Neanderthal Genome Project: Insights into Human Evolution

[@carolebienstock8479]

One of the best lectures in paleontology. Dr. Green's presentation was exceptional. He explained difficult concepts with clarity and precision. He is a talented teacher !!!

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

I thought 'this will be too technical': watched it all though!

[@kf1000]

Really excellent!

[@curtiswfranks]

Just discovered this channel. There goes at least the next week of my life.

[@Cory_Clar]

@Skippy knkn😊kkjjjjnkkkknkkkkkknkkknfnii tthanks dtthanks innii nice i it i😊nd😊i😊Inuit 😊😊j😊 In😊jjj I wrdwddwddt it da w4/Re-aartrrrr rrr445555454rrrrrrt44rtrrrtttttrrrttttttrttt4rr44445t4rrrrrrrrrrrrrrraea9,

[@julianjacksonharmonica]

X52 for me, I need to repeat and repeat to get it in my cranium

[@chipkyle5428]

Having formal education in plant and animal science, including courses in genetics and having spent my life in grain and animal production, I marvel at the superiority of the F1 cross. My hats off to the first Neanderthal Homo sapien couple!

[@railwaymechanicalengineer4587]

The Basques of Northern Spain are LIVING WALKING TALKING NEANDERTHALS. As PROVEN by British Medical Science over 10 years ago. These people exhibit as high as 75% Neanderthal DNA. Have RESUS NEGATIVE Blood, the KNOWN Neanderthal blood type, which does NOT work in humans properly & causes medical issues. Indeed the Basque language with NO connection to ANY Human language is itself the Neaderthal language. So Professor Green, giving the talk, must have spent the last 10 years living on a lost Pacific island, as virtually everyone else in the Scientific community is aware of that Bombshell 10-12 years ago !!!!!

[@cjbailey31909]

This is not normally the subject I am going to listen to a lecture on, but very happy I did. Excellent speaker, excellent lecture and Iearned so much. Now I have another interest to begin learning! Thank you

[@thesjkexperience]

Yes! Excellent lecture! I learned so much. 🎉. Loved the detail that was so clearly explained even a geologist could follow 😂🎉

[@player101snoop]

This was a solid lecture. Would love to hear more from Dr. Green. DNA science has become fascinating with the recent breakthroughs.

[@AndyT-np8mm]

As a Neanderthal, i feel gratified for all the interest.

[@busterbiloxi3833]

My brother, our cause is just!

[@busterbiloxi3833]

@Abu Mohandes My Brother! I share and appreciate the sophistication of your response! Our cause is just!

[@AndyT-np8mm]

@@busterbiloxi3833 To the last.

[@RobertLing-sd1mz]

My grandma said put your head between my legs and kiss and lick me there I did as grandma said then momma spread my. Butt cheeks apart and kissed and licked my butt hole. We did this for years

[@jeremyurquhart7456]

(Enthusiastic unga bungas)😂

[@suzanneanderson582]

I find your subject matter fascinating. I didn’t study any of this in University, but just stumbled on it while scrolling through You Tube about six months ago. Now i cant get enough of it. I look for new videos every night. I am particularly fascinated by Neanderthals.

[@alanfarrance8639]

Wow! A lot of good stuff to try to get my head around in that lecture. Going to have to go back over that a few times.

[@rickw0226]

LOVED the joke at the very end as an answer to the "missing link" question. Also, the last couple of topics relating to autism and the other disease which hinted at genetic throw-back possibilities. Amazing content.

[@rajeevdsamuel]

Autism is not a genetic disease, it is caused by consuming too much carb and Omega-6 plant oils.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

autism is about diet also diet of mother in pregnancy toxic things interfere with natural expression of genes as well as hormonal devolvement and we consume loads of toxic things daily nearly nothing in shop is fresh natural and truly organic as found originally in nature where we evolved you can't expect human to grow into human living in since thousands years inhumane conditions

[@ThatGuy-ht9sp]

@@topherthe11th23 Some ideological "experts" like to ignore all the discovered links in favor of hypothetical missing links ;-)

[@JavierBonillaC]

You got there? You are the good human called to make a summary.

