Tales of Human History Told by Neandertal and Denisovan DNA That Persist in Modern Humans
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- Where did we humans come from? When did we become the dominant species on the planet?
00:00 - Start
01:38 - Main Presentation
Experts take you on an exploration of the last half-decade of new evidence from ancient DNA, fossils, archaeology and population studies that has updated our knowledge about The Origins of Today's Humans. Recorded on 02/21/2020. [4/2020] [Show ID: 35716]
More from: CARTA: Exploring the Origins of Today's Humans
(www.uctv.tv/carta-todays-humans)
Explore More Science & Technology on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/science)
Science and technology continue to change our lives. University of California scientists are tackling the important questions like climate change, evolution, oceanography, neuroscience and the potential of stem cells.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)
Fascinating presentation by Joshua Akey on Neandertal and Denisovan DNA that have been identified in Modern Humans. It was interesting to find out that the ancient DNA is not the same in those who have it. That there may be some overlap, but there are outliers that like dendrochronology have floating chronologies that with more sample size can be tied into the mix. My only complaint is the use of the National Geographic image of a Neandertal. Why is it that Science and Hollywood has to show ancient peoples as unkempt and dirty faced? Any anthropologist studying primitive cultures can attest that people from young to old and from male to female in so-called Primitive societies take great pride in their appearance. All animals literally like to "put on a good face" in public by grooming themselves or others of their species.
"Why is it that Science and Hollywood has to show ancient peoples as unkempt and dirty faced?" This has been driving me crazy for decades, not just for re-creations of early ancestors, but for characters in any historic era in film.
Great presentation!
Thank you for making it accessible to non-specialists! 😁
Appreciate the free education.
Exactly. Why pay for private education when you can learn incredible things here for free.
The high paying job that accompanies the accumulated knowledge.
@@poscom1071 because I need a degree
Me too
RUclips can teach you, waste your time and piss you off. It depends on what you choose to watch.
I really enjoyed the presentation!
I can't wait to see what they can unlock next!
Thank you!
Crazy that there were other species of “humans” that were genetically close enough to mate with, and that could produce viable offspring. Like certain wild species of cats, and common house cats. Certainly paints a picture of a different world in our not so distance past.
This investigative on human genetics and migration always fascinated me. Thanks and keep up with the good work. From HK
One thing I find frustrating when discussing prehistory, people, or animals is, usually the contemporary geography is left out. Even just 6000 years ago, the coastlines and land forms were notably different! Talking about hominins, or even dinosaurs or Ice Age wildlife, it seems there's a huge missing piece of their world at that time. We usually hear about, or get a description of THAT object and THEIR local habitat. It would help appreciate and understand all the changes, if larger surrounding regions were also included.
Look into paleogeography, which studies the biologic and physical geography of the past.
Very interesting, thank you.
It's cool to hear about the travels of early humans and how the population mixed with each other.
Seems like it's been a thing with humans for ever and a day.
I could have listened to this for hours, that 18 minutes just flew by...
Very good presentation. Scientific research such as this are key to our future.
Very informative presentation. Most enlightening. Thank you very much!
Very interesting and informative video presented by a highly knowledgeable expert.
Brilliant new research! Fascinating stuff. 💪🙂
Extremely interesting but I wanted it longer
That's what's she said
Fascinating lecture- thank you!
I'm pretty sure I've dated a Neanderthal....
Me too
😄😄😄
If it wasnt an african u have. I dont think many people understand what this means.
I’ve seen some people that resemble the Neanderthal most accurate reconstructions, it would be interesting to know if they have a different percent of Neanderthal DNA
that's what she said.
What strikes me is how they found 400,000 year old DNA in Sima de los Huesos, Spain which is Denisovan.....that's a hell of a long way from Siberia or Melanesia.
Thank you for this information- so interesting.
Excellent Presentation!!! Thanks for making this more fun and understandable than my college professors
🤣🤣
This fascinates me. Another recent study has suggested that there is another unknown admixture in africa, not neanderthal or denisovan. Perhaps more than one.
Denisovan is probably actually 2 branches, the original one from the cave in Denisova, plus another one only known from DNA in Melanesians / Polynesians tentatively called Sunda Denisova. There's also an unknown admixture in Denisovans (from the original cave) as well.
@Mursal Jama I've heard of 2 (one probably Heidelbergensis in West Africa) and one very archaic in the Congo. What's the third?
Humans are a wonderful concoction of diverse DNA. I find that delightful.
Really interesting. Thank you for posting this.
What a great talk! So clear and straightforward.
Fantastic! Impressive work.
Loved every minute.
Good watch; WONDERFUL presentation.
