i came from a mixed family. i remember being little and my parents explaining to me that not all families are mixed and what racism was. i will never forget that talk. i literally said to my dad that racism sounds dumb like it did not make sense to my child brain that people would think that way. a child couldnt make sense of why someone would feel or think that way and felt that is was a stupid thing to think... that pretty much sums it up. even as a child i thought and felt that racism made no dang sense. i have alot of different european countries in my background but also african and native american in me too. im like 8 different things and i think thats awesome. it doesnt make sense to me that people who were born in the same state and country as me would label themselves as black or white or whatever. yall from baltimore or yall from maryland yall is my family foreal. if you a human being you my family. i love you all. stop labelling yourselves. you are not black or white or brown or yellow. you are a human being and it dont got to be no more than that. every time you say you are black or white or whatever you perpetuate the divide. stop making the distinction
That's a pretty great way of looking at things. Unfortunately, I feel that there are just so many people who have some interest in sowing division between us (whether it be for monetary or some other gain)... and so we end up in this world that we're all in... obsessing about imaginary differences and losing track of the bigger picture.
I especially appreciate when you say we are all africans (and i'm an old white person with green eyes and light hair). This is so true and must be repeated many times considering the black times we're living in. Thanks a lot, go on doing such interesting and honest videos! Happy new year!
"Black times" is a phrase I will steal... because I feel it amply describes this timeline we're in. I swear it is so exhausting and scary existing right now, seeing people turn fact into fiction and fiction into fact. A statement like, "we all originate from Africa" wouldn't have been a controversial thing to say (AT ALL) a decade ago, but I guess now it is(?). I guess we just have to put up the best fight we can against this absurd campaign of misinformation. Thank you for the lovely words btw... I really appreciate it more than you can imagine. Happy New Year to you too!
that tiny difference has MASSIVE effects in the real world. Look at the difference between a pygmy and an Icelandic strongman, or Usain Bolt and a female Han Chinese. Just google IQ map of the world.
Yes and no. Yes, small genetic variations in a handful of genes can result in distinct traits like skin tone, height, or athletic performance. However, these traits are also significantly influenced by environmental, cultural, and nutritional factors. No, because complex characteristics like intelligence or strength aren’t dictated by any single gene; they’re shaped by a mix of genetic and external factors. Despite outward differences like race or physical appearance, humans are more than 99% genetically identical. Populations may differ in certain traits on average, but fundamentally, our DNA-and what makes us human-is remarkably uniform. Pygmies and Icelandic strongmen, for instance, are far more genetically alike than what the common person's "common sense" would tell them about these two groups.
@@yeahaboutthatthough3656 this is disingenuous. That 1% difference has massive effects in the real world and differences between groups on a population wide level create extreme differences at a societal level. Just get chat GPT to list the top 200 inventions and intellectual achievements of the last 300 years by nationality. This is no accident and is a result of the specific genetic traits of that group. If you're about to say it's culture, culture is downstream from race, not upstream. Different environmental selection pressures create different genetic patterns in different regions which aren't limited to physical traits but group temperament as well. feedback loops between the culture and the organism create unique traits that aren't found in every population.
@@villhelm Temperament? Please. What's disingenuous is the white supremacist brain rot that conjures up the delusion that skin color somehow dictates temperament. As if ripping a continent apart for its natural resources-and removing 20 million people before the transatlantic slave trade was banned-has all the seriousness of a dog competition. Let me remind you: all humans are Homo sapiens, no matter the phenotype or skin color. The sheer audacity of pretending the disproportionate number of white inventors isn't because of centuries of colonization and exploitation but some fairy tale about "superior genetics"? That's rich. Also, how many inventors would Europe have produced if the roles were reversed...if Asians had stormed in, pillaged, purchased 20 million Europeans, banned reading and writing, and decreed their descendants were born automatic slaves and deprived of property and rights for 12 generations while exploiting them for 400 years of free labor? Exactly. Spare me.