[@wildfire3989]

@@JavierBonillaC well you can be close to your cousin by 3 generation to 3000 generations !!!

[@jimvj5897]

Starting at around 52:00, the discussion of gene shuffling from grandparents to current generation, seems different from what I've seen in usual layman - i.e., me - discussions. Are there good sources online that explain this in greater detail? Thanks.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

I've seen stuff on sites like Ancestry's genetic portion of their site, and I also believe 23 & Me, as well. I recall one article that explained why one sister of (3 or 4) didn't inherit any of one portion of the family's ancestry (Irish, if memory serves) that the other sisters had varying percentages, up to something like 75%, showing in their results. Perhaps you could investigate there for some answers to your questions. 🙂

[@Mdebacle]

A very quick course on DNA recombination, kzbin.info/www/bejne/iIu6c5KuqZWWnrs

[@gastronomist]

@jimvj5897 David Reich (whom he mentions early in the video) describes it similarly, but it's not really that accurate to describe it that way in my opinion because we obviously get our genes from our parents. What he means is that we get very long segments that are unchanged from our grandparents (via our parents). These segments can be millions of base-pairs long. The important thing is that if you look at two people's DNA and they have very long segments that are identical (in areas of the DNA that are not normally identical) you can conclude that they had a common ancestor within a few generations. The shorter those segments are, the further back the common ancestor is.

[@jimvj5897]

@@gastronomist Thanks. Yes, he's not completely accurate, but I would like to find a readable (non-biochemist) account of what really happens during the formation of an egg or a sperm. I have not found one yet. Appreciate the help.

[@gastronomist]

@@jimvj5897 Reich's book "Sponsored Who We Are And How We Got Here" (chapter 1) described it pretty well I think.

[@woodspirit98]

I love that he spoke only of science and facts without trying to insert vlocanos or climate or evil humans. Well done

[@buttercxpdraws8101]

What are you talking about???!!

[@railwaymechanicalengineer4587]

Not enough facts ! As British Medical Science proved and announced that the Basques of Northern Spain are LIVING WALKING TALKING NEANDERTHALS, OVER 10 YEARS AGO !!! Indeed the Basques have as much as 75% Neanderthal DNA and of course have RESUS NEGATIVE Blood the known Neanderthal Blood group which does NOT work in Humans properly & causes medical issues particularly in women. And we now even know that the weird Basque Language which has NO connection to any Human Language has to be the remnants of the Neanderthal Language. All of the above was published in numerous Medical Science journals over 10 years ago !!!! So the Professor giving this talk, has either been living on a deserted island for over 10 years, or he's stone deaf, or just plain IGNORANT !!!

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

You think the pacific ocean ring of fire and other plate boundaries as well as ice age weather and sea levels had zero influence?

[@HepCatJack]

What's a vlocano ? Are they anything like volcanoes ?

[@PaulShattuck-iv5jf]

While visiting France as a child there was a shopkeeper in Strasbourg with the most pronounced brow ridge I have ever seen on a human. He also had a head of enviable coarse hair and fingers twice as thick as my dad's. I knew then and there where the Neanderthals had gone, nowhere they were still here.

[@mrhingland6206]

Still here and living in France.

[@karenteneyck9835]

Did he have acromegaly instead?

[@RBartsy]

As a famous artist I know through his wonderful work says: if you can’t change your mind, then you don’t have one.

