Harvard geneticist David Reich and his team are DNA testing the bones of ancient humans. Their explosive results are still coming in, but one thing is already certain: much of what we thought we knew about human history is simply wrong.
Thoroughly enjoyed David Reich’s presentation, analysis/interpretation of the genetic data. I find his lecture style agreeably engaging. His restrained enthusiasm for the subject matter is contagious. I look forward to future developments with additional data when it becomes available. Fascinating how our understanding of human history evolves over time. Thank you.
There is no need to evolve your understanding if it is accepted as fact it should not have to evolve yet it is used as the absolute truth by Dakwins and others to debunk the account of Creation which has not changed since the bible was written.
@@Mr2TIMOTHY4V2 Scientific facts are probability claims based on best current evidence. Since the science of genetics and especially genetic archeology is fairly new. And since it takes a great amount of time, effort, and luck to find new archeological specimens, it would seem logical that the last word has not yet been said. Creation myths on the other hand are not considered falsifiable hypotheses by their adherents. And thus are not held to the same vigorous standards nor the same credulity as scientific theories.
I dont mean to be so off topic but does anybody know of a way to get back into an Instagram account?? I was stupid lost the account password. I would love any tricks you can offer me.
Ive just watched a talk from 2018 he gave about this. A whole hour. I hardly understood the complexities of dna but he was so so engaging and enthusiastic. Top marks!
Men must breed everything that wants to be bred because women died having babies and babies died from all sorts of things and women only have one baby per year so god made man to be ready to breed at a moments notice to anybody walking by...if God did not make men this way then humans would never have been developed...women cycle and will breed mostly when on or off their cycle so men must be always ready....ready for many different demands to many different women in order to preserve the human race
Fantastic presentation. Some of the charts seemed like they would benefit from alternate visualizations to communicate the point… or it was just over my head.
Dear David, having heard your speeches and your books, I am strongly attracted to the scientific history of human beings evolution, population studies on the basis of Genetics. Thank you so much. I have also some points in this connection to share with you. These points are collected after my observations of the various populations. Thank you
Hello everyone! There were bones and teeth found in Bulgarian caves around 45 000 - 47 000 years old, which is changing a little bit all the years and the movements on those maps, as well as the graves of later migrated people and they civilization, the skeletons and artefacts inside the tombs and graves, there are written tablets and other artefacts, treasures and ancient civilization show around 7 000 - 8 000 to over 10 000 years ago in Bulgaria and Romania, if im not wrong there were also tablet 12 000 years old as well, the Bulgarian calendar its year 7 526 year counting now, which is means those people had already leaved there and have some kind of civilization around the black sea when was a lake and other regions there, even before that years on the calendar counted' There was a lot of founds of that periods about that cave people and later the migrated people who make that civilization in that territories.
First, he speaks proper English, that should be the first thing before you speak publicly. Listening to nonnative English speaker is like driving on the bumpy road, that's just not comfortable.
Hi Fernando, Dr.Reich mentioned at the beginning of the talk, “ Luca Cavalli’s Sforza died a few weeks ago” ... I looked that up: Dr. Cavalli’s Sforza passed away on August 31, 2018 (he was 96 years old! RIP to a true scientific maverick) So maybe this talk happened ~September /October 2018?? Hope this helps... stay safe and healthy😊
@@CanalCursoMLearning I think it was held round about 25 or 26 September 2018 at the Excel centre, London. Here's an extract:- ... And Harvard University geneticist David Reich, a pioneer in the analysis of ancient human DNA, gave one of his rare public talks, explaining how the latest findings are overturning our existing ideas of who we are and where we came from. His work paints an extraordinary picture of us as a mosaic of other human species and of human migration across the globe. (link : www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931974-700-new-scientist-live-our-report-from-the-worlds-greatest-science-show). I didn't attend, alas, but I was at the Excel Centre for the Homebuilding and Renovating show, and noticed the huge queues for the other big exhibition - the New Scientist Live. Now I know why.
We need "Sindhu-Saraswati Civilization" bubble in the presentation, since it was also one of the largest settlement and long enough duration in that time period to put things in proper perspective.
This is very important work that needs to be taught in schools at early ages to dispel any biases concerning genetic origins - we come from common origins. The challenge is to create a story that individuals can relate to and (semi) accurately depicts the conclusions of these studies.
This does not dispel anything. Not only did he not define "pure", but logically if "no one is pure" then "everyone is pure" since there is no one instance of "pure" to contradict anyone claiming to be an instance of that category.
Amazing research. I wonder, at 46:40 , and what came shortly before it, with regard to India, what is the difference between the migration of the Indo-Europeans and the spread of the Yamnaya? I mean, this is somewhat addressed at 50:35 , but I don't quite understand it. This is a data-dense presentation, and it's incredible. Outstanding summary at 52:58 of paleo-genetics, migration, and archaeology.
He’s basically equating the two. The Yamnaya spread both east and west, and “Indo-European” is just a name that incorporates the language and cultural similarities between the ultimate destination points - basically, northern India and western Europe - that are rooted in that migration.
