You DON’T Descend From All Your Ancestors
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- This video explains the difference between genetic and genealogical descent, showing why most of our genetic ancestry is lost over a short number of generations. For further information, check out David Reich’s book, Who We Are and How We Got Here: www.amazon.com...
Download the soundtrack to this video here: ko-fi.com/marc...
Music made with FL Studio
Art made with Asesprite
Animations made with After Effects
Seems to me that it would be more correct to say we don't inherit genetic material from all our ancestors, but we certainly descend from all of them.
Exactly
It's just semantics, though semantics are important.
Aguna...I was thinking the same thing. My father's father is as pure Andean blood (Cuenca, Ecuador) as can be, the rest of me is Iberian and yet, I am green eyed, white and have an aquiline nose and face consistent with faces of Greece, South Italy and the Caucasus. Muh Injun Grandpappy ...disappeared. Only vaguely in jaw and face structure is there a hint on him...But I look like both my parents !
@@Darkclowd I would say that being tecnicaly correct is what is importnat. it is the best kind of correct there is.
@@Darkclowd Its not just semantics. It's misleading
This video doesn't descend from all of my youtube video history, but here it is
Or does it? (buh bah baaaaaaaahhh!!!)
I think it does, actually. If it popped up in your recommendations, that means the algo chosed it based on the videos you've watched before
This video descended from someone whose phone was near my phone at work for five seconds.
This.
yeaaaaaah, how do you explain that?!
there might not be an exact genetic trace of their DNA coursing through my body, but they still mattered!
My ancestor of 15 generations ago might not have given me any genes but had this person not lived or not had any children I wouldn't have existed.
Exactly, still your ancestor and that means something
Or anyone he interacted with, as the ripple effect would have led to a different now
Oooo
Yeah this is just ridiculous isn't it.
1 of your 15th generation ancestors gave you their Y chromosome. So you have at least that.
Sometimes the youtube algorithm just recommends you an actually interesting and educational video.
And sometimes it recommends you a comically stupid video.
One correction:
If you have living descendants in 400 years, you only have a 3% chance of contributing to the genetic makeup OF ANY SINGLE descendant. If you have at least a few tens of descendants, chances are good that you contributed something to their genetics
Ah, that makes sense. So assuming you had 3 kids and they each had 3 kids, your DNA is highly likely to be in at least one offspring 400 years later?
@@Mcfunfaceit would mean if you add up all the dna of your 99 descendants you would make up 1% of that gene pool or the equivalent genetic information needed to make one person.
Yes, exactly. I may not have conveyed that clearly enough.
And we see this in an extreme case with Genghis Khan who, despite living around 1200, is the donor of 0.5% of the world's Y chromosomes. How many people share other snips of his DNA, I do not know, and we may not know for a long time without mass DNA sampling and a lot of computing power to rebuild the unsequenced genetic trees of billions of people.
The general message highlights interesting phenomena, diffusion of dna, however it makes assumptions that aren't true Irl Your ancestors lived in close knit tribes and there would be multiple branches that lead back to any given ancestor. Your mom and dad would be giving you DNA from the same set of ancestors and you would be getting a slice of great great geat gramps dna from both of them.
I've been really enjoying UA-cam algorithm recommending me smaller but high production value channels as of late instead of just rehashes of the same 10 topics
Yeah they have been recommending small channels to me too, but also there are videos from big youtubers that they keep recommending to me until I click them.
Same here. I used to feel as if I was locked in a tiny echo chamber. The breadth of choice has greatly improved in recent months.
I think that YT announced some time ago that the algorithm is trying to find audiences even for smaller channels. If you click on the videos with a low number of views (and watch them - engagement counts), you get more niche creators recommended. I personally got recommended a video watched only one time and other watched 4. I love it!
if yous guys getting fed up of seeing the same content on youtube, block each creator that you are not interested in, this forces youtube to recommend you stuff you wouldnt normally get exposed to
Because they turned on the dead internet generator a few months ago
DNA passing down through your lineage is like the longest game of “Telephone” ever. Message is barely distorted from one person to the next, but those distortions build enough to change the message considerably the further you move from the “initial” messenger.
that is the best explanation and analogy i think i have heard yet
@@riyashah7874literally
great analogy
Facts, I remember in 3rd grade our teacher did this to us. She gave one of us a message in our ear until it got to the last student and it was a completely different message then.
Although this seems to contrast entirely with the fact that through the patrilineal line there is a direct and unbroken chain of descent
Just wanted to say that this video prompted me to go and read David Reich's book. It's amazing. It clearly explains the ideas of the statistical methods used, without getting lost in the details, and covers the state-of-the-art conclusions that we can draw from them. Unlike a lot of pop-science it doesn't speak down to the reader, and it fully expects you to pay attention while reading - it rarely repeats itself. The result is a book that's fascinating and educational; I could hardly recommend it enough to someone who wants to know the science behind the headlines of ancient population migrations.
I need this, pixel style, retro music, video essay format with knowledge you never thought about until you clicked on this video, and a narrator with a soothing and calming voice that is able to easily explain these concepts it’s too perfect. Give me 500 more of these
Same! Satisfying and almost like if all presentations were on point, feeling all the feels and creating a space to internalize all information ...then we'd all be prodigies.
So what is the big catch.
@@trafficjon400
Nothing.
It's typical UA-cam halfwit nonsense. Clicky production, silly content.
The music somehow made it make more sense.
No need to do your own research. Lovely.
How did i just stumble apon the most interesting youtube video ever, and it only has 63 views? great work bro love this style.
Ha! Thanks! Just toiling away in obscurity at the moment.