[@briseboy]

My dude, not only minds are dynamical systems ( as Lenny da Vinci noted of the heart, "never stopping unless forever") but also your very brains are, with neurons CONSTANTLY budding new dendrites, with astrocytes and other monitors of USE nipping off the unused of that efficient energy consumer (as thus, YES, we are all brilliant teenagers consuming refrigerator contents in quantities distressing to economizing mammas). (and one of the astonishing artists who helped me, also observed this: " anything you do contains the universe", meaning all that you have known, do, and can, know. But we are in reality pretty limited to our experience, which we often erroneously interpret, and in creating useful personal heuristics, often distill too much reality out, replacing it what Eric von Zipper, yet another famous philosopher, called "An Army of Stupids" Your mind IS change. Were it static in any way, you would be a fossil before your time.

[@johnndavis7647]

How does the Sasquatch or Yeti fit into all this?

[@Diverse_Interests]

Enjoyable and interesting presentation with humour in the end.

[@stephaniebart-horvath1382]

Thank you-your talk was incredibly interesting! I’m going to watch it again.

[@Blonde111]

Loved this! Thank you… Just a quick note, vit D is very low naturally in milk, that is why milk is fortified with Vit D

[@johannageisel5390]

Yes, he mixed that up with the light skin gene which had to do with vitamin D in northern latitudes. According to Johannes Krause (whom the lecturer probably knows or has met during his time in Leipzig), the lactase thing only became prevalent during the middle ages when cows were bred to give more milk.

[@IbnFarteen]

​​@@johannageisel5390 famous story from Homer's Odyssey describes Odysseus' encounter with the cyclops Polyphemus who is milking goats and making cheese. The story, to my understanding, predates the middle ages by about 2000 years and suggests adult humans were making lactase.

[@johannageisel5390]

@@IbnFarteen In cheese and other processed milk products (yoghurt etc.) the lactose content is usually lower, because bacteria turn the lactose into other substances. That's why people with mild lactose intolerance have no trouble eating cheese and yoghurt, but might get problems when drinking milk. But yes, the ability to make lactase as an adult at least in small amounts is probably older. But it spread to most of the adult European populace only relatively recently. It was rarer before.

[@wooddoc5956]

​@@johannageisel5390So you're saying that a mutation in the middle ages spread to most of Northern Europe?

[@johannageisel5390]

@@wooddoc5956 It was a couple of years ago, so I'm not certain anymore. I may misremember it or misunderstood him. Maybe he was talking about something like the latest uptick in lactose tolerance in Europe. Or he actually said "Middle Bronze Age" and I just misheard it completely. I looked around the internet and couldn't find anything that said "Middle Ages", so I admit I probably got that wrong. And it seems that generally the development of lactase persistency took a while to spread. "By mapping patterns of milk use over the last 9,000 years, probing the UK Biobank, and combining ancient DNA, radiocarbon, and archaeological data using new computer modelling techniques, the team were able to show that the lactase persistence genetic trait was not common until around 1,000 BC, nearly 4,000 years after it was first detected around 4,700-4,600 BC." - From "Famine and disease drove the evolution of lactose tolerance in Europe" UCL News

[@panafricandesignsandapparel]

( 4:41 the comparative approach ) ( 8:25 Question what makes us humans genetically different from primates? ) (9:50 finding a closer relative to humans than primates )( 22:20 need more info... ) (30:39 exact genetic differences between chimpanzees, Neanderthals and Africans/humans ) ( 38:36 he explains that it is now cheaper to sequence Ancient DNA ) (39:59 chart that shows how they figured out Non Africans were closer to Neanderthal ) ( 44:58 Denisovans discovery ) ( 57:27 1000 genome pilot data chart explains looking for Neanderthal dna in modern humans 2,663/ -60,000 =4.4% of genome)

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Graph 1:00:35 matches the Summer (northern) and Winter (southern) positions of the intertropical convergence zone. Possibly the sea barrier prevented Japan from being involved. Ancient rainfall might have been significant.

[@BallyBoy95]

47:10 - How the Denisova DNA got all the way from Siberia to Papua New Guinea, whilst skipping India/Indonesia is fascinating. Unless those areas were invaded/settled by new migrant populations ofc, which would make sense.