@@Historian212 OK, thanks for that. My understanding is that the existence and spread of the Yamnaya is inferred from distinctive archaeological findings, whereas the study of "Indo-European" has been primarily more of a linguistic approach to population spread.
More samples are needed from the Southern part of India especially Tamil Nadu as its culture is ancient and people tend to marry within their own communities.
Humans already have heeded his message, I think. Racism is rapidly fading away, and I don't think it was ever the primary driver behind most conflicts and bloodshed. War and conflict are driven by many things, but three in particular stick out: (1) greed, (2) religion, and (3) the fact that people will obey politicians, celebrities, and their leaders. The reason the masses fight each other is not because they are racist, but rather because our leaders push us into conflict in the pursuit of personal gain. Racism might be a component of that for a small minority of the populace, but a much bigger problem is that the masses are willing to listen to their leaders, and their leaders are more than happy to mislead the masses. It is also important to recognize that most conflict probably isn't driven by blind hatred. That's a ridiculous idea. Humans are not just ravenous, hateful creatures, nor is it the case - as many people today think - that previous generations were somehow "primitive", "hateful", and "racist", but that the human race of today has somehow moved beyond these problems. This kind of attitude does not give enough credit to our ancestors, and it gives TOO MUCH credit to modern humans. The reality is that we are not very biologically or cognitively different from our neolithic ancestors. They were not bloodthirsty, racist savages, nor are we somehow enlightened altruists. Looking at war and conflict as arising due primarily to blind hatred and racism is both factually simplistic and morally risky, since it may lead us to overlook the actual causes of war and conflict. Even in our enlightened and altruistic age, we are just as prone to warfare, systematic violence, and genocide. In fact, the worst conflicts and episodes of bloodshed in history have probably been driven by good intentions and the pursuit of justice. For instance, we are beginning to see very dystopian attitudes becoming normalized on social media and in the mainstream media, all in the name of (1) "protecting" the public (and more importantly, advertisers, sponsors, etc.) from controversial and non-mainstream content, and (2) identifying "terrorists". RU-vid, for instance, has been a very good example of this. The revelations by people like Edward Snowden about the NSA and CIA mass-surveillance programs are another (e.g. PRISM, COINTELPRO, etc.) The tyrant of the 21st century is a lot more likely to resemble figures like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, or mainstream corporate politicians like Mitch McConell or Nancy Pelosi than some cartoonish racist bent on senseless bloodshed. The masses respect these people and trust them. They are generally seen by their acolytes as having good intentions, and as being intelligent and respectable individuals. People like Elon Musk are viewed as geniuses and saviors. The masses are becoming increasingly comfortable with allowing Google and the NSA to systematically and completely spy on them and censor the media as long as those in charge tell us that they're just protecting us from "terrorists", "radical islam", or even just controversial political viewpoints on the left and right.
@De Alvarado I agree that conflict is innate to humans, but that doesn't entail that most conflict is racially motivated. As I said, most conflicts arise out of greed/fighting over resources, religion, and people blindly following their leaders. I actually can't think of many major wars that were fought primarily for racial concerns. The Trojan Wars, the Viking raids, the Crusades, the 100 years war, the Seven Years War, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, WW1, etc. were all fought either for religious reasons or because people were blindly following their leaders. The only major war I can think of where you can plausibly claim that it was fought for primarily racial reasons was the American Civil War, but even that war was not about one race trying to defeat the other for genocidal purposes. It was mainly Americans fighting other Americans over whether Black Americans should have rights and freedoms, but it didn't have anything to do with a desire for genocide. If you look at the largest incidents of bloodshed in human history, the Taiping Rebellion and the the Soviet Gulags, neither of these acts were motivated by racial concerns. Now you can point to the holocaust, where the majority of victims were targeted for being Jewish, but still almost half of the people killed by the Nazis were homosexuals, liberals, communists, or Poles, and hence were not killed for racial reasons. As for your point that people "tend to enter into conflict with other groups because we live in a competitive world with limited resources", I completely agree with you, and I don't see how anything I said would conflict with that claim. If anything, that point supports my claim that greed is a larger driving force in war than racism. I definitely think that racism can be part of that tribalistic behavior and competition over resources, but I think other forms of tribalism (like religious tribalism) have been more dangerous than racial tribalism. For instance, I have never heard a white person argue that we should bomb black people in Africa, but I have literally been hearing Christians and Americans argue for the last 30 years that we need to keep bombing Muslims in the Middle East. Why? Because (1) they're Muslims, and (2) because our political leaders keep telling us that these people "hate freedom", that they have "weapons of mass destruction". etc.
I have yet to learn how accurate this presentation is, but it would be great to read info from informed people who contradict or take issue with things like this.
the yamnaya must have been the huns running over europe thousands of years ago w their horses...so proud of my ancestry as the more u dig,the more eurasian and anatolian effect gives way👍thanks to u and ur team...
I think it is wrong to determine a people directly with its geography. For an example for most of history all of America was dominated by Natives. Today almost none of them are left. Almost all of Europa is from Europe. So the huns and mongolians might not have might in relation to yamnaya people.