Great question. I actually wanted to mention that when I was writing the script for the video, but I think I got distracted by the next thing I wanted to talk about and never got around to it (sorry about that btw). To answer your question… we do find that a lot of apex predators, like tigers, have less than expected mitochondrial genetic diversity coalescing back to the Mount Toba Eruption. Not so much other animals, however, though the evidence may be there and we might not be aware of it, as many animals genetic diversities are understudied. So, in short, you wouldn’t expect all animals to be affected-mostly those at the top of their food chains, which makes sense giving how the animals at the top tend to be the ones with the smallest populations anyway and are often the most energy inefficient… making them the most vulnerable to a population crisis and bottleneck caused by an eruption like Toba. Please let me know if you have anymore questions :)
@ Thank you for answering that. Could it be possible-if we shift our perceptive from men to women-that female sexual selection could have influenced these genetic bottlenecks?
No worries. That’s a pretty hard question to answer tbh because there are some things that we will need to figure out first before we’re able to answer this question. For example, while we may be living in a heavily patriarchal and largely monogamous society today… I don’t think it’s wise to assume that ancient humans lived the same way. There is some evidence to suggest that our ancient ancestors were not always monogamous and were also more egalitarian than we are today… both of which would really affect how sexual selection worked 70,000 or 900,000 years ago… impacting genetic diversity in ways that we might not expect if we carry on with our assumptions from modern times. In a polygamous ancient human society, females would have exercised more choice over who to mate with. This should help maintain female genetic diversity, but female genetic diversity was never really vulnerable in the first place-except in the event of some global crisis. I see it going both ways to be honest. It’s entirely possible that polygamy and egalitarianism would have led to more males receiving more opportunities, allowing their genetic diversity to be maintained across generations. It’s also possible that greater female sexual autonomy would translate to ancient female humans gravitating towards a minority of males… preferring them to the rest. Hence, reducing overall male genetic diversity. There is some evidence that male chimpanzee genetic diversity is greater than in humans and chimpanzees are well known to be polygamous… so that would support the former-rather than the latter conclusion. Horses, on the other hand… would support the latter conclusion as mares engage in very concentrated breeding behaviours in the wild… though I’m not entirely sure if that’s even relevant to humans and our evolution. It’s also important to remember that existing social dynamics will most likely collapse in the event of a population crisis. Ancient female humans may have changed their behaviour, becoming more or less sexually selective, in the aftermath of the Toba Eruption, for example… On the one hand, a population crisis may have made mates more rare, reducing sexual selection. On the other hand, you need to remember that each pregnancy would have carried serious risk on the mother’s life… so in the event of a population crisis caused by some global catastrophe… an ancient female human may turn to being more sexually selective… choosing only the best “quality” males available to her and reducing male genetic diversity. This is a pure selfish gene interpretation though. Unfortunately, there are just too many unknowns to for me to give an answer I can be confident of. Sorry about that.
No problem! I wanted to hear your perspective. I have a working thesis and am in the process of writing a book on this subject. Here’s a summary of my 160,000-word manuscript: I believe that humans are inherently tournament species, but culturally, we tend to act like pair-bonding species. In other words, while human sexual selection leans toward polyamory, we often adapt ourselves to be less polyamorous.
Sounds great... yea... there is plenty of evidence to support humans being polyamorous in ancient times... it might be interesting to explore what motivated this transition and the kind of obstacles stood against that transition. I read a paper a while back that suggested the transition happened because females wanted the adult males in the group to form stronger social bonds with any children she has, offering protection against aggressive adult males in the group... and effectively preventing a situation like the one seen in polar bears from happening. Good luck on your book and let me know if you need anything :)
This is silly. Genetically we are also 60 % identical to cabbage and 99 % identical to apes. That 0,1 % difference between people makes a big difference.