[@TigerLily61811]

Bear in mind the Siberian sample is ancient, and the PNGuinea samples are where they find the highest traces in modern humans today. So Denisovans could have been all across Asia + India in antiquity, then some sort of regional disaster - perhaps a volcano, asteroid impact, plague or disease - completely wiped the population out with the exception of the the southern islands. Then humans moved in and repopulated the area, interbreeding with the small remaining Denisovans population that still existed only in those southern islands before that branch went extinct. This sort of thing has happened in history numerous times. @12,000 years ago, something happened that vanished the Clovis culture people from all of the North America. Their DNA only shows up in Central and South American populations today. They used to be across all the Americas but the decimation was regional to the northern population. North America was then repopulated by people with a different genetic ancestry.

[@busterbiloxi3833]

Denisovans perfected the skipping technique. You're welcome!

[@oldernu1250]

Dislocation by other migrants

[@gastronomist]

@BallyBoy95 Denisovan DNA didn't skip the areas in between. They are present in all non-Africans to a certain degree, it's just that it's greatest in PNG.

[@alaskapuss]

There must have been some degree of isolation, because I remember reading about the two Denisovan groups (Altai vs South East Asia) being distinctly different genetically.

[@jmr2008jan]

The problem with missing links is that every time they become found links they shrink.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

The view that the nongenetic DNA, the 98% that doesn't code for proteins, is unused is obsolete for over a decade, it is clear now that it is all regulatory since it is transcribed in regular ways in tissue. It also isn't as clocklike in its mutation as the speaker claims, there are locations which are conserved as well as any gene, and other locations that mutate rapidly. Further, it isn't mostly repetitive, much of it is "viral insertion", where I put "viral" in quotes because these are not likely to be disease causing viruses, but natural endoviral rewrites related to the mechanism of viruses.

[@danhanqvist4237]

I've been wondering about the very idea of obsolete or "left-over" genetic material. I think it's generally rash to assume that there's anything sitting around in our bodies that is superfluous to requirements. It seems to me to be a much better starting point to suppose that everything that's there has a function. Keeping a body going is expensive in energetic terms so I think we should assume that the superfluous stuff has pretty much all been eliminated.

[@nomandad2000]

This guy is off base on some other stuff too…Egregiously so.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@nomandad2000 No, he's mostly on point, just a little out of date regarding biology. It's overall a great lecture.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@danhanqvist4237 There are several places where DNA is "superfluous" in an information sense--- it's structural DNA for the ends of the chromosome, the telomere, or near the crossing point of the "X" structure. But those are understood. It's the part of the genome which is turned into RNA but not into protein that is functional, and that's well over 50%, more like 80%.

[@danhanqvist4237]

@@annaclarafenyo8185 Thanks. My point is that we should not assume that our ignorance really correspondence with how the world is. Just because we can't figure out what something does, doesn't mean it doesn't do anything.

[@ketoacid3393]

Wow. I wish I were smarter to understand this more. It was a little confusing but he was such a good speaker.

[@victorsauvage1890]

You are as smart as anyone else! The lecturer has been closely studying his material, all day and all night, for thirty years. He has had hundreds - possibly thousands - of discussions or brief exchanges with expert colleagues and teachers since adolescence. Try re-listening to short sections of that lecture over a few weeks. And do a little parallel reading of introductory texts on anthropology. Even read a few random paragraphs of social history and political theory and psychology and economics and linguistics and philosophy. Ignore any points which are obscure. Five minutes per day at breakfast - for 12 months. Read some of the great essayists - such as Charles Lamb, Seneca, Richard Steele, Carlyle’s, “Past and Present”, Plato’s ‘Gorgias’, around Sections 300 to 494!

[@zipperpillow]

Why submit this comment at all? Are you looking for sympathy, or therapy?

[@victorsauvage1890]

@@zipperpillow Mister Pillow! Really! Playing dumb! Your standards are slipping! You should know better. Try a different tac. Or better still - Desist from your phoney attitude : Come over to my side!