Note how the word "race" is very cautiously avoided. The hidden message is that because nobody is "pure" then we should all happily mix with each other because that what people did in the past. The truth is that the successful mixes of the past where not like today just random or worse with populations that didn't even invented the wheel but rather a fierce competition against the environment and other invading populations. Therefore according to what happened in the past we should mix only with the best populations.
One fascinating info from the charts 39:10 is the mixture of TUSCAN is predominantly steppe or iranian farmer ancestry. I have watched a documentary about etruscans (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bSggIhQknVA.html). They were kind of outliers among the nearby greek, and were significantly advanced among their peers. They also used chariots (wheels). This makes sense.
The language of the Tuscans / Etruscans was Slavic also known as Sanskrit which is to this day is understood by those who speak the Baltic and Slavic languages - even the Siberians understand the spoken Sanskrit.
@@Noor-jw2tn Exactly. The ENCODE project to map human DNA has definitely confirmed that they were a group of humans parallel to other groups and intermarried with each other.
In a way they were, in that they didn't dominate their region and Homo Sapiens did. Survival of the fittest. Or maybe Neanderthals all lived too far north and were mostly wiped out by interglacial floods or ice ages
@@richarevans Or, they contracted a pathogen from newcomers for which they had no immunity. This is what happened to First Nation peoples when Europeans came to North America in the 17th century.
In my honest opinion I believe there’s more than one we can just only identify Neanderthal. And yes they were highly intelligent strong civilized people which we European people come from. They were the original European they’re called Indo-Europeans. The only reason we can’t understand the African genome is it’s riddled with mutations. And the sub group of humans that they derived from died out very early on in history. You also have to think of nature and some tribal African areas were very violent. So they could be the reason their early ancestors has no remains left to be found. But who know very interesting topic and subject and besides me disagreeing with the out of Africa theory I would like to see if anything intellectual comes from it.
Great work. I would like to see the elongated skulls from around the world looked at as well as people from all over the world found in king class burial settings.
@@NoxiousNova ya. One project I am working on is to look for evidence sort of connecting the dots to ancient texts that refer to The God-DemiGod-Human triad. This shows up in many ancient stories in stories from around the world. Hypothesis Denisovans=Gods Neanderthal=DemiGods Modern Humans=mixed???
@@rickfucci4512 you're onto something, but neither denisovans nor neanderthal were the gods. The answer is in the levant, from modern day western china to Gibraltar.
Archeologist with several cone head elongated skulls showed how you can tell if it was head binding or natural. All Communist leaders make themselves " god" over the people.
It should be the responsibility of videomakers to indicate clearly the DATE of any production ! It is one of the worst habits of RU-vid NOT DATING each single video.
He says that before 2015 the predominant hypothesis for the origin of Indo-European languages was that they spread across Europe with farming. I’m no expert, but I know this is wrong. The steppe hypothesis has long been the predominant hypothesis.
David is not much aware of the linguistic model. That's why in other interview he said that steppe could have brought Sanskrit to India, where as Linguistic model requires Sanskrit can only come via Iranian Avesta route. where as David's own Sept 2019, paper proves that Iranian ancestory from South Asia splits more than 12,000 years ago, thus breaking the iranian route. Rather they found even before the westward expansion of IE languages from steppe, as far back as 5300 years ago the Indus Valley people were migrating to central Asia in significantly large numbers, that "every single" central asian DNA recovered (from Gonur & Shahe-e-sokhta sites) contained small amounts of Andemanese (indian) ancestry, even more than 25% of the total number of DNA samples recovered were Indus periphery cline. By the way this video predates that Sept-2019 publication, perhaps much older.
The odds of just one of the criteria for life forming by chance, a protein 150 molecules long, are 10^175th. Dr. Behe’s work concerning irreducible complexity is also revealing. See also molecular machines.
Wow, that was brilliant. What a large data set of ancient people Dr. Reich has to work with. I had to watch it all in one go - it all fits together with the archaeology like a jigsaw puzzle. Any work on the Greek speaking people and their origin genetically and geographically ?
This man is an adventurist and a racist! Anyone who claims an endless number of fantastical discoveries is only proving their own conceptual narratives, especially, w/o any pushback from experts or his peers!
@samuraijosh1595 What did that person replied? You know Aryans are proto-Iranians, nothing to do with pseudo-genomics 'theory' of early 20th century certain German ideology?
Our oceans, continents and mountains were very different - in the recent past - but "geneticists" and the other "scientists" are taught the truth about this.
@@WhirledPublishing they are only taught what is permitted. Unfortunately they are not taught the truth and if per chance they are, they will never utter a word to anyone else or ignore it in fear of losing their position and source of income. Sad but true.
It's true for the present day humans, but not true for our paleolithic ancestors . Human braincase has decreased overtime from the last glacial maximum, were human braincase was at the largest extent.
I certainly have no issue with studying DNA AND whatever else, but is the more pressing question where do we want to be, and where do we want to be next, and who will be living next to you, spying and trespassing on you, and when will they rake their leaves?
Since about the 7th or 8th century, there has been a huge influx of missionaries from the middle east, followed by several waves of middle eastern rule over north India. Also, there has been a vibrant trade between India and the middle east on the west coast and east Asia, with Merchants, primarily men, marrying local Indians for years. Why are these known migrations not being represented in the study?