You are right about the cabbage, but you are not right about the chimpanzee. The argument about the chimpanzee was made when genome mapping had not yet been completed. Today we know that the value is around 97%, which is a big difference.
Hello Sir, I find this subject extremely interesting. One question that arises for me is that I do not understand what sort of evolutionary process could cause the fusion of two separate chromosomes into one. It seems to be a very complex process not easily explained. Could you give me some insight into how this could possibly happen. Also do we know if the Herpes virus originally developed in Chimps alone or does it have some other origin. We must keep in mind that some culturally unrestrained human males will copulate with anything that walks. Regards.
Hi there. Chromosome fusion events are actually not that unusual. It is estimated that 1 in every 1,000 babies born today will have some kind of fusion event. The issue is that these chromosome fusion events are unfavourable, as they can reduce fertility and will make it difficult for the zygote formed to divide, as it will have an unequal number of chromosomes from each parent. That's kind of what I'm suggesting in the video. That this chromosome fusion event really hindered our ancestor's ability to reproduce, resulting in a population collapse that lasted until numbers of our ancestors (the ones with the 46 chromosomes) recovered enough to allow for successful population recovery. It is believed that HSV-2 evolved from ChHV. So, the chimpanzees had ChHV for millions of years and it was likely acquired by ancient humans around 1.6 million years ago (estimated range of 1.4 to 2.1 mya).
@NeuroEverything Thankyou for responding so quickly. I understand now, relatively common but takes 117.000 years to be successful 🤔. Fits the picture nicely. This is the kind of event that could drive the evolution of human intelligence if one considers Kevin Layland's concept of innovators and copiers. I see that the Herpes situation is not unusual, just disturbing circumstances. Thankyou very much for your reply. I have subscribed and look forward to future insights.
No worries. Really glad you enjoyed the video and to have you on board! Hope you continue to enjoy the videos I put out and feel free to ask me any questions anytime :)
I like the way you immediately cleaned the fact table from the racists and white supremacists out there. YES, we ALL originated from Africa!! The archaeological and DNA evidence, like you mentioned, is UNDENIABLE!! Thank you for this.
You’re most welcome! I’m glad to be of service. Hope you enjoyed the video and thank you for the really sweet words. Ngl it’s comments like yours that keep me motivated to make these videos, so thank you for making me smile too :)
Yet we have different admixtures of denisovan, Neanderthal and other hominids. West Africans for example have up to 19% 'ghost' DNA from an unknown archaic hominid. The idea that we're all the same is literally nothing more than liberal propaganda of the most idiotic kind. You don't need to be white supremacist to say this. Would a white supremacist say that Asians or Jews have higher IQ than whites or that Black west Africans are better sprinters or East Africans are the best long distance runners or that there are skeletal, skull, developmental and hormone differences between African, Asian and European populations Pretty dumb assertion to make that simply to recognise obvious genetic differences in populations is somehow 'white supremacy'. Go to any university in China and they will teach this stuff as just normal - its only in the politically correct west that people try and dismiss reality for political reasons.
Why has the continent of Africa stayed very much 3rd world? Yet those that left Africa have made the developed world modern and developed with all of the amazing technologies that have been developed over the centuries? It makes more sence to say everything came out of great Britain!
Thanks! Very interesting. I appreciate your theory and willingness to share it.
Thank you and I’m glad you liked the theory - even if it’s a tad bit out there!
i came from a mixed family. i remember being little and my parents explaining to me that not all families are mixed and what racism was. i will never forget that talk. i literally said to my dad that racism sounds dumb like it did not make sense to my child brain that people would think that way. a child couldnt make sense of why someone would feel or think that way and felt that is was a stupid thing to think... that pretty much sums it up. even as a child i thought and felt that racism made no dang sense. i have alot of different european countries in my background but also african and native american in me too. im like 8 different things and i think thats awesome. it doesnt make sense to me that people who were born in the same state and country as me would label themselves as black or white or whatever. yall from baltimore or yall from maryland yall is my family foreal. if you a human being you my family. i love you all. stop labelling yourselves. you are not black or white or brown or yellow. you are a human being and it dont got to be no more than that. every time you say you are black or white or whatever you perpetuate the divide. stop making the distinction
That's a pretty great way of looking at things. Unfortunately, I feel that there are just so many people who have some interest in sowing division between us (whether it be for monetary or some other gain)... and so we end up in this world that we're all in... obsessing about imaginary differences and losing track of the bigger picture.
