60 thoughts on “Spencer Wells: Building a family tree for all humanity

  1. 60,000 years ago for humans to have first migrated from Africa? This seems insanely recent, considering older (though unverified)records put human migration to Australia at up to 60,000 years ago, which would mean some of the first humans out of Africa arrived in Aust.

    Obviously, this goes against my genetics and anthropological training, more recent than 30 yrs ago. ;).

  2. google it
    "instead of a slow, continuous movement, evolution tends to be characterized by long periods of virtual standstill ("equilibrium"), "punctuated" by episodes of very fast development of new forms."

    as I understand it, "acceleration" happens in small (e.g. isolated) populations

  3. Right on ogbash, this is clearly an example of punctuated equilibrium. Our species was put to the test; it was the ice-age that made humans more intelligent. There were two ways humans could have made it through the ice-age — either grow more hair or grow more smarts. Humans grew more smarts and figured out that we could use the hair of other animals to keep them warm. Intelligence was the niche that allowed man to survive the ice-age.

  4. "he's so dull..i had a hard time not being bored with him..ughh distracting hair "

    If only you could stop a video or select a different one, comon youtube !

    Lol.

  5. "Friggin annoying intro music. It's pretentious and stupid."

    Yes. It's pain in the neck, isn't it? Annoying waste of time, and TOO LOUD!

  6. It might have happened in small groups because that would allow the beneficial mutation to spread quickly to the entire group. But I think some think that a large group would be more conducive to accelerated evolution because a large group would provide a larger sampling of mutations, one of which would be beneficial for survival.

  7. This dude is really cool I went to one of his lectures, and it was very interesting and informative. He's also a very nice man.

  8. Too bad those kits costs 100 bucks each…
    If they had been ~20 probably a lot more people would be willing to participate.

  9. Yes this video is fascinating and informative. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Spencer is incredibly knowledgeable in his field but I was always taught (and im a creation believer) that Adam and Eve were created just roughly 6,000 years ago… hum???

  10. White man's science is extremely cultural to believe that humans are 60,000 years old is ludicrous there are so many artifacts that date back millions of years outside of the African continent that were created by humanity. White people are either very stupid or very devious I wouldn't believe anything that comes out of their two mouths .They think they have the answer for everything every 20 years though it seems to change constantly new ice age (1979) global warming(2009) think with ur heart.

  11. You obviously didn't understand a single thing in his explanation. He's not saying that the Homo Sapiens are 60,000 years old. Grow a brain and then watch the video again ok?

  12. Same guy as 'Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey' – which is DEFINITELY worth a watch… fascinating stuff. How anybody can doubt his findings in favor of archaic myth is quite beyond my capacity.

  13. @jimegan47 Do you have any articles on this? I know of a geneticist in China Jin Li who says all Chinese came from African homo sapien sapien based on genetics. I'm seriously interested

  14. In the video Series The journey of man: I am curious how the asumption is made from the onset that Africa is the cradle of civilization? I thought science was not biased. Why the immediate assumption & how do we know man didn't end up in Africa with few dozen people at the end of the final migrations instead of at the beginning? does the genetic sequence of the DNA come up in sequential order? Is it possible they got the order in reverse? Just curious. Thanks!

  15. IF I could add 1 more comment regarding analyzation of DNA Y chromosone markers in the labs, Is there a way of determining sequence in reality? I ask this cause they run billions of DNA sequencing tests to look for the markers then when they find the Y Chromosone marker they make their assumption. It seems arbitrary to me & doesn't seem to have any exact sequence to it. I mean does this really prove the sequence of actual migration or is it possible migration was sporadic across the world?

  16. Sorry – it's not technically the first man. He was more accurately the ancestor of one of the first groups that left Africa.

  17. @adi87tya Perhaps your right, but honestly we may never know. The earth has undergone so many changes over millions of years. Maybe the area of the world where we originated from doesn't exist anywhere on the map anymore. Maybe its miles under the earths crust, buried with molten lava? So maybe AFrica is the more recent area where we can trace our roots but may not be the original place of origin. Shit maybe we come from Mars?

