Fantastic lectures. I am so happy that I sit in my home in Europe, Hungary, and watch a conference with the best researchers about the hominids and the genetic crossbreed of Neanderthals & Sapiens... Thanks guys, in my world scientists are the heroes.
NO EVIDENCE ABOUT EVOLUTION ! THE LEFTIST ATHEIST LIBERAL AGENDA IS PURE EVIL! ATHEIST ARE CURSE ! THEY END UP CRAZY 😝🥴🤪 ..... READ THE KING JAMES V..... BIBLE.. NEW VERSION BIBLE TRANSLATIONS. ARE BEING HIGH-JACKED BY THE ATHEISTS LEFTIST!!!🤔
This is the first I saw of CARTA after UA-cam recommendation, and now I have spent the whole day on these videos. What a great set of lectures. Why even bother to get information from anyone other than the scientist-authors themselves!
Dr. Akey's research on the way Tibetans' blood has adapted to produce fewer red blood cells in order to survive the high altitudes of the Himalayas, is brilliant.
I am absolutely convinced that in this day and age ignorance is a choice. These lectures help me go from a diehard religious to a fulfilled atheist. So merci Carta, tout simplement.
DOGS! Our lovable pets that keep giving us love. Dogs are a great study in evolution because they could resemble our own evolution. Just like neanderthal DNA exist in our own blood, wolf DNA exists in many dogs. Strange thing is: Where did the first dog come from if a dog mated with a wolf? It seems to me that scientists think that if DNA exists in one animal then some time in the past that animal mated with another animal but the question still remains "Where did the first dog come from?" Have you ever seen 2 wolves mate and have a chihuahua or an Akita? No, you haven't, nor will you ever, but yet they have wolf DNA! You can do all the research you want on this but the research will never tell you definitively where the first dog came from that mated with the wolf. Same with human and neanderthal DNA. To make matters more confusing - HUMAN, not a species of human, footprints have been found tracking and hunting dinosaurs. I'm not talking wooly mammoth, I'm talking big lizard dinosaurs and so I think we humans have been around much longer then neanderthal. We may be comprised of neanderthal DNA but that doesn't mean we mated. It just means that two recipes have the same ingredient and my compliments go to the chef!
@@mikiohirata9627 If you really think about it, to me, it does seem as if DNA is being manipulated. I think DNA is comprised of parts. Parts to make this (animal) and parts to make that (animal) just like we would in making something. We would use different parts from different things to make one thing. Thats why I bring up dogs. They claim dogs came from wolves but however Ive never seen two wolves make a dog!? Same as Sasquatch. If it does have human DNA that doesn't mean the two mated. The only thing that leaves is DNA manipulation.
Thanks covid 19. I have new vocabulary. Molecular excavation, Lapita expansion 3000 BC. I must rewatch for more gems. Comment section is something else. Thanks Carta. Stay safe everyone.
Excellent lecture! The presenter repeatedly got straight to the point, and then rapidly moved on to the next issue without dwelling too long on the previous one. Minimal hot air! 😆
What makes the scientists say that the Sapiens are a species different from another one, say, Erectus? 02:06 What is considered a red line between any two hominid species? In another way of asking, why wouldn't you group any two hominid species together into one species?
What comes up in this series is that there was a migration out of Africa 150,000 to 200,000 years ago which did genetic input to the Neanderthals then another migration out of Africa, maybe as recently as less than 60,000 years ago, which in turn received a genetic input from the Neanderthals.
The garden of East African eden is really a temporal context that is valid back to about 220 ky. Before that it is difficult to predict where humans were.
Why are you saying the 2nd way Africans got neanderthal genes was through early migration out of Africa if you are saying the gene flow was only in one direction from Human to Neanderthal in that particular migration - we didn't get their genes they got ours. It doesn't make sense.
John Stewart it means is willing to be told they need advice on a new toaster .that someone has a better toaster than they have that toasters might be the....
Lactase persistence became more prevalent in Indus Valley much later than elsewhere in the world, according to presenter. I also see that it coincides with entry of indo european migrants and later the adoption of vegetarianism (no meat but dairy) in the area.
19:09 Faustkeile & Speerspitzen (Warum keine Funde in tropisch Afrika?) Steine erhalten sich ja, waren die echt so rückständig? oder mochten die lieber Holz??
It is treasure that we can so easily be apprised of these fascinating topics. Generations before, like Thomas Jefferson, had to dig everything from musty volumes or random artifacts. My question is that Irhoud 1 looks so much like a Neanderthal what with the heavy brow ridge you could park a Vespa upon, and the rear sloping forehead. The PCA model is a stroke of brilliance, but Irhoud 1 still looks Neanderthal, all day long.