[@pinchebruha405]

@@zipperpilloware you? 😂

[@pinchebruha405]

@@victorsauvage1890great advice you’re very kind for taking the time, I feel this way listening to economists and astrophysicists 😂

[@gopalaraodasari7743]

Is the sample size sufficient to statistically state the factual and textual content being floated on the internet?

[@lqr824]

52:20 Our phase of being haploids is indeed long: from near our mother's conception (she is born with our egg) until fertilization. Many, many people have been haploids longer than they've been diploids, given the fact that a huge number of humans (especially in the fastest-growing countries) are younger than their mom was at conception.

[@julias-shed]

Excellent thought provoking lecture thanks 😀

[@railwaymechanicalengineer4587]

A pack of outdated Garbage ! As over 10 years ago numerous Medical Science Journals reported the amazing tests carried out on the Basques in Northern Spain, by BRITISH MEDICAL SCIENCE. Which revealled the Basques are LIVING WALKING TALKING NEANDERTHALS, with up to 75% Neanderthal DNA. "Resus Negative" NEANDERTHAL BLOOD, and even their weird Language has to be the remnants of the Neandertal Language. But despite the bombshell publicity 10-12 years ago, obviously the Professor giving the talk, has been living on a deserted island for over 10 years, is deaf, or just downright IGNORANT.

[@Stadtpark90]

Oh, the talk is from 2012. 10:27 44:55

[@Mdebacle]

In the 2011 CARTA video, Ed made it clear that the "12.7" percent was measuring chimp-like DNA in Neanderthal. It would be interesting if any archaic humans (e.g. Ust-Ishim) had any such chimp-like DNA, which would verify the molecular clock theory.

[@bimmjim]

In Chimps and Humans, the jaw muscles are attached to the scull. One of the biggest differences between these 2 species is the locations of these attachment points. .. This difference is found in the genomes, as well. ..

[@robertab929]

Was this video recorded with fridge or 20-year old cell phone? Resolution 480p is quite low.

[@robertab929]

@@LeeGeeAre you blind?

[@jagadishchandra3142]

Excellant lecture

[@fellsmoke]

In my opinion the main advantage of modern over Neanderthal is metabolism...Neanderthals were high energy....in a large population the guy high energy types starve before lower metabolism types...famine does occur.

[@DennisMathias]

Depends on the climate. When the ice age was upon us, Hn did great because they were adapted for it.. Around longer than we have been.

[@fellsmoke]

@@DennisMathias energy needs of people are a limiting factor in connection with their environment...the same environment will support more individuals with lower energy/metabolisms than high energy populations...if two populations come together one with genetically higher metabolisms and one with less energy requirements...when those joined populations experience famines those with higher energy needs starve first...the higher energy folks get weeded out...within the larger population

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

​@@fellsmoke neanthertals were fatter they could survive longer despite faster metabolism actually they probably could sleep famine through 😂

[@fellsmoke]

@@szymonbaranowski8184 fatter? No reason to assume they were fat...if resources were scarce they were not fat...they were starved.

[@asage5801]

No. Jot nessecarily. But definitely high protein and fat fuel demand.

[@Lerie2010able]

Thank you, a great explanation and one even I could follow.

[@victorsauvage1890]

I also enjoyed this detailed discussion of anthropological history - and the underlying suggestion of the alternative ways in which the anthropological rhetoric may be used to excuse or conceal modern conservative attitudes. I would only add, Mr Lerie2010able, that you ought not to depreciate the worth of your judgment about human worth. There is nothing to be gained by using expressions such as “even I could understand”.

[@hopehope938]

As a person with a rare blood type (No not the rarest) and a few different rare genetic chronic illnesses from birth I am and always trying to understand my own personal genetics and DNA history.

[@usergiodmsilva1983PT]

I had never heard about the deamination process, nice!

[@marthamurphy7940]

Thank you! This was so informative and fun, I wish I could have been there!