Very interesting presentation!!
Well done and thank you !
Thank-you this adds to my knowledge of my own ancestry! My earliest question was where did I come from? After years of genealogy research and having a DNA test, (as limited as it is in this day and age) I now have some answers and some fantastic information of what my ancestors endured. There is so much more to learn, sadly I won't be around to learn it, lol!
Very interesting and thought-provoking presentation.
I love this! Thank you!
Really interesting and great presentation.
Love the complex nature of the history.
Very instructive.
Lovely! Exciting!
Enjoyed very much
Not a single Alien lecturer... disappointed.
😆😆😆
What's wrong with you all? Who is mad????!!!
Couldn't you have just tested all those other participants that's were tested for Neanderthal DNA for denisovan DNA too? Great talk! Really enjoyed it👍🏾👌🏾
Instead of just 35
wow! this is quite amazing
Fascinating 🤯🤓👍 too short. I want more! ❤
So what can we find out if we take Neandertal sequences at the same locus from many people and do phylogeny on them? We should be able to estimate how recent the introgression was, and whether all the sequences came from a single introgression event, or multiple. If a recent single source introgression nevertheless has high frequency in the population, this is evidence that it has been under positive selection. We could also look at nearby sequences for evidence of a selective sweep.
Excellent
Thanks 👍
If we only discovered Denisovan DNA and evidence recently, what's to say there aren't other DNA sequences we could identify and source?
All I can say is that I am very intrigued 🤯🤯
If one thing is clear from sequencing of ancient genomes it's that there was no single gene mutation that by itself "made us human". Yet such magic bullet accounts persist in many discussions of our origins, even while a wealth of DNA data shows how untenable these stories are.
Great research
Fascinating. Thank you.
Wonderful, thank you.
When he discussed Chromosome 7 depleted on neanderthals and denisovans, it was like a eureka moment. It just fits into place.
U mean africans cant speak? Im confused..
Not at all. African languages are equally complex as any in the world and many African cultures there are long traditions of formidable oratory skills. What the lack of archaic dna in the area of chromosome 7 might mean is that the language ability of modern humans is adaptively more powerful than those of denisovans or neanderthals. Notice that the speaker doesn't say it explicitly, though, after he points it out because it's really just a guess at this point.
@Mursal Jama He's not saying African DNA is depleted. He's saying that the DNA of modern humans is depleted of ancient types of DNA in certain areas which means that those areas have changed quickly from ancient times.
@Mursal Jama Absolutely, just perhaps not as talkative as us.
@Mursal Jama Same to you, my friend. Peace from California.
The study is based on so few individuals, only 35 individuals for the melanesian group it's a very low number (even for the other groups, the ratio isn't so much representative), i know it's must be hard to find people with an aknowledged old lineage nowadays.
Anyway, it's showing a tendancie and it's still very interesting, but this part of the study deserves to be increased.
Enjoy this presentación. Thansk a lot.
Thank you sir
They are us! They were fully human in the modern sense.
If you read "The 10,000 year explosion" it shows that significant evolutionary change can happen in really short periods of time. England was used as a case in point. The upper class of England had more surviving children than the lower class and in a span of a few hundred years average cranial capacity (especially in the frontal cortex i.e. high brow) was increased to a statistically significant degree. I would imagine that these ancient humans would be essentially human but would vary from modern population in significant ways.
@@raymondkidwell7135 that is not really evolution yet, that is just breeding
@@LordVilmore Speciation does not need to occur for it to be considered evolution. Even without evolutionary pressure a population will slowly change due to genetic drift (just random fluctuations in genes inherited and random mutation). But to the original point: change is such a constant in human populations that it is highly likely that an ancient human from far in the past is going to have significant differences from us. However, the smaller the population the greater the occurance of genetic drift (because random moves to the left are cancelled by random moves to the right so to speak- larger populations are more stable). We had relatively small populations in the past as well as genetic bottlenecks. Most likely the genesis of modern human races are largely the result of genetic bottlenecks along with regional adaptations and genetic drift (have a population reduced to a very small number and then exploded again into a larger population will cause extreme genetic drift).
@@raymondkidwell7135 They ( the Neanderthals ) had a society that cared for the elderly and the lame, cared for and buried the dead, used stone and other technologies, they had art, swam in the sea to gather food and decorative shells, they were inter-breeding with other humans. I don't see them as anything but a race in our past that is mostly now left, only in our DNA.
