This was state-of-the-art in 2013... 8 years ago... and the last 5 years have been absolutely explosive in terms of sample collection, sample testing, and computational analysis. I'd really like a followup presentation showing how thinking has evolved since 2013.
If you go back about 10-years there are videos on RU-vid that discuss the 10 or so characteristics of being humanoid, such as being bipedal, losing body hair, ability to run long distances, developing language, living in social groups, bigger brain size, etc.
kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, variety. It seems we are having difficulties in deciding where the delineations cleve humans as regards defining species, and variety.
We as humans absolutely do have subspecies, it’s our races. We are, for the most part, genetically the same. We tend to have diverse characteristics. It’s so obvious, it doesn’t make us lesser than someone else, but we clearly are subspecies of each other.
Name the races. Going to use skin shade? Try it. After doing an image tour based on those shades. By Continent? That would be six races. Problem with that is both Asia and Africa have a lot of different “looks”. In Oceana you have ethnic groups that look “African” and are not. Melanesians have admixture from two extinct hominims and have individuals that have blonde hair and/or blue eyes that have nothing to do with European Homo Sapiens. I gather that in Africa there are 5 major ethnic groups. Races to you. Using distinctive genetic markers (mutations) that tend to be unique to some populations you will have more races than racists think. Semitics are Arabs and Jews. They are also Asians. Oh dear. People think Pakistanis, Afghanis, etc., are Arabs but they are not. They are Indo-European. Asian Indians seem to have at least two mutation groups. Tongans and Hawaiians were distinctly different. Not many pure Hawaiians left. The facial bone structure theory? You really think there are only three races per that? DNA? You got problems ther too. Mainly because as our race mutated to survive in environments many didn’t sit still. Went all over sharing their mutations. Basically they have found sexing where every they went has been our race of hominims habit. Still is. I have a grandniece with heritage from three continents. Much of our family has two. That is just recent history. Name the races you think there are. Don’t use the “color” crap. I have never met a person with white skin except for a couple of albinos. Never met anyone red or yellow. Most Africans are not black. Most are not even close. Very dark skin is not exclusive to Africa either. Subspecies of Homos Sapiens? The people who decide if critters are a subspecies give them additional Latin names. Got the list?
@@conniead5206 why are you so angry and aggressive towards the comment of a complete stranger? If you’ve studied this, as clearly you have immense knowledge on the subject, you shouldn’t care of someone else is wrong. Instead you probably wasted a significant amount of time replying all that, and for what exactly?
@UCIy4W79M2VslB3w0N-ucfcQ nobody said anything about color but yeah it's something that decides "ethnic groups" or in the right words, races. Call me whatever you want but there are a lot of races and only a whiny bitch like you would cry about it. If I could I would write down every race there is in the world but there's too much and only people like you waste their time with essay long comments on yt
They use the ACTUAL DNA of Neanderthals and Modern Eurasians and find definitive interbreeding. They compare Modern Africans to a "computational model" and state similar interbreeding may have occurred with some sort of Archaic form most likely Homo Erectus. HHHHHmmmmmm? Interesting, would be more meaningful if they compared Actual DNA of an Actual Archaic form with Modern African DNA to reach their conclusion of interbreeding or is it a hypothesis?
There is no actual testable dna of homo erectus , the heat makes the samples un testable. Now what they do is similar to checking if the answer of a math question is correct by flipping the sum around. With the finding of that specific y chromosome they were able to calculate much further back then before, giving a time frame to fill in the gaps with carbon dated fossils that calculation of the time frame went back to the origin time of homo erectus . Now with fossil records, skull shapes etc it would suggest that these dna gaps that are of unknown origin are indeed homo erectus dna markers.
Yes. 700 thousand years or so. Obviously this guy had no idea what he was talking about. Now in 2020 it's very clear that we evolved differently from different ancestors.!
That's only slightly more than the amount of time since Neanderthals diverged from the lineage of Homo sapiens; Neanderthals diverged from the common lineage of Homo sapiens 600,000 years ago. So, what's your point?
@The Truth is Potenza This doesn't change the fact that a majority of the DNA that comprises all modern humans (e.g. Africans, Europeans, Asians, etc) was inherited from a common source that originated in Africa. The overwhelming majority of DNA that comprises modern humans is Homo sapien; introgressed DNA is only a small percentage of any particular person's genome.
@harmlessdrudge - Not so. Introgression is _much_ more recent and as DNA research has shown, non-discriminating. This is why it has been so difficult to create a straight linear pathway for Sapien evolution - - - because there isn't one! ---------- I cannot wait until we have the ability to recover and analyze _Homo erectus_ DNA. I am sure that it will answer a lot of questions about those Archaic admixtures we see in living humans.