I was waiting for the gimmick, but it was actually a fun video! Well done Marcus
@@MarcusGallo9000seems like youtube is rewarding you
It's just one day old, but great video!
Duh cuz it just came out you fool
You may not contribute anything genetically to a descendant, given enough time, but they are still a descendant. & they still wouldn't exist if you hadn't existed as an ancestor. Pretty amazing really.
Yea
Well that is just statement of determinism.
Every past event contributes to a future outcome.
You don't need to be a parent to be a necessary contributing factor to future generations.
@@richardlegrand4697 The determining factor in this case is reproduction. That's what puts a different slant on it, because we usually consider that reproduction involves genetic material being passed on to your descendants. But on closer analysis this is only true up to a certain point.
@@realsatoshihashimoto exactly.
I would say the contribution vanishes to a point of disappearing.
Like dust in the wind. Like pouring water in the ocean
It's a relay race and life is the stick.
Love how many seconds a genetics video spent roasting Prince Edward lol
Why would that be a roast?
@@A_Box "unimpressive career, ended prematurely, stripped of command, forbidden to travel" all things not to boast about, especially when highlighted and the only things to be said about the man lol. Especially when for the purposes of the example "military man" would have been more than sufficient
@@serebii666 And then there's chad Victoria ruling a third of the earth for sixty years.
@@icefyre8331 reign, not rule. No British monarch has ruled since arguably Queen Anne vetoing the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708.
@@serebii666 She did that at Parliament's invitation only
Trippy 8-bit console science vibe I love it.
It reminds me of the second portion of the game “inscryption”
@@yoshiyoshi9496ohhhh insryption is good
Good morrow, my lord. You will soon be graced by the presence of his Majesty, UA-cam Algorithm. May it serve your channel dutifully.
Ha!
*leads his caravan into the city muttering, guided by the algorithm*
“…one might imagine it’s irrelevant how many theoretical ancestors a person had 32 generations ago. Due to cousin marriage…” You know I was not imagining that at all actually but it’s a fair point.
Ha!
It entirely is irrelevant because of village life up until the 1930s
Village life still exists in Sparkhill, Birmingham
@@liamo8932Yep. Interesting how the industrial revolution was the only factor that makes even the notion of random gene pools even entertainable
I find it a little strange that 2nd-3rd cousin marriage is so taboo today given that it comprised likely the majority of marriages until the Industrial Revolution.
Although any closer and you do get large genetic defects and it becomes socio-emotionally weird.
Thanks to all of our ancestral mothers who went through dangerous labours, who brought up and cared well for our ancestors we are here today.
thanks to all our ancestral fathers who provided for and protected us, some making the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good which led to us being here today.
Even cockroaches have babies, thousands of them. It's all instinct to pass along the mother's genes, by the law of survival of the fittest, nothing more.
Due to the discovery of mtDNA (a woman's version of the Y chromosome from a hereditary pov) I can fairly confidently trace my French matriline back to the cave painters. We are nothing without our ancestors.
My wife is the descendant of a woman who had the first "successful" cesarean birth since Caesar. The reason I have successful in quotes is because she fell off a horse and had the baby removed by cesarean and the baby survived. If not my wife would not exist. Unfortunately the mother died several days after. So it wasn't particularly successful for her.
The problem with choosing King Charles III is that we know how noble families did favor inbreeding in a higher level than the common folk. He may have inherited some genes from a 15th generation ancestor from different branches of the European noble family.
Actually I think some people in small rural area have more chance to have less distinct ancestors. Instead of just some inbreeding in a family, less distinct ancestors in a vertical, it's a limited pool of family, so less distincts in the horizontal.
I think it could be interesting to see which "strategy" maximise the likelyhood of keeping the DNA of ancestors.
His parents were 3rd cousins through Queen Victoria.
It depends, most of my family interbreed with three to four families and even interbreed between cousins. My 15 grandparents children are all my 14 grandparents. Interbreeding was very common due to beliefs and religious practices. My mother parents were genetical cousins. My Parents where not of the same gene pool although my dads grandmother was related to my mothers grandmother. They both came from the same families. The only difference is that my dad has Native American blood and that made a huge difference on my genetics. It was confusing reading my family tree as the same names would popup constantly.
@@3x157 So are both sides of my family. My father's family is super inbred and so is my mother's. My mother is her half-brother's cousin. So I do get what you're saying.
However, if we take into consideration the Western European reality, cousin marriage hasn't been in vogue for some 2 centuries among common people, but it still is among nobility.
It's not a problem in this case, because the examples of genetic contributions are merely hypothetical. Charles happens to be a famous person with a biographically rich family tree. None of the details actually matter, other than the statistical trend towards obscurity.
Even though we don't share any genetic info from those ancient we still wouldn't be here without them. It's trippy
We have not inherited their specific genetic info, but we share almost all of it with them. As we do with all humans, and even other species.
@@Muenni i dont think i understood the video totally. I mean we could find the Y chromosome of my great-x father right? so we share almost a entire perfectly chromosome
@@v44n7 No, when males create sperm they split the chromosomes, so you would share 50% of your y-chromosome with your father, 25% with your grandfather, and 12.5% with your great grand father (on average, it doesn't actually work that cleanly).
@v44n7 yes that is correct. If the video had shown Charles' direct male ancestors it would have shown that. The Y chromosome unlike all other chromosomes has nothing to split and swap pieces with during sperm production so the exact same copy (barring spontaneous mutations) is passed on by a father to his son, who passes it on to his son and so on
@@v44n7 Only along the make line, so not from your grandfather on your mother's side for example, but yeah, you're right.
