Could someone tell me what does light skin and dark skin mean in this context? Especially when it is referred as darker skin. Darker than what? Are we talking about red hair white skin, burns to crisp on the sun, Estonian light. Or are we talking about brown hair light skin, tans when needed Iranian light? Are we talking about Nilotic jet black dark or San milk chocolate dark or Iranian middle eastern dark? Are we talking about darker than night sky darker or darker than milk darker? Are native Americans dark skinned in this context? Or are we talking about "Meh, Europeans probably had somewhat darker skin and hair than today."
For being a half hour recorded phone call with an academic, this was hella interesting. I really appreciate the work you put into this channel. Thanks!
I really like your documentary-style prehistory videos. This is what the History Channel and Discovery Channel used to be. These are very well edited videos.
@@bc4198 Haha obviously aliens, of course and don't forget looking for gold and when they reach bedrock there *COULD* be a fortune in gold sitting on top of it...but alas there never is.
Those old school productions were overblown and overproduced. Stefan's to the point style and personality blow them out of the water. This is why I love RUclips. Hopefully the algorithm doesn't ruin it!
So, the earliest modern humans in Europe contributed comparatively little to modern European DNA, but I would have loved to hear some stats on later paleolithic cultures contributions to modern European DNA, and if any of these groups contributed significantly to any non European populations. The paleolithic is such a criminally overlooked period of human history, despite being 95%+ of it.
Man I love it when you have experts on to talk about their specific area of study - fascinating to hear the information straight from the folks who are doing the research on it. I hope you continue to make videos like this
What a great interview. This is my favorite area of study. Dr. Posth was fantastic and you were asking some great questions. This is why the internet should exist.
Yes I could go on for hours listening to this conversation of yours. Because it contains such interesting information, I keep coming back to it over and over again. Thanks. .
Actually several dozen locations, mostly in Europe. This one is the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. See WIKI page for list of about 60 others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Max_Planck_Institutes
What a good interview with each person listening to the other. And such a great supplement to your aurignacian video. Thank you. Look forward to the five hours with Dr. Posth.
16:51: "Around 14 000 years ago, there's a very important event called bowling alert" says the subtitles. That's hilarious. The Bølling-Allerød warming is named after a site (actually two) in Denmark in northern Sjælland. The warm period ended with the younger Dryas. Speaking of Denmark: Lola from Lolland (Syltholm) is a 5700 old genome extracted from a piece of chewing gum (chewing pitch , really). The individual who chewed the pitch was a woman with dark skin and hair and blue eyes. (Western european hunter gatherer) Her latest meal before she chewed gum was included hazelnuts and and mallard. She was also likely lactose intolerant. I never get tired of telling people about the island in Denmark that is actually called Lol-land. It's not a joke, that is the name.
24:30 it should read "and then admixing" not "and then not mixing", quite the opposite! (Sorry I know this comment and video are old, but I found that mistake to be quite the mistranscription and I'm grifting onto this sort of related thread)
@@fudgedogbannana Not so, the remains of the mastodon found in Siberia indicate that 12,000 years ago, it was a very pleasant place, with moderate temperatures and lots of grazing opportunities for herds of hundreds of thousands of individuals.
I imagine in to be similar to the tundra in canada is today, just colder when the bearing sea bridge was opened the ice receded eastward and people followed the caribou into what we call north America. The Gwich'en in the arctic have stories that go back generations 10's of thousands of years. Inuit and other Natives have stories of multiple mass migrations to North America. More genome tracing needs to be done but I do remember hearing that theres a variation showing they could survive in extremely cold conditions similar to the way Sherpa in the Himalayan mountains can survive at extremely high altitudes
This is really fascinating. Thank you Stefan for the Video and thank you Dr Posth for the interview. I did not know about the replacement of the hunter gatherer population by another hunter gatherer population later in the Mesolithic.
This is very interesting as ever, thanks When the Dr said that they had found the ancestral form of the genes that encode for lighter skin in the ice age genomes, I thought “I wonder though if maybe they had mutations in different genes that gave them pale skin and we have pale skin as well through convergent evolution?”, and then he said the same thing, which made me feel like chuffed
What neither of them said was why they were looking wistfully for evidence of earlier whiteness when there isn't any. The point is that the grain based low vitamin D diet is a pretty good reason for that mutation to survive and expand over territory. Poor but reliable diet and cloudy skies.
@@bmoneybby The essential thing to know about genes and evolution is that survival is what matters. Random mutations are thrown up. Some favour survival and production of progeny who survive, others not. Those that favour survival e.g. ability to digest grain and milk, in a farming culture, will survive through crises much better than those who can't and will pass these mutations on to their children. And those who have light skin will absorb more vitamin D will not get rickets so will not die in childbirth and will experience more live births. I checked maps. There is only very broad correlation between solar radiation and light or dark skin. There is very close correlation between the post 8,000 bc grain farming areas and light skin and close correlation with very light skin and lactose tolerance ( This appeared mainly 5,000 bc onwards). In northern climates clothes are worn and less sun received to make Vit D. Vit D enables healthy childbirth and helps resist infection. This would in my view entirely explain the prevailing patterns of skin colour. No skin colour is in any way superior to any other. They are merely the result of food + climate.