You say you are 8 different things and that's awesome, then you say we are all the same! How can you be 8 different things and all the same?
I especially appreciate when you say we are all africans (and i'm an old white person with green eyes and light hair). This is so true and must be repeated many times considering the black times we're living in. Thanks a lot, go on doing such interesting and honest videos! Happy new year!
"Black times" is a phrase I will steal... because I feel it amply describes this timeline we're in. I swear it is so exhausting and scary existing right now, seeing people turn fact into fiction and fiction into fact. A statement like, "we all originate from Africa" wouldn't have been a controversial thing to say (AT ALL) a decade ago, but I guess now it is(?). I guess we just have to put up the best fight we can against this absurd campaign of misinformation.
Thank you for the lovely words btw... I really appreciate it more than you can imagine.
Happy New Year to you too!
that tiny difference has MASSIVE effects in the real world. Look at the difference between a pygmy and an Icelandic strongman, or Usain Bolt and a female Han Chinese. Just google IQ map of the world.
The tiny 0.1% is still a difference in absolute numbers allowing for the genenic variation between say two random individuals
Yes and no. Yes, small genetic variations in a handful of genes can result in distinct traits like skin tone, height, or athletic performance. However, these traits are also significantly influenced by environmental, cultural, and nutritional factors. No, because complex characteristics like intelligence or strength aren’t dictated by any single gene; they’re shaped by a mix of genetic and external factors. Despite outward differences like race or physical appearance, humans are more than 99% genetically identical. Populations may differ in certain traits on average, but fundamentally, our DNA-and what makes us human-is remarkably uniform. Pygmies and Icelandic strongmen, for instance, are far more genetically alike than what the common person's "common sense" would tell them about these two groups.
@@yeahaboutthatthough3656 this is disingenuous. That 1% difference has massive effects in the real world and differences between groups on a population wide level create extreme differences at a societal level. Just get chat GPT to list the top 200 inventions and intellectual achievements of the last 300 years by nationality. This is no accident and is a result of the specific genetic traits of that group. If you're about to say it's culture, culture is downstream from race, not upstream. Different environmental selection pressures create different genetic patterns in different regions which aren't limited to physical traits but group temperament as well. feedback loops between the culture and the organism create unique traits that aren't found in every population.
@@villhelm Temperament? Please. What's disingenuous is the white supremacist brain rot that conjures up the delusion that skin color somehow dictates temperament. As if ripping a continent apart for its natural resources-and removing 20 million people before the transatlantic slave trade was banned-has all the seriousness of a dog competition. Let me remind you: all humans are Homo sapiens, no matter the phenotype or skin color. The sheer audacity of pretending the disproportionate number of white inventors isn't because of centuries of colonization and exploitation but some fairy tale about "superior genetics"? That's rich. Also, how many inventors would Europe have produced if the roles were reversed...if Asians had stormed in, pillaged, purchased 20 million Europeans, banned reading and writing, and decreed their descendants were born automatic slaves and deprived of property and rights for 12 generations while exploiting them for 400 years of free labor? Exactly. Spare me.
I just started the video and its awesome already! I love how you immediately called out their bullshit, this is going to be a good one💚
Thank you! I like to say that calling out bullshit is my favourite past hobby. Hope you liked the rest of the video and found it informative :)
Xenofobia explica tudo.
Probably true.
Wouldn't the Toba thing affect all animals dna in the same area? Why just humans?