Does this mean that if I took a time machine and met my 15x great grandfather (a man who was requisite in my existence), we are literally not blood related? That is a MINDBLOWING concept.
if he's your direct great grandfather (meaning only male lineage up) then you're guaranteed to share almost exact Y chromosome
If you're a man then you can trace a direct genetic lineage all the way up on both sides, with your paternal lineage sharing the same y chromosome, and your maternal lineage sharing the same mitochondrial dna
Unless that 15x great grandparent is the father of father of father, etc, and you are genetically a man. Then you would have his Y-chromosome.
Kind of like how in Dune the Bene Gesserit can look back through their maternal line, but need a male who can look back through both his paternal and maternal lines.
You could have sex without it being incest
In fact if you get pregnant your great granddaughter (times 13) could travel back in time and do the same
It is worth remembering as we go back through the generations, that many ancestors will appear repeatedly down different lines of descent; that is to say your 15th great grandfather might appear eight times in your mothers liniage and 12 times in your fathers for example which is why groups who’s founding populations were small can become inbred.
He made a really good point about the number of ancestors superseding the number of total genes after enough generations; But also mentioned that the total population keeps getting lower the further you go back.
Not only will one ancestor show up in multiple places in your family tree, but due to the variations in ages of a person's parents when they're born, one ancestor will likely show up in different generations in your ancestry. A man might be your 14th great grandfather if you follow one path, but be your 16th great grandfather if you follow a different path of ancestors.
that's what i was thinking, like maybe their contribution decreases as we go back but we should also take into account shared ancestors in different lines, thus rising up again their contribution and also a 8th great-parent in one line might be a 5th in other and interbreeding becomes exceedingly common at distant degrees (everyone's related at some point)
I believe every English person today are like 4th cousins, genetically speaking. And the White race is one of the most interrelated races. So when we go back more than 100 years, race becomes even more salient for understanding identity
@@landofthesilverpath5823 that makes sense. As far as I can tell, ethnic whites are the smallest of the major "races" so they would have to be closer in relations simply out due to less options. The thing is if somebody is half white, they generally aren't considered white anymore because of social norms. Geography would also play a huge role especially in the British isle and Nordic countries, however it was common for the last 1000 years for France and all the Nordic/Viking countries to migrate and intermarry for political reasons.
In King Charles case, Queen Victoria likely had more contribution as she was an ancestor of both of his parents.
Gross
@@patrickwilliam3322 It's not, Victoria is his 3X great grandmother, so even if she contributed double it would still just be a tiny share.
@@patrickwilliam3322royalty are just rich hillbillies !
@@patrickwilliam3322but true Royal families have a history of intermarriage
@@bigmama818That is the best way to look at it ever!!!
I may not have the genes of my ancestors from 400 years ago, but I'm still a product of them. Without them, I wouldn't have been born. My cells may not have any of their genetic material, but I exist because of them. To me that's something more profound than having a small sliver of DNA from 4 centuries ago.
You have the genes of your ancestors anyway, just not of all of them.
Yea but by this logic you'd have to hold the genetic soup that created life in the same regards. Which we don't, because we don't idolize cells.
Meme vs gene. Your genetics can only pool from so many resources, but the teachings and traditions of your ancestors can last much longer. How true they are to their original source depends on the mode of translation. Christian values for example can last for thousands of years because they rely on an unchanging text; how any one society reacts to that same information is unique to the times. Thanks a lot, Metal Gear Solid.
100%. For me to (and I imagine many people) the 'cultural' line is far more important than the 'genetic' one. E.g. If there is an adoption into the family, the family line continues through them, it doesn't start again from scratch.
wow! my children asked the same question when they were about ten, in the early nineties. I did a very, VERY rough calculation on the spot, at the kitchen stove, and arrived at exactly the same result: going back, at around 1200 A.D. we run out of ancestors and have to reuse the same ones over and over again!!! I am so proud, thank you, cousin!
?
Yes, but we didn't even descend from all of them, but a tiny fraction of that, because most of us didn't have ancestors from China, Africa, Europe, South America all at the same time until more recently.
But many families appeared in the 1800s, read up on the 'orphamn trains. For such a sparsly populated time, there were a lot of spare babies.
Are you just talking about discovering that we need to reuse the same ancestors in our tree because of incest/cousin marriages, otherwise we'd have more ancestors than the global populations? Since that's not that remarkable; the interesting part of this video is the discussion of how DNA splicing makes it so that we don't even get DNA from most of our older ancestors, even after accounting for such incest/cousin marriages.
@tiskbubbles4688 very true. Overwhelmed though - I am just a simple painter.
WHAT A SPLENDID VIDEO. I really found myself digging into the topic of ancestry the last couple of years. Discovering my "older" family roots. This video puts a lot of things into perspective. If you are unsure where your family or you are from, do not worry! After a couple hundred years it pretty much does not matter anymore :)
btw is there a way to donate to you?
The thing is: Charles descents a whooping 2244 times from Casimir IV Jagiellon!, so that makes it pretty much certain that the latter contributed to his DNA, ofc nobility is an extreme example of in-breeding, but courtesy of phenomena like the Founder Effect and the simple fact that people in pre modern times tended to live all their lives in their small closed communities and mostly met with people who they were related to some degree, most people would be shocked at how many times the same individual can appear in a person's family tree, even the average folk.
Despite that, your model might be close to what we will see in the future as centuries of the new urban dynamics go by, so your prediction is probably still spot on. Great content, man, glad this video exploded the visuals are just great.
Imagine yo dad is your grandpa, great grandpa, uncle, great uncle, brother, and your step uncle 💀 💀
And that's why it's a bad video.
we can't be certain if the nobility's tendency towards inbreeding was more prominent than that of the commoners, we just know more about the nobility.
in one way or another, we're all kinda inbred
@@marcusaurelius4941 Nor can we be sure with out testing, that there where no one night stands, how many woman had impotent usabdnds and still prodced and air and spare...