@@raymondkidwell7135 it depends on selection more ...in long ran , even talking about genetic drift , changes usually are in low variance , so nothing significant would occur without substantial pressure from environment or certain , reason for importance of stability is isolation and dynamical environmental changes , which possibly was another reason reason why Neanderthals extinct ( if they did extinct ) , their populations were isolated , smaller groups would have harder time against significant and fast changes in environment , as groups were further apart from each other , so at the end variance would lower ( non shared ) , and population would decline compare to human populations ( occupying more mild and stable territories .
Like the flowers in a garden ,all humans are beautiful ! Each ethnic group adds beautiful colors to make a beautiful interesting and delightful “Garden “ !👍❤️😇🕊🎄🍀🌏🌍🌎👵🏻😺🐶🙏🖖👽👍
Some people who left Africa, discovered that there were worse things than being eaten by lions, so they returned to Africa.
Humanity needs genetic diversity
I was very interested in the "desert" of Neanderthal genomes in the area of DNA associated with speech and language, as I have my own theory about Neanderthal communication skills which is not based on physical evidence.
Fascinating!
Even doctors mispronounce Neanderthal. The word comes from German. Neander is river and valley in Germany. The way neander is pronounced is essentially correct. The problem comes with the thal. It should properly be taal not thal. The th is an attempt to translate the a into English as a long a with sort of an ah sound preceding it.
most interesting story ever.
Wow those 18 minutes disappeared, very good presentation!
Please do a study on Cro magnon man. Thank you
@The Truth about Africa hurts 😆😆😆😆😆😆 MY DNA PROGRAMMED TO PROTECT ME FROM THE SUN AND FEED ME VITAMINS TO HELP WITH THAT SURVIVAL. HAS YOUR SKIN BEEN AROUND THAT LONG TO BE PROGRAMMED IN A BETTER WAY? THAT'S MY FIRST ACADEMIC QUESTION TO YOU KNOW IT ALL.
Very informative. Thank you.
Check the pronunciation of Neandertal and Denisovan.
Beautiful
Thankyou. I noticed the 'return home' in my Archaic DNA results. 49,000 yrs in El Sidron Spain, only to return to El Portalon Spain 4,000 years ago. After that, Spain disappears from my lineage.
I've always wondered why there wasn't back migration. What geographical impediments made it difficult for ancient hominoids and humans to travel back and forth from sub Saharan Africa? If we assume that ancient hunters followed the migration of animals then why isn't there significantly more back and forth migration evidence in DNA? Was there a significant change in the environment that precluded a return to sub Saharan Africa? Could the geographical changes in the African environment be superimposed on the DNA evidence to give a clearer interpretation of when these migrations may have occurred?
I had watched a video on how the Sahara goes from grasslands with rivers and lakes to the desert we know today. Something about the procession of the axal tilt over the millennia. I don't know what other regions do this, but it seems like it would act like a red light/green light for human migration through the ages.
Great presentation. More please!
As an archeology and cultural anthro major, who graduated in 2008... this literally justifies all my wild (and yes, pretty much, baseless - "gut" driven beliefs). Beliefs! I need to speak with this team of incredible luminaries!
Can you please explain what this research falsifies?
So there's that part of gene 7 that lacks Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA. That's the place where a language/speech gene resides. Could that suggest that perhaps a half-human might not have language ability, if they got the genes from their non-human parent in that spot? I could see how a limitation like that would get bred out of existence over time.
Interesting!
Very interesting…
So how many potential non identified humanoid branches may exist in our genome that we haven’t t discovered yet?
Lecture begins around 1:45
Thank you so much for this presentation and more specifically, your discovery that some migrations out of Africa, resulted in descendants returning back to where there ancestors came from; at least in terms of continents. Fantastic work, please keep unlocking the secrets hidden in our genes😄
I wonder if there has ever been a study on how reality comes to be in the human mind. I think the tools for our discernment are subjective causing various religions, conspiracy theories, reasons for war etc. We'll never get to an objective reality until we figure out what these tools are.
Thanks
Seems obvious but finally a scholar explicitly talks about an "uncontrolled" mixture of races, most probably not in 2 waves of migration, but in an organic fashion throughout time, with many contact points.
It is easier for our limited minds to understand human evolution through simple concepts. And we are only starting to grasp the multitude of DNA heritage (best example being Denisovans). But surely we will soon find a whole new chapter in Southeast Asia that will push our imagination to understand what really happen.
Imho, geographic morphoses should have a bigger role in anthropology. Because, again, we tend to think of a bottle neck passage from Africa to Eurasia, through Israel, but we fail to understand that the east mediterran was only flooded around 6.00 Bce. And that makes a huge difference!
Carta is amazing!
Yes, I've heard that the Mediterranian was solid land.