I have a question, How do geneticist know the identical dna, the 98% of neanderthal dna which is identical to modern humans, that identical dna didn't come from neanderthals? Does this question make sense? The 2% that is attributes to neanderthals is unique to neanderthals, what about the identical dna, how do they know that didn't originate in neanderthals !
So, where is dmanisi, luzonensis, and denisovans on that chart? And, for heavens sake, can we get past trying to associated intelligence with brain size?
from my simplistic training... we are no different then any other aging ecosystem/species. typified by fewer and fewer species in greater numbers. subject to catastrophic collapse due to the less diversified nature of our existence. odd how we think about ourselves.
With the advent of modern DNA testing and the large sampling’s that have come from Western Europeans, scientists can state as fact that modern Europeans are descended from Africans and in particular East Africans. Also that of all those that left only a few survived resulting in the lower genetic variance found in EurAsia.
It's funny, interesting and maybe for someone less flattering I do not know, - - - I think it's really great. The real the pure Homo Sapiens are the majority of and the most beautiful colored on the planet, - the people inside Africa for the majority right up to today. All the rest of us with an ancestry outside of Africa are mixed - generally based on hybrids based on Homo sapiens from Africa some mixed with Neanderthals others mixed with Denisovans others again a mix of all three types of people. Certainly not all Europeans think this is fun, I think it's absolutely fun and amazing. Probably all of us in the dawn of time are descended from Africa, but that's a different story.
"The real the pure Homo Sapiens". Really? You're like the concept of racial purity. White supremacists also like it. I fucking hate it. I'm overwhelmingly ethnic Irish, blue eyes, pale skin and all the rest. And I love the fact that my oldest ancestors were black Africans. To know that I'm not just Irish, but that I'm related to every other human on Earth really pleases me. But although we're all one big family, I know from personal experience that it's impossible to like all members of ones family. I have a couple of brothers who really dislike me :-) Racists are top of my list of the members of my big family that I detest the most.
@@davidkeenan5642 Also I love that we are one big family, but both you and I (both very pale) are probably down from hybrids homosapiens mixed up with neanderthals some even with denisovans too, another story but also lovely. Most africans are not mixed, they are pure homosapiens. Cool!
@@davidkeenan5642 You may be right, I also think it's exciting and cool. Historically pale Europeans / our ancestors have simply portrayed themselves as pure and something special in the eyes of God and have looked down on and treated the people of Africa with utter horror. In that light it's a little funny that it's us the whites who are the product of hybrids between early homosapiend and pre-existing cavemen and in fact the indigenous peoples of Africa right up to the present day that is genetically the pure thing - NOT the white man. The population of the globe is an exciting mix some more mixed than others
@@srentherkelsen5225 But you are wrong, there is no pure homo sapiens. Africans also have 20% of there dna from a ghost lineage of archaic humans. The evolution of us is not a tree with different branches but more like a river delta with flow in and out.
This panel disparately needed contributions from Ancestors Rank Rashidi and Dr. Francis Cress Welding. Or today's contemporary scholars such as Dr. James Smalls and Professor Hiawtha Kamene.
That’s one story of creation from a insignificant people in Afrasia. The Egyptians are older than the chronological story of the Bible. With so many powerful states surrounding Israel it becomes quite clear that the Kings and Princes of Israel and Judea could not have ruled without the shadow of Egypt protecting their lands. In fact with Egypts demise the demise of the Judaic state was not far behind.
These guys can't get their story straight and just keep making themselves look bad with these nonsensical models. All hominids originated in Africa. AMH are simply one of many hominid species that inhabited Africa going back a million years. Denisovan and Neanderthal are both from African hominids. So AMH have been in Africa along with other archaic species since before leaving Africa. Meaning diversity among hominids did not start in Eurasia and diversity among early AMH populations did not start in Eurasia either. The fundamental problem is that most of these "species" of hominids are based on skull fragments and nobody can clearly define the family tree of these hominids. There are multiple models of the family tree for Neanderthals and Denisovans have not been put into that tree yet. The only hard data we have is the DNA that shows 99.9% of human DNA comes from Africa and that most of the hominid family tree and diversity of hominids is found in Africa. Everything else is just wild rampant speculation and conjecture based on very limited data. At worst, it is trying to use "archaic" hominids to reformulate old racial models of the early 20th century, at best it is just misleading models based on limited and fragmentary data that will constantly change as new data is found. Both basically downplaying the ultimate African origin for human evolutionary diversity around the world. The first guy confirmed that but then the second guy comes on and totally contradicts the first guy. Simple story: All modern humans descend from the diversity in the human species that migrated out of Africa. Period. If what they were saying was true then the modern populations representing the earliest migrants out of Africa like Andamanese Islanders and Australian Aborigines would have the highest amounts of Neanderthal mixture, but they dont. Keep in mind that at one time these populations were considered "archaic" humans.