It makes sense that Charles would descend many separate times from Casimir IV, because so much of his ancestry traces through Germany, and Casimir had many children that married into German nobility. But 2244 times? That's news to me -- can you point me to a source where I could learn more? Thanks!
My dad's from southern Italy, and his genetic test came back as 66% Italian. I came back as 48% Italian, with only 2% of his Egyptian ancestry. My brother has the more expected 12% Egyptian ancestry.
A lot of people have the misconception that it's just an equal, halved division, and that if my dad is 66% Italian, then I'm 33% Italian.
@@themanicmechanics496“You’re 100% human“ thanks mate, the sky is Blue
@@themanicmechanics496LOL you can isolate a man's genealogical strings to locate his most common origin but you're gonna stand here and tell me your ethnicity has no play in it
LMAO!! Stfu grandpa
@@themanicmechanics496we’re all one race maaaan, no borders maaaan
@@pacey2509 lmaoaoao 😂
@@pacey2509we're not one race, but it's a fact that genetic populations and ethnic groups are not one and the same.
why does yt algorithm keep recommending me fire videos from small/new channels? i thought it was supposed to be shit. anyways, i’m happy i got recommended this, great and extremely interesting video.
Well, they don't really care if the recommendation is "good" or "bad" for you, as long as they are sponsoring what makes you use UA-cam the longest, their job is done correctly
It's a distraction technique. Whenever they start throwing you new videos, they're trying to divert your attention from something.
Also the algorithm is always changing in multiple ways, and they do selective testing on various tweaks. It's impossible to know what's going on with it.
The feed is largely garbage but if it wasn't interesting in some way, then people wouldn't scroll.
apparently youtube changed the algorithm to favor small channels more
I was sort of following up until 5.30 but then the sheer magnitude of numbers fried my brain.
One possible assist: that 118 number of splices in the first generation is arbitrary.
Thereafter, each generation adds 71 splices.
I lost the thread too. And I started thinking it had become a pointless exercise just a couple of generations removed from Chuck. But TBH, not too fond of him.
Just read the transcripts in the description.
@jimvj5897 ah ha!!!
Spent 10 mts watching it over and over and concluded that it has to be arbitrary... I came here to check if anyone else had the same confusion.
I think the author should have mentioned it
Greeeeat video by the way
I got to 1:25 or so and my brain turned off with the numbers so, you definitely got a high score here 😂
This simultaneously manages to be an extremely informative scientific video and a tribute to old school Nintendo music and graphics.
I'd say it's more 8bit PC graphics
UA-cam algorithm is mysterious, but nonetheless this video is really great. I find pixel art really pleasant. Keep up the good work.
Thank you -- that's a good way of putting it, I find pixel art pleasant too.
Ditto
In asian culture, we worship our ancestors. We may not be biologically related a few hundred years in the past. But all of their efforts lead up to our existence. That is why we thank them for what they did for us all.
Familial genealogy is one of the main core aspects of my culture as well. ESPECIALLY my dad because his kin is the most ethnically/culturally/religious homogeneous in Africa . Even after the “colonization “
so we all blending into a giant gene soup in the end, haha, it’s beautiful
Wtf is Asian culture? You're telling me everyone from Turkey, Yemen, and Armenia, through Iran, India, and Tajikistan, down to Indonesia and East Timor, and back North to Kore and Japan, all share one single Asian culture that venerates ancestors??? 😂😂😂😂
in all cultures, ancestors are revered, more or less , second to God. Being "Asian" doesn't make it special at all. In Chinese/Confusian culture, which I think you imply here, it is but an avatar of a nihilistic and superstitious trait
@@OlivierVerdys I assume he met East Asian, maybe. My old manager believes India isn’t an Asian country . I tried to explain but it totally went over his head .
Looking at that ending graphic at 12:41 makes it almost make sense for patrilineal practices throughout much of history. All your other ancestors may end up merged into some amorphous clump to the point that you eventually stop even being related to them, but if you're a male, then your father, and his father, so on and so forth goes back until the dawn of time (or more accurately, until enough random mutations begin adding up) having passed onto you their Y chromosome, and that so long as I have a male child who will have male children ad infinitum, then a piece of me will always be with them.
On an equal note then why not place importance on the matrilineal line the as the continuum of mitochondrial DNA stretches forward and back, plus it is given to children regardless of sex.
@@jared743 You don't really inherit much of anything from that mitochondrial DNA. It's separate from our genome, and doesn't provide any traits to express.
@@jared743Males will not pass on Mitochondrial DNA to their offspring, and therefore isn’t the best way to track matrilineal ancestry. Every generation will have a different Mitochondrial DNA than that of the mother, grandmother and great grandmother of the male lineage.
On the other hand, Mitochondrial DNA is the only way to track matrilineal ancestry for females, i.e. the mother’s mother until we reach an individual ancestor whose mutation in the Mitochondrial DNA creates a new lineage.
@@AbdonPhirathon I know that males will not pass on mitochondrial DNA and that a male's children will have their mother's mitochondrial DNA. The other person I was replying to was saying that it makes sense to be patrilineal because of the y chromosome being passed through males, and I was saying that the mitochondria are equally passed along female lines and actually go to both their male and female children, so you if you extend the logic it actually shows heritage more than a y chromosome since males and females both inherit mitochondrial DNA while only males inherit the y chromosome.