The problem is that the Mediterranean refilled 5.33 MILLION years ago. Before there were humans to watch it. The Black Sea flood was way more recent.
@@allangibson8494 you are wrong. Like the humans out-of-Africa, the mediterran filled up several times, being one of them (like you mentioned), the overflow of the Black Sea, that give rise to the east mediterran we know today. Before that it was dry land, a bit like Doggerland
BCE?
Come on chosen one.
@@BillFromTheHill100 lol far from that, just a bad choice of word. It's just that I prefer BC than BP - it's easier for my simple mind. Nice catch, though 👌
That was a clear lecture. Thanks. Whilst I accept the general patterns of migration and evolution (today's version of the origin of species), I have a couple remarks, though, more on the meta level. (1) When we talk about "genome", what do we reference? Only the parts of DNA we call genes? If that is the case, then we have to be aware that 70% of that part, we share with fruit flies. If we do not include the epigenes in a discussion about different species (including sub-species and race), then we have to seriously doubt the validity of anything we say about "genetics" and "genome". (Yes, we can still use that "genome" in genetic archaeology.) Just a disclaimer for full transparency.
(2) We can leave out the discussion about how to define "species", there are many ways, but, let's just say that being able to breed successfully, producing an offspring of BOTH fertile males and fertile females, means that parenting XX and XY individuals are of the same species. In that sense, it is interesting to date the moment where our ancestors became (two times) 23
"genome" would refer to the entire set of DNA molecules -- everything including non-coding and mitochondrial DNA.
I would like to compare historical conditions that foster the migration of these groups. Either or both groups migrating to a place or an exodus from a place.
Also are we sure Neanderthals lived solely in caves? Perhaps a rudimentary structure requiring a simple roof sufficed.
@Will M think bout migration of Neanderthals. They didnt cave hop throughout Europe. They had to make rudimentary shelters if tools could b fastened so can sticks w thatching.
I hadn't considered the idea that Neanderthals may have gotten some human DNA in them as a result of interbreeding. It's an intriguing thought.
I don't think people in one life time walked very far geographically. Rather they
consorted with other peoples at their edge of their range and their Genes past and moved into another geographic area. The sucess or failure of of a trait between populations would indicate a net flow or migration even though nobody went anywhere!
It isn’t uncommon for modern hunters to walk 80 miles in a hunt . I’ve easily done 10 just walking doing my hobby of metal detecting in a day . People can and still do travel quite large distances on foot or by wind power .
Same as young people do today they adventure , travel and push themselves , people have done this since the start of time .
An interesting talk, thank you.
Speculation:
Nearly 50% of Neanderthal genome extant in modern humans?
-Just happenstance or does that reflect introgression from one sex only?
-Does that suggest all such 'mixings' were in one direction only for 'social' reasons?
-Or that only the hybrid offspring of one Neanderthal sex were viable or fertile?
-If so, which sex?
-If so, does that give any clue as to what might have been responsible for differential social drivers, viability or fertility?
Only 10% of the Denisovan genome extant in modern populations?
-Is that just an artefact of the small sample size?
-If not what is responsible for this difference as Denisovans and Neanderthal's aren't that dissimilar?
-Again is there some kind of social driver?
-Or is there something commonly found in the Denisovan genome that was particularly deleterious to most hybrids?
-If the latter do any differences between Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes jump out as possible candidates?
More:
Were not presently good at identifying the vast majority of what genome sequences and their interactions do. As the roughly 2% introgression levels of both species are averages I presume there will be some people with higher and maybe even some with very minimal levels within otherwise 'homogenous' populations.
-If so are there any phenotypic differences between such individuals that may either give a further clue as to what these genes do or conversely say someting about the phenotypes of Neanderthals and Denisovans that don't fossilise?
...just scratching the surface.
As to sex, it had to be male human to female neanderthal. Their heads were a lot larger than a human birth canal could pass. A second generation woman would be able to pass the full size Neanderthal head, i would think. That doesnt preclude the other way, i would think it would kill a regular human woman. So many modern women cant pass regular babies with out medical intervention.
Also, i think we all have a minimum of 2% admixture. I have heard or seen, on the net, people claiming to have zero neanderthal dna. I dont think so.
I am Cromagnon!
I was adopted. My DNA says I am non African: 98% European, some Ashkenazi and Papua New Guinea Aboriginal.
And zero Neanderthal.
I have Denizovan DNA instead.
I always knew I was Abby Normal
(Mel Brooks allusion 🤓)
This seemingly disproves that all non African humans have Neanderthal DNA.