@@casteretpollux Having read your earlier comment, and maybe I'm wrong, but you almost suggest that they have an agenda for looking for earlier whiteness in populations. What you say later makes sense, but I think they are just interested in finding out the truth and if you don't investigate you'll never know. The scientific method isn't too say, here's a hypothesis, that makes sense, that just be true. It may have occurred earlier, we just don't know, we are learning all the time. At present the evidence suggests it was adaptation to the environment, but I think Stefan's questions were excellent and very interesting ones. I'm certain white skin developed as a beneficial gene mutation to living in a more northerly, cooler climates and all the effects that go with this, reduced sunlight, ice, diet possible in areas with this kind of climate. Knowing when it occurred and in which populations in and around the last ice age I find very interesting and is nothing to do with trying to prove something. The scientific method is that you put forward a hypothesis, you collect the data, analyse it, and then form a conclusion. It isn't that you form a hypothesis and then go and find evidence to back it up whilst discarding evidence that doesn't. That is what some pseudo scientists do, but I don't think that's what's going on here.
I watched the series from Stanford Intro to Human Behavioural Biology, and he said one of the keys to fast evolution rather than the slow genetic clock was having genes (so called junk DNA) that govern series of other genes, kind of trigger mechanisms, where small changes in the governors could produce great changes for the entire series of individual gene expressions, so the presence of one gene wouldn't necessarily be functional without the particular governor.
So pleased I found this chennel, this was a really interesting talk. I wish there was an animation to go along with it really: it gets so confusing trying to picture all the cultures, peoples and their migrations, I can't help think it would be a great learning aid, especially for how the hunter gatherers mixed with one another. Like I said, excellent content. 😜👍
Dear Stefan , I love your channel. Have you ever considered attempting to interview one of the many “scientists” ppl who believe in some kind of technological antediluvian civilisation? It would be very interesting imho
This ought to be interesting. I know one of the stories is that the original inhabitants of Europe were mostly poor wholly wiped out by either the Neolithic farmers or the later Indo-Europeans, but that always rang false to me. Huh. So the original human inhabitants *were* mostly pushed out, under ten percent puts them only slightly ahead of Neanderthals. The light skin thing didn't surprise me, although I hadn't thought of it until just a bit before he specifically mentioned the possibility of other, as yet unknown mutations that could code for paler skin. The association with farming caught me by surprise, but thinking on it, you can kinda see it even in more equatorial areas where you'd expect darker skin to still have selective pressure, so it makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I could've listened to him for five hours, probably not consecutively, but... Another excellent video, these interviews are quite useful to help get information directly from the writers of some of the papers you reference, as well as their unwritten insights and more up to date information that might be harder to access or find unless you know what you're looking for.
I'm pretty sure some Europeans have significantly more than 10% Mesolithic (WHG/Western Hunter-Gatherer) European dna. It depends on the region (sometimes as high as 20-30% or 20-25%, give or take); it's usually higher toward in/Northern Europe, and to some extent far western/southwestern Europe. I believe it's highest in the Baltic area.
There was more than one wave of (pre-Neolithic) hunter-gatherers into Europe; some contributed to modern Europeans more than others. The Aurignacians were mostly replaced (and left 10% or less). But the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers came (mostly) from a somewhat later wave which contributed more to modern Europeans' genetics (more like about 15-25% varying by region).
There are two populations on the european continent, which practically do not overlap in certain aspects of phenotype, except when they are obviously in mixed places (France, Austria, Northern Italy, ...). Go to Sweden, in some regions, blue-eyed, blonde, nordic people are the only people you'll see, no hook-noses, non-square faces, ... The romans already described this. How come that Blue eyes and other traits are near 100% of the population, if geneticists tell the truth? Assuming generations of 25 years, there have been about 160 generations in the 4000 years between the roman accounts and the supposed quasi-replacement of indigenous populations, do you really believe that evolutionary pressures are enough for a trait like blue eyes to create such a marked difference?
Hang on... Europeans have typically about 2% Neanderthal DNA from circa 40kya as compared with the DNA found in the Denisovan cave. Does this imply that we Europeans have been isolated from African populations, but partly mixed with Asian populations for all this time? It would be great to see maps and animations showing the expansion, movement, blending and demise of specific genetic groups.
Yes, in fact, if I can remember correctly, certain studies seem to indicate that Europeans and east Asians have been separated from sub Saharan African lineages for over 120,000 years
@@alexdunphy3716 No, that is not true. The proto amerindian population was a mix of about one third what became western European and two thirds what became East Asian. That mix occurred about 25-30,000 years ago in Central Siberia. Edit: you mean both separated from sub-saharan African populations... yes that sounds about right.