Regarding South asia, they finally went onto publish all the data. 90+ ancient DNA samples dated to 1200-800BCE from South Asia shows Only FEMALES with average 10% steppe ancestry that too in mixed form with Anatolian Farmer ancestry which is clearly absent in modern South Asians, so this was rendered as NOT ancestral to South Asia at all. Basically, the IE languages in India did not come in with few of these steppe FEMALES. The Indus Valley Civilisation, based on all the archaeological evidence related to Vedic religion we have found, was definitely speaking IE languages in 3rd millennium BCE and even earlier. Not only that, even BMAC shows no steppe ancestry contradicting to their proposed movement from steppes to South Asia. The Steppe ancestry is not only absent in 2nd millennium BCE SOuth Asia ancient DNA but was also absent in BMAC which as per their linguistic model should have been fully dominated by steppe genes. Well ancient DNA samples disprove their hypothesis. New papers have been announced to put a final nail to it in 2021 or early 2022. while the aDNA samples show out of South Asia migrations starting from 3328 BCE into Iran and central Asia.
If a global flood event happened say 10,000 years ago and only four men and four women individuals survived the event, would that account for the distribution of seemingly modern man as opposed to those more ancient bone discoveries and the DNA they introduce into the analytical calculations?
Interesting especially if applied to truly ancient species of humans and their migrations out of Africa. It seems that this shows that migrating populations almost always have an advantage over the existing population and often replace that existing population at least to a large degree if not totally.
How do you know humans migrated out of Africa? We have precious few remains from hominids in the period before 100,000 years ago - 75% of all of hominid fossils known between 100,000 and 1.5 million years ago come from 32 individuals in Northern Spain! This is more conjecture than science I'm afraid.
@Nobody, I don't think that you understand. The oldest bones came out of Africa. The second oldest came out of China, but the boned that came out of China were not homo sapiens (humans). It's never been proven otherwise. You do know that we are talking about Homo sapiens, right? How old are you?
Is the figure at 17:36 in error? From the way it is described, it seems that the chromosome on the left should be non-African rather than African. The statistics would then show that Europeans and East Asians match the Altai Neanderthal about 2% as often as it matches the Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal.
In the case of ANI-ASI triangle the only reason you have Steppe corner is because you got samples there. Coincidently in India and neighboring populations, for much of our history people have cremated their dead causing insufficient sampling of variety. Had there been enough sample your triangle would most likely have been a hexagon and the three axis would have looked more like a melting pot. And India is much much bigger with much more mobility than europe and it has been so forever. If you go by flawed sampling than geneticist will call all of India a muslim or christian land after the next Armageddon because these are the only people burying their dead today while others will keep cremating right upto Armageddon.
Incase you are claiming that the Steppe (Indo-European) admix in India is not from Europe i'm gonna say this: The Steppe people were a mix of Caucasus Hunter Gatherers and East European Hunter Gatherers, these Steppe people contributed to the admixture of Indo-Aryan speaking Indians while Dravidians lack it. Obviously that foreign admixture in India does not originate from India since we can trace the Steppe's ancestry all the way back to 30,000 years because: 1) Caucasus Hunter Gatherers were a mix of Dzudzuana Caucasus 28,000 bc and Ancient North Eurasians from 15-20,000bc who also originate from Europe. 2) East European Hunter Gatherers were a mix of West European Hunter Gatherers and Ancient North Eurasians.
@@descendedofrigvedicclans2216 He didn't disprove shit. We literally have DNA evidence of DNA originating in the South Caucasus moving to the Steppe and then to India and we have literal DNA evidence that this DNA was in West Eurasia since they came our of Africa.
@@descendedofrigvedicclans2216 Lol where did you get the information that Indians dont have Neanderthal DNA? All Indians have Neanderthal DNA. Why would there be different pottery. North Indians are literally Indo Europeans, their pottery is the same as them.
@@chocolatecityoutlaw6258 Not at all. The use of an implausible and comical absurdity in my comment sending up those who fail to think should be apparent to you. If you think beyond what you earnestly assume a whole world of revealing semantics will open up for you. Communication in all its rich variety.
To believe biology is destiny is to overlook the environmental influences that determine evolution - and to overlook the fact that love conquers all - and the fact that the future is written in the stars.
@13:45 On the lower map the original find of the first Neanderthal specimen is marked as Feldhofer. As someone who lives less than 2 miles away this slightly bothers me. The place where it had been found was named Feldhofer Grotte (Feldhof cave or Feldhofian cave in English). This cave doesn't exist anymore because it was destroyed shortly after the Neanderthal bones were found. So the place should be marked either as Neandertal (modern german spelling of the Neander valley) or Erkrath (the city to which the Neander valley belongs).
Be wary of people who claim to tell the truth. You don't have enough ancient dna than how can you claim who subdued whom. And how can you be sure of direction of migration. It could be otherwise also. Truth doesn't have to presume Anything.