@@jared743 I think he meant to say that the mithocondrial dna passing to male children doesn't matter, because it won't pass to their children. Also, I am always left with the impression that Y chromossomes matter a bit more to determine who you are than the mithocondrial dna that synthetises proteins for you, could be wrong though, and it is only 1 in 24 chromossomes, so not a big deal either way.
You DO descend from each of them, as that's the definition and is how family trees work. As you point out, though, DNA contributions are an entirely different story.
Thank you!
What’s that, the title of a UA-cam video doesn’t perfectly encapsulate the nuances of the topic and instead presents an attention-grabbing idea to get people to click on it? Amazing
@@bibliophilecbNOOOOOOO 😢😢😢😢
Exactly
Precisely some genes are so called “”stronger”” than others.
That’s a really unique art style, impressive!
Also i think it could be said that our DNA is the Ship of Theseus, parts of which are slowly replaced until nothing from the original left.
This is beautiful. I like this analogy better than the game of telephone mentioned down below.
My second generation grand father was a Captain of a ship coming across from Plymouth rock settling in New Hampshire and southern Vermont. DNA Comparison CHECKING NEXT TUESDAY By the Spiritual DNA from buzzards Bay Clinic.
@@trafficjon400hey I'm from Plymouth in England! We could be related hahaha
@@alicedragn Yep! somewhere down the family DNA I mean line. lol
At the atomic level, all living things switch out molecules constantly, so very few of the atoms we were made of years ago remain. This only stops when we die. It's fair to say we're not the matter that "makes" us at the moment, but the pattern our processes maintain. Maybe a similar thing can be applied at this genetic level.
As someone studying genetics right now, I thought this video's thesis would just be based on the powers of two thing assuming purely independent assortment (where it's mathematically impossible for us to be related to all of our ancestors after 32 generations), but it turned out to be so much more mind-boggling once you considered genetic linkage... we really are ephemeral as individuals.
However, you will always have 1/46 of your paternal line, your Y chromosome, in you as long as you're a male (and your maternal lines mitochondria regardless of your gender).
The thing that makes us a man isn't found in genetics. You have a creator.
@@evanthesquirrel Yeah, my mom and dad. Then their mothers and fathers. So on and so forth.
@@Murmarine And since you are ephemeral and have no greater creator who could say you have any worth, thus as an ephemeral being, you would have no worth.
Worth is a meaningless term without something that values you. Value is not an objective quality, that’s nihlism baby nothing matters. 👉😎👉
It’s even more extreme than that because some 99.4% of our genes are identical anyway and would be indistinguishable between ancestors.
Humans is the same
The real question is how far back do you need to go before you don't share a gene with your ancestor.
@@falsemcnuggethope You get half your chromosomes from each parent. So you'd only need to go back one generation.
@@falsemcnuggethope considering we share more than half our genetic code with a banana you would likely have to go back to the earliest of Eukaryotic cells to find an organism that does not share a single gene with us.
We share 98.8 percent of our DNA with chimps, does that mean we are indistinguishable from chimps? At that scale, small differences have great impact.
tysm for this video. A few months ago a friend said that for each gene, parents do not always give exactly half of the genetic information. I've been half-heartedly been trying to find more information on it, but could only find surface-level explanations. Finally, I have the vocab to actually do so.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you referring to the mitochondrial DNA, or X and Y chromosomes in men, specifically? Apart from that, we get one allele of every gene from each of our parents (what part of which is actually expressed in our cells is another matter). Well, there's mutations too, of course. Or are you referring to intragenic recombination? I guess those would still leave one allele of each gene from each parent and only matter on the grandparent level.
@@Muenni I mean, it's pretty clear that I mean intragenic recombination. literally exactly what the video was talking about.
@@Muenni this dude didnt even watch the video . By the gods!
Charles III has
2 parents
4 Grandparents (6 distinct ancestors)
8 Great-grandparents (14 distinct ancestors)
16 2nd great-grandparents (30 distinct ancestors)
30 distinct 3rd great-grandparents (2 of whom are also 2nd great-grandparents, and a different pair are also 4th great grandparents, and it gets steadily more complex from there.) (58 distinct ancestors)
That's pretty mild for royalty.
Yes, Carlos II of Spain would be a very different story.
56 distinct ancestors.
Two of his 2nd-great-grandparents are also his 3rd great grandparents:
Christian IX of Denmark and Queen Louise eldest daughter Alexandra married King Edward VII, son George V, son George VI, daughter Elizabeth, son Charles III
Christian/Louise's second eldest son George became King of Greece, son Andrew, son Philip, son Charles III
@@MP-dn4bs I count 2+4+8+16+28 (32 normally, -2 for Victoria and Albert who are twice third great grandparents, -2 for Christan and Louise who are both second and third great grandparents)
I’ve read that the interbreeding among royalty is vastly overrated
What I don’t understand is why ancestors are considered distinct when they carry the DNA of the previous one so in a way they’d just be relaying those genes all mixed
A recent study, from Japan I think, found several men who had passed on their mitochondrial DNA. Now that the researchers knew that was possible they looked at more men and found more. This changes genealogical descent completely.
Drop the title :o
But how...
It wasnt several, and it is rare for it to occur. Some mitochondrial diseases are the consequence that.
Citation needed.
@@PepsiVor nature sometimes likes to get a little creative
This man taught me everything I wanted to know about American history. I still have dates, events and historical figures registered in my mind thanks to him. Thank you Dr. Gallo. It was an honour being your student! Keep up the amazing work!
The bit-reduced music and visuals are spot on. But that’s secondary to the actual content, which is of supreme quality. Excellent. Thank you for sharing.
It's actually an incredible art style carried through to perfection
You sure could comparison.
Even the ancients understood the concept of "blood flushing out" - see how the mythological mating of gods and mortals produced demigods, then heroes, then kings, then just regular people. Common sense was all there.