@@Mdebacle That makes no sense. All the out of Africa mtDNA descend from L3. They aren't three distinct independent lineages. If you want to bring the Bible into it, Adam would have to have been created 5800kya. So his yDNA would have to have a TMRCA of about 4800kya (because of the Noah bottleneck). I am only aware of one paternal lineage that aligns with this: E3a7a/E-U174/E-P252
Mazellezes: Recent genetic research has proven that to be total left-wing propaganda. With non-Africans having as much as 4% Neanderthal DNA and sub-Saharan Africans having as much was 15% DNA from an unknown archaic African species, your statement is obviously false. In fact, the parent of a child from a mixed race couple (Negroid + European or Asian) is more closely related genetically to any random person of their own race than to their own child.
no actually the average percentage of archaic species is 2% in all of SSA not 15..... the high percentage was from ONE tribe that was studied. There are some tribes that have a lot less, and some that have NONE at all, and the average African descendent is a mix of a bunch of tribes. Truth is 97-98% of humanity shares homo-spien dna…even accounting for the ancient DNA two Europeans can have more differences between each other than a white person and someone of another race. You reject that because you have your head up your butt and you only want to follow science when it suits you.
That's a fact.! DNA has proven that to be the case. Neanderthals and Denisovan mixed with Cro Magnon (Homo Sapien Sapien) outside of Africa. The Homo Sapien Sapien that moved down into Africa mixed with Homo Erectus and other archaic hominids that were located in Africa at the time. Small brain Homo Erectus DNA is found in Modern black populations. And other archaic hominids mixed with the Black African. That's why we have the distinct Races of people who are geneticly different!
Without any Neanderthal DNA you’d be an African. Which doesn’t mean that Neanderthal makes you not African as most African Americans have mixed ancestry including European.
@Nationalist Yes. That is the exception rather than the rule and there are satisfactory explanations. Your response does not negate my comment though. Beyond the natives of the African continent and their descendants everyone else has Neanderthal DNA: this is not a statement about Africans.
@doctorchicago6870 - Since you are alive, I think it's good. There's a lot of good that Neanderthal genes have contributed to us. There are some RU-vid videos of Svante Paabo's lectures on the subject.
What is it you are attempting to say when you use the phrase “modern human”. Actual modern humans are not the same thing as ”anatomically modern humans”, the people of the great migration. Ironically actual modern human includes populations with a variety of genetic material, some “modern” and some archaic. Modern human might better be referred to as present day humans. The word modern has become problematic as we have learned more. Whatever the DNA we are all one species.
@@jeremyashford2145 - "Modern humans" or :"Anatomically Modern Humans" are very common terms in science, as you can see from this video. That's what the initials "AMH" means that is used throughout it. -------- And by the way, I cannot buy into the 2 migrations hypothesis. There are no tollbooths between Africa and the Middle East. It stands to reason that Humans moved back and forth fluidly. They didn't wait for some "great migration" bus to arrive.
@theorothschild6728 - Africa is a _huge_ continent, true, but the various pre-Sapiens had feet and lots of time to travel. The Great Rift Valley is a wonderful place to find fossils for many reasons (mostly geological), but that doesn't mean that some of those species lived nowhere else. You cannot prove a negative, only a positive. You can only state facts. (For example, "Australopithecus afarensis" has not been found in Western Africa - _so far._ )
@dmo-ra1655 - As are we. I am looking forward to a time where we can isolate and analyze Erectus DNA. I think that it will answer a lot of lineage questions.
@damienbull8160 - If we weren't all descended from the same ancestors, we would not all be _Homo sapiens._ You are Sapien while your boss or your wife would be Neanderthal or Erectus. but that is not what reality is. We are _ALL_ Sapiens from the same family tree.
They use the ACTUAL DNA of Neanderthals and Modern Eurasians and find definitive interbreeding. They compare Modern Africans to a "computational model" and state similar interbreeding may have occurred with some sort of Archaic form most likely Homo Erectus. HHHHHmmmmmm? Interesting, would be more meaningful if they compared Actual DNA of an Actual Archaic form with Modern African DNA to reach their conclusion of interbreeding or is it a hypothesis?
There is no evidence of erectus in africans. I see a certain narrative going here but we never mixed with them, nor by extension mixed with you who lived to mate with them
@yachtsmankaw - Posting from the future. Many more African DNA samples have been collected in the intervening years. You might want to update your knowledge. HHHHmmmmmmm?