Well, if you see a complete replacement of the male genetic line in a given area, while the female genetic line persists, it is pretty clear that in one way or another, the males of the original group were replaced in terms of sexual reproduction. New men were reproducing with existing women
we know the beaker people completely replaced the builders of Stonehenge. we know that the earliest european farmers completely replaced the european hunter gatherers, those hunter gatherers did not reproduce and died out as a people. we know many things. sadly, you do not.
I love to following your speaches and publications. I think you can tell us about redheads. Ancient writing said red hair was common among thracians and celts. Today redheads are absent from Thracian areas like Albania and the Balkans, but exist in scottland celts. Cleopatra even has red hair in ancient tiles. Samaritans even have a fairly high proportion of red hair for their region, and jews. I would love to hear your opinion about red hair. The dna analysis would be child's play compared to your other research. Darwinian religion probably plays a role in red hair. Worship of gold or the sun may select gold or blonde. When you and wife both have dark hair, but your child has red hair, you will be slightly inclined to kill them if you think your wife had an affair with the redheads down the block. You may take them all out - so darwinian theories say no redheads due to submissive dna visual cues.
@@bethbartlett5692 No, I don’t think so. Germanic and Celtic are different branches of Indo-European language, and related genetics. Basque is not Indo-European
Let's make something very clear about "Ancient DNA". When they talk about sequencing "Ancient dna" they do not actually have very much "Ancient dna". What they are doing is taking miniscule fragments of DNA, we're talking less then .5% of the actual genome, and matching it to a chart of modern genomes and "reconstructing" the other 99.5% from scratch. What this means is that their results are anything but concrete and are thus outside the realm of scientific fact. So when they tell you that such and such remains belonged to such and such a haplogroup, you have every rite to question or doubt their conclusions because their conclusion was drawn from a computer simulated reconstruction, not the real thing.
Yeah that’s the truth. These geneticists have only trace amounts of DNA from these people so making these major theories and claims in this field is tenuous at best and fringe science at worst.
I'm wondering how well do these genetic studies dovetail with the recent evidence from archeology that may be rewriting human history. BTW, I'm NOT referring to the pseudoscience stuff from people like Graham Hancock. The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow is a strong and valid presentation of the archeology and anthropology IMHO.
Ireland and Scandinavia were covered in ice only 12,000 years ago. Nobody lived there.The few humans who who reached Scandinavia and Ireland all had blue eyes. Almost everybody in Ireland and Norway has blue eyes. How did brown eyes turn to blue?
Because blue is not really an eye color ( due to eye pigments), just like the sky is not really blue , which is caused by air molecules scatter the blue light but not other colors. The enough presence of melanin makes our eye and skin brown. Obviously some European whites evolved to have very little melanin expressions due to lack of sunlight. In fact, some people, yes now, see their brown eye turning blue when they are aging. Why? The produce less melanin when they get older. White and black people, if don’t count culture, are humans with different genetic ability to produce melanin. If you think less melanin is more superior, you are thinking with the incorrect facts.
@@Userkzb20253 I am a blue/green eyed person, but know very many brown-eyed people. Particularily those in my "step-family". Some of them are quite old--one is mid-nineties, the other early 80's. Nobody's eyes are turning blue. Their eyes are the same deep, chocolate brown as they've always been. The only time I have seen any color change in the eyes of an elderly person, is when they have severe cataracts. And that only happens because a cloudy, milky lens is obscuring the eye color--which becomes normal again once the cloudy lens is surgically removed.
Sometimes i think to myself if someone really knows what they are talking about or are they just sounding intelligent and smart by the way they present information
Lucky thing about the past when you back thousand of years is that most people don't care. This means that coorperations and governments won't be spending billions of USD in order to fight the truth.
Interesting information in regards to the Middle East and the Caucauses. Too bad there's hardly anything known about the Asian genome. I hope someone digs in and figure out what makes up the ancient Asians.
You all are confusing humans with the hybrids that have no conscience, feel no guilt, no remorse, no shame, feel no compassion, no empathy - the public isn't told about the difference between the lying thieving raping murdering warmongering pedovore overlords, their millionaire minions and their billions of underlings vs. the humans who love truth, peace, justice, kindness, etc., but the old literature from the Greeks, the Hebrews, the Hindus, the Chinese, the northern Europeans, the Latin Americans, etc., explain it all in graphic detail, since their illustrations and paintings show us what the hybrids and their ancestors looked like and since we have their hybrid skulls, hybrid skeletons and hybrid mummies, to deny all this evidence is to suffer from extreme and intense programming - since the true timeline for the invasion of these hybrids is clearly documented in hundreds of historic records and since the pedovore overlords that control our world have seized control of banks and stock markets, politicians and governments, military forces and corporations, CEO's, millionaire entrepreneurs, the entertainment industries, gas and oil, aviation and automotive industries, fashion and cosmetics, the medical mafia, communications and electronics, construction and farming, food distribution and GMO's, as well as the newspapers, the television news, the multi-million dollar publishing houses that print the lies and lunacy in textbooks, in the "bestsellers on the cutting edge of science"", in the fake science magazines and in the idiotic peer reviewed journals that maintain compliance among the unintelligent fake science gods that graduated with their C's in Chemistry, Geology, Physics, Calculus, etc., from low level institutions with minimal entrance requirements, since the "theories" that were spoon-fed to them are intentional disinfo and since the multi-million dollar labs and multi-million dollar museums reinforce their timeline lies and fake science, to doubt the "conspiracy" against the humans is to expose yourself as someone with no conscience - you either see the glaring evidence or you have no regard for truth and are oblivious to the deception.