@@angrytedtalks yes, as in non-sub Saharans separated genetically around that time. I'm aware of the ancient north Eurasian ancestry of Europeans and Amerindians as well
The Neanderthal DNA is a higher risk of a more severe form of Covid-19. Africans whose ancestors have never left Africa have no Neanderthal DNA which is why Africa has been much less affected by the virus. ruclips.net/video/A2e0gEZjgY4/видео.html
@@patm6704 That isn't because it is Neanderthal, because over the past 50,000 years mutations without benefit have died out. The "autoimmune" reactions do sometimes come from the tiny surviving Neanderthal DNA. The primary two reasons for slower spread in Africa is lower population density (hence lower transmission rates) and hotter climate (acting as sterilisation). In the UK, the worst hit population are the people with African descent, but that is due to diet and partly vitamin D deficiency. Blood groups are more of an issue, A being the most vulnerable.
thanks for asking that last question, I didn't know that they had updated the Neanderthal the study, I'm glad to know that we aren't losing them, they live through us
It'd be nice if dr. Cosimo could reach you out to Vanessa Villalba-Mouco to talk about the genetics of the Iberian peninsula, were it seems there was an even mixture of villabruna and magdalenian associated Goyet ancestry.
Seems the main reason why ancient Europeans contributed so little would simply be because the small original population was simply diluted by the many waves of later migrants who bit by bit diluted the original DNA.
That last question you got in was huge in my opinion. I have often found myself wondering that very thing and not to toot my own horn I came to conclusion that the genetic input from our neanderthal cousins had to be stable. Being that it's still here after 35 millennia or more and is rather uniform across all of eurasia, any population or group coming into europe from eurasia would be injecting a similar percentage. Where it gets interesting is if we looked at the neanderthal gene input through populations who haven't moved around much throughout eurasia, what neanderthal genes would they carry that another stagnant population across eurasia do not? Say an east asian man compared to a scandinavian man? What are the neanderthal genes doing in each man and where are they located on the genome? What about merging people groups from different ancestral parts of eurasia? If a man and woman from those separate groups married and each had two percent neanderthal dna but in completely different parts of their respective genomes, would their child have a higher percentage of neanderthal dna or would the homo sapien genes be dominant? Now toss in the denisovan and we've got a party.
Latest studies show that East Asians, Melanesians, and Pacific Islanders carry Denisovan genes as well as Neandertal genes - and that there were at least two different branches of the Denisovan tree. One in Siberia contributed to the East Asian gene pool, while one in Southeast Asia contributed to those in Australia, Melanesia, and the Pacific Islands. My own humble opinion is that these genes from our cousins must be essential in some way to our survival, so they have been conserved in our modern genomes over vast periods of time in spite of all our migrations, intermixing, different environmental pressures, and so forth.
With respect to that last question about the percentage of Neanderthal DNA in our genome: could you say that if from 35.000 years ago the percentage did not change anymore, that one could calculate the extinction date of Neanderthals? At least the last time Neanderthals added their genes to our genome?
@F.W. And how much did the sapiens contribution to the Neaderthal genome increase over time from earliest contact to Neanderthal extinction? No one seems to address this question.
Cutting edge research done and taught here 100% . To me this is my candy so thank you so so much for bringing this to us. I always knew your jeans wear good he he .♥️🤸♂️
So Cosimo says there may be other areas of the genome affecting complexion so we cannot be certain what colour skin Aurignacians had. The skulls are not typical of sub saharan africans and they lived many thousands of years after the out of africa migration so I do not agree with Stefan's decision to depict them as sub saharan africans. selection pressure was for lighter skin - and the overall morphology was distinct from that we associate with modern sub saharan african features
The inhabitants of Europe today has some neanderthal DNA, so obviously the hybrids was never entirely de-throned. And my guess is the hybrids who had more pigmentational dna would survive the best. Neanderthals were not black.
I'm actually *of* Sub-Saharan African descent, and I can tell you that they do not look like me, even with their dark skin. Early Europeans most likely looked like Europeans today when it comes to phenotype, but with *much* darker skin, and dark hair and eyes.
Dr. Posth's using the term "dynamic", is an enormous understatement. Read his paper, then check out Max Planck Society's anthropogony section of published papers.
A second big question, for me, - strontium can be used to see exactly what small area an animals primary food source came from... Did I understand a recent paper right that suggested upper paleo human males mostly retained the same strontium levels life-long, suggesting they stayed where they were born, and females show a transition, suggesting they moved from where they were born...??? It would tell us a lot, and may inform us on how/if we transitioned from a matriarchal society to a Patriarchal society at either the bolling allerod, or the younger dryas.
@@starfox7758 well that’s simply wrong.… I mean, there’s not just one or two, but several of the genetic scientist, If you’re going to believe them, I have talked about it extensively… Where are you coming from, with this contrary statement?…Do you have a source that’s credible?
I am reading Carlos Quiles Collectories Venatoresque, Agricolae Pastoresque (you can get it in English) its a three volume set starting with 48000-12000 covering genetics , language and cultures through out Europe and Middle East with side trips to Asia when needed.