  18. So, the Max Plankt Institute DNA evidence that Africans have no Neandertal DNA, and Asians and Europeans do, is bogus? Asians and Europeans have @ 5% Neandertal DNA: fact. What Ted labels "our distant cousins" were 99.5% the same as us. Your neighbor is 99.5% the same as you: we are them. Africans are not. 5% compared to a larger percentage of African DNA in Asians and Europeans indicates an older origin. One Neandertal uncovered has red hair: they were around 200,000 years ago in Europe. Rusty

  19. If I am hearing correctly, we now know how the "pure Neandertal" became extinct: waves of invasion @ 60,000-40,000 years ago from Africa. Outhunted or killed in battles over hunting ground from large waves of people while they had a smaller population hanging on in the icier regions. But their DNA lives on…in Europeans and Asians…but not in Africans…and if Erectus left no DNA legacy…how come the oldest Erectus remain is from Asia, and only Asians have that shovel-shaped incisor?

  20. @TheDarkchild31 I find it more interesting how blacks will somehow use this as an argument. And I find it even more interesting that you still assume only whites can be racist, which in turn makes you a racist.

  21. @greycloud24 I really think you're looking too far into this. On the other hand, what if this sparks a new meaning to the famous names? Atheists who are atheists simply because of rebellion of religion aren't that much more logical that creationists.

  22. @Cackem My fact: you have no control over being a foul-mouthed, ugly just for ugliness' sake jerk. Source? Your comment.

  23. Few problems with his theory:
    1. Haplogroup I was the first into Europe, he insists it was R (Wells himself is R1b)
    2. Neanderthal bred with homosapien right outside of Africa in the beginning of the journey–so those outside of the African continent didn't get ALL of their DNA from Africa in the last 100,000 years
    3. The structure of the y-haplogroup tree is bias…Wells put R almost at the top. East Asian "O" should be highest–it has the most "advanced" mutations (and I'm white!)

  24. IF WE COME FROM MONKEYS, ARE SOME PEOPLE STILL GOING THROUGH THE CHANGE? AND WHY DID EVOLUTION STOP PRETTY MUCH AT THE LEVEL THAT WE HAVE TODAY? HOW COME TWO MONKEYS PRODUCED A HUMAN? WHAT IF HUMANS WERE HUMANS RIGHT FROM THE GET GO??

  25. SO WHEN THOSE APES BECAME HUMANS, THAT "TYPE" OF APES DISAPPEARED RIGHT? CAUSE WE DON'T SEE APES HAVING "SOON TO BE HUMANS" BABIES ANYMORE. THEY WERE "SPECIAL" MONKEYS! SO THE FACTOR IS "TIME" IF WE WERE TO LIVE 100, MILLION YEARS WE COULD SEE HUMANS DEVELOP GILLS? MAYBE MORE "SPECIAL' MONKEYS? THAT CAN VIOLATE GENETICS AND TOTALLY SWITCH SPECIES?

  26. every single person's dna should be collected and decoded the knowledge that would bring would be incredible it gets easier and cheaper every year

  27. Thanks for saying that! People who are totally ignorant about science don't deserve the right to share their stupid opinions. Get educated and then come back and talk!!!

  28. Yes, I respect people like you who really took the time and effort to learn what a subject's all about before spouting off on it. Lately I've enjoyed the lectures of Richard Dawkins on Darwin and evolution. He has also had some great debates on this subject (available on YouTube, like everything else!)….

  29. Good talk but there is a big hole in the research. One side, there is a group of only 2000 people who are still in stone age and don't know anything about technology. On the other hand, they were travelling all across the globe crossing all the seas, going as far as Australia.

  30. Very interesting, if we were 2000 humans away from going extinct, at it's height before then how many humans were there? Like what did we drop from to 2000?

  31. The linear out of Africa hypothesis is no longer true – all non-Africans share genes with Neanderthals (and some with Denisovan) humans who left Africa 500,000 years ago.

  32. I would like to know his updated facts. It would be fascinating to hear what he has to say about us being part Neanderthal and how sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal blood. 

  33. History is very important to mankind but the masses have bad memories become a STEWARD OF HISTORY we can see you are one Spencer (SOH) thank you for the info

  34. Спасибо за ролик! Теd, скажите, пожалуйста, как можно связаться с Спенсер? У него есть канал на youtube? у него есть почта? Куда можно ему написать? Дело в том, что есть новая информация – неизвестные потомки Ghenghiz khan.

  35. I wonder if they’ve thought of testing the DNA of Tasmanian Aborigines there are still a few descendants in Bass Straight. It would be interesting to see if their DNA matches with the Papuan New Guinea people. Because of the Ice Age land Bridge. And why is there no Dingoes on Tasmania or the islands around it. Were they bought in later after the sea had risen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *