even if a child born from the same family is healthy as a child born from two separate families. After seeing the long term effects of inbreeding on generations of people and animals. No one wants to try inbreeding again. Which is good. Humans should not take the genetic gamble with inbreeding. It doesn't lead to favourable results.
Bought out - Only brand changes, they'll likely keep the same systems in the backend, nobody's crazy *and* rich enough to buy a whole company just to leak their data... _right?_ Hacked - That's the danger with using these kinds of services. Though, I don't really see the point in leaking someone else's family tree, at least currently
@@jwr2904 no need to jump at shadows. it'd just be used for tracking purposes by the government you already answer to, not to mention hyper-targeted advertising based on your ethnic ancestry and other such things.
The only problem with using data from someone else's tree is that they COULD have gotten stuff wrong. I'm using a competitor of MyHeritage and if you pick a tree created by a careless person, you get all sorts of anomalies in the tree.
My great-grandfather got the spelling wrong for his child's christening and that surname carried over into the following generations. That, added to modern people's making assumptions about possible ancestors they can't actually prove, will cause all sorts of errors. Some families had unusual first names but the same unusual first name occurs many times with that same surname. At the other end of the rare name scale, there were 11 other people with my full name in the same year at the same university as me.
My husband’s family and my family both came over on the Mayflower. We were shocked to see that we share grandparents like 11 generations back. It’s taken a lot of time for us to move past the creep-factor of relation even though it’s so far back it doesn’t affect anything today. He’s more freaked out by it than I am since I’ve studied genealogy for a long time.
Really? Freaking out over 11 generations ago? What next? Freaking out over the fact that all humanity came from like 2 people and deciding to never have seggs?
@@jeffbenton6183 Yes. If I recall correctly, their mutual ancestor was also named Francis Key but had a different middle name than his cousin. I'm also descended from Lord George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore. The first of my ancestors with my last name who moved to America was married to one of his younger daughters. My father's pedigree included a lot of Royal Governors. Those with my surname were loyalists who fled back to England during the American Revolution then moved back to the USA around 1840.
@magister343 The F. S. Key connection is cool enough on its own, but that whole bloodline awesome! If you don't mind me asking, do you live in Maryland or did you (or one of your more recent ancestors) decide to live somewhere else?
@AmyMichelleMosier Must be cool to be related to two famous writers As for the other connection, I'm guessing you heard a bunch of different stories as to whether she really was guilty of conspiracy (or not).
3:32 just a small clarification that usually changes in last names are due to bad handwriting detection, easier pronunciation to not be discriminated against, or the officials who are at Ellis Island being stupid and unable to read
I have ancestors on the Isle of Wight, were it is said that if you shout "Hey cousin" in any public place, everyone will reply "Hello". And it it is said that in the Forest of Dean there are no family trees... only canes.
Being from the south and especially from a small town where my family has roots that go back over 200 years, I made a point to find a wife from far away. 2,500 miles away to be exact and after we got married, we were talking one day and it turns out, we are actually cousins, to the tune of around 12th cousins. We are both related to president Franklin Roosevelt's wife Eleanor. Small world ehh
So what youre saying is that even if you have kids and your kids have kids and so on for eternity, there will be a point where your genes will just disappear and never be passed on again?
Not exactly what they are saying is that some of the descendants will not get any DNA from you, but some probably will. Also your genes didn't originate with you so for example if your siblings descendants breed with yours (and they will) what you call your genes might arrive at a future descendant through a different line there would be no way of knowing
I have an app on my phone where i put EVERY SINGLE PEARSON from my family and while doing this i went trough my great great grandfather and mother, and i discovered that my family is so much more bigger than i could think, fortunatly i made and still making this before my granny dies bc she remembers EVERYTHING
In regards to those such as the Hasburgs, the Ptolemaic dynasty had the _just_ _so_ _wonderful_ practice of marriage between siblings in the latter half of their reign. The later generations could be a bit.... hmm. But, Cleopatra VII (yes that Cleopatra) was widely considered beautiful, as well as being very intelligent. It's possible her farther took a mistress, thus 'freshening' the genome.
Cleopatra's image on coins does not show her to be particularly beautiful, but she was clearly intelligent and many men find that attractive. I certainly do.
@@pshehan1 Cleopatra's image representation differed widely in her time, basically, her image was "curated" to adapt to different populations. In some instances, she was represented as "more Hellenic", while in others, she was "more African". The only thing that was probably ugly in her was her nose, but only after his thirties.
@ThePowerLover I'm not sure I believe that. I've always read that King Tut died young because he was inbred. He was also often depicted with a walking staff which was likely required due to a disability associated with the effects of inbreeding
I feel obligated to point out that there's this thing called "Crossing over" which happens to chromosomes when cells are dividing, and moves genes between chromosomes. You inherit half your chromosomes from each of your parents, which might lead you to believe that your genes only come from two of your grandparents. This is not the case, because some of your grandparent's genes will get mixed in through crossing over in your parent's cells during cell division.
I understand that the MinuteEarth format has a strict time budget, but I do think it would be wise to talk a bit more about the paradox before moving on to a solution. Was the reason you stopped at 37 generations back just that that's when the ancestors outnumber lived humans? How far back is that in years? How many generations have there been of humans? These things make it easier to follow the next bit 😜
One generation is ~20 years. Long enough for one generation to grow up and produce a new one. Humans as we know them are recognized to be 100,000 years old. Making that 5000 generations
Our "candies" are sepparated in every crossing over, so really, if you have a 3% "chance" of having DNA from someone 15th generation back, it means you DO have a 3% of that DNA, and since we have 4 billion nucleotides, that´s not little. So it´s wrong to say that our family tree is small, it isn´t. We have pieces from all of it. That´s why we are, all of us, >99% equal.
Yeah because the data is sourced from LOTS of people and only European people exhibit neanderthal traits and genes. Also also it isn't just neanderthal genetic material but also material expression.
Something else interesting: I read once that any two people with ancestry on the same continent WILL have a shared ancestor within 7 generations. While working on my ancestry through a popular website, I found my husband's and my shared ancestor!! She was a (5x? 6x?) great grandmother who was married, had several children, widowed, remarried, and had several more children. Her first husband was my ancestor. Her second husband was my husband's ancestor. We are '7th half cousins'. LOL
also some candy(dna) packets might be so small that some of your ancestors might share a total copy making the total important ancestors less important. all of this is really good for the actual grandfather paradox of time travel, because maybe it's not really that important that that's your grandfather, when things mostly end up mostly the same anyway, cause being well less important to effect as multiple causes can bring about the same effect. really cuts down on many worlds problems too because multiple worlds can converge on a frame world that is the same.
1st cousin marriages were extremely common in many cultures in the past. In fact, some cultures strong encouraged them. Many cultures often "required" someone to marry their first cousin, often their "cross cousin." That's when they married someone from the side of the family of the parent of the opposite gender. For example, a man would marry a woman from their mother's side of the family. Also, many people divorced and remarried or married multiple people. So one man may be father to multiple children from different mothers.
Yes it's all very well me getting together with someone with ancestors from different countries from me - because that is the day and age we live in, where lots of people travel around an awful lot. But 5-10 generations ago a lot of our ancestors will have married people from the same village
Part of the point of this is that it doesn't really matter. Due to people traveling, we're all related to people all over the globe, including people who have no outward similarities. Somebody here commented that after a friend's father complained about their inter-racial marriage, they found out they had siblings in their family tree, six generations back. Humanity didn't spontaneously generate on multiple continents. We traveled around and our differences came from adaptations to climate and other threats and benefits to our survival. When we come back together, our children get to benefit from those (mostly) beneficial mutations, as well as any other quirks we picked up along the way.
@@VoltisArt the thing is mutations are beneficial in the context of the environment and its challenges. A Nigerian is going to have more resistance to skin cancer and tropical diseases than a Norwegian who will have more resistance to the cold and the diseases common in colder climates. The child of A Norwegian and a Nigerian will not be optimally adapted for either climate, this is called outbreeding depression. There’s also the breakdown of coadapted gene complexes. Imagine two Islands. On Island A a recessive gene that causes your eyeballs to explode when you turn 30 becomes fixed in the population due to the founder effect. Later on however a new mutation on a different gene fixes this for whatever reason. Due to the advantage it gives it becomes fixed within the population of Island A as well and the exploding eyeball syndrome is no longer a problem, this is a coadapted gene complex. However if the population of Island A starts interbreeding with the population of Island B then that could result in people who inherited the exploding eyeball genes, but not the gene that fixes it. Inbreeding is the only way to express recessive genes since in order to inherit a copy from both parents they both have to be descendants of whomever originally had the mutation which implies some degree of inbreeding. Inbreeding exposes harmful negative mutations and causes some people to suffer, but without this natural selection cannot purge genetic load. When you outbreed you put this process on pause while mutations pile up. You can’t run from genetic purging forever since we’re all related at some point, eventually a panmictic outbreeding population will start genetic purging again, but far more slowly and it will stabilize at a higher level of genetic load. This will result in a population reliant on heterosis to produce viable humans and if we ever have to resort to inbreeding because of a population crunch or we’re colonizing new environments we will have drastically increased inbreeding depression that may be impossible to overcome. I should clarify that when I say inbreeding I am not referring to siblings mating, but something like second to fourth cousins. Lastly I would like to state that genetic diversity is way overrated. The people on north sentinel island have been a closed gene pool for tens of thousands of years with a population of a couple hundred max and like half of them die in a tsunami every now and then. I guarantee you that their gene pool is puddle deep and yet they’re fine. Yeah, heterosis is cool for one generation, but it doesn’t last forever.
just want to point out a fallacy in this video. around 2:52 you claim that ancestors further back than 15 generations “most certainly didn’t pass any DNA to you”, but this is obviously fallacious. given that ancestors 15 generations back got their DNA from their ancestors who were further back than 15 generations (from you), and given the extreme unlikelihood that one of these ancestors received ALL of their DNA from an ancestor within only one or two generations, by definition some of this DNA made its way down to you. how much? that is hard to say, but the claim that we have received nothing from further back is fallacious. it’s entirely possible that there are some people who have by random chance received more DNA from much further back than others. as always, probabilities confuse people.
I remember hearing from a teacher that all people with blue eyes are related to a specific greek or roman dude, I forgot the whole thing but I found it was a great way to explain how ancestry can get away from our ability to even track it after a certain point.
On one side of my family my grandparents are from very small town in the mountains and once I went to go see a relative before they passed and while I was there went to the cemetery to see where my great grandparents are buried and the cemetery was split in two with a fences. I was related to everyone on one side and not the other.
There are some holes in the logic here, right? I must be missing something or the video is saying the same thing in a different way and I am too thick to see it. If we have no DNA from our distant ancestors, where did the DNA between them and us come from? It MUST have come from some ancestor. If you continue the logic of that premise, then there is no such thing as gradual evolution, because no one is genetically related to any of their distanct ancestors, and those distance ancestors weren’t related to their own distant ancestors. Is there a pedantic difference between having an ancestor and being related to said ancestor? Also, that doesn’t change the number of ancestors we have either way. Nothing changes the number of mating pairs you are directly descended from, whether they were 1st or 3rd cousins, they are the pair whose offspring’s offspring’s offspring begat you. A great great great grandfather that my parents had in common is still my great great great great grandfather on both sides. I’m going to watch this again and see if I am misunderstanding a basic premise being discussed. At least my confusion-turned-comment feeds the algorithm.
This is an oversimplification that treats all the genes that make us human as irrelevant, because all humans share them. Like +99% of our genes are the same, so if you get say ~0.001% of your genes from a particular distant ancestor, maybe that doesn't include anything that all your other ancestors wouldn't also carry.
It’s a lot oversimplified. Think about starting from top down. Say humanity started with 2 ppl. Where did all the other genes come from? The answer is very complex.
Does the math in the second half of the video consider the possibility that some of the genes you don't inherit from one parent might still be inherited from the other parent? E.g if an ancestor on your mother's side has their genes filtered out, is it possible that they could still show up in your genetic profile because their ancestors were also present on your father's side?
yep, but that's not something easily covered in a short statistics video it might be a 3% chance to pick up something from 15 generations ago, but that is before the ancestor number count has been adjusted to what you as a person have in your family tree (so from over 32k individuals to history only knows because record storage is hard, and 3% is still nearly 1k people)
I mean it doesn’t. This is hyper oversimplified. If you look from top down, then u start with 2 ppl, who have contributed to 100% dna to their descendants.
I love the explanation of the ancestor paradox in the first part of the video, very nice for something not that intuitive. But doesn't the second part about inherited genes ignore what we just learned? If we have much fewer ancestors that the 2^'number of generations' like you explained, does the math still work out to 50% chance of no genes inherited 10 generations back? Did you take the "inbreeing" into account in that calculation?
The math almost certainly does not work out to 50%! All people have at least slight inbreeding in their family tree, just as you (and the video) mentioned. A statistic for the average inbreeding of families everywhere for use in the calculation would be exceedingly hard to design, let alone measure. I think the 50% calculation is not quite right, as the number of paths someone and their nth-generational ancestor can be related starts varying by case as soon as you go above direct parentage. If you want a little longer of an explanation of the topic, there is a video similar to this centered around the genetic inheritance of either Queen Elizabeth or King Charles (probably the former, I just cannot remember anymore). It talks less about the percentage chance to pass on DNA and instead talks about the portion inherited. It is also mentioned how an ancestor of the royal family would likely have passed on 2000-3000x as much DNA as a naive estimate would have predicted, but I cannot remember how deep it goes into that tangent.
My uncle is a retired genealogist. I once asked him how often he finds the same person in the ancestry of someone something like 4 generations deep. He answered, it never happened in any of his cases. There was much more movement than people believe. Inbreeding, according to him, was in fact uncommon for everyday villagers, and something basically only the higher classes did (to preserve wealth, maybe). Tracking a family tree form more than 8 generations is hard though, especially all branches. Some branches are much easier than other and how easy that is depends on many factors.
exploring your own family tree is so fascinating. i changed my last name, but before i did, it was one so incredibly uncommon that ONLY my family had it. a while back i looked into that name, and we found the origin- its first ever documented use(though misspelled a bunch through the generations) was on a boat from the netherlands to the US way back in the 1700s. it didnt exist prior to that boat. but that only accounts for one branch of the tree. where did the rest of my family come from? who knows. the other last names in my family were, unfortunately, pretty common
Same here! I am dutch and my last name is unique. It has many different spellings, but they all come from the same ancestor in the 1500's. I started making a family tree in 2001 and it's been fascinating!
What. Are we forgetting the fact that people tend to make like... more than one child? And on top of that, they often have an almost random range of males and females. Like i understand the science aspect of it, but we've literally got people having like 2-69 kids in one lifetime. So thats alot of kids with alot of freaking genes.
2:20 and thats exactly what actively happens between men and women. I forget the specifics of it, but males get more from their male ancestor's relative to females from their female ancestors.
@@Mateo.GamingYT it's the reason males have better DNA results... The Y chromosomes are passed directly from father to son, with less changes than X chromosomes. Yea, no yourself.
@@Mateo.GamingYT yea, yea. Look it up. The Y chromosomes pass mostly unchanged from father to son. X chromosomes have more variations, leading to less genetic similarities between mother and children.
Not sure if your math is right but your explanation is confusing. Are you saying that none of your genes come from ancient ancestor? Or just that because there are so many that there is a low probability that any single ancient ancestor will have contributed to your genes? Because of your words and animations, it sounds like you are saying your genes of your more recent ancestors are coming from somewhere other than your ancient ancestors, are you factoring in some sort of accelerated mutation schedule or something you aren’t mentioning?
Kind of. He's saying: 50% of your dna came from each of your parents (50% mom + 50% dad = 100% you). 25% from your grandparents. 12.5% from your great grandparents...... and so on. By the time you do that 15 generations, that number from any specific individual is basically zero. But when you add up all the pieces, you're still 100% of what came before you (plus or minus minute gene mutations, but that's not what we're really talking about here). I think what's missing is that the gene pool of a specific population is relatively fixed. So you're not a forever branching out percentage of each generation. More bouncing and flowing between the limits of what that population contains. But global migration has always been a thing. So even that over simplification gets messy in hurry too.
There's a different video on youtube that explains this issue better. I think it's called "You don't inherit all your genes from your ancestors" or something like that. I suggest you watch that.
I know a guy named Demers. His family came from Poland. Demers is a French name so eight generations back as I count it his (greight?) grandfather was returning from Russia and decided to hell with Napoleon. I’m staying here and settled down in Poland, found a young Polish girl and started a family! Larry might’ve had very little in common genetically with his French ancestor, but he got a sure -fire bet, the name.
not only am i the spitting image of my grandfather on my mom's side, but i also have his autism as well. Actually, everyone descended from him does. his genes were stronk
I can see the joke already, " his autism is too strong! we can't stop him! " " * in a Gandolph voice * You cannot stop! the *FUNNY!* " " retreat! " Is nice.
2:30 Please, where does that calculation come from? - Does it take into account the implex (inbreeding)? - Does it distinguish genes and mitochondrial DNA? - Does it count all our genome or only the 1 or 2% of it that is exclusive to the human species? - Does it calculate according to the variant number of alleles for each gene ?
I agree something doesn't add up. Either they are talking about the genes that are used to decide how related two sets of DNA are (i.e. those used in forensics and paternity tests), which is a tiny portion of the genome, or they mean that the actual molecules our current DNA is a "copy descendent" of have a tiny chance of coming from any given specific distant ancestor. In this latter case, we actually still share most of our DNA with our ancestors from an information perspective (otherwise we would seemingly be different species, if not in a different class/phylum already). So, to me, they are either not clear enough about what genes they are referring to or not clear enough that they specifically mean "copy descendent".
I think you just contradicted yourself, because if inbreeding is accounted for like in the first part of the video, then in the second part you would have inherited genes from a lot more ancestors. Because they didn't all have unique genes(candy), but depending on how inbred they were, your ancestors were already all sharing the same few genes, that essentially get recycled each generation. I don't believe natural mutation rates would be high enough to significantly change the composition of genes even between far removed generations either.
A perfect example of what you're talking about is my wife and I - in searching through our histories, I discovered that we share a relative, making us 4th cousins.
This is an oversimplification, the genes you carry aren’t just an accumulation of recent mutations, they all came from distinct sources, the majority of which appeared long before the tenth generation back, also the Y chromosome only changes once every thousand years, this video is highly misinformed.
Thank God for myheritage BTW bc i do genealogy as a hobby. I'm mostly of Irish ancestry even though I myself am Scottish. Much of my Irish ancestry is neighbours & distant relatives breeding over and over again so much so that it's tangled beyond belief. My ancestors were from rural Donegal... Myheritage's segment data & triangulation tool is helping to unravel these connections. Literal lifesaver!
There's actually a notable branch merge like the one described in my family. One of my ancestors was captured by a group of Native Americans from the Iriquois Confederation in the mid-1700s who threw in with the English in the lead-up to the American Revolution (I don't know which group within, as the surviving records were vague; my family thinks it was the Mohawks, but we don't actually know), and her ancestors became the Dively and Claycomb families in Pennsylvania. My grandparents on my Mom's side were a Dively and a Claycomb.
The percentage of blood kinship between first-degree cousins is only 12%, and second-degree cousins 3% That is, you are barely engaged, there is nothing preventing marriage
Weird tangent, but since I never considered how little your ancestor's have in common with you genetically speaking makes me feel a LOT better about maybe never having kids. Cause like... If the only reason I'm doing it is to pass on genes, they're all gonna get overwritten in like 10 generations anyway. So that's a nice little scientific affirmation of my life right there.
To me it's more bothering that there is a whole lotta people like me and you, when we're in a giant demographic crisis. The counter-factoid: Kids for own sake vs kids for the community
My 3rd great grandmother was a descendant of the first laird of Argyle. 2 of my children married descendants of the first laird of Argyle that are at least 5th cousins. A few years ago there was a church event where we were asked to link into “relatives near me”. I am a transplant yet of the thirty people that linked twenty-nine were relatives to me.
Sign up for a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage has to offer: bit.ly/MinuteEarth_MH
12 hours ago?
Given the Honey scandal, I for sure hope this isn't close to it
@@mr.boomguy MyHeritage is an Israeli company, do i need to add anything else
Wow. Way to go if you want to add your entire genome to a database
This feels like a privacy nightmare, not just for your, but for all of your relatives you are compromising.
Please don't support services like this.
To add to the incest issue. there have been a few times in history where humans got knocked down massively in population which shrank our ancestors' dating options pretty severely.
Also relevant is that incest alone isn't going to magically create all the problems associated with it. The danger of incest is it greatly increases the chance of negative recessive traits being expressed in the offspring.
Theoretically 2 people with perfect genetics (no negative recessive traits) could inbreed without risk. Its just most people dont have perfect genetics proven to have 0 negative recessive traits.
Seven mitochondria
I believe that's called "genetic bottlenecking".
one interesting example of a bottleneck like this are ashkenazim--every modern ashki jew is descended from 300~ or so people, and theyre all 30th cousins. this is why so many ashkis are at risk of the same diseases, like 1/12 have the gene for gaucher disease as opposed to 1/850 in the general population (there are probably better examples im just ashki so this is the one im most aware of)
@@doineedtocomeupwithsomethi9529 It is. The most extreme case we know of was almost a million years ago, where it's estimated our population got widdled down to a little over a thousand people.
Fun fact, there is more genetic diversity in a tribe of chimpanzees than the entirety of humanity now, partially because of said bottleneck.
My uncle Eugene - we called him Gene - had quite a large pool.
He also got large *JEANS*
Though he only kept the fittest ones.
My g
Isn't that the guy with the weird gnome?
My uncle/cousin Gene had quite a shallow pool
Gene's large pool
Not to mention, over all those generations, there are bound to be some mutations that limit how many genes you and your ancestors actually share.
mutations are very few, the much more impactfull thing is recombination where during chromosome crossover genes mix up
@@MostIntelligentMan roughly 35 mutations in genome per generation actually. not so few.
@@scorpioneldar
Compared to the size of the whole genome and the effects of recombination, that’s not a lot, especially considering most of them don’t have any effect either way.
@@ragnkja personally I wouldn't say something that happens even once every single time a person is born is rare... much less something that happens 35 times any person is born even if it comes packaged in a set of 3 billion things that happen for every new person.
@@ragnkja to me a rare even would only happen occasionally... like say. being born intersex. that happens around 1% of all births. That is rare. (even still from another perspective. you could argue that out of 8 billion people that means 80,000,000 million people are born as such... which... I mean is it really rare if its more common than being French (roughly 68,551,000 people and 20th largest country by population) but less common than being German? (19th largest at roughly 84,746,000)
"You draw an equal number of candies from your mom's bowl and your dad's bowl."
That's it, folks. It's official. Candy is stored in the bowls.
Your comment will go to comment heaven, just next to "I'm the bald guy"
Your comment will be liked to oblivion!!!
And then later stored in the bowels.
wait... he said "bowls" oh that makes more sense...
Knowing this helped me understand the joke some podcasters made while mocking Dan Brown’s _The DaVinci Code:_ “If Jesus somehow has living ancestors today, it’s not some lone woman in France-it’s ALL OF US.”
Do you mean descendants?
@ Yes I meant descendants.
It's a plot point that the Catholic church actively fought to end his gene pool
Except for the pretty important fact that Jesus was celibate.
That lone woman in France is looking a bit more sus now
I always explain this to ppl who say they “direct descendants” of royalty from 100’s of years ago…bro we all are
With some exceptions, mostly in remote uncontacted tribes who have killed any outsiders who have tried to interact with them.
And direct descendants of their scullery staff.
@@therealallpro
Aren’t most people with European ancestry descendants of Charlemagne?
@@ragnkja Well, i'm Finnish and i don't know any of our relatives who would've left Finland or come here to join the family and the family records go back into the late 1500-century. Our family farmed the one big plot since 1637 and no non-Finns has been in the family. Also, no highborns of any kind. So, Charlamange having some child that moves into artic forest in the north to freeze his butt off? Gonna press "doubt" on that....
And i find it really, really hard to believe this would be rare. Most rural areas and peasants living in them in Europe were rather isolated and few knew nobility who might have been relative to Charlamange. It's a awesome story but i'm not buying it.
@
Charlemagne was in the 8th century.
The In-cestors Paradox
Nooooooo 😂
That would explain a lot about the majority of Americans and why many cannot read beyond a sixth-grade level.
The Paradox of Andy and Leyley
The comments never disappoint.
That's a great pun.
Take this virtual token of approval.
👍
@@bahmoudd that game is amazing
Not only that, I know of a part of my family that married their 3 sons to another family's 3 daughters. That practice used to be common just a few generations back.
That's a rather different Brady Bunch.
I don’t remember exactly where, but in my family tree we have two sisters, married two brothers, the sisters’ father died, and the mother married the third brother.
Were the families related? Cause if they were not, then what's the problem?
@@aqwkingchampion13sibling/cousins?
If all three of them get up to heaven, there’s going to be a very awkward conversation.
This is one of the first things we were taught in science class, to show us that models and simple extensions of graphs don't work indefinitely.
2:45 This is why my mom carries native American DNA, but my sister and I don't. I figured this, but having it explained this way helps.
It's also worth mentioning that DNA testing tends to be very inaccurate when it comes to Native Americans.
@@Ultra206most dna testing checks only if you're descended to a total of 84 native americans, cause those were the only native Americans who weren't half European or black by the time the technology needed to store genetic records were created.
Thus it's estimated that the number of people with native ancestry is multiple times that testing shows, especially in black people since slaves were forcefully bred with natives to produce children who the eugencists thought would be better workers.
Are you sure you aren't adopted?
i have native american ancestry that i know of from researching genealogy but 0% on my DNA tests. however i do have shovel shaped incisors which is very rare in european populations, which is the rest of my DNA! my grandma also has senegambian DNA but i have none, and i figured out who in our lineage it came from!! very interesting
@@karanaher5030 were the eugencists right and made better workers or were they full of shit and were equally as good workers?
It also gets complicated to graph when you consider the effect of people having kids at different ages. The duplicate entries in your "complete" ancestor tree might not be both at the same level.
For example, you could have a set of X generation grandparents who were married and had a common ancestor. But the man might be the 4th generation child of that ancestor, while the woman is the 3rd generation child. There would be two children of that common ancestor, one of which had children earlier, and whose children also had children at an earlier age, compared to the sibling that had children later in life.
150 years later, one lineage has had 4 generation and the other 3 generations to produce people at about the same age to become married.
My brother is so much older than me that if he had kids, I could have the same age nephew and boyfriend. My mother’s sister is the same age as my brother, they could have dated in the olden times.
@JasminMiettunen my great grandparents had so many kids that some of the older kids had kids who had kids who got married and had kids thus, i have nieces and nephews some of which are older than me, while some of the younger ones had their kids a little later so those uncles and aunts children are slightly older than me and some have kids who are younger than me, so my parents also have cousins younger than me which is weird af to think abt, and it's both sides. It doesnt help that every1 married different ppl and somehow the majority of us are still alive.
...hobbits
Only 1000 days is the difference between the Dutch Bible Belt 2.5% 450k 18 million 97.5%.
Roughly 50 towns with 9000 is 450k.
450k is from the 2017 interactive map at the Central Bureau of Statistics Netherlands.
One in a Hundred Mothers have more than five children.
As for the 1000 days reference.
That is also from Central Bureau of Statistics, but the title says 35.
It is important to keep in mind that is for first time mothers and the statistics goes back to 1975 & 1950.
More First Time Mothers Beyond the Age of 35.
@@rubbishrabble i tried to read and understand but my brain said NO.
01:32 When the tree doesn't fork very much, but the whole village does.
😂
Came looking for this comment 😂👍
@@jonnyducker So did the villagers.
When it starts looking a little less like a family tree and more like a family circle
🍴 Every time your ancestors were "spooning" 🥄, it put your DNA inheritance on a "knife-edge" 🔪!
This is reminding me of my one cousin who my parents called my double cousin. Our grandmas were cousins and our grandpa’s were brothers…
I got a double cousin. My dad’s brother married my mom’s sister. Always funny to see them at both family reunions.
I guess this happens due to isolation and location. Wasn't there some movie "Seven brothers for seven sisters"? Wanna make sure you take home the correct children after family reunion! They will all look similar. Could lead to some skull dugery by the kids.
I have hundreds of double cousins. Two of my great grandparents had siblings that married each other so all of their collective descendants share two sets of common ancestors with me rather than just one.
doesnt that mean the grandma and grandpa who got together were cousins??
@@ligmaguy521 Only if you believe cousin-in-law is a thing.
3:08 thanks for the clarification 😂😂😂
Likely story
2:30 "If you do the math - which is complicated - you have only a 50% chance of having inherited any DNA at all from a randomly selected ancestor 10 generations back" - Did you include all these duplications discussed before in the math? If I have 10 ways of possibly inheriting genes from a certain ancestor, this first increases the chance to randomly pick them, and also increases their chance of passing down genes.
There are also a few "privileged" ancestors, which will certainly pass DNA along: The ones in the male-only line (for males, passing along the Y-chromosome) and the female line (passing along the mitochondrial DNA).
small problem: exactly what ratio of relatives are duplicated is different for almost everyone except siblings and double first cousins. it would be "up to" that percentage, but just how much lower than that is nigh impossible to predict accurately without a 100% accurate and complete genealogy going back however many generations you want to know (which is impossible to obtain with today's technology, in the case of stupidly large numbers like 100 generations...)
Maybe, but the Y chromosome almost never has any recombination while X chromosomes and autosomal chromosomes almost always do to some extent.
So that distant male ancestor might have only given you that portion of their DNA.
I'm descended from Irish people, my number of ancestors is quite a lot fewer than 37 billion
I'm German, so yeah, there was beer and a sausage involved.
Have you seen the snl skit about Irish dating?
There's an app that you can check " how related " you are to the person you're currently dating...
@@ralanham76 That app is in/for Iceland not Ireland.
As a native mexican, i know that problem-ish
For me, it's Finnish.
1:20 it didn't work out well for Charles II of Spain, just so the viewers know.
He had a chin for the ages
@Praisethesunson way worse, look it up.
@@didack1419his genitals were so fucked up that people had trouble finding out whether he was a male or a female.
A chin only a sister could love.
He was "always on the verge of death but repeatedly baffled Christendom by continuing to live"
I can recommend the book "a brief history of everyone that ever lived" it discusses this concept in some interesting ways
interesting, thank you for the suggestion, hopefully its an audio book bc id like to listen to this on long drives
The amount of Neanderthal DNA still present is way more than would be expected by this explanation.
Spit for feds..all this is.
@@Epochalypse1234 hi what does this mean
There could be some kind of selection pressure. Perhaps in paleolithic Europe those people who had higher portions of Neanderthal DNA might have been better able to survive Ice Age Europe than those with a smaller percentage.
@@derrickbonsell The point is according to this video, no one should be getting any of that old Neandertal DNA anymore because its so long ago.
Europeans have the most neanderthal DNA
Psychedelics are just an exceptional mental health breakthrough. It's quite fascinating how effective they are against depression and anxiety. Saved my life.
Can you help with the reliable source I would really appreciate it. Many people talk about mushrooms and psychedelics but nobody talks about where to get them. Very hard to get a reliable source here in Australia. Really need!
hamidshade43 is the man
On insta?
Yes
Psychedelic is the answer to most severe anxiety and depression. The use of magic mushrooms completely helps one get over depression and makes you feel like yourself.
1:14 Have you ever heard of Greek Mythology??
Have you ever heard of Muslims?
Egyptian Mythology my friends
The gene pool…. Is…. A little.. limited we’ll say..
I remember that the Percy Jackson books addressed this by explaining that the gods don’t have genes and thus are incapable of causing defects from inbreeding, so it’s totally cool and still not at all creepy haha (still weird).
@@EMLtheViewer in mean in that mythos, gods ain't human so its not weird to them
@@Ali-se3gb Last I checked most people weren’t Muslims, but I might have missed that part in history.
So does that mean all of us are related to a pretty great extent?
Yeah
Hey there fourth cousin 😘
Vsauce already talked about this years ago....
And yes, we are releated far removed cousin....
Of course we are, we didn't just
spawn !
Would have probably made the video a touch too long, but would have loved an extra section on mitochondrial DNA.
It was long believed that mitochondrial DNA was passed down only from the mother and was unchanged from generation to generation except for random mutations. It has however been found that the father's sperm's single mitochondrion can contribute to the child's DNA. The sperm's single mitochondrion does not always enter the egg, is often broken down by lysosomes once inside, and usually has a negligible influence on the child's mitochondria because it is outnumbered more than a thousand to one by the egg's many mitochondria, but in a few rare cases where the mother had a mitochondrial genetic disease the father's mitochondria was able to contribute more functional genes that made the child not suffer from the same malady.
@@magister343wow thank you
@@magister343a person with a fathers mitochondria is very very sick. The exception reinforces the rule
My favourite piece of trivia is that every single human on Earth can trace a matrilineal line to one woman who lived between 100 to 200 thousands years ago.
thats really an ibtresting piece of information can you share where you found tht? i wanna look into it more
@@dethor6251PBS Eons did a video on it ua-cam.com/video/YNQPQkV3nhw/v-deo.htmlsi=T59KQNRlICe8j8V5
Yeah, i had heard that too. The interbreeding and incest would have also caused mutations which could slowly grow into the various differences people have. Not to mention environmental mutations
@@dethor6251the individual is called the Mitochrondial Eve
There is no paradox. There is an illogical and unthinking mathematical extension. Simply put, small groups tend to interbreed and you get a lot of some-what-related cousins making babies. This is for ALL animals -- cats, lizards, birds, fish...
True. Even with just a male and a female you can extend a big population.
If they are well fed and move to different places they're gonna evolve and create a big healthy population.
Just try to put the paradoxe ancestor to rabbits and you should have billions of billions of billions of rabbits ancestors 200y ago 😂
regarding the sponsor: giving anyone access to your DNA is a huge security risk - also for your relatives (and vice-versa)
Exactly anyone can hack their database and there goes your family tree in the arms of a distannnnnnnnnnnttttttttttt cousin
and also, you CANNOT delete your data from their database. Once you give them your data, it is theirs. Forever.
Also cops don't need a warrant to get your DNA if the company you gave it too agrees to hand it over willingly (which a lot of them do)
@@kaitlynethylia Just like Apple/iPhone XD. During 2020 pandemic a LOT of people got old photos showing up from 2013-2016. What does this mean? EVERYTHING that was deleted on an Apple product is backed-up to a secret server at Apple HQ. A corporation is breaking the law and nothing is done since they're a trillion dollar industry.
You don't give them any DNA?
The Habsburgs didn't necessarily encourage marrying close relatives, they just wanted high-status single Catholic women for their male heirs, which were in short supply after the reformation. Unless you count the counts. But they generally preferred daughters of dukes, daughters of Kings, or at least great granddaughters of kings and Emperors, which generally was their own family and a countess generally was just seen as "not good enough."
"High-status Catholic singles in your area"
As a low-status Catholic single, I may (or may not) be tempted to click on that...
So all those noble titles, baron(ess), duke(duchess), count(ess), etc are just to indicate their eligibility to be married back into the main royal line?
@@keriannekerr1876 the noble titles are to show where they are on the feudal ladder. The higher up you were the more attractive you were as a marriage option
@@keriannekerr1876No, noble titles indicate having some land. The Habsburgs liked to marry high status Catholics, and apparently countesses just weren't good enough most of the time, so often times the only high ranking single Catholics around would be each other. Put if this way, you can say the family preferred incest and it would be consistent with their marriages. But you can also say they preferred high ranking single Catholics and it would be consistent with their marriages _and_ fathers said they were looking for in their children's marriages.
@keriannekerr1876 no noble titles were earned and given by the king then inherited by generations except dukes which branch of the royal family as duke is almost exclusively given to royals who lost the fight for the throne or gve up on their own.
Gotta love that the go-to example of inbreeding is always the Habsburg Family.
Even though they were much less inbred than pretty much any Eygptian Dynasty
@@jeffbenton6183 yeah, Charles the second had an inbreeding coefficient of 25.4% while Cleopatra had an inbreeding coefficient as high as 45%.
@@jeffbenton6183they existed much more recently, plus more documentation of them looking f'd up
I think it's because they're the only well-known example from Europe. Point out this sort of thing in any non-European population, you're suddenly in a minefield of words like _racism_ and _cultural imperialism._ Safest by far to stick to European examples when you can find them.
@yoshiplasma Yeah, that's probably right. I was tempted to say that we do have plenty of documentation of how messed up the Pharoh's were - but then I remembered a complication. So we have paintings, descriptions, and the actual corpse of King Tut, for instance. We know from all this that he relied on a cane to walk, and his early death likely had something to do with his genetic deformities. In paintings, he's depicted with the afore-mentioned cane, but Eyptian art tended to be more stylized. Pharaohs were depicted according to the ideal human form, so the paintings themselves make him look like a normal dude (his grandfather, IIRC, tried to change everything and promoted artistic realism, but he's less famous today and also less inbred than Tut).
Meanwhile, the Hasburgs are not only more recent, but there's a completely different art style to remember them by. In those days (the Early Modern Period) the hyper-realistic painting style we associate with "the Renaissance" was in vouge. Charles V was depicted with his Hasburg jaw in all of its weirdness.
I guess, then, part of it is that the Hasburgs were just more visibly honest about how ugly they were.
Either that, or I'm overthinking this and completely off-base.
Don't forget to factor in parents who had multiple partners, either out of wedlock, divorced couples who had kids before the divorce then went on to have kids with other partners after the split, polygamous mariiages, or parents who had kids with a spouse who later died then got remarried and had kids with another spouse. All of these can reduce the nu.her of ancestors quite a bit as well.
I don't think any of that is relevant, as the ancestry tree is about who provided which egg and which sperm, and that's all unrelated to divorce/widow/polygamous/infidelity/etc.
Seems the question switched halfway though.
The issue is numbers, you had parents, they had parents, they had parents. Going back too far you start to get incredible numbers of people.
Unless your mother is also your grandmother, that's still two unique parents required. Everyone has a mother, their mother a mother and so on. But one man could be a grandfather and father, as distasteful as that sounds, it's not as culturally acceptable as family mating.
Ultimately I feel the question wasn't answered. And if one wants to claim more then 37 generations the numbers continue to multiply
It's not really that difficult to answer. The assumption of unique ancestry all the way up the tree was incorrect.
@@feynstein1004 The only solution is loads of incest but that's hand-waiving the problem without providing numbers which he gives some vague estimate without any real backing, then changes the question.
The part about how many genes you did or didn't get from any specific ancestor is possibly not literally incorrect but is definitely incredibly misleading. Just because you didn't directly receive your copy of any given gene through the line (or, as becomes much more appropriate as you go further back, ANY one of the lines) of inheritance that go through that ancestor, doesn't mean they didn't have an identical copy to the one you received. for instance it could've easily been a gene they got from their father and despite not passing it onto the line that led to you, their father also passed it onto another line which did.
In the extreme, but incredibly common case, where both of your parents has a copy of the gene which originally came from one specific line, but the more recent ends of that line diverged a bit, it doesn't really matter whether or not your copy was based on the one from your father or your mother and you almost certainly have no way of knowing anyway, but following a strict understanding of inheritance one of those branches contains ancestors you didn't inherit the gene from even though there's an unbroken line of descent from them to you, all of which have the exact same gene. And taking that same situation further, it will have happened countless times in each of your ancestors themselves across the whole of the genome, so each of those times you're discounting an inheritance which is just about as real as any inheritance should hope to be.
That is true, and perhaps the bit about how related one is to an ancestor is a bit misleading, but it is due to the video's focus being on how inheritance itself works and not about gene propagation. Yes, practically speaking, one can be more related to someone because of a shared gene that was passed from a different source, but that equally applies to people that aren't in one's ancestry line at all, so it falls a bit outside the scope of the video.
@@SgtSupaman the key point that's missing is that for the vast majority of genetic sequences in your genome, many or even most of the ancestors you "did" and "didn't" inherit the gene from actually had copies of the exact same sequence. It's probably better to consider not where each gene you inherited physically came from, but instead to consider which differences there are between the different branches of your ancestry graph. It is notable that you inherited a novel mutation from one of those ancestors for instance.
I was confused about that, thank you for clearing it up. It’s kind of like combination versus permutation, it’s more of a combination and how and in what chronological order we get the genes doesn’t matter since most of our genes have copies elsewhere going back tens and even hundreds of thousands of years ago.
And the calculation is based on the assumption that all ancestors are distinct people, which he has already argued that it isn't possible.
Oh my god, USE MORE PERIODS. (I died trying to read this)
0:35 Sweet home Alabama!
It's will always eventually be Alabama.
this is not hell yeah
Marrying cousins is normal, atleast in Islam, but has a higher risk of the child being mutated of some sorts, but a low chance
@thefunnypie2806 bro what
@Daniel.leary64 wht? Just saying
So you are saying if we time traveled back 1000 years, it's safe to bone anyone without worrying they might be genetically related to us.
*Top 10 Examples of Useless, but Interesting Knowledge*
Even more interesting: even if you boned everyone on Earth 1000 years ago and went back to present you could bone everyone again and practically nothing would happen 😂
If you carried antibiotics and a good guide to the sexual etiquette of the time.
could also do the opposite and travel 1000 years into the future!
You're overlooking that many ancestors had the same genes, so they did pass along many of those genes. Your ties to your ancestors are far deeper and more complex than this video would have you believe.
I was just asking this question, searched this up on UA-cam and coincidentally, this video only uploaded 6 hours ago perfectly answers my question...
What is written in that kamehameha in 0:28 ?
Great question, no idea
Sacred hakka equation for max rizz.
Kamehameha in Ge’ez. (I am lying.)
That's what I was wondering, almost looks like Aramaic, Nabataean, or Kharosthi to me
It's called Ithkuil. It basically says in very paraphrased terms electromagnetic energy weapon a representation destroys a depiction of many different parent-child relationships.
I think it's worth pointing out here that even if we don't share a direct link to an ancient ancestor doesn't mean we aren't closely related to them. Rather we should think of ourselves as belonging to a gene pool or race, which doesn't change as much. Because the same genes get passed around in the community, the community retains its character over generations. You might lose the gene for black hair, but your kids could get it back later, for example. So I'm still much more closely related to my European ancestors 5,000 years ago than I would be to a non-European.
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing
Everyone can see we're together
As we walk on by
(And) and we fly just like birds of a feather
I won't tell no lie
(All) all of the people around us they say
Can they be that close
Just let me state for the record
We're giving love in a family dose
We are family (hey, y'all)
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing (sing it to me)
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing
Living life is fun and we've just begun
To get our share of this world's delights
(High) high hopes we have for the future
And our goal's in sight
(We) no, we don't get depressed
Here's what we call our golden rule
Have faith in you and the things you do
You won't go wrong, oh no
This is our family jewel
We are family (hey, sing it to me)
I got all my sisters with me
We are family (oh, I can hear you now)
Get up everybody and sing
We are family
I got all my sisters with me
We are family (get up, get up y'all)
Get up everybody and sing
We are family (I got my sisters with me)
I got all my sisters with me
We are family
Get up everybody and sing (get up and sing it to me)
We are family
I'm surprised you didn't mention the "demographic diamond". Basically, because your ancestry fans out backward through time from now, and the total human population fans out forward in time from a tiny population in prehistory, there is some time when your ancestor count is at its maximum. If I recall a course I took on demographics correctly, for most of us that time is around the 14th century CE.
My 5th great-grandfather had quite a few "relationships" and quite a few children. We literally had to do DNA to establish which child went to which mother. I descend from him four different ways through three of his children. I don't so much have a family tree as a twisted ficus.
I'd also like a video explaining the real genetic issues of incest, as from what I can understand it's severely overblown by most people and it takes a few generations of heavy inbreeding to start showing significant consequences
True. And those significant consequences are 'exaggerated traits', just like with dog-inbreeding. We have Cleopatra as an allegedly 'successfully' inbreed person (very intelligent), but than you get the defects, and human-life is obviously not up to gambling.
A video on the degree of trait-increase would be real cool
Yeah it feels like a lot of people just assume that any inbreeding means instant deformities when that isn’t at all the case.
Habsburgs didn’t become an inbred mess overnight. It took many generations of close-relative incest incentived by the political and social situation at the time to start really showing.
In plants, inbreeding is often done to eliminate deleterious genes, then two unrelated inbred lines are bred together to give a really strong, productive plant. F1 seeds are expensive but often worth it if you want uniform and heavy production.
It can take multiple generations. It also can take one generation.
No one wants to take the gamble with inbreeding again. No one wants to risk it
Even if a child born from the same family is healthy as a child born from two separate families.
After seeing the long term effects of inbreeding on generations of people and animals. No one wants to try inbreeding again.
Which is good. Humans should not take the genetic gamble with inbreeding. It doesn't lead to favourable results.
What happens to your data if MyHeritage gets hacked or bought?
Bought out - Only brand changes, they'll likely keep the same systems in the backend, nobody's crazy *and* rich enough to buy a whole company just to leak their data... _right?_
Hacked - That's the danger with using these kinds of services. Though, I don't really see the point in leaking someone else's family tree, at least currently
China is going to buy it and make weapons for us specifically...
@@jwr2904 or more boringly malicious data brokers will show medical ads to you
@@jwr2904 HELP WHAT 😭🙏
@@jwr2904 no need to jump at shadows. it'd just be used for tracking purposes by the government you already answer to, not to mention hyper-targeted advertising based on your ethnic ancestry and other such things.
The only problem with using data from someone else's tree is that they COULD have gotten stuff wrong. I'm using a competitor of MyHeritage and if you pick a tree created by a careless person, you get all sorts of anomalies in the tree.
My great-grandfather got the spelling wrong for his child's christening and that surname carried over into the following generations. That, added to modern people's making assumptions about possible ancestors they can't actually prove, will cause all sorts of errors. Some families had unusual first names but the same unusual first name occurs many times with that same surname. At the other end of the rare name scale, there were 11 other people with my full name in the same year at the same university as me.
My husband’s family and my family both came over on the Mayflower. We were shocked to see that we share grandparents like 11 generations back. It’s taken a lot of time for us to move past the creep-factor of relation even though it’s so far back it doesn’t affect anything today. He’s more freaked out by it than I am since I’ve studied genealogy for a long time.
Really? Freaking out over 11 generations ago? What next? Freaking out over the fact that all humanity came from like 2 people and deciding to never have seggs?
I accidentally clicked on this video when I was trying to click on a different thumbnail. This was extremely interesting. I'm glad my thumb slipped 😊
TLDR: we are all related in one way or another some just closer than others
I guess the fun thing would be to see how far you are related to someone
I'd also imagine that even without inbreeding, the chances of having duplicates also increases the higher you go up the tree
It's impossible for it to not be inbreeding.
My father's parents were 3rd cousins. They both descended from the same first cousin of the guy who wrote the Star-Spangled Banner.
You're related to Francis Scott Key?!
Frances Scott Key is my distant cousin and so is F. Scott Fitzgerald and Mary Elizabeth Surratt. She is my third cousin nine times removed.
@@jeffbenton6183 Yes. If I recall correctly, their mutual ancestor was also named Francis Key but had a different middle name than his cousin.
I'm also descended from Lord George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore. The first of my ancestors with my last name who moved to America was married to one of his younger daughters. My father's pedigree included a lot of Royal Governors. Those with my surname were loyalists who fled back to England during the American Revolution then moved back to the USA around 1840.
@magister343 The F. S. Key connection is cool enough on its own, but that whole bloodline awesome!
If you don't mind me asking, do you live in Maryland or did you (or one of your more recent ancestors) decide to live somewhere else?
@AmyMichelleMosier Must be cool to be related to two famous writers
As for the other connection, I'm guessing you heard a bunch of different stories as to whether she really was guilty of conspiracy (or not).
I appreciate it when UA-camrs list the sources. Thanks
3:32 just a small clarification that usually changes in last names are due to bad handwriting detection, easier pronunciation to not be discriminated against, or the officials who are at Ellis Island being stupid and unable to read
I have ancestors on the Isle of Wight, were it is said that if you shout "Hey cousin" in any public place, everyone will reply "Hello". And it it is said that in the Forest of Dean there are no family trees... only canes.
Being from the south and especially from a small town where my family has roots that go back over 200 years, I made a point to find a wife from far away. 2,500 miles away to be exact and after we got married, we were talking one day and it turns out, we are actually cousins, to the tune of around 12th cousins. We are both related to president Franklin Roosevelt's wife Eleanor. Small world ehh
I feel like my heritage site is going to be 23andme all over again
I appreciate how informative and concise this was. Made it really easy to understand. And now I want to never think of it again. XD
So what youre saying is that even if you have kids and your kids have kids and so on for eternity, there will be a point where your genes will just disappear and never be passed on again?
Not exactly what they are saying is that some of the descendants will not get any DNA from you, but some probably will. Also your genes didn't originate with you so for example if your siblings descendants breed with yours (and they will) what you call your genes might arrive at a future descendant through a different line there would be no way of knowing
I have an app on my phone where i put EVERY SINGLE PEARSON from my family and while doing this i went trough my great great grandfather and mother, and i discovered that my family is so much more bigger than i could think, fortunatly i made and still making this before my granny dies bc she remembers EVERYTHING
In regards to those such as the Hasburgs, the Ptolemaic dynasty had the _just_ _so_ _wonderful_ practice of marriage between siblings in the latter half of their reign. The later generations could be a bit.... hmm. But, Cleopatra VII (yes that Cleopatra) was widely considered beautiful, as well as being very intelligent. It's possible her farther took a mistress, thus 'freshening' the genome.
Outrageous, he should have kept the bloodline pure,
No wonder the gods abandoned egypt
Cleopatra's image on coins does not show her to be particularly beautiful, but she was clearly intelligent and many men find that attractive. I certainly do.
According to the latest studies, Tutankhamun's genome was not so bad.
@@pshehan1 Cleopatra's image representation differed widely in her time, basically, her image was "curated" to adapt to different populations. In some instances, she was represented as "more Hellenic", while in others, she was "more African". The only thing that was probably ugly in her was her nose, but only after his thirties.
@ThePowerLover I'm not sure I believe that. I've always read that King Tut died young because he was inbred.
He was also often depicted with a walking staff which was likely required due to a disability associated with the effects of inbreeding
as a person with first cousin parents, it's safe to say i don't have a lot of ancestors
I feel obligated to point out that there's this thing called "Crossing over" which happens to chromosomes when cells are dividing, and moves genes between chromosomes. You inherit half your chromosomes from each of your parents, which might lead you to believe that your genes only come from two of your grandparents. This is not the case, because some of your grandparent's genes will get mixed in through crossing over in your parent's cells during cell division.
Which is why the video did not say or imply that you could only inherit genetic material from _at most_ 46 ancestors in any generation.
As an aspiring genetic counselor I will very much save and reference this video
I understand that the MinuteEarth format has a strict time budget, but I do think it would be wise to talk a bit more about the paradox before moving on to a solution. Was the reason you stopped at 37 generations back just that that's when the ancestors outnumber lived humans? How far back is that in years? How many generations have there been of humans?
These things make it easier to follow the next bit 😜
One generation is ~20 years. Long enough for one generation to grow up and produce a new one. Humans as we know them are recognized to be 100,000 years old. Making that 5000 generations
It also fails to take into account that most of our ancestors from history are not human.
Our "candies" are sepparated in every crossing over, so really, if you have a 3% "chance" of having DNA from someone 15th generation back, it means you DO have a 3% of that DNA, and since we have 4 billion nucleotides, that´s not little. So it´s wrong to say that our family tree is small, it isn´t. We have pieces from all of it. That´s why we are, all of us, >99% equal.
2:43 yet 1-2% Neanderthal?
Yeah because the data is sourced from LOTS of people and only European people exhibit neanderthal traits and genes. Also also it isn't just neanderthal genetic material but also material expression.
Something else interesting: I read once that any two people with ancestry on the same continent WILL have a shared ancestor within 7 generations. While working on my ancestry through a popular website, I found my husband's and my shared ancestor!! She was a (5x? 6x?) great grandmother who was married, had several children, widowed, remarried, and had several more children. Her first husband was my ancestor. Her second husband was my husband's ancestor. We are '7th half cousins'. LOL
I got all my jeans from the store. But when I checked inside of them, I didn’t find any candy.
Missed opportunity to talk about the mitochondrial eve
also some candy(dna) packets might be so small that some of your ancestors might share a total copy making the total important ancestors less important. all of this is really good for the actual grandfather paradox of time travel, because maybe it's not really that important that that's your grandfather, when things mostly end up mostly the same anyway, cause being well less important to effect as multiple causes can bring about the same effect. really cuts down on many worlds problems too because multiple worlds can converge on a frame world that is the same.
wonder how the family tree would look like if we took it all the way to LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)
i read somewhere that its some Vietnamese lady..and i'd love to see the math of that
@jabber1990 the last universal common ancestor literally existed before the cambrian explosion
1st cousin marriages were extremely common in many cultures in the past. In fact, some cultures strong encouraged them. Many cultures often "required" someone to marry their first cousin, often their "cross cousin." That's when they married someone from the side of the family of the parent of the opposite gender. For example, a man would marry a woman from their mother's side of the family.
Also, many people divorced and remarried or married multiple people. So one man may be father to multiple children from different mothers.
Yes it's all very well me getting together with someone with ancestors from different countries from me - because that is the day and age we live in, where lots of people travel around an awful lot. But 5-10 generations ago a lot of our ancestors will have married people from the same village
Part of the point of this is that it doesn't really matter. Due to people traveling, we're all related to people all over the globe, including people who have no outward similarities. Somebody here commented that after a friend's father complained about their inter-racial marriage, they found out they had siblings in their family tree, six generations back.
Humanity didn't spontaneously generate on multiple continents. We traveled around and our differences came from adaptations to climate and other threats and benefits to our survival. When we come back together, our children get to benefit from those (mostly) beneficial mutations, as well as any other quirks we picked up along the way.
@@VoltisArt the thing is mutations are beneficial in the context of the environment and its challenges. A Nigerian is going to have more resistance to skin cancer and tropical diseases than a Norwegian who will have more resistance to the cold and the diseases common in colder climates. The child of A Norwegian and a Nigerian will not be optimally adapted for either climate, this is called outbreeding depression. There’s also the breakdown of coadapted gene complexes.
Imagine two Islands. On Island A a recessive gene that causes your eyeballs to explode when you turn 30 becomes fixed in the population due to the founder effect. Later on however a new mutation on a different gene fixes this for whatever reason. Due to the advantage it gives it becomes fixed within the population of Island A as well and the exploding eyeball syndrome is no longer a problem, this is a coadapted gene complex. However if the population of Island A starts interbreeding with the population of Island B then that could result in people who inherited the exploding eyeball genes, but not the gene that fixes it.
Inbreeding is the only way to express recessive genes since in order to inherit a copy from both parents they both have to be descendants of whomever originally had the mutation which implies some degree of inbreeding. Inbreeding exposes harmful negative mutations and causes some people to suffer, but without this natural selection cannot purge genetic load. When you outbreed you put this process on pause while mutations pile up. You can’t run from genetic purging forever since we’re all related at some point, eventually a panmictic outbreeding population will start genetic purging again, but far more slowly and it will stabilize at a higher level of genetic load. This will result in a population reliant on heterosis to produce viable humans and if we ever have to resort to inbreeding because of a population crunch or we’re colonizing new environments we will have drastically increased inbreeding depression that may be impossible to overcome. I should clarify that when I say inbreeding I am not referring to siblings mating, but something like second to fourth cousins.
Lastly I would like to state that genetic diversity is way overrated. The people on north sentinel island have been a closed gene pool for tens of thousands of years with a population of a couple hundred max and like half of them die in a tsunami every now and then. I guarantee you that their gene pool is puddle deep and yet they’re fine. Yeah, heterosis is cool for one generation, but it doesn’t last forever.
just want to point out a fallacy in this video. around 2:52 you claim that ancestors further back than 15 generations “most certainly didn’t pass any DNA to you”, but this is obviously fallacious. given that ancestors 15 generations back got their DNA from their ancestors who were further back than 15 generations (from you), and given the extreme unlikelihood that one of these ancestors received ALL of their DNA from an ancestor within only one or two generations, by definition some of this DNA made its way down to you. how much? that is hard to say, but the claim that we have received nothing from further back is fallacious. it’s entirely possible that there are some people who have by random chance received more DNA from much further back than others. as always, probabilities confuse people.
Those ancestors basically won the lotto to pass on genes to you. Sure almost none of them count, but somebody won.
Myheritage: when you give your DNA to cops without being told so.
And by extension, to an extent, your extended family's DNA.
@@lukesmith8896 You're absolutely right.
My mum says that Sir Apirana Ngata is her great great grand papa!
I remember hearing from a teacher that all people with blue eyes are related to a specific greek or roman dude, I forgot the whole thing but I found it was a great way to explain how ancestry can get away from our ability to even track it after a certain point.
On one side of my family my grandparents are from very small town in the mountains and once I went to go see a relative before they passed and while I was there went to the cemetery to see where my great grandparents are buried and the cemetery was split in two with a fences. I was related to everyone on one side and not the other.
There are some holes in the logic here, right? I must be missing something or the video is saying the same thing in a different way and I am too thick to see it.
If we have no DNA from our distant ancestors, where did the DNA between them and us come from? It MUST have come from some ancestor. If you continue the logic of that premise, then there is no such thing as gradual evolution, because no one is genetically related to any of their distanct ancestors, and those distance ancestors weren’t related to their own distant ancestors. Is there a pedantic difference between having an ancestor and being related to said ancestor?
Also, that doesn’t change the number of ancestors we have either way.
Nothing changes the number of mating pairs you are directly descended from, whether they were 1st or 3rd cousins, they are the pair whose offspring’s offspring’s offspring begat you.
A great great great grandfather that my parents had in common is still my great great great great grandfather on both sides.
I’m going to watch this again and see if I am misunderstanding a basic premise being discussed. At least my confusion-turned-comment feeds the algorithm.
This is an oversimplification that treats all the genes that make us human as irrelevant, because all humans share them. Like +99% of our genes are the same, so if you get say ~0.001% of your genes from a particular distant ancestor, maybe that doesn't include anything that all your other ancestors wouldn't also carry.
It’s a lot oversimplified. Think about starting from top down. Say humanity started with 2 ppl. Where did all the other genes come from? The answer is very complex.
Does the math in the second half of the video consider the possibility that some of the genes you don't inherit from one parent might still be inherited from the other parent? E.g if an ancestor on your mother's side has their genes filtered out, is it possible that they could still show up in your genetic profile because their ancestors were also present on your father's side?
yep, but that's not something easily covered in a short statistics video
it might be a 3% chance to pick up something from 15 generations ago, but that is before the ancestor number count has been adjusted to what you as a person have in your family tree (so from over 32k individuals to history only knows because record storage is hard, and 3% is still nearly 1k people)
I mean it doesn’t. This is hyper oversimplified. If you look from top down, then u start with 2 ppl, who have contributed to 100% dna to their descendants.