Glad to see you posting again! Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but when you all say things like we have 10% dna in common, is this referring only to a specific part of dna? I thought we have like 99% similarity in dna with chimps so I’m confused how it could be so different with our own Homo sapiens predecessors
All homo sapiens groups are far more closely related to each other than any one is to chimpanzees. They say chimps are something like 98% identical, whereas all homo sapiens are 99.8, 99.9% identical to each other, past and present. The 10% thing means something else
Of the total genetic variation of humanity, there is 10% commonality with them. So in absolute terms that's more like 99.91%. Keep an eye out for relative and absolute percentages by the way, it's not uncommon at all for those with vested interests to deliberately mix up the two in order to imply that various human populations are as or almost as distinct from each other as humans are from chimpanzees, for instance. There's also different ways of counting it, e.g. 98% of the genes in humans also appear in Chimps, so you could say we share 98% commonality with this, but this excludes, e.g. that Chimps have an extra chromosome, etc.
Humans on average share 99.5% of their dna with other humans(the 99.9% was revised by the same scientist Craig Venter). Not sure what the 10% number is supposed to mean
Double release! Check out my vid on life during the aurignacian here: ruclips.net/video/pv0RscAummQ/видео.html
Hey Stefan can we have access to the thumbnails and beautiful paintings.
can we get a Stefan Milo Only Fans with different early hominid poses
I was missing your videos Stefan, great as always!!
Could someone tell me what does light skin and dark skin mean in this context? Especially when it is referred as darker skin. Darker than what? Are we talking about red hair white skin, burns to crisp on the sun, Estonian light. Or are we talking about brown hair light skin, tans when needed Iranian light? Are we talking about Nilotic jet black dark or San milk chocolate dark or Iranian middle eastern dark? Are we talking about darker than night sky darker or darker than milk darker? Are native Americans dark skinned in this context?
Or are we talking about "Meh, Europeans probably had somewhat darker skin and hair than today."
Thanks for spelling Aurignacion. I thought you were saying Auroch Nation, as in the Aurochs, which would be a cool name for an ancient society.
I 100% could and WOULD listen to 5 hours of this fascinating conversation.
For being a half hour recorded phone call with an academic, this was hella interesting. I really appreciate the work you put into this channel. Thanks!
I missed you man, thank you again for posting
Thanks for watching!
Ditto.
Same here.
I've been wondering about the lack of recommendations about you. 😁
I really like your documentary-style prehistory videos. This is what the History Channel and Discovery Channel used to be. These are very well edited videos.
Yes 👍
That change can only mean one thing: aliens.
@@bc4198 Haha obviously aliens, of course and don't forget looking for gold and when they reach bedrock there *COULD* be a fortune in gold sitting on top of it...but alas there never is.
@@bc4198 definitely aliens… either lots of them, or one giant robotic one.
Those old school productions were overblown and overproduced. Stefan's to the point style and personality blow them out of the water. This is why I love RUclips. Hopefully the algorithm doesn't ruin it!
Thanks for your interview with Dr. Cosimo Posth. He was so clear and very enlightening.
This is sooooo valuable. Its advanced genetic anthropologic science journalism. Taking the complex and giving it to us lamens
So, the earliest modern humans in Europe contributed comparatively little to modern European DNA, but I would have loved to hear some stats on later paleolithic cultures contributions to modern European DNA, and if any of these groups contributed significantly to any non European populations.
The paleolithic is such a criminally overlooked period of human history, despite being 95%+ of it.
Man I love it when you have experts on to talk about their specific area of study - fascinating to hear the information straight from the folks who are doing the research on it. I hope you continue to make videos like this
Totally worth the time. I could listen to him for hours on this topic.
The fact that you published this video when this is a topic I've been researching in my free time..I'm loving this so much
Absolutely fascinating conversation! Thank you Dr Cosimo Posth for the detailed and expert knowledge.
It continues to amaze me what is found and how long we've actually been around. Great work, thank you.
Was hoping this would last a good hour or so. Love it cant wait for you to have him back.
What a great interview. This is my favorite area of study. Dr. Posth was fantastic and you were asking some great questions. This is why the internet should exist.
I can't wait for more ancient DNA to be found and compared. It's such an exciting time.
Check out Milo's current view on DNA. ruclips.net/user/shorts_sqJvszNdd4?si=GCBkzt1yoC5rI9K0
This was an excellent interview with a knowledgeable guest, very informative and an interesting subject as well. Thanks so much!
Whoa, double upload?? You're really coming through for me Thursday.
I really could listen to Dr. Posth's accent for like 10 hours.
Yes, to the good doctor. This viewer appreciates your participation, and the information you shared. Thank you.
No doubt! I could stay over 5 hours listening to this guy. Thanks for your extremely interesting Chanel.
Yes I could go on for hours listening to this conversation of yours. Because it contains such interesting information, I keep coming back to it over and over again.
Thanks.
.