Thx for the learning, shows that we've been intermingling for 10' thousends of years. Out of africa - then back - then out again - how more random human dna can we get?. Great work
Africa-Black Africans ain't got no goddamn Neanderthal genetic DNA! We fully HUMAN - 100% HUMAN -Homo-sapiens sapiens untold millions and 100's of millions year old! We are MAN and WOMAN!
@@queenofthenile2012 There are I'm afraid :) They dont think Neanderthal came to Africa, but early modern humans who migrated into the Levant and southeast europe mixed with neanderthal and these people came back. :)
@@queenofthenile2012 keep believing that. We getting closer to uncovering are human history.
I think Neanderthals came from humans, that’s why our DNA is in them and they are in us ... from my point of view
I want details, so get the mood.
Bit of a misuse of terminology going on there: Neanderthals are humans, just a different branch of the human tree from Homo Sapiens. If they hadn't been, Homo Sapiens and Homo Neandertalensis could not have interbred (same goes of course for Homo Denisova).
Vitamin D, which is critical to healthy bones among other things, is created by a chemical process that relies upon sunlight on the skin. The darker your skin is, the less efficient the process. In Africa that wasn't much of an issue but as people moved into areas where sunlight is less intense there was doubtless a significant genetic pressure to favor people with lighter skins. In areas of weak sunlight, lighter-skinned people would be healthier and stronger than their darker-skinned relatives. Considering the human tendency to subjugate anyone they can, that could very well have resulted in a pretty rapid reduction in skin pigmentation.
neanderthal and denisovan admixture is an upgrade
😂.
Is the highest percentage of both species being really close to Australia the reason people started looking into the out of Australia theory. ?
Excellent are there other suspected samples being investigated in archives? or digs in Siberia for hominids?
Starts at 1:40
My last name is Di Nisio I always wondered if I had some in me
I wonder how can be determined that a chromosome piece is from Neanderthals or Denisovans, or from Homo Sapiens variations?
This is very interesting , and brings many "interpretations" of the hominid fossil record into question. I think it maybe time to rethink the common Darwinian materialist explanation.
Everyone to Everyone - interesting.
I am 2.7% Neanderthal & 3.8% Denisovan, 6.7% Non Homzapiens! I am born & bread in Sweden & so where my grandparents & great grandparents.
You get Denisovian from The Sami people who were the original people's of Nordic
The mixing of the different groups of ancient humans goes back to fact these populations were never really isolated from each other. With the lack of true isolation and these people's ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they really shouldn't be called separate species. All should be classified as the same Homo sapiens species and subspecies of neanderthal, denisovan, and modern sapiens.
A bit short, but informative! I find it interesting that many of my thoughts get confirmed as the research progresses. I have questioned the assumption that africans should be a neanderthal free baseline for instance. And the assumption that there wasn't homo sapien admixture into neanderthals as well.
Looking forward to see further development in the research.
@@Mdebacle Nonsense!
You overstate the neanderthal admixture in Africans.
Keeping in mind that Eurasians have been immigrating to Africa for thousands of years incosistently in isolated movements.
Isolated incidents of detecting Eurasian ancestry is bound to leave neanderthal genes, but isn't ubiquitous for Africans as it is for Eurasians
To be clear, the scientists themselves never assumed that Africa was neanderthal-free. ONE particular method made that assumption, because without that assumption, you couldn't use the method at all.
Your instinct appears to be correct. Many scientists have had the same feeling but until recently had no way of checking it.
What is everyone's thoughts on the theories of Stan Gooch? He predicted a lot of this about Neanderthals ~40 years ago before modern genetic and archeological evidence had proved him correct about so many of his theories.
A savant who made many right conclusions without enough evidence.
Very much in accordance with one of Karl Popper's tenets of how we create new knowledge: Guess wildly and criticise mercilessly. Or as he put it. All new knowledge is necessarily metaphysical to begin with.
You're right, Mr. Gooch deserves special mention for his gound breaking "Hybrid-origin" theory. Reminds me of discoveries made by Einstein that took science time to prove correct, over and over just to make sure, which is the essence of science.
If we've found Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in our genome could there be other species of humans in our DNA?
Could we find them, not by looking for DNA in fossils but by looking in our DNA for evidence?
About 25% of our DNA is still waiting for the owner to come up...
@@TheAussieRod Whoa, 25%, The scientists still don't have all the answers. I think 25% is enough to say that all humans are not alike.
Yes, they have already identified in our DNA another hominid, called a "ghost", whose bones have not been found yet.
@@CrazyLeiFeng, not exactly. We are still in the dark about some parts of our DNA. Like you mentioned, we call it the ghost. But bear in mind that it might very well be more than one...
@@TheAussieRod can anybody say ALIENS???
Neat