But they didnt know that it flushed out literally to nothing, probably thought it just got so small to be unnoticable.
Love that, great comment.
I promise you common sense is not enough to understand genetics. This video is explaining how a sequence of DNA from your descendants is literally erased with enough time. What you describe is just most people’s understanding of DNA sequences eventually washing away into insignificant but still definite fractions.
The 'Ancients' were aliens so in reality we are hybrids of something we don't know we are which is the 'missing link'. The Anunnaki were alien. The Egyptians were alien. The Sumerians were alien. The Giants were alien. There were many species prior to 'Adam & Lilith & Eve'.
@@BUHNANUHBREAD aLiEnS😂😂
Without even talking about the content the pixel art throughout is SO sick. Awesome video I hope you make more and blow up.
@radiosurgery1802, What are you trying to convey by "is so sick." Do you know what "being sick" actually means? How does it help communications by changing the meaning of language simply because some "moron" somewhere who has a limited vocabulary thinks it "cool?"
@@ccahill2322 I agree with you, it's such a gross phrase. "Your video is totally terminally ill! It's puking blood! Make more please". Disgusting thing to say
@ccahill2322 it's slang
@@ccahill2322 It's stupid modern 'speak' that is meant to mean really great! I hate it that words have been ...... what's the word? Ruined!?
@ccahill2322, why do you have to be pretentious about the man's choice of vocab. Most people who speak the English language know that when people say somethings "sick" , or "wicked" it could mean somethings wrong with the person or thing. Or it can mean that somethings cool
It's pretty obviously shared DNA plays out at some point, but I enjoy researching my ancestors, their stories, lives and historical context because I am descended from them and without them, I wouldn't exist.
I concur.
You wouldn't exist if a whole host of people didn't exist that you aren't related to. The doctor that saved your great grandfather, the farmers that grew the food he ate, etc.
The basic problem in this approach is to equate descendence with genetic contribution. We are not grandchildren of our grandparents because we have part of their genetic material, we have part of their genetic material because we are their grandchildren. Therefore, yes, we descend from all of our ancestors, including the first forms of life in the planet Earth.
You can't give your comment a thumbs up, that would be the same as seconding a motion yourself. Read my comment and then always use the first principle ¿`_
Well spoken. You caught the false equivalence.
Nice comment. "We are not grandchildren...."
thats right and thats what it is
people dont understand it´s like in a wayfer going outwards starterpoint yourself
from u 2 just yr great great grandparents = 31
31 people and thats you
5:48 is a common misconception or error. Depending on the population size there is a good chance that your parents have a common ancestor or 2. It could be as little as 3 generations back for a small community or maybe 13 generation if it is a large population. Early American colonists had a small pool of people to choose from. If your were born in America your parents have common ancestors only a few generations back. To the point though is that the tree is not continuously branching as many genetisists would like to say when doing these kind of calculations.
This also means that there is genetic reinforcement of traits through common ancestors.
By 7th-great-grandparents, one is mathematically up to 512 individuals, and by 8th-great-grandparents (roughly 1700-ish), it's 1,024. The logical extension of this would be that each of us today going back 30 generations to the Middle Ages would end up with 2^30 or roughly 1 billion ancestors, more than the total world population at the time, which is impossible. That's where the magic of "pedigree collapse" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse comes in to keep the numbers reasonable; it’s really just a fancy term for inbreeding. Every person on Earth is max 16th cousins. "The upshot of all this: If you discover that you share a common ancestor with somebody from the 17th century, or even the 18th, it is completely unremarkable. The only thing remarkable about it is that you happened to know the path." "80% of all marriages in history have been between second cousins or closer".
Since there's been massive immigration since the early colonization of the United States. Born in the US, my mother's parents were from Sweden, and all of my father's family have been traced back to Ireland post-1840.
Just because we don't have their genes it doesn't mean we are not descendants of them. The word has nothing to do with genetics. If they are our ancesotors, we are 100% their descendants.
Exactly but still we don't have any of there genes
This 100% . This whole video title is based off of misinterpretation
@@cazwalt9013the title is still inaccurate. If the video was titled “ why you are not closely related to your ancestors “ or something then it would be accurate
But that's not the type of descent he is talking about. He is talking about genetic descent, not linear descent. The point he is making if that if you go back far enough you have ancestors that cannot be traced to you genetically, as if they aren't your ancestors at all.
But we wouldn't exist without them breeding our ancestors we are related to@@robrot404
You don't descent EQUALLY from all your ancestors. (There, I fixed the title)
Summary: All ancestors were essential in passing on a genetic code, though over the generations the content of that code may be completely overwritten by that of other ancestors. See video for a DNA-splicing representation, for king Charles' inheritance statistics, and for the role of the maternal and paternal lines of inheritance (mitochondrial DNA is inherited purely maternally).
this is the best video i've ever seen from such a small channel, keep up the great work !
Much appreciated!
Holy shit this was a good video. How is this channel so small? The dedication and production value on this! Wow!
I'm struggling to believe this.
Your comment is much appreciated! Especially nice to hear praise for the production value... I'm still just figuring out how to make these videos -- learning curve is steep right now.
@@MarcusGallo9000 You are kicking the shit out of the learning curve my man
Theres a lot of up and coming channels. The algorithm figured out you're tired of the same mac and cheese every day.
This is something I've wondered and thought about for years. You've done a great job of making sense of why I didn't have tens of billions of ancestors when we began our calendar.
Growing up in the 80s I loved my Commodore64 and the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.
This brought back good memories of both those things.
Very interesting subject.