Haven't watched the video yet, but I just wanted to say that I'm super excited and thank you so so so much for all your great content
I just love saying "Max Planck Institute." It sounds so hard core.
Time stamp?
for me it's the daystrom institute from Star Trek. 🤣🤣🤣
Actually several dozen locations, mostly in Europe. This one is the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. See WIKI page for list of about 60 others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Max_Planck_Institutes
What a good interview with each person listening to the other. And such a great supplement to your aurignacian video. Thank you. Look forward to the five hours with Dr. Posth.
16:51: "Around 14 000 years ago, there's a very important event called bowling alert" says the subtitles. That's hilarious.
The Bølling-Allerød warming is named after a site (actually two) in Denmark in northern Sjælland. The warm period ended with the younger Dryas.
Speaking of Denmark: Lola from Lolland (Syltholm) is a 5700 old genome extracted from a piece of chewing gum (chewing pitch , really). The individual who chewed the pitch was a woman with dark skin and hair and blue eyes. (Western european hunter gatherer) Her latest meal before she chewed gum was included hazelnuts and and mallard. She was also likely lactose intolerant.
I never get tired of telling people about the island in Denmark that is actually called Lol-land. It's not a joke, that is the name.
Also in the subtitles: 'origination' should be 'Aurignacian'
24:30 it should read "and then admixing" not "and then not mixing", quite the opposite!
(Sorry I know this comment and video are old, but I found that mistake to be quite the mistranscription and I'm grifting onto this sort of related thread)
Yes, I could definitely listen to him for 5 hours.
It's always a pleasure to listen to an expert in a field explain the latest scientific insights; thank you, Stefan. One life enriched!
I'm loving this sudden burst of new content Stefan!
Perhaps the best audio recorded video I have heard. Sometimes a bit difficult to understand but so much information covered here. Thanks.
Wow... Great talk on a fascinating subject. Well done both of you!
MORE COSIMO!!!! Love it. and Stefan, you're a good interviewer, man. Keep it up
Wow! Thank You both for such a great discussion.
Thanks for the interview. One Suggestion: Please consider using a few basic visual aids (maps, charts, graphs)) to assist the listener.
this👆🏻👆🏻
A colour coded timeline was what I was longing for.
@Pojka Go right ahead if you've got time.
I've not long found your channel mate and it's thoroughly enjoyable and extremely interesting. Top work mate!!
Yeeeeaah, finaly New video!!
We ducking loved it. Thanks so much for your time Dr. Post.
Now this just makes me wonder more?like what was Siberia and East Asia like🤔
Siberia was largely home to a population called ancient north Eurasians, which are ancestors to both Europeans and native Americans
@@alexdunphy3716 and ancient north Siberian’s, as well as paleo Siberian’s
Siberia, icy. East Asia, very cold. We tend to forget that the ice age.
@@fudgedogbannana Not so, the remains of the mastodon found in Siberia indicate that 12,000 years ago, it was a very pleasant place, with moderate temperatures and lots of grazing opportunities for herds of hundreds of thousands of individuals.
I imagine in to be similar to the tundra in canada is today, just colder when the bearing sea bridge was opened the ice receded eastward and people followed the caribou into what we call north America. The Gwich'en in the arctic have stories that go back generations 10's of thousands of years. Inuit and other Natives have stories of multiple mass migrations to North America. More genome tracing needs to be done but I do remember hearing that theres a variation showing they could survive in extremely cold conditions similar to the way Sherpa in the Himalayan mountains can survive at extremely high altitudes
This is really fascinating. Thank you Stefan for the Video and thank you Dr Posth for the interview.
I did not know about the replacement of the hunter gatherer population by another hunter gatherer population later in the Mesolithic.
Stefan Milo is my spirit animal.
Such a humble, well-spoken man.
He seems to have a deeply objective pov (like a scientist).
This is very interesting as ever, thanks
When the Dr said that they had found the ancestral form of the genes that encode for lighter skin in the ice age genomes, I thought “I wonder though if maybe they had mutations in different genes that gave them pale skin and we have pale skin as well through convergent evolution?”, and then he said the same thing, which made me feel like chuffed
Europeans and East Asians both have light skin due to convergent evolution. Different mutations arose in both populations.
What neither of them said was why they were looking wistfully for evidence of earlier whiteness when there isn't any. The point is that the grain based low vitamin D diet is a pretty good reason for that mutation to survive and expand over territory. Poor but reliable diet and cloudy skies.
@@casteretpollux I've seen your comments like this before. You should learn more about genetics first, then comment more.
@@bmoneybby The essential thing to know about genes and evolution is that survival is what matters. Random mutations are thrown up. Some favour survival and production of progeny who survive, others not. Those that favour survival e.g. ability to digest grain and milk, in a farming culture, will survive through crises much better than those who can't and will pass these mutations on to their children. And those who have light skin will absorb more vitamin D will not get rickets so will not die in childbirth and will experience more live births. I checked maps. There is only very broad correlation between solar radiation and light or dark skin. There is very close correlation between the post 8,000 bc grain farming areas and light skin and close correlation with very light skin and lactose tolerance ( This appeared mainly 5,000 bc onwards). In northern climates clothes are worn and less sun received to make Vit D. Vit D enables healthy childbirth and helps resist infection. This would in my view entirely explain the prevailing patterns of skin colour. No skin colour is in any way superior to any other. They are merely the result of food + climate.