Please explain why Andamanese Islanders and Australian Aborigines would have the highest amounts of Neanderthal mixture. What makes sense to me is that the peoples who coexisted with Neanderthals for the longest time should have the most Neanderthal DNA. To reach Australia by 48,000 years ago, the ancestors of Australian Aborigines must have passed through East Asia relatively swiftly, so less time to interbred. However those who settled in East Asians and Europeans coexisted with Neanderthals for much longer periods of time. And it's East Asians and Europeans that have the most Neanderthal DNA in their genomes.
@@dnifty1 No. The Australian Aborigines are the first Australians. They descended from the first modern humans to migrate west. But my argument is that length of coexistence is more important than initial contact.
@@davidkeenan5642 The Australian Aborigines are the first Eurasians. Period. If they migrated to Australia then they were the first humans in Eurasia. So how do they have so much Denisovan or Neanderthal DNA if they didn't coexist long with them? You are contradicting yourself.
@@dnifty1 "The Australian Aborigines are the first Eurasians." That's simply untrue. East Asians seem to have the most Neanderthal DNA in their genomes, followed by those of European ancestry. East Asians were the first Modern Human Eurasians. And they and Europeans coexisted with Neanderthals for the longest period. But Australian Aboriginals and Melanesians also pick up Denisovan DNA.
@@Mdebacle Neanderthals and Denisovans are about 99.7% similar to chimps in their DNA; Sapiens are about 98% similar to Chimps. We all have a common ancestor. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes; humans have 23 pairs (Sapiens, Neanders and Denis). It's nearly impossible that the two group could have successfully interbred (chimps with humans) by producing non-sterile offspring. Most likely, this is what happened: Our common ancestor had a mutation event where chromosome #2 pairs fused in it's haploid cells (gametes--ova or sperm). If it then mated with it's own offspring (or had more than one offspring with the Fusion which then mated with each other--inbreeding is common in mammal groups), their offspring were born with a fused #2 and was also NOT sterile. This mutation could then spread successfully within this family group, but not outside of it. Eventually, this family group would be its own local population group.
@@Mdebacle So the God hypothesis. Does it have any explanatory power? Can you make predictions as to what we would expect to find in god-created humans versus evolutionary derived humans? And how do you explain away the entire primate line being nearly identical to humans....? Anything you answer to that will just be made up to suit your belief system.
@@Mdebacle Well, considering our genes are nearly identical to other primates, that must apply to their creation as well, which means there's not really much special about ours. And all species divergence starts as inbreeding from a geographically isolated family group. There's nothing in that that could be considered an argument for creationism, since it doesn't explain the 'genus' or 'Order' of inter-related species. And I don't need to tell you that a statement such as 'the first genes were necessarily the best genes' is a completely fallacious statement with no scientific validity at all.
Where are fossils of the Missing Link? How do the giant skeletons and beings with elongated skulls fit into our history? Where do the hairy hominids (Sasquatch, Yeti, Agogwe, Alma’s etc) that still roam the planet fit? More questions than answers.
Careful not to piss off the academics even if you took them out to the field and show them bigfoot or dogman, they would shit their pants and still not admit it's real.
you confuse us when you talk about africa, you say that africans do not have neanderthal dna, yet north africans do, so when you talk about africa specify and say sub saharan africa. what i notice you systematically exclude or zap north africa and you include all of africa in the same basket, whereas north africa has always been Caucasian. why are you ignoring north africa? it poses a problem for you to support your conclusions. Given the phenotype of North Africans that you include in the Caucasian branch, you cannot associate it with sub-Saharan Africa. so include it in your diagrams in europe or the mediterranean world and stop misleading us. because you speak of every people and region of the earth except north africa which is nevertheless Caucasian. you scientists, What is your problem with north africa?
The peoples of North Africa predate anyone living in the Caucus mountains, they can’t be Caucasian because when they lived, there wasn’t a Caucasian type. Also there’s no scientific definition of a Caucasian. In fact all Africans have a common paternal ancestor.
Ice age come, ice age go. People migrate accordingly. The third speaker seems surprised that people breed with other people that are close, and not with people 2,000 miles away. LOL. And then later seems surprised that with the development of agriculture, people farmed the things that they could digest! @48:21(Salivary amylase ......pre dates agriculture). Maybe he thinks that people should have farmed these things, and then adapted their metabolism. What a maroon.
"Adam and Eve and we have devolved" Comes to a science forum to post mythology... [/facepalm] Then gets political terms confused with science terms... [/bonus facepalm]
@@raysalmon6566 have to admit nah , flat-earthers like u won't let ur ego get hurt even if the entire world gives u all the evidences and explanations 😂😒 🤦🏻♀️.