Agreed--but ancestry matters. We're fumbling around with DNA, but maybe RNA are the real difference makers? Today, we try to parse nutritional labels and eat organic things that we thing help us--but where are the studies of what food thousands of generations ate over millenia? What if there was some underlying truth about eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge?
Research group compared genomes from ancient and modern humans and demonstrated that people in our modern world carry 1% to 2 % of the genomes of Neanderthals, people of Mainland Asia carry approximately 0.2% of the genomes of Denisovans, and about 5% of the genomes of Denisovans are mixed in with those of Papua New Guinean and Aboriginal Australians.
Question: If every group of people come from other groups of people, and no group of people has lived anywhere for forever, how are we to understand or define "indigenous"?
@Kraig StClair Having had some time to think about this, it seems to me that if a person is born and raised in a particular place, that makes them "indigenous" to that place. The whole notion of "first people" makes as much sense as two kids arguing over who gets to ride the front seat. Does the oldest child have an innate and unquestionable superiority over the younger solely on the basis of who was alive first? Of course not. We know that's neither fair nor reasonable, and that's why we teach our kids to share, to take turns, because that's what makes living together easier.
If you really want to get into it, that's all society is, a bunch of made-up-imaginary lines that where started by people and have been manipulated since. Although, there are basic survival instincts that have been with life since it was "born." For some strange reason, people get the comforts of life and survival mixed up in their heads, the same as dogs etc... etc.... our main jobs are just to multiply, no matter what... the drive of life. "a relationship is the price you pay for the anticipation of it" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZIRZu1dRp8Q.html
Saying mixing is human nature isn't a reason we should race mix now. Having a homogenous population has a plethora of advantages from common identity to blood transfusion compatibility. It's also worth noting that mixing in the past has been with more closely related people relatively near eachother. Mixing two populations from different corners of the world could be radically different. There's also evidence to suggest we're worse off because of mixing in the past. Cranial capacity has decreased over time instead of increased and it's likely the result of mixing.
"Mixing" is a personal choice. Not a group choice. And truly the only mixers are brown 🟤 people, we were here 1ST by a wide margin of years. You all come out of us, we don't come out of you all.
@@trillionbtamillion @aBrownMindWalkingThroughTime mixing for thousands of years was a group choice. Do you know how different ethnic groups formed? The different ethnicities within the different races? It's because different groups of people didn't mix with other groups. What we call nations now came into existence as groups of ethnicities. Borders are drawn based on ethnic groups and then movement between those borders is regulated. Overall it's fundamentally against the interest of any and all peoples to mix with other groups. The notion that "we are the first, y'all come out of us we don't come out of y'all" is a nonsense state. We came out of the same species. It was modern day black people in Africa existing and then white people spawn out suddenly as a different group and leave Africa. People in Africa now have changed just as much if not more than non-africans. Actually if you want to get detailed about it only a portion of any individual comes from our common ancestor. Neanderthal DNA exists in all non-africans, denisovan DNA exists in Asians, and as much as 19% of African DNA is from a separate hominid. So saying we come from you is nonsense because roughly a quarter of our ancestry does not go back to a common ancestor. Those are just the ones we know about too. I don't know why you've come pushing some kind of black supremacy as a comment against me, but it doesn't even make any sense. If black people are superior then why would you want your genes mixed with another races? All that is besides the point though. Yes mixing is up to the individual, but there's endless propaganda being pushed to encourage it and I think the is destructive to every race. The truth of the matter is there will never be a socially healthy country that isn't racially and ethnically homogenous. Different races/ethncities as a whole don't get along when they're forced to share a space. I mean think about it, name any one country where it works out. The minority group is either being abused or is playing the victim, crime gets completely out of control, blame for problems always gets directed at one specific race, and even within the nation people of similar race/ethnicity OVERWHELMINGLY choose to associate almost entirely with their own group. We can go on about the health implications of mixing or any number of reasons that exist and are real, but the real reason is it is going to make it difficult to eventually correct the issue and give every group a nation of their own separate from the others. How do you end racism? End race mixing.
@@ebonytv3414 first off it's here not hear. Secondly that's not really true. The term race refers to only the 3 main racial groups in the world, of which I am only composed of 1. Genetically my ancestors did mate with at least one other hominid species, neanderthal. Besides that I'm composed of only 3 different ancient ethnic groups, all of which are from within the white race. Proto-european Hunter gatherers, levant farmers, and yamnaya cattle herders. In my immediate ancestry there is almost no mixing at all. All of my ancestry is northern European, Scandinavian and Anglo-saxon. So to an extent there was mixing that occurred, but that's beside the point I'm making. The point I'm making is mixing is problematic for a number of reasons. It causes problems that aren't easily solved. It's a quantifiably bad thing to encourage race mixing. This isn't because one race is better than another, it's because blurring racial/ethnic identities causes societal issues. A country MUST have a cohesive ethnic identity if their leaders are going to act in the interest of the people. The prime example of this is xi jinping. Sure he's a commie dictator, but he genuinely loves and cares for the han ethnic group in china. Because of this he is not corrupt and acts in their best interest. Compare this to the most diverse countries on Earth, USA and Brazil which have governments so corrupt that the people have just accepted it as the norm. It's something nobody wants to talk about because it's an unpleasant reality. It's bad things are like this, but they are like this and that's not going to change. Jews know this, why do you think they're so obsessed with their ethnically homogenous nation and so against mixing with Arabs? They act cohesively in self interest much to their own benefit. Meanwhile people stripped of ethnic identity and loyalty fall by the wayside.
@@alexhurt7919 Bro, go back to the basement. You sound soooo creepy saying that shit. In _today's world_ *mixing* is and should continue to be a personal choice. (Emphasis on "today's world"). That's the first comment's point. Incels like you wouldn't understand individuality as you expect women to like you for no reason.
We're not really out of Africa - the "Ethiopian" people lived in what is today southwestern Persia - they were forced to migrate to Africa - we know this because it's on the old maps so while some "Ethiopians" migrated to Africa, others inter-married and migrated to India, Russia, Europe and ultimately the Americas -geneticists are ignorant of these facts because it's not part of their "science".
This makes alot of assumptions, leaving out the moors who took over Spain, Italy n Greece. The Roman's who took over France, this brought all that. Leaving warfare out. He,s wrong. In his immigration dates and reasons. French is very diverse as is England, should have done the Irish, and Swedish. Not to mention France was in North America for hundreds of years , still in South America, there are many different explanations for this
Very informative The question I do have is India has a much longer history and India people have been very technical and more advanced than the rest for 1000ths of years???
Excellent content, although I had to really pay attention to keep up with the presentation. I did a lot of stopping the video so I could study the graphics he presented here. Some commenters have said this is already out of date, but to be honest, I have trouble finding good scientific content that is not at least a few years old on RU-vid. Videos may have been posted in 2021, but a lot of them were originally recorded 5 or even 10 years ago. Science is moving so fast nowadays that five years is pretty much antiquity, in terms of the latest discoveries. Anyone who can point me to actually current science docs or lectures - I mean from 2020 or 2021, ORIGINALLY (not a repost of a 2015 lecture), would be GREATLY appreciated.
"mixing and migration are in our nature and I think that we should think about that in these times". that's a new line to his typical talk. it sounds like he's trying to make a statement but is too timid to say it directly. Is he a pro migration advocate now or something? Instead of telling people that "no one is pure" maybe he should address the question of what makes different existing populations unique because many people are still unmixed in that sense (the pops he's referring to are ~4000 years old). The notion of purity was always rooted in a historical people and the notion that the people were unique or different in some important sense.
@@aaronclarke7732 because it's a belief that is based on scientific evidence. Reich discusses some of this evidence in his book. anyways, he seems to have grown nervous. i wonder if the thought police have got to him or something. what does he even mean by "mixing and migration are in our nature". is that supposed to be a kind of scientific conclusion based upon his work? Because it would be just as true to say that mixing is not in our nature. these seem like sound bits for the idiotic media to pick up on and publish.
@@aaronclarke7732 "purity", no, I never used that word. Reich never defined it did he? "just as true". yes in fact just a couple of days they came up with another case in carribean where one group of people came along replaced (not mixed) another group of people. sound familiar? I'd say that a few thousand years could be plenty of time for evolution to significantly affect a human population. Reich does discuss some of these findings in his book.
@@robertb2664 cultural evolution yes but only a smattering of natural selection in things like height and lactase enzymes. If you want to be a scientifically sound nationalist you are forced to be a civic or cultural nationalist and abandon ethnic nationalism by this data.
I thought the papua Australianandaman migrated closer to 100k yr ago. One can see how their gene has higher denisovian in their dna as they have been isolated mostly for 100k years
Great information. Western bias however is present. The author is enamored by Yamanya people, no word for example on haplotypes of those early european farmers (Sardinia, Vinca culture). Yes, R1b monopolized western Europe with its agression, however the Balkan is even today a home to largely I2a hapltype followed with R1a, E, and R1b; i.e. it represents the "OLD EUROPE" prior to broze age migrations. Absolutely no info on Vinca, Starcevo, etc. cultures even though the earliest metalworking in the World comes from Vinca in Serbia. NOT R1b.
They were of Anatolian Neolithic farmer descent. The Starcevo was the first expressed culture in the Balkans (not including the sesklo & pre sesklo) The vinca came from the Starcevo.
Perhaps some of us are unaware that we are on a Black planet and that socalled nonblack people have only been on the planet for six to ten thousand years and are not human ie Homo sapiens sapiens due to them having neanderthal DNA and them not being naturally occurring.
Hi David, 1. Seems the DNA of female skeleton found in Rakhighari, India [~3000 BC] does not have either steppe or Iranian component. How can you justify that farming came to India through steppe around 3000 bc. 2. 46.26 you got totally wrong on this . seems you are totally confused, can you please be more specific on the language name. India has 26 official languages. Brahmins/Kshatriyas etc are spread all over India , I dont know how did you come to the conclusion that, one sect speak only Indo- European languages.
Hey, a comment on your point #1. The figure around 53:15 shows agriculture coming to India in 7000 BC. A few seconds later, he shows migration from Steppe region took place after 2000 BC. So, he's not saying that Steppe people brought farming to India. Although, he does seem to suggest here that farming was brought to India in 7000 BC by Iranian farmers. This, as you pointed out, is contradicted by no genetic evidence which relates Rakhigarhi sample to Iranian farmers at the time. The research paper in Cell which published the Rakhigarhi findings has David Reich as one of the co-authors. In the paper, they claim that the farming technology in India was indigenous and lineage of Indus valley civilization separated from the Iranian population before 10000 BC. I presume this video is before they wrote the Rakhigarhi paper.
read my comment - also copied here. Look like this video is outdated and was probably recorded before David Reich published Sept 2019 paper in cell.com which again changed all the genetics of Indians. This is showing old results related to South Asia. For the first time scientists extracted DNA from Indus Valley itself. Original Indus DNA = Orange ancestry + Red ancestry, where Red is Andamanese ancestry (primary Indian). Orange ancestry comes from a common ancestor of Indus and ancient Iranian who likely lived in the Indus region more than 12,000 years ago. Highlighs of the paper are following 1. The Indus individual was from a population that is the largest source of ancestry for South Asians. 2. Iranian-related ancestry in South Asia split from Iranian plateau lineages >12,000 years ago. 3. First farmers of the Fertile Crescent contributed little to no ancestry to later South Asians. 4. Indus individual was a female, whole mtDNA haplogroup is U2b2 which is exclusive to South Asia. 5. Indus periphery cline were originally Indus people who started migrating to central asia 5300 years ago, and started to mix with locals of Gonur and Shaher-e-sokhta we know that the Indo-European linguistic model established an Indo-Iranian Avesta-Sanskrit linguistic link and concluded that Sanskrit came through Iranian route. But genetics here proved, see highlight 1 & 2, that Iranian link is broken, this common ancestry between Iranians and South Asians got split >12,000 years ago. Now this invalidated the linguistic model. David Reich said that it is possible that Sanskrit came to India via steppe migration. But its not possible, because for the linguistic model to work you need Iranians and Vedic people living together for some time. Since Indus periphery Cline are original Indus people migrating to central asia as early as 5300 years ago and contributed more than 25% of the DNA samples (population) recovered from the sites. It explains well that dialects of Proto-Indo-European language were leaving Indus regions 5-6000 years ago and then later expanded westward into Europe. This Out of India language migration model fits very well with all the evidence related to archeo-astronomy, linguistics, geography related to Vedic period. Our Sanskrit Purana records provide with a complete chronology of dynasties and kings until 7500 years ago - unbrocken chronology. Even the calculation made by Aryabhatta regarding the start of Kaliyuga on 3102BC, he existed 1500 years ago. with "out of india" language migration model, everything fits nicely and perfectly with all the multi disciplinary scientific evidence. now even genetics have proved that Indus people migrating out to central asia before the westward expansion of IE languages.
@@rishabh235 Yes you are right. Indus and Iranian shared a common ancestor more than 12,000 years ago. There was another paper published in 2018 I think. It showed than Indians and Iranians shared a common ancestor around 15,000 years ago which is in agreement with Rakhigarhi published results and the advent of farming was indigenous to South Asia. Although I completely disagree with the language hypothesis b/w 2000 & 1500 BC. There are Four hard points here. 1. A small percentage of steppe ancestry exists in India about average 8-10%, this insignificant mixing cannot replace the language of the advanced civilisation which was extablished from Indus to Saraswati to Ganga Valley. plus there is no textual evidence of any cultural change or language change in any other language text of india such as Tamil literature for example. 2. The oldest book 6 of Rigveda talks about Saraswati being flowing from mountains to ocean. Their hypethesis time of 2000-1500BC, during this time Saraswati river had already dried out. 3. There is so much archeological evidence of Indus Civilisation being Vedic with findings of Agni Kunda, Yoga figurines, Yoga seals etc. 4. All dates of Mahabharata war based on 300+ astronomy observation recorded with in Mahabharata text are atleast 5100 years old to 7500 years old. Although the later date has much more support in more than 10+ disciplines of science.
@@rahulchawla6256 Regarding point 1 , the steppe ancestry varies with caste and region. North-west region generally has higher steppe ancestry compared to the rest with jats and Rors leading the pack. As we move inside to the east and south, it's brahmins who generally have higher steppe ancestry compared to the rest of the surrounding jaatis. Regarding language, well, it could be that IVC has already declined by 1900 BCE as we have deurbanization of IVC going on around that time. The interpretation of the person with horned headgear sitting in yoga pose in IVC seal is a bit of a stretch. With that being said, certain elements of what we call hinduism did exist in IVC.