Wow, I randomly stumbled upon this video because it was recommended to me and I was bored. I was very positively surprised at the quality and interesting content. Genuinely learned something I had never known about or realized. You also presented the information in a very easy to understand manner and the visuals help too. Great video!
4bn potential ancestors but only 450m living in 1200. With little to no exchange between local, regional and continental populations and most people poor and bound to the land. Only 68m in Europe, less than 3m in England, ~25k in London. That’s a lot of intermarriage between ancestors.
Actually there was more exchange than we normally assume. Both voluntary and involuntary... with every army passing around every few years for whatever conflict was trendy at the time.
@@TheAlchaemistThat's highly overplayed. Especially if we are referring to England. The last time England actually was invaded by a foreign army was 1066. That's A LOT of generations of villages basically being genetic versions of the Galapagos...
@@Mcfunface - One of my cousins did a family tree and one branch on my father's side, MacLeans, went back to the Isle of Skye, about 1870, and from then on there were only two names in the expanding Skye tree - MacLeans and Mackenzies.
Kinda glad they got off that island.
@@TheAlchaemist Also ports and royal courts had ongoing continental exchanges.
@@Mcfunface Mate are you forgetting the Dutch? They may call it a glorious revolution, but it was an invasion
This makes sense.
I don't think we could evolve efficiently without such a process.
However, we are all who we are because of ALL the genes that came before us.
something about the art style + your voice + your sly sense of humor has made me thankful about my existence
What an exceptional work, the thougtful pace and pixelart style is very welcome in a climate where punchy live action videos is the zeitgeist. Both are good, but you really outdid yourself. Never be discouraged! We see you man
Thank you, much appreciated!
For a second I thought you said there were only 4 types of *bass player*, to which I instantly agreed.
Shoutout to Peter Quaife, original bass player of The Kinks 💀☮️
You, furiously nodding:
Man, this video was great! Loved the format, hope to see more videos in this style. Especially loved "We descend from an anonymous stream of humanity" part paired with the graphics
This pixel style is so satisfying
6:24 I have no words to describe how perfect the visualization here is. Simply an outstanding video. Well done
Where can I get this but as an image / printed?
Want to second this. It's the kind of thing that will be coming back to my mind's eye in the future, I already know it.
Great video with helpful explanations and visuals!
It's important to keep in mind population genetics which means that some genetic material is selected for and highly conserved in a population. In the royalty ancestry example (royalty is particularly inbred in many cases) the same ancestor may contribute genetic material to a descendant via multiple paths. You look at only one path but it's important to note that while any one path narrows going back, the sum of all paths counteracts this effect to some degree, sometimes a significant degree in small /constrained / inbred populations.
That's the part that confuses me. Some humans interbred with Neanderthals ~50,000 years ago and now have ~3% of their DNA. It's wild that those neanderthal ancestors have a large genetic presence so many millenia later
This is so sad to think about. You want to think that you will live through your DNA in your descendants. It's tragic to learn that you will get booted out or "fragmented."
Don't worry 😂 there won't be any thinking for you when your dead. With decedents or not.
All your descendants still need you to exist in order for them to exist, whether they inherit your genetic material or not.
Not if you're Habsburg or Alabaman
It's like using wooden forms for concrete structures. The forms are long gone, but the concrete remains. Without the forms, the concrete wouldn't have its shape.
@drjlrust You'll be a few hundred years past the point of caring by the time it happens thiugh
This explanation gives me a better understanding of how little of our genetic material actually comes from the generations of people further back than a few generations.
I have trouble understanding all of this explanation, but it’s clear that most of my genetic material comes from people I actually knew.
Instant subscribe. This channel is amazing and I love your narration / thematic storytelling. Cant wait for more 🙏
Jakerton!? Hiii
I ❤️ your vids!
Ahh, yes! The UA-cam algorithm ACTUALLY recommending high quality content from small creators. Now thats some refreshing news.
Wonderful job, very well explained and very entertaining. Thank you!
One of the oddest and most interesting videos i've seen all year. Thanks cousin!
The idea that in 400 years any genetic trace of my existence will have been completely obliterated into anonymity is incredibly comforting.
🗿
I find it to be devastating.
And still, your DNA will have had an influence on how humanity's DNA expresses at that time, even if you don't have any children.
@@mymusicmen13 Yeah
That's not comforting, freak
You video essay style is one of the best I've seen. Absolutely love those pixel graphics. Please keep it up
This video seems to have been caught by the algorithm in the last 12 hours and it’s well deserving. Going to leave a like and a subscribe to try and help boost it along. Very good video, 10/10, keep it up!
The algorithm has been giving me pure gold this last week, great video, never questioned this or even thought about it, yet it sent me on a rabbit hole and ended up buying the book
Very cool!
I first stumbled across this video when it had about 2k views. I've watched it like 5 times now, because it's actually one of the best things on UA-cam.
It feels like it's been so long since I've seen a video this high quality on such a fascinating topic. Fantastic job!
Chiming in here as many others have to say that this is outstanding work, and I'm glad your perserverance, even in relative obscurity, seems to have paid off in reaching a larger audience. The music is incredible! Great job.
Adding to the chorus of “have no idea how this was recommended but I thoroughly enjoyed this insanely high quality and interesting video and can’t wait to see what you post next” :)
Correct, "descent" is a function of biological relationship regardless of quantity of genetic material passed on. He nailed it though when he mentioned the redundancy of individual ancestors- that is the key to reconciling the two diametrically opposed progressions: ancestors increasing yet world population decreasing. I descend 12 different ways from one 17th century ancestor because there was so much inter-cousin marriage in early America. My tree starts "collapsing" in the mid 1800s as cousins married cousins- in a few cases, first cousins (like Victoria and Albert). As the doubling of individuals must of course fit within the most generous estimate of world population for any date in the past, I estimate that this "collapsing" has to happen by the 13th century, meaning there is so much redundancy of individuals the tree enters periods of reduction of unique individuals.