[@petergoodall6258]

The genome that constructs the mechanisms of the mitochondria is split between the mitochondria and the nucleus. It is essential therefore that the male genome and the female mitochondrial genome are compatible. See Nick Lane’s The Vital Question

[@dukeallen432]

Brilliant presentation. Clap clap

[@audreyfischer8662]

Do we know something about the differences between the mitochondria that coexisted within the Neanderthal and the mitochondria that coexists today within the human?

[@mattmatty4670]

Amazing. Thanks mate

[@marvinmauldin4361]

I love jokes I can see coming a mile away. They make me feel smarter than a Neanderthal.

[@Ivy_1057]

Thank you! Very interesting.

[@MARILYNANDERSON88]

Whatever is in action in our genetic code may be beyond human control at this time, yet, as our code develops to permit our understanding so that eventually we can help develop our own code to achieve better living and or the goals for which we were designed to achieve.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

bullshit you will not improve anything blindly manipulating DNA and it doesn't even contain any information how to build human only what materials to use and how to make materials nothing about where to place it and what to build where when when to end it's encoded in electric potentials you can affect groth of organs with bioelectrical signalling and this command says what to use DNA for first start from becoming back human bringing back natural optimal human conditions of living getting rid of chemicals toxins all fake human inhuman inventions and then you won't need to fix problems self created by blind testing things without thinking causing all diseases

[@stevenpace892]

Not really. Our current genetics won't change significantly in 1000 years, but our understanding and technology almost certainly will

[@johnaugsburger6192]

Thanks

[@randallcauley9484]

doing well. petri dishes population count is sometimes the simplest measure of precipitous drop. It's an easy play to display, but, uhm "ecologically speaking" and current population density vs. sustainability in current / changing conditions. Not sure how we honestly lump in "technology" and "ecologically" subsidized but terminal velocity in any number of impacts. Fascinating.

[@rachmonte]

Look up Dr. James Tour.

[@gastronomist]

There is one big problem with his terminology: all members of the genus homo are 'humans' thus Neanderthals are 'human'. So it really doesn't make sense to talk about human/neanderthal hybrids. Second, all non-African modern humans are essentially modern-human/neanderthal hybrids - or more precisely, descendants of such hybrids,

[@stevenpace892]

Most people think of 'human' as a species. Unfortunately species is not well defined. It would be reasonable, for example, to say nendrathal and homo sapiens are the same species. Also, knowledge has evolved. These terms came from a time [not to long ago] when we did not know that human/nendrathal hybrid was possible.

[@gastronomist]

@@stevenpace892 Yes, it makes even less sense if Neanderthals were members of the homo sapiens species. But this video is only a year old so he knew enough to know better.

[@stevenpace892]

@@gastronomist no, we didn't think they were human; they were 'clearly' distinct from homosapien. Appearances can be deceiving; that was my point.

[@gastronomist]

@@stevenpace892 That's incorrect. The idea that Neanderthals are a subspecies of homo sapiens has been around for a long time and is still debated.

[@SatSingh-mm4gg]

@1:18:00, the most dangerous question of the q&a

[@MichaelLoweAttorney]

Jeff Tweedy depicted as representative for 7,000,000,000 humans?

[@RobertGotschall-y2f]

Agricultural reasearchers study wild populations of domesticated species like humans. Some times valuable genetic traits can be reintroduced into the domestic population.

[@jasonviola1880]

130,000 years for earliest homosapien fossil record? I thought it went back at least 300,000?

[@dirtymikentheboys5817]

It changes based off whatever the scientific elites think. You should see how many times the age of the earth Annnnd universe has changed. I know it's not evolution... Time is like the word singularity in astronomy.

[@rogerroth7782]

Paabo is a rock star!

[@Curt-r9d]

So classifications of different homos is not an exact science but is a lot of conjecture?

[@mweskamppp]

Some say the Neanderthals were a small, more robust subgroup of the Denisovans.