@@casteretpollux Having read your earlier comment, and maybe I'm wrong, but you almost suggest that they have an agenda for looking for earlier whiteness in populations. What you say later makes sense, but I think they are just interested in finding out the truth and if you don't investigate you'll never know. The scientific method isn't too say, here's a hypothesis, that makes sense, that just be true. It may have occurred earlier, we just don't know, we are learning all the time.
At present the evidence suggests it was adaptation to the environment, but I think Stefan's questions were excellent and very interesting ones. I'm certain white skin developed as a beneficial gene mutation to living in a more northerly, cooler climates and all the effects that go with this, reduced sunlight, ice, diet possible in areas with this kind of climate. Knowing when it occurred and in which populations in and around the last ice age I find very interesting and is nothing to do with trying to prove something. The scientific method is that you put forward a hypothesis, you collect the data, analyse it, and then form a conclusion. It isn't that you form a hypothesis and then go and find evidence to back it up whilst discarding evidence that doesn't. That is what some pseudo scientists do, but I don't think that's what's going on here.
A really Great interview please talk more .
And what he has revealed allows us to shine a light into those hidden Ages.
Fascinating! And yes, he could definitely listen to you both talk for hours!
just when i had lost my tolerance to the drug that is this channel, you give me a double hit
I watched the series from Stanford Intro to Human Behavioural Biology, and he said one of the keys to fast evolution rather than the slow genetic clock was having genes (so called junk DNA) that govern series of other genes, kind of trigger mechanisms, where small changes in the governors could produce great changes for the entire series of individual gene expressions, so the presence of one gene wouldn't necessarily be functional without the particular governor.
Look into the work of Warwick Collins. He died some years ago, and his research is now being vindicated.
So junk DNA isn't junk after all
@@mrblackmamba117 No and no. It is not.
A very interesting conversation, thank you.
excellent conversation, lots of great detail.
Extremely interesting interview, thx for sharing Stefan.
I really enjoyed that interview.
So pleased I found this chennel, this was a really interesting talk. I wish there was an animation to go along with it really: it gets so confusing trying to picture all the cultures, peoples and their migrations, I can't help think it would be a great learning aid, especially for how the hunter gatherers mixed with one another. Like I said, excellent content. 😜👍
€€$$££₽₽¥¥
@@MP-hh3lo qq
@@bobcrotty8726
Bob the boomer here trying to put down a perfectly normal idea, by using gamer speak from 10 years ago. Lol - gotta love it.
Just wanted to say thanks for getting Me into our worlds history.
Dear Stefan , I love your channel. Have you ever considered attempting to interview one of the many “scientists” ppl who believe in some kind of technological antediluvian civilisation? It would be very interesting imho
This old video has just appeared in my feed. Looking forward to watching later when I can relax.
This ought to be interesting. I know one of the stories is that the original inhabitants of Europe were mostly poor wholly wiped out by either the Neolithic farmers or the later Indo-Europeans, but that always rang false to me.
Huh. So the original human inhabitants *were* mostly pushed out, under ten percent puts them only slightly ahead of Neanderthals.
The light skin thing didn't surprise me, although I hadn't thought of it until just a bit before he specifically mentioned the possibility of other, as yet unknown mutations that could code for paler skin.
The association with farming caught me by surprise, but thinking on it, you can kinda see it even in more equatorial areas where you'd expect darker skin to still have selective pressure, so it makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, I could've listened to him for five hours, probably not consecutively, but...
Another excellent video, these interviews are quite useful to help get information directly from the writers of some of the papers you reference, as well as their unwritten insights and more up to date information that might be harder to access or find unless you know what you're looking for.
I'm pretty sure some Europeans have significantly more than 10% Mesolithic (WHG/Western Hunter-Gatherer) European dna. It depends on the region (sometimes as high as 20-30% or 20-25%, give or take); it's usually higher toward in/Northern Europe, and to some extent far western/southwestern Europe. I believe it's highest in the Baltic area.
There was more than one wave of (pre-Neolithic) hunter-gatherers into Europe; some contributed to modern Europeans more than others. The Aurignacians were mostly replaced (and left 10% or less). But the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers came (mostly) from a somewhat later wave which contributed more to modern Europeans' genetics (more like about 15-25% varying by region).
There are two populations on the european continent, which practically do not overlap in certain aspects of phenotype, except when they are obviously in mixed places (France, Austria, Northern Italy, ...). Go to Sweden, in some regions, blue-eyed, blonde, nordic people are the only people you'll see, no hook-noses, non-square faces, ... The romans already described this. How come that Blue eyes and other traits are near 100% of the population, if geneticists tell the truth? Assuming generations of 25 years, there have been about 160 generations in the 4000 years between the roman accounts and the supposed quasi-replacement of indigenous populations, do you really believe that evolutionary pressures are enough for a trait like blue eyes to create such a marked difference?