Thank u for the fruitful lectures. H, N and D are all human being from Adam and Eve. Human have the faculty of thinking while the other do not. Can science identify the genome or whatever for thinking abilty?
How do you explain the fossils? Was Adam a caveman? You have to consider that hominids developed before God gave Adam a soul. That’s how I believe it happened
@@lone6523 I've lost the video, but "fossils" or minerlization doesn't take millions of years. I don't have to consider anything, God created man on the last day, via adam then eve. If that's what I'm told to believe, I'll take it. There is no proof of evolution, it's an atheistic concept at best. All to hide God and Creation.
@Bob TrenwithThe mortal powers at be have hidden him well, but I don't put my faith in the doctrines of man. Everything is explained away from exhausting chalkboards of math or independent lines of contradictory logic.
@Bob Trenwith Creation Theory a.k.a. creationism is based off biblical view point that everything was created by intelligent design a.k.a. God. You realize how old the Bible (OT/NT) is? "fossils" can be replicated in a short amount of time, again lost an amazing video. Yes, when those to oppose modern scientism bring up a counter argument, scientific field always moves the goal post by explaining it away with miles of math equation, which is not proof, just data. Or they apply their data / logic in a single frame of reference instead of all at once. I am fighting decades of indoctrinated education / information. I am trying to free myself. If you think movies are purely entertainment, again take your blue pill and keep working as small power source for the Machines to siphon and control you.
Wait. I thought humans evolved from a rock? You have a rock, some hocus pocus and, after billions of years, we magically end up with evolutions greatest accomplishment to date: Richard Dawkins. Uh... no! Cheque please.
Fantastic lectures. I am so happy that I sit in my home in Europe, Hungary, and watch a conference with the best researchers about the hominids and the genetic crossbreed of Neanderthals & Sapiens... Thanks guys, in my world scientists are the heroes.
NO EVIDENCE ABOUT EVOLUTION ! THE LEFTIST ATHEIST LIBERAL AGENDA IS PURE EVIL! ATHEIST ARE CURSE ! THEY END UP CRAZY 😝🥴🤪 ..... READ THE KING JAMES V..... BIBLE..
NEW VERSION BIBLE TRANSLATIONS. ARE BEING
HIGH-JACKED BY THE ATHEISTS LEFTIST!!!🤔
Couldn't agree more with your perfect sentiments.
This is the first I saw of CARTA after UA-cam recommendation, and now I have spent the whole day on these videos. What a great set of lectures. Why even bother to get information from anyone other than the scientist-authors themselves!
Dr. Akey's research on the way Tibetans' blood has adapted to produce fewer red blood cells in order to survive the high altitudes of the Himalayas, is brilliant.
I am so glad there are new carta videos! Absolutely love this conference. Thank you so much for all the uploads. Anthropogeny is endlessly fascinating
Poop 98
This was a lecture I could have sat through over and over! So many things to think about and so many concepts to wonder about!
Such wonderful lectures: amazing to find out where we come from.
Agreed! So fascinating.
This is why I subscribed to this channel.
Me too!
I didn't but there it is.
This is why I subscribe. Please keep making these.
I had to applaud Dr Akey . Very good research. Well presented too!
Learn a lot of things about human origin from this video.
I am absolutely convinced that in this day and age ignorance is a choice.
These lectures help me go from a diehard religious to a fulfilled atheist.
So merci Carta, tout simplement.
Atheist in science is not controversial with religious in heart.
DOGS! Our lovable pets that keep giving us love. Dogs are a great study in evolution because they could resemble our own evolution. Just like neanderthal DNA exist in our own blood, wolf DNA exists in many dogs.
Strange thing is: Where did the first dog come from if a dog mated with a wolf? It seems to me that scientists think that if DNA exists in one animal then some time in the past that animal mated with another animal but the question still remains "Where did the first dog come from?"
Have you ever seen 2 wolves mate and have a chihuahua or an Akita? No, you haven't, nor will you ever, but yet they have wolf DNA!
You can do all the research you want on this but the research will never tell you definitively where the first dog came from that mated with the wolf.
Same with human and neanderthal DNA.
To make matters more confusing - HUMAN, not a species of human, footprints have been found tracking and hunting dinosaurs.
I'm not talking wooly mammoth, I'm talking big lizard dinosaurs and so I think we humans have been around much longer then neanderthal.
We may be comprised of neanderthal DNA but that doesn't mean we mated.
It just means that two recipes have the same ingredient and my compliments go to the chef!
@@iwannaapple7190 And who is the chef you are referring to ？
@@mikiohirata9627
If you really think about it, to me, it does seem as if DNA is being manipulated. I think DNA is comprised of parts. Parts to make this (animal) and parts to make that (animal) just like we would in making something. We would use different parts from different things to make one thing. Thats why I bring up dogs. They claim dogs came from wolves but however Ive never seen two wolves make a dog!? Same as Sasquatch. If it does have human DNA that doesn't mean the two mated. The only thing that leaves is DNA manipulation.
@@iwannaapple7190 There are no human footprints tracking dinosaurs. 😂😂😂
very good, Watch CARTA fascinating, feed your mind
Love this video. Yes videos like this are exactly why I subscribed to this channel.
Thanks covid 19. I have new vocabulary. Molecular excavation, Lapita expansion 3000 BC. I must rewatch for more gems. Comment section is something else. Thanks Carta. Stay safe everyone.
Wonderful! Thank you.
This is so much better than religion.
Excellent lecture!
The presenter repeatedly got straight to the point, and then rapidly moved on to the next issue without dwelling too long on the previous one.
Minimal hot air! 😆
What makes the scientists say that the Sapiens are a species different from another one, say, Erectus? 02:06 What is considered a red line between any two hominid species? In another way of asking, why wouldn't you group any two hominid species together into one species?
Awesome lecture
Wonderful speech... I love it.. thank you.
Thank you very much!
how do these guys differentiate between neanderthal, sapien and denisovans genes ? ????????
@@Mdebacle i don't think so
Thank you, We are, ultimately, one.
What comes up in this series is that there was a migration out of Africa 150,000 to 200,000 years ago which did genetic input to the Neanderthals then another migration out of Africa, maybe as recently as less than 60,000 years ago, which in turn received a genetic input from the Neanderthals.
Humans and neanderthals, the oldest love story ever known to man.
Neaderthals are from other planets?
@@曾志海-c4z Not as far as I know. I for one didn't say that.
yes, I had to stop there for a second, absolutely mind blowing!
Utterly fascinated .. Bravo
I encourage anyone to read the "Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California" by Josiah Whitney, chapter: "The Calaveras Skull" and more!
Eocene and Tertiary Man are mentioned in Whitney's book! Believe it!
The garden of East African eden is really a temporal context that is valid back to about 220 ky. Before that it is difficult to predict where humans were.
Why are you saying the 2nd way Africans got neanderthal genes was through early migration out of Africa if you are saying the gene flow was only in one direction from Human to Neanderthal in that particular migration - we didn't get their genes they got ours. It doesn't make sense.
I thought “ modern human” meant they knew how to use a toaster.
@Dana Chapin Orangutans will do that. You don't even have to ask.
John Stewart it means is willing to be told they need advice on a new toaster .that someone has a better toaster than they have that toasters might be the....
John Stewart so following the arguments, does this mean orangutans are modern?
"Modern human" means knowing how to program your VCR...ahh crap, I'm old ain't I?
Perhaps consider posting the talks in separate videos.
💚🏜️ agricultural would never have taken off if we didn't first develop the ability to eat grains...
Lactase persistence became more prevalent in Indus Valley much later than elsewhere in the world, according to presenter. I also see that it coincides with entry of indo european migrants and later the adoption of vegetarianism (no meat but dairy) in the area.
What expands our world isnt progress but childrens wonderment and love for life
The fuck it does.
19:09 Faustkeile & Speerspitzen
(Warum keine Funde in tropisch Afrika?)
Steine erhalten sich ja, waren die echt so rückständig? oder mochten die lieber Holz??
wie kannst du nur so banale Fragen stellen, die an ooA Zweifel sähen.
Nine infantile Creationists disliked this video.
One of them was converted to science, and undisliked the video again.
I wish I was smart enough to absorb all this.
You need a memory not much more.
It’s all bs don’t worry
It is treasure that we can so easily be apprised of these fascinating topics. Generations before, like Thomas Jefferson, had to dig everything from musty volumes or random artifacts. My question is that Irhoud 1 looks so much like a Neanderthal what with the heavy brow ridge you could park a Vespa upon, and the rear sloping forehead. The PCA model is a stroke of brilliance, but Irhoud
1 still looks Neanderthal, all day long.
I have a question,
How do geneticist know the identical dna, the 98% of neanderthal dna which is identical to modern humans, that identical dna didn't come from neanderthals?
Does this question make sense? The 2% that is attributes to neanderthals is unique to neanderthals, what about the identical dna, how do they know that didn't originate in neanderthals !
Common ancestors
@@conpanidis3574 neanderthal are our ancestors perhaps
Only one species now - fortunately....this amuses me very much.
Well,,
The youth sees a biped and thinks I see a hole that needs filling.
Or is that only recent behaviour ?
Why is the homo erectus genome not yet sequenced? The species was around for almost 2M years. We have many specimens.