[@andrew348]

1) DNA shows they are sister lineages. 2) Almost no substantial fossil remains have been found of Denisovans. Thus, no species description or holotype is possible, which makes morphological comparison between Neanderthals and Denisovans currently impossible.

[@TigerLily61811]

@@andrew348 Right. They've literally only found about 4-5 small Denisovans bones. It was only from the DNA from one of those bones they discovered the Denisovans even existed.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

​@@TigerLily61811 their categorisations of bones may change

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

and these differed in north versus south

[@gastronomist]

@mweskamppp I have read that as well. We'll need more Denisovan remains before anything can be determined on that.

[@manifold1476]

Gee - *Bas van Snippenburg* seems to be impressed - - - - - -

[@TheDeadlyDan]

Speaking of cars, boats, and helicopters and what makes us different? A little comparative anatomy will show that Neanderthal is an ambush predator while we are persuit predators. Very different animals. For instance, we can perform an overhead throw which Neanderthal couldn't, and we can do it while running. Neanderthal lacked an achiles tendon, for another instance, which means they weren't runners. Their musculature was arranged for a sturdy vertical structure.They stood in a bent kneed pronated stance, perfect for thrusting up with a lance. They lived in dense forest, in groups numbering no more than 50 with miles and miles between groups. We live in coastal or riparian environments, in small communities with upwards of 150 people and another community within a half day walk. We kill at distance, while they killed within reach or grasp. And there would be a myriad of cultural differences resulting from just these. Neanderthals are nothing like us.

[@victorsauvage1890]

“Nothing like us”? Personality?

[@TheDeadlyDan]

@@victorsauvage1890 Well, with hybridization having occurred some may have been just charming.

[@victorsauvage1890]

@@TheDeadlyDan Now Danny boy - Which is it? Former claim - Or latter?

[@TheDeadlyDan]

@@victorsauvage1890 oh Vicky boy, I'll leave it to you to decide. Are you claiming stupidity or just trolling?

[@gastronomist]

We can also throw spears from a helicopter and Neanderthals couldn't.

[@wildfire3989]

I just can not believe than humans from Arica became Russian and Chinese !! Mu theory is that each part of the world had its (own) humans so like any other animal and plants

[@stevenpace892]

Like it or not, there are no genes unique to a race. The probabilities are very different but the collection of genes is the same. Human is ONE species.

[@geoffreydonaldson2984]

“…it wasn’t just Neanderthals and humans …”; “…and compare Neanderthal and human…”; “…Neanderthals were quite similar to humans…”; &c. Neanderthals were humans. We Sapiens are humans, too. There is no distinction in human terms between Neanderthals, erectus, sapiens, and habilis, &c. They are all human because they are all in the genus Homo-the human genus. “We might find late Neanderthals with human genes…” Indeed, every Neanderthal, as well as every erectus and denisovan and habilis and &c will have human genes because they are all human. Why not call our species “sapiens”? Yes, we are human, but we are not distinct humans from any other species in the genus Homo. So, in a human context such as this discussion we must use the specific word “sapiens” to distinguish ourselves from any other human species. One can say “modern humans” but does that obscurely mean us Homo sapiens or just the ones who exist in the modern era? But we cannot say “modern Neanderthals” because they no longer exist, but they were were also human. It is better to use the term “human” generically when discussing and comparing all human species. “Humans” are not distinct from Neanderthals: Neanderthals were as human as we are.

[@stevenpace892]

Species is not well defined. Nendrathals and humans did breed, and all nendrathal DNA is found in humans. They are similar, but not the same species. The did not commonly interbreed, a lot like dogs and wolves.