Great question. I actually wanted to mention that when I was writing the script for the video, but I think I got distracted by the next thing I wanted to talk about and never got around to it (sorry about that btw).
To answer your question… we do find that a lot of apex predators, like tigers, have less than expected mitochondrial genetic diversity coalescing back to the Mount Toba Eruption. Not so much other animals, however, though the evidence may be there and we might not be aware of it, as many animals genetic diversities are understudied.
So, in short, you wouldn’t expect all animals to be affected-mostly those at the top of their food chains, which makes sense giving how the animals at the top tend to be the ones with the smallest populations anyway and are often the most energy inefficient… making them the most vulnerable to a population crisis and bottleneck caused by an eruption like Toba. Please let me know if you have anymore questions :)
@ Thank you for answering that. Could it be possible-if we shift our perceptive from men to women-that female sexual selection could have influenced these genetic bottlenecks?
No worries. That’s a pretty hard question to answer tbh because there are some things that we will need to figure out first before we’re able to answer this question.
For example, while we may be living in a heavily patriarchal and largely monogamous society today… I don’t think it’s wise to assume that ancient humans lived the same way.
There is some evidence to suggest that our ancient ancestors were not always monogamous and were also more egalitarian than we are today… both of which would really affect how sexual selection worked 70,000 or 900,000 years ago… impacting genetic diversity in ways that we might not expect if we carry on with our assumptions from modern times. In a polygamous ancient human society, females would have exercised more choice over who to mate with. This should help maintain female genetic diversity, but female genetic diversity was never really vulnerable in the first place-except in the event of some global crisis. I see it going both ways to be honest. It’s entirely possible that polygamy and egalitarianism would have led to more males receiving more opportunities, allowing their genetic diversity to be maintained across generations. It’s also possible that greater female sexual autonomy would translate to ancient female humans gravitating towards a minority of males… preferring them to the rest. Hence, reducing overall male genetic diversity.
There is some evidence that male chimpanzee genetic diversity is greater than in humans and chimpanzees are well known to be polygamous… so that would support the former-rather than the latter conclusion. Horses, on the other hand… would support the latter conclusion as mares engage in very concentrated breeding behaviours in the wild… though I’m not entirely sure if that’s even relevant to humans and our evolution.
It’s also important to remember that existing social dynamics will most likely collapse in the event of a population crisis. Ancient female humans may have changed their behaviour, becoming more or less sexually selective, in the aftermath of the Toba Eruption, for example…
On the one hand, a population crisis may have made mates more rare, reducing sexual selection. On the other hand, you need to remember that each pregnancy would have carried serious risk on the mother’s life… so in the event of a population crisis caused by some global catastrophe… an ancient female human may turn to being more sexually selective… choosing only the best “quality” males available to her and reducing male genetic diversity. This is a pure selfish gene interpretation though.
Unfortunately, there are just too many unknowns to for me to give an answer I can be confident of. Sorry about that.
No problem! I wanted to hear your perspective. I have a working thesis and am in the process of writing a book on this subject. Here’s a summary of my 160,000-word manuscript: I believe that humans are inherently tournament species, but culturally, we tend to act like pair-bonding species. In other words, while human sexual selection leans toward polyamory, we often adapt ourselves to be less polyamorous.
Sounds great... yea... there is plenty of evidence to support humans being polyamorous in ancient times... it might be interesting to explore what motivated this transition and the kind of obstacles stood against that transition. I read a paper a while back that suggested the transition happened because females wanted the adult males in the group to form stronger social bonds with any children she has, offering protection against aggressive adult males in the group... and effectively preventing a situation like the one seen in polar bears from happening.
Good luck on your book and let me know if you need anything :)
One blood-one race
This is silly. Genetically we are also 60 % identical to cabbage and 99 % identical to apes. That 0,1 % difference between people makes a big difference.