I love the explanation of the ancestor paradox in the first part of the video, very nice for something not that intuitive. But doesn't the second part about inherited genes ignore what we just learned?
If we have much fewer ancestors that the 2^'number of generations' like you explained, does the math still work out to 50% chance of no genes inherited 10 generations back? Did you take the "inbreeing" into account in that calculation?
The math almost certainly does not work out to 50%! All people have at least slight inbreeding in their family tree, just as you (and the video) mentioned. A statistic for the average inbreeding of families everywhere for use in the calculation would be exceedingly hard to design, let alone measure. I think the 50% calculation is not quite right, as the number of paths someone and their nth-generational ancestor can be related starts varying by case as soon as you go above direct parentage.
If you want a little longer of an explanation of the topic, there is a video similar to this centered around the genetic inheritance of either Queen Elizabeth or King Charles (probably the former, I just cannot remember anymore). It talks less about the percentage chance to pass on DNA and instead talks about the portion inherited. It is also mentioned how an ancestor of the royal family would likely have passed on 2000-3000x as much DNA as a naive estimate would have predicted, but I cannot remember how deep it goes into that tangent.
My uncle is a retired genealogist. I once asked him how often he finds the same person in the ancestry of someone something like 4 generations deep. He answered, it never happened in any of his cases. There was much more movement than people believe. Inbreeding, according to him, was in fact uncommon for everyday villagers, and something basically only the higher classes did (to preserve wealth, maybe). Tracking a family tree form more than 8 generations is hard though, especially all branches. Some branches are much easier than other and how easy that is depends on many factors.
There are a few cases in family trees I maintain, of 1st or 2nd cousins marrying. Not at all strange.
exploring your own family tree is so fascinating. i changed my last name, but before i did, it was one so incredibly uncommon that ONLY my family had it. a while back i looked into that name, and we found the origin- its first ever documented use(though misspelled a bunch through the generations) was on a boat from the netherlands to the US way back in the 1700s. it didnt exist prior to that boat.
but that only accounts for one branch of the tree. where did the rest of my family come from? who knows. the other last names in my family were, unfortunately, pretty common
Same here! I am dutch and my last name is unique. It has many different spellings, but they all come from the same ancestor in the 1500's. I started making a family tree in 2001 and it's been fascinating!
What.
Are we forgetting the fact that people tend to make like... more than one child?
And on top of that, they often have an almost random range of males and females.
Like i understand the science aspect of it, but we've literally got people having like 2-69 kids in one lifetime. So thats alot of kids with alot of freaking genes.
2:20 and thats exactly what actively happens between men and women. I forget the specifics of it, but males get more from their male ancestor's relative to females from their female ancestors.
Yea, no
Are you pointing out that men always get a y chromosome which is nearly exclusively male?
@@Mateo.GamingYT it's the reason males have better DNA results... The Y chromosomes are passed directly from father to son, with less changes than X chromosomes. Yea, no yourself.
@@chriskogan3648 I'm pointing out that the Y chromosomes are passed directly from father to son with less changes than X chromosomes.
@@Mateo.GamingYT yea, yea. Look it up. The Y chromosomes pass mostly unchanged from father to son. X chromosomes have more variations, leading to less genetic similarities between mother and children.
Not sure if your math is right but your explanation is confusing. Are you saying that none of your genes come from ancient ancestor? Or just that because there are so many that there is a low probability that any single ancient ancestor will have contributed to your genes? Because of your words and animations, it sounds like you are saying your genes of your more recent ancestors are coming from somewhere other than your ancient ancestors, are you factoring in some sort of accelerated mutation schedule or something you aren’t mentioning?
Kind of. He's saying:
50% of your dna came from each of your parents (50% mom + 50% dad = 100% you).
25% from your grandparents.
12.5% from your great grandparents...... and so on.
By the time you do that 15 generations, that number from any specific individual is basically zero. But when you add up all the pieces, you're still 100% of what came before you (plus or minus minute gene mutations, but that's not what we're really talking about here).
I think what's missing is that the gene pool of a specific population is relatively fixed. So you're not a forever branching out percentage of each generation. More bouncing and flowing between the limits of what that population contains.
But global migration has always been a thing. So even that over simplification gets messy in hurry too.
There's a different video on youtube that explains this issue better. I think it's called "You don't inherit all your genes from your ancestors" or something like that. I suggest you watch that.
I have always wanted an answer to this!
I know a guy named Demers. His family came from Poland. Demers is a French name so eight generations back as I count it his (greight?) grandfather was returning from Russia and decided to hell with Napoleon. I’m staying here and settled down in Poland, found a young Polish girl and started a family!
Larry might’ve had very little in common genetically with his French ancestor, but he got a sure -fire bet, the name.
not only am i the spitting image of my grandfather on my mom's side, but i also have his autism as well. Actually, everyone descended from him does. his genes were stronk
I can see the joke already,
" his autism is too strong! we can't stop him! "
" * in a Gandolph voice * You cannot stop! the *FUNNY!* "
" retreat! "
Is nice.
2:30 Please, where does that calculation come from?
- Does it take into account the implex (inbreeding)?
- Does it distinguish genes and mitochondrial DNA?
- Does it count all our genome or only the 1 or 2% of it that is exclusive to the human species?
- Does it calculate according to the variant number of alleles for each gene ?
I agree something doesn't add up. Either they are talking about the genes that are used to decide how related two sets of DNA are (i.e. those used in forensics and paternity tests), which is a tiny portion of the genome, or they mean that the actual molecules our current DNA is a "copy descendent" of have a tiny chance of coming from any given specific distant ancestor.
In this latter case, we actually still share most of our DNA with our ancestors from an information perspective (otherwise we would seemingly be different species, if not in a different class/phylum already).
So, to me, they are either not clear enough about what genes they are referring to or not clear enough that they specifically mean "copy descendent".
I think you just contradicted yourself, because if inbreeding is accounted for like in the first part of the video, then in the second part you would have inherited genes from a lot more ancestors.
Because they didn't all have unique genes(candy), but depending on how inbred they were, your ancestors were already all sharing the same few genes, that essentially get recycled each generation.
I don't believe natural mutation rates would be high enough to significantly change the composition of genes even between far removed generations either.
A perfect example of what you're talking about is my wife and I - in searching through our histories, I discovered that we share a relative, making us 4th cousins.
Thank you for giving a new thing to overthink
This is an oversimplification, the genes you carry aren’t just an accumulation of recent mutations, they all came from distinct sources, the majority of which appeared long before the tenth generation back, also the Y chromosome only changes once every thousand years, this video is highly misinformed.
On the contrary: there was a lot of forking going on in our trees.
3:05
"Good news guys, my wife and I are NOT cousins. I checked." No guys, no.
Thank God for myheritage BTW bc i do genealogy as a hobby. I'm mostly of Irish ancestry even though I myself am Scottish. Much of my Irish ancestry is neighbours & distant relatives breeding over and over again so much so that it's tangled beyond belief. My ancestors were from rural Donegal...
Myheritage's segment data & triangulation tool is helping to unravel these connections. Literal lifesaver!
There's actually a notable branch merge like the one described in my family. One of my ancestors was captured by a group of Native Americans from the Iriquois Confederation in the mid-1700s who threw in with the English in the lead-up to the American Revolution (I don't know which group within, as the surviving records were vague; my family thinks it was the Mohawks, but we don't actually know), and her ancestors became the Dively and Claycomb families in Pennsylvania. My grandparents on my Mom's side were a Dively and a Claycomb.
The percentage of blood kinship between first-degree cousins is only 12%, and second-degree cousins 3% That is, you are barely engaged, there is nothing preventing marriage
For those whom it concerns, MyHeritage, the sponsor of this video, is an Israeli company. Do with that information what you will.
Weird tangent, but since I never considered how little your ancestor's have in common with you genetically speaking makes me feel a LOT better about maybe never having kids. Cause like... If the only reason I'm doing it is to pass on genes, they're all gonna get overwritten in like 10 generations anyway. So that's a nice little scientific affirmation of my life right there.
To me it's more bothering that there is a whole lotta people like me and you, when we're in a giant demographic crisis.
The counter-factoid: Kids for own sake vs kids for the community
My 3rd great grandmother was a descendant of the first laird of Argyle. 2 of my children married descendants of the first laird of Argyle that are at least 5th cousins.
A few years ago there was a church event where we were asked to link into “relatives near me”. I am a transplant yet of the thirty people that linked twenty-nine were relatives to me.