DNA is not preserved that long unfortunately. Unless it's frozen or something and they haven't found any such preserved Homo Erectus fossils.
Provide the citations
So, where is dmanisi, luzonensis, and denisovans on that chart? And, for heavens sake, can we get past trying to associated intelligence with brain size?
wow
Monkeys is the KRAAAAAZIEST Peoples !¡!¡! 🐒 🦍 🦧
16:51 he did not say "in the asian group" but "in eurasian group".
interesting. and evolving.....
from my simplistic training... we are no different then any other aging ecosystem/species. typified by fewer and fewer species in greater numbers. subject to catastrophic collapse due to the less diversified nature of our existence. odd how we think about ourselves.
I've met 10's of thousands of misery monkeys. I can count the fraction of those I consider actually being "modern humans" on my digits
So there're 11 of them then?
27:06 Jurassic Park...
Except this time you risk having to pay them reparations for what our ancestors did to them :D
It look like we were a labrotorium experiment which to all odds survive?
With the advent of modern DNA testing and the large sampling’s that have come from Western Europeans, scientists can state as fact that modern Europeans are descended from Africans and in particular East Africans. Also that of all those that left only a few survived resulting in the lower genetic variance found in EurAsia.
It's funny, interesting and maybe for someone less flattering I do not know, - - - I think it's really great. The real the pure Homo Sapiens are the majority of and the most beautiful colored on the planet, - the people inside Africa for the majority right up to today.
All the rest of us with an ancestry outside of Africa are mixed - generally based on hybrids based on Homo sapiens from Africa some mixed with Neanderthals others mixed with Denisovans others again a mix of all three types of people. Certainly not all Europeans think this is fun, I think it's absolutely fun and amazing.
Probably all of us in the dawn of time are descended from Africa, but that's a different story.
"The real the pure Homo Sapiens".
Really? You're like the concept of racial purity. White supremacists also like it. I fucking hate it.
I'm overwhelmingly ethnic Irish, blue eyes, pale skin and all the rest. And I love the fact that my oldest ancestors were black Africans. To know that I'm not just Irish, but that I'm related to every other human on Earth really pleases me. But although we're all one big family, I know from personal experience that it's impossible to like all members of ones family. I have a couple of brothers who really dislike me :-)
Racists are top of my list of the members of my big family that I detest the most.
@@davidkeenan5642 Also I love that we are one big family, but both you and I (both very pale) are probably down from hybrids homosapiens mixed up with neanderthals some even with denisovans too, another story but also lovely. Most africans are not mixed, they are pure homosapiens. Cool!
@@srentherkelsen5225
What's so great about purity? I like diversity. I like hybrid vigour.
@@davidkeenan5642 You may be right, I also think it's exciting and cool.
Historically pale Europeans / our ancestors have simply portrayed themselves as pure and something special in the eyes of God and have looked down on and treated the people of Africa with utter horror. In that light it's a little funny that it's us the whites who are the product of hybrids between early homosapiend and pre-existing cavemen and in fact the indigenous peoples of Africa right up to the present day that is genetically the pure thing - NOT the white man.
The population of the globe is an exciting mix some more mixed than others
@@srentherkelsen5225 But you are wrong, there is no pure homo sapiens. Africans also have 20% of there dna from a ghost lineage of archaic humans. The evolution of us is not a tree with different branches but more like a river delta with flow in and out.
Soon they will find they are wrong again. We were around before this.
All of this just to evolve into a species of twerkers.
Your comment is the reason this species is so blind.
Is it possible the Neanderthal genes didn’t migrate back into Africa but originated there?
R U walking in a winter wonder land?¿
Everybody knows that HUMANS were created by an invisible sky monster using magic and mud in the Garden of Eden.
This panel disparately needed contributions from Ancestors Rank Rashidi and Dr. Francis Cress Welding. Or today's contemporary scholars such as Dr. James Smalls and Professor Hiawtha Kamene.
Wouldn't (male??) height be influenced by social/sexual selection? Especially perhaps as societies grew more complex/hierarchical?
or big tatas?
Sexual dimorphism predates societies. But sexual selection could play a rolw I would guess.
According to Adam Genetics at least three sure. CARTA left off ?
Europe? So we started as popsicles????
yup
explain chins
OK which other hominids have 23 chromosomes?
me
none to my knowledge
So, are we sayng that Adam and Eve, our parents, were originally from Africa.
That’s one story of creation from a insignificant people in Afrasia. The Egyptians are older than the chronological story of the Bible. With so many powerful states surrounding Israel it becomes quite clear that the Kings and Princes of Israel and Judea could not have ruled without the shadow of Egypt protecting their lands. In fact with Egypts demise the demise of the Judaic state was not far behind.
These guys can't get their story straight and just keep making themselves look bad with these nonsensical models.