My god, you can't be English can you?
@@karimdelakarim What do you mean by that?
Yes, absolutely loved it! Thank you!
Great conversation, love these discussions you’re having, longer form works well for this kind of this IMO.
Great stuff. Thanks again, Stefan!
missed you. hope baby and mum are doing well. on with the show.
Hang on... Europeans have typically about 2% Neanderthal DNA from circa 40kya as compared with the DNA found in the Denisovan cave. Does this imply that we Europeans have been isolated from African populations, but partly mixed with Asian populations for all this time?
It would be great to see maps and animations showing the expansion, movement, blending and demise of specific genetic groups.
Yes, in fact, if I can remember correctly, certain studies seem to indicate that Europeans and east Asians have been separated from sub Saharan African lineages for over 120,000 years
@@alexdunphy3716 No, that is not true. The proto amerindian population was a mix of about one third what became western European and two thirds what became East Asian. That mix occurred about 25-30,000 years ago in Central Siberia.
Edit: you mean both separated from sub-saharan African populations... yes that sounds about right.
@@angrytedtalks yes, as in non-sub Saharans separated genetically around that time. I'm aware of the ancient north Eurasian ancestry of Europeans and Amerindians as well
The Neanderthal DNA is a higher risk of a more severe form of Covid-19. Africans whose ancestors have never left Africa have no Neanderthal DNA which is why Africa has been much less affected by the virus. ruclips.net/video/A2e0gEZjgY4/видео.html
@@patm6704 That isn't because it is Neanderthal, because over the past 50,000 years mutations without benefit have died out. The "autoimmune" reactions do sometimes come from the tiny surviving Neanderthal DNA.
The primary two reasons for slower spread in Africa is lower population density (hence lower transmission rates) and hotter climate (acting as sterilisation).
In the UK, the worst hit population are the people with African descent, but that is due to diet and partly vitamin D deficiency.
Blood groups are more of an issue, A being the most vulnerable.
Two videos? You really made my day
A perfect start of the weekend. Thanks, mate.
thanks for asking that last question, I didn't know that they had updated the Neanderthal the study, I'm glad to know that we aren't losing them, they live through us
Thank you for this! Much love for the great content. Keep it up!
Such a pleasure Stefan and Dr Posth
Yea I wanted to hear more. Another great interview.
It'd be nice if dr. Cosimo could reach you out to Vanessa Villalba-Mouco to talk about the genetics of the Iberian peninsula, were it seems there was an even mixture of villabruna and magdalenian associated Goyet ancestry.
fantastic interview for us lay-people :) Many thanks!
Fascinating interview, thank you very much!
Seems the main reason why ancient Europeans contributed so little would simply be because the small original population was simply diluted by the many waves of later migrants who bit by bit diluted the original DNA.
We should have better learned it)))) not to lose our one)
That last question you got in was huge in my opinion. I have often found myself wondering that very thing and not to toot my own horn I came to conclusion that the genetic input from our neanderthal cousins had to be stable. Being that it's still here after 35 millennia or more and is rather uniform across all of eurasia, any population or group coming into europe from eurasia would be injecting a similar percentage. Where it gets interesting is if we looked at the neanderthal gene input through populations who haven't moved around much throughout eurasia, what neanderthal genes would they carry that another stagnant population across eurasia do not? Say an east asian man compared to a scandinavian man? What are the neanderthal genes doing in each man and where are they located on the genome? What about merging people groups from different ancestral parts of eurasia? If a man and woman from those separate groups married and each had two percent neanderthal dna but in completely different parts of their respective genomes, would their child have a higher percentage of neanderthal dna or would the homo sapien genes be dominant? Now toss in the denisovan and we've got a party.
Latest studies show that East Asians, Melanesians, and Pacific Islanders carry Denisovan genes as well as Neandertal genes - and that there were at least two different branches of the Denisovan tree. One in Siberia contributed to the East Asian gene pool, while one in Southeast Asia contributed to those in Australia, Melanesia, and the Pacific Islands. My own humble opinion is that these genes from our cousins must be essential in some way to our survival, so they have been conserved in our modern genomes over vast periods of time in spite of all our migrations, intermixing, different environmental pressures, and so forth.
@@Pipsqwak I agree.
What a cool dive into how complex our DNA history really is! Here's a like & comment for the Almighty Algorithm! 👋😊
😎 Thanks Stefan Cosimo ⚓️
With respect to that last question about the percentage of Neanderthal DNA in our genome: could you say that if from 35.000 years ago the percentage did not change anymore, that one could calculate the extinction date of Neanderthals? At least the last time Neanderthals added their genes to our genome?
@F.W. And how much did the sapiens contribution to the Neaderthal genome increase over time from earliest contact to Neanderthal extinction? No one seems to address this question.