You are right about the cabbage, but you are not right about the chimpanzee. The argument about the chimpanzee was made when genome mapping had not yet been completed. Today we know that the value is around 97%, which is a big difference.
Now what you are saying is silly 🤔
GOD created man in His image & we are all one big family 🤷🏼
For the algorithm
Thanks! Really appreciate your support and hope you enjoyed the video :)
Al Gore Rhythm!
@K-Man-k5n are you claiming I'm aiming ?
Cause my circuits would disagree
Hello Sir, I find this subject extremely interesting.
One question that arises for me is that I do not understand what sort of evolutionary process could cause the fusion of two separate chromosomes into one. It seems to be a very complex process not easily explained.
Could you give me some insight into how this could possibly happen.
Also do we know if the Herpes virus originally developed in Chimps alone or does it have some other origin.
We must keep in mind that some culturally unrestrained human males will copulate with anything that walks.
Regards.
Hi there. Chromosome fusion events are actually not that unusual. It is estimated that 1 in every 1,000 babies born today will have some kind of fusion event. The issue is that these chromosome fusion events are unfavourable, as they can reduce fertility and will make it difficult for the zygote formed to divide, as it will have an unequal number of chromosomes from each parent. That's kind of what I'm suggesting in the video. That this chromosome fusion event really hindered our ancestor's ability to reproduce, resulting in a population collapse that lasted until numbers of our ancestors (the ones with the 46 chromosomes) recovered enough to allow for successful population recovery.
It is believed that HSV-2 evolved from ChHV. So, the chimpanzees had ChHV for millions of years and it was likely acquired by ancient humans around 1.6 million years ago (estimated range of 1.4 to 2.1 mya).
@NeuroEverything Thankyou for responding so quickly.
I understand now, relatively common but takes 117.000 years to be successful 🤔.
Fits the picture nicely.
This is the kind of event that could drive the evolution of human intelligence if one considers Kevin Layland's concept of innovators and copiers.
I see that the Herpes situation is not unusual, just disturbing circumstances.
Thankyou very much for your reply.
I have subscribed and look forward to future insights.
No worries. Really glad you enjoyed the video and to have you on board! Hope you continue to enjoy the videos I put out and feel free to ask me any questions anytime :)
I like the way you immediately cleaned the fact table from the racists and white supremacists out there. YES, we ALL originated from Africa!! The archaeological and DNA evidence, like you mentioned, is UNDENIABLE!! Thank you for this.
You’re most welcome! I’m glad to be of service. Hope you enjoyed the video and thank you for the really sweet words. Ngl it’s comments like yours that keep me motivated to make these videos, so thank you for making me smile too :)
Yet we have different admixtures of denisovan, Neanderthal and other hominids. West Africans for example have up to 19% 'ghost' DNA from an unknown archaic hominid. The idea that we're all the same is literally nothing more than liberal propaganda of the most idiotic kind. You don't need to be white supremacist to say this. Would a white supremacist say that Asians or Jews have higher IQ than whites or that Black west Africans are better sprinters or East Africans are the best long distance runners or that there are skeletal, skull, developmental and hormone differences between African, Asian and European populations Pretty dumb assertion to make that simply to recognise obvious genetic differences in populations is somehow 'white supremacy'. Go to any university in China and they will teach this stuff as just normal - its only in the politically correct west that people try and dismiss reality for political reasons.
Why has the continent of Africa stayed very much 3rd world? Yet those that left Africa have made the developed world modern and developed with all of the amazing technologies that have been developed over the centuries?
It makes more sence to say everything came out of great Britain!
great stuff
Thank you! Really glad you found the science in the videos as interesting as I find it! Thank you for watching :)
Great video!
Thank you! Really appreciate it and glad you enjoyed the video!
Aren't we like 60% genetically related to bananas
How about genes from women? Did i miss something ?
Mount Ves-A-vius?
not bad, not bad
Thank you!
Untrue