All hominids originated in Africa. AMH are simply one of many hominid species that inhabited Africa going back a million years. Denisovan and Neanderthal are both from African hominids. So AMH have been in Africa along with other archaic species since before leaving Africa. Meaning diversity among hominids did not start in Eurasia and diversity among early AMH populations did not start in Eurasia either. The fundamental problem is that most of these "species" of hominids are based on skull fragments and nobody can clearly define the family tree of these hominids. There are multiple models of the family tree for Neanderthals and Denisovans have not been put into that tree yet. The only hard data we have is the DNA that shows 99.9% of human DNA comes from Africa and that most of the hominid family tree and diversity of hominids is found in Africa. Everything else is just wild rampant speculation and conjecture based on very limited data. At worst, it is trying to use "archaic" hominids to reformulate old racial models of the early 20th century, at best it is just misleading models based on limited and fragmentary data that will constantly change as new data is found. Both basically downplaying the ultimate African origin for human evolutionary diversity around the world.
The first guy confirmed that but then the second guy comes on and totally contradicts the first guy.
Simple story: All modern humans descend from the diversity in the human species that migrated out of Africa. Period.
If what they were saying was true then the modern populations representing the earliest migrants out of Africa like Andamanese Islanders and Australian Aborigines would have the highest amounts of Neanderthal mixture, but they dont. Keep in mind that at one time these populations were considered "archaic" humans.
Please explain why Andamanese Islanders and Australian Aborigines would have the highest amounts of Neanderthal mixture.
What makes sense to me is that the peoples who coexisted with Neanderthals for the longest time should have the most Neanderthal DNA.
To reach Australia by 48,000 years ago, the ancestors of Australian Aborigines must have passed through East Asia relatively swiftly, so less time to interbred. However those who settled in East Asians and Europeans coexisted with Neanderthals for much longer periods of time.
And it's East Asians and Europeans that have the most Neanderthal DNA in their genomes.
@@davidkeenan5642 Your statement contradicts itself. The Australian Aborigines and Andamanese are the first Eurasians.
@@dnifty1
No. The Australian Aborigines are the first Australians. They descended from the first modern humans to migrate west.
But my argument is that length of coexistence is more important than initial contact.
@@davidkeenan5642 The Australian Aborigines are the first Eurasians. Period. If they migrated to Australia then they were the first humans in Eurasia. So how do they have so much Denisovan or Neanderthal DNA if they didn't coexist long with them? You are contradicting yourself.
@@dnifty1
"The Australian Aborigines are the first Eurasians."
That's simply untrue. East Asians seem to have the most Neanderthal DNA in their genomes, followed by those of European ancestry. East Asians were the first Modern Human Eurasians. And they and Europeans coexisted with Neanderthals for the longest period. But Australian Aboriginals and Melanesians also pick up Denisovan DNA.
You keep saying species for some reason. You mean subspecies/breed/race.
Very funny .
Thats why whe need you .
And the rest of the story will take you 1000 years to be told .
what about the offspring of the fallen angels ?
@@Mdebacle Neanderthals and Denisovans are about 99.7% similar to chimps in their DNA; Sapiens are about 98% similar to Chimps. We all have a common ancestor. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes; humans have 23 pairs (Sapiens, Neanders and Denis). It's nearly impossible that the two group could have successfully interbred (chimps with humans) by producing non-sterile offspring.
Most likely, this is what happened: Our common ancestor had a mutation event where chromosome #2 pairs fused in it's haploid cells (gametes--ova or sperm). If it then mated with it's own offspring (or had more than one offspring with the Fusion which then mated with each other--inbreeding is common in mammal groups), their offspring were born with a fused #2 and was also NOT sterile. This mutation could then spread successfully within this family group, but not outside of it. Eventually, this family group would be its own local population group.
@@Mdebacle So the God hypothesis. Does it have any explanatory power? Can you make predictions as to what we would expect to find in god-created humans versus evolutionary derived humans? And how do you explain away the entire primate line being nearly identical to humans....? Anything you answer to that will just be made up to suit your belief system.
@@Mdebacle Well, considering our genes are nearly identical to other primates, that must apply to their creation as well, which means there's not really much special about ours. And all species divergence starts as inbreeding from a geographically isolated family group. There's nothing in that that could be considered an argument for creationism, since it doesn't explain the 'genus' or 'Order' of inter-related species.
And I don't need to tell you that a statement such as 'the first genes were necessarily the best genes' is a completely fallacious statement with no scientific validity at all.
@@seanmorgan2356 why #2 not 3?
WITH THE MENTALITY OF SHEEP AND ATTENTION SPANS OF GOLDFISH
Humans are regressing
Where are fossils of the Missing Link? How do the giant skeletons and beings with elongated skulls fit into our history? Where do the hairy hominids (Sasquatch, Yeti, Agogwe, Alma’s etc) that still roam the planet fit? More questions than answers.