Congrats on 69k subs! (So glad to see new videos from you)
Your best video yet! Loved it.
Cutting edge research done and taught here 100% . To me this is my candy so thank you so so much for bringing this to us. I always knew your jeans wear good he he .♥️🤸♂️
Great stuff!! Grande Cosimo! Thanks for sharing
Two great new videos Stefan.
So Cosimo says there may be other areas of the genome affecting complexion so we cannot be certain what colour skin Aurignacians had. The skulls are not typical of sub saharan africans and they lived many thousands of years after the out of africa migration so I do not agree with Stefan's decision to depict them as sub saharan africans. selection pressure was for lighter skin - and the overall morphology was distinct from that we associate with modern sub saharan african features
Sometimes I wish I had a DeLorean.
The inhabitants of Europe today has some neanderthal DNA, so obviously the hybrids was never entirely de-throned.
And my guess is the hybrids who had more pigmentational dna would survive the best.
Neanderthals were not black.
How so?
Better question. How did you come to that conclusion?
I'm actually *of* Sub-Saharan African descent, and I can tell you that they do not look like me, even with their dark skin. Early Europeans most likely looked like Europeans today when it comes to phenotype, but with *much* darker skin, and dark hair and eyes.
I live near Lydenburg in Mpumalanga South Africa. There are hand axes in the area from 500 000 years ago.
😲
there is no way to verify if those axes were made by ancestors of any of the people who have been there for the last 1000 years.
@@macrosense U hate axes, don't u ?
Fascinating topic. Missed your videos, hope you're doing well!
I'm so proud of you dude you went from unknown to a house hold name with your passion
Thankyou for this focus on other side of the study of our multiple groups of ancestors in pre history.
Great interview. Thanks!
The king has returned
Dr. Posth's using the term "dynamic", is an enormous understatement. Read his paper, then check out Max Planck Society's anthropogony section of published papers.
I would love to know what Dr. Cosimo has to say about the 70K/year bottleneck... almost certainly related to the Toba eruption.
A second big question, for me, - strontium can be used to see exactly what small area an animals primary food source came from... Did I understand a recent paper right that suggested upper paleo human males mostly retained the same strontium levels life-long, suggesting they stayed where they were born, and females show a transition, suggesting they moved from where they were born...??? It would tell us a lot, and may inform us on how/if we transitioned from a matriarchal society to a Patriarchal society at either the bolling allerod, or the younger dryas.
That 70k bottleneck is pure fiction. It has no basis in science
@@starfox7758 well that’s simply wrong.… I mean, there’s not just one or two, but several of the genetic scientist, If you’re going to believe them, I have talked about it extensively… Where are you coming from, with this contrary statement?…Do you have a source that’s credible?
@@Naturalook It's based on recent OoA, which is patently wrong. These geneticists are clowns.
As far as we know, the Aurignacian weren't even around at 70K YA.
Yes! Absolutely loved the talk.
Both videos were really fascinating!
This great video definitely helps with my research on this topic.
nice work thank you. looking forward to more knowledge of Neanderthals from genetics. so much mixed info out there on the net about neanderthals.
Awesome stuff, Gentlemen. Thank you.
I am reading Carlos Quiles Collectories Venatoresque, Agricolae Pastoresque (you can get it in English) its a three volume set starting with 48000-12000 covering genetics , language and cultures through out Europe and Middle East with side trips to Asia when needed.
Thank you for the recommendation!
Glad to see you posting again! Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but when you all say things like we have 10% dna in common, is this referring only to a specific part of dna? I thought we have like 99% similarity in dna with chimps so I’m confused how it could be so different with our own Homo sapiens predecessors
All homo sapiens groups are far more closely related to each other than any one is to chimpanzees. They say chimps are something like 98% identical, whereas all homo sapiens are 99.8, 99.9% identical to each other, past and present. The 10% thing means something else
Of the total genetic variation of humanity, there is 10% commonality with them. So in absolute terms that's more like 99.91%. Keep an eye out for relative and absolute percentages by the way, it's not uncommon at all for those with vested interests to deliberately mix up the two in order to imply that various human populations are as or almost as distinct from each other as humans are from chimpanzees, for instance. There's also different ways of counting it, e.g. 98% of the genes in humans also appear in Chimps, so you could say we share 98% commonality with this, but this excludes, e.g. that Chimps have an extra chromosome, etc.
Humans on average share 99.5% of their dna with other humans(the 99.9% was revised by the same scientist Craig Venter). Not sure what the 10% number is supposed to mean
@@alexdunphy3716
The 99.5% is still absurd, because a huge demographic doesn’t even have Neanderthal DNA.
@@anti-ethniccleansing465 absurd in what way?
Very educational. Seems like a very smart guy.
Converstaion/conversation, outstanding, thanks
I was thinking the other day arent Stefan going ro post soon and BOOM a souble wammer!
Excellent conversation, very interesting.
I'm up for 5 hours. Fascinating.
Shoutout from near Tübingen! 💪😼👍
Stay healthy! 😷