Absolutely LOVE the visual style on this, and this is some INCREDIBLY interesting information that I'd never even thought about before. Really nice!
Great video. Love the art style. Interesting content. Great audio production. Hope your channel gets pushed.
Thank you - I hope so too!
Extremely well done video! This is such a difficult topic to explain and you did it marvelously.
Appreciate your comment!
Sometimes the comments are as interesting as the video. I love that!
Those pixel art portraits are really lovely, especially George V. Some really nice combos of dither and flat shading. Can often look messy combining those techniques.
Anyway, thanks for the existential crisis.
Thank you -- I appreciate your comment. Normally, I try to avoid dithering, but I felt I had to go there for some of these, given the limited palette.
I watched this video without realizing that it has only 1.6k views. For such a professional video I thought it would have at least 500k and a channel of same amount of subscribers 😮 definitely an underrated channel
What a beautiful and liberating thing to realize! Thank you for sharing this precious insight!
9:40 "Adolphus Fredricks was himself born posthumously." How'd he do that? What?
Legal phrase, born after father’s death
You need to make more videos like this, man. This was singlehandedly the most educational and entertaining youtube video I've watched in a long time. I'll probably be rewatching this a few times.
I do love how the reality of math so utterly destroys the narratives we define ourselves by. To paraphrase
It describes the theory and what we see, but science only looks at certain things. I suspect consciousness is the main driver, and assembles things as needed. The DNA I think is mainly a key, to allow us to have certain abilities and to host particular souls - hence the bloodlines obsession with keeping it in the family.
@@G-ra-ha-mEngaging in science would be more productive than crackpot pseudoscience.
Are you sure that’s not kinda more so the reverse? I mean, with propositions like these it almost seems we’re to acknowledge that “math” is expecting us to conclude that even when things don’t add up, intuitively, they still “add up”, because the “math” says so. Meanwhile, at least the hard sciences expect observable experimentation to make something shown by clear tactile means, beyond just mental exercise. In that way, if we were to compare the two, the hard science, being observable at a wider intuitive level, shows this so called “math” to be little other than a superficially reasonable looking fantasy, functionally speaking…no?🤔🤷🏻
"destroys the narratives we define ourselves by"
There is no WE.
My narratives continue.
@@G-ra-ha-m lol
No genetic contribution =/= no distinguishable genetic contribution.
Also, looking at the individual-to-individual level is kind of missing the big picture. Group to group, you can trace much more. Again, intermarriage, closed communities, and so on.
Still, the main point stands: even if you can't trace it to a single individual clearly, it doesn't mean that it's not literally right there in some percentage of the nucleotide pair.
Fragmented, sure, but if any of your descendants have more than one descendant, and so on, more than the mean of the rest of the human population with which your descendants interact, your genome will get more spread.
It's easy to see how that works "upwards." In a way, yes, it's not that you don't descend from all your ancestors, it's just not equally, nor necessarily distinguishably from any one (except one matrilineal and one patrilineal that got the genetic lottery).
We needed so many ancestors from the past in order to be alive today. Genes don't pass on to more distant descendants, but we do descend from so many ancestors. I have definitely found several generations of my ancestors now.
You do, you just don’t preserve the full ledger. All your ancestors were causally required to arrive at you
This, 100%
Exactly, by definition, you are descended from every single one of your ancestors.
Well duh, that's what he's saying 😂
What do you mean by full ledger?
That is my issue with the title. The title is inaccurate.
This video conflates inheritance with descendance. An ancestor, by definition, is someone from whom you descend. The fact that we didn’t inherit DNA from all of our ancestors doesn’t mean we didn’t descend from them.
I studied Population Genetics and you nailed it.
The art and animations are absolutely insane, such high production quality, i hope this video drives you up in the algorithm!
I don’t feel an urge to leave a genetic legacy because eventually time washes us all away. This video puts these feelings in words and images.
I feel very lucky to have gotten this video in my algorithm! Very well done video ♡
Absolutely underrated. From the background sfx, the charming style, and the easy-to-understand illustrations, to the charming and crisp voice, and the well-researched information... Kudos to you sir, no doubt this channel will make it big soon!
Yea you get a random 50% from ec parent, not proportional to their heritage proportions too. This is why someone can be one quarter Italian (or any ethnicity) and have it show up as less than 3% in their DNA. Your mum may be 50% Italian but you mostly got her other half.
Yep. But you always get that Y chromosome from your daddy. And his daddy. And his...
Nationality is irrelevant. Genetic tests are plain bull.
this comment is sort of misleading. yes it’s random but it’s very unlikely that you would only get only 3% of something that your mom is 50% of. if that happens on a DNA test, it’s probably because ethnicity testing isn’t that advanced yet. they’re all just estimates. the DNA relative matching, however, is extremely accurate
The number of combinations of base pairs is 2^ (3 Billion). That's a lot more than the number of ancestors you have.
I love when UA-cam recommends new channels like this! Great work, I really enjoyed the video and your clear narration
high quality video?
low subscriber count?
this is going to be a gem.
Low subscriber count due to inbreeding.
Interesting theoretical explanation. Except that Charles' father Philip is also descended from Queen Victoria, so your calculations about Charles's descent from Victoria cannot be correct.
Inbreeding makes things complicated
@@MarcusGallo9000Ain't that the truth 🙉🙊🙈😬😅🤣
I love your retro videogame production style, really unique especially in this form of content. Keep it up!