Careful not to piss off the academics even if you took them out to the field and show them bigfoot or dogman, they would shit their pants and still not admit it's real.
@@DaleBasyeIf only someone could get a clear picture of at least one dogman. Hoping this will happen in the next 100 years or so
What is a Missing Link™?
@@langov3 you don't really expect coherence from someone who says "Sasquatch, Yeti, Agogwe, Alma’s [...] roam the planet", do you?
Shared understanding of the past...lololol not anymore
you confuse us when you talk about africa, you say that africans do not have neanderthal dna, yet north africans do, so when you talk about africa specify and say sub saharan africa. what i notice you systematically exclude or zap north africa and you include all of africa in the same basket, whereas north africa has always been Caucasian. why are you ignoring north africa? it poses a problem for you to support your conclusions. Given the phenotype of North Africans that you include in the Caucasian branch, you cannot associate it with sub-Saharan Africa. so include it in your diagrams in europe or the mediterranean world and stop misleading us. because you speak of every people and region of the earth except north africa which is nevertheless Caucasian. you scientists, What is your problem with north africa?
The peoples of North Africa predate anyone living in the Caucus mountains, they can’t be Caucasian because when they lived, there wasn’t a Caucasian type. Also there’s no scientific definition of a Caucasian. In fact all Africans have a common paternal ancestor.
Ice age come, ice age go. People migrate accordingly.
The third speaker seems surprised that people breed with other people that are close, and not with people 2,000 miles away. LOL. And then later seems surprised that with the development of agriculture, people farmed the things that they could digest! @48:21(Salivary amylase ......pre dates agriculture).
Maybe he thinks that people should have farmed these things, and then adapted their metabolism. What a maroon.
One present day hominem? You are a liar.
I think it would be easier to learn French and listen to him in that language than to understand his English....
Well again the first people were Adam and Eve and we have devolved since
"Adam and Eve and we have devolved"
Comes to a science forum to post mythology... [/facepalm] Then gets political terms confused with science terms... [/bonus facepalm]
@@catalyst8
people didn't evolve
@@raysalmon6566 We did though
@@raysalmon6566 have to admit nah , flat-earthers like u won't let ur ego get hurt even if the entire world gives u all the evidences and explanations 😂😒 🤦🏻♀️.
Viva la Lucy! OMG not again. What short memory we have... thanks to evolution, of course. No thanks.
Thank u for the fruitful lectures. H, N and D are all human being from Adam and Eve. Human have the faculty of thinking while the other do not. Can science identify the genome or whatever for thinking abilty?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 this is the pale man’s story.We never ever came out of Africa.We were in the america while these people were being created
Have you ever noticed all of those Asian eyes?
Bible .. nuff said! lol
How do you explain the fossils? Was Adam a caveman? You have to consider that hominids developed before God gave Adam a soul. That’s how I believe it happened
@@lone6523 I've lost the video, but "fossils" or minerlization doesn't take millions of years. I don't have to consider anything, God created man on the last day, via adam then eve. If that's what I'm told to believe, I'll take it. There is no proof of evolution, it's an atheistic concept at best. All to hide God and Creation.
@Bob TrenwithThe mortal powers at be have hidden him well, but I don't put my faith in the doctrines of man. Everything is explained away from exhausting chalkboards of math or independent lines of contradictory logic.
@Bob Trenwith Yeah - nice lack of counter-argument. Just take your vaccine like a good little drone like Big Brother wants.
@Bob Trenwith Creation Theory a.k.a. creationism is based off biblical view point that everything was created by intelligent design a.k.a. God. You realize how old the Bible (OT/NT) is? "fossils" can be replicated in a short amount of time, again lost an amazing video. Yes, when those to oppose modern scientism bring up a counter argument, scientific field always moves the goal post by explaining it away with miles of math equation, which is not proof, just data. Or they apply their data / logic in a single frame of reference instead of all at once. I am fighting decades of indoctrinated education / information. I am trying to free myself. If you think movies are purely entertainment, again take your blue pill and keep working as small power source for the Machines to siphon and control you.
8th grade level?
Wait. I thought humans evolved from a rock? You have a rock, some hocus pocus and, after billions of years, we magically end up with evolutions greatest accomplishment to date: Richard Dawkins. Uh... no! Cheque please.
No such thing as evolution.
why are you watching this then? Just wondered
Trolling is a sin, repent and you will be saved
@@lzl4226 Haha,Then go away snowflake.
Within an hour, it didn't take long for this science denying turd to float to the surface. Hilarious!
@@Simon.the.Likeable You're the turd stinking it all up.