[@geoffreydonaldson2984]

@@stevenpace892 -It is a bit more precise to define a species than a genus. Some consider Neanderthal and sapiens to be subspecies of the same species. The two discernible -uh-‘groups’ were certainly capable of reproducing fecund offspring, but our classification system(s?) statistically weight morphological distinctions, too, and Neanderthal was more markedly distinct from any sapiens than any sapiens differs from another of its own species today. Anthropology also considers behaviour and there’s a pretty good cased that, by all available evidence, sapiens and Neanderthal were quite different is this way as well. Finally, if Neanderthal and sapiens were so reproductively compatible as to class them as the same species, then why is Neanderthal DNA such distinctive (in modern sapiens) yet small component? If both were races of the same species, we should expect Neanderthal genes to be more evenly or broadly distributed in the sapiens genome as trait-distribution is among races of modern sapiens. But Neanderthal genes are not. Maybe there are or will be some other taxonomical system devised, but I think the current application (that the two are separate species) is as good as we have. For me the big question is whether it’s useful or not: the small amount of Neanderthal DNA in supra-Saharan modern sapiens has revealed -and probably will continue-many clues about diseases we sapiens suffer today that might help find a cure.

[@danhanqvist4237]

The speaker gets into a bit of a knot when he speaks about the "hybrids". The existence of fertile "hybrids" rather shows that Neandertals and "humans" were the same species, but just rather different populations.

[@rickbishop5987]

Excellent!

[@colleenforrest7936]

This makes sense now as to why things skip a generation and kids can sometimes relate better to their parents than their grand parents?

[@lqr824]

42:00 Are you now talking about the main DNA? The flow of the talk suggests you're still talking about mitochondrial DNA, but that only flows from mother to daughter, in a pure uncrossed tree, so how could it be closer to European humans than African humans? Also you go on to belabor the point that Native American DNA shares this differential trait but that's no surprise as Native Americans are known with absolute certainty to simply be wayward Asians.

[@NikkiTrudelle]

22:05 I thought the laws of independent assortment made it so you’re not exactly 50% your parents and 25 % your grandparents

[@stevenpace892]

It is exactly 50%. Each parent provides one of the two copies [all of us had 2]. Our parents in turn, have 1/2 from each parent. That means if you are lucky enough to have 4 grandparents, it is 25% each. What 25% is random though.

[@conniead5206]

I disagree with what he said about autism, us, dogs, and most of the rest of animals. Lots of other critters live in social groups and look each in the eye. They are happier to be with their own than by themselves. I figure the rise in autism in North America is probably because of all the man made crap in our food and water. Including “organic” that is grown where there used to be pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers used. Still in the soil. May be in acceptable levels in one thing but they do not seem to consider that the stuff is in lots of things. Then there is genetic modifications created in labs. I gather that those who drink water bottled in plastic are more likely to get arthritis or get it sooner. I inagine how long the water is in the plastic bottles before someone drinks it makes a difference. There may be no getting around it because of the plastic particles in the stuff we eat as well. Where else is autism on the rise?

[@geraldinekight7887]

I have a large percentage of Neanderthal genes of today. My mother’s line goes back to the ice man .

[@h.m.mcgreevy7787]

☘️ imagine that ☘️

[@elemental613]

He said humans came out of Africa and interbred with Neandrathal but didn't explain where Neandrathal came from!

[@jenscuthbert2007]

Africa.

[@nowheretofind888]

but there is a 1-st generation Neanderthal-Denisovan hybrid

[@GIANTSECRETS]

There are many neanderthal traits that can be observed in people today. My son has the occipital bun and I don't. The occipital bun is fairly common. Although I do have a pronounced eyebrow ridge. There is a picture of the two sculls available in google images. The neanderthal nose comes away from the scull at a much sharper angle. This gives people a big nose or sometimes a hook nose or a lump where the bone ends, like the nose of the speaker. Autism is possibly caused by neurotoxins in immunizations. There are many cases online where people have video of their children before and after immunization. The transformation for the worst is obvious.

[@marcellacruser951]

The studies linking autism and vaccination have been proven falsified, over and over again. What is far more likely is that the genes causing various forms of autism turn on and express at ages that coincide with ages for primary vaccination. One has nothing to do with the other.

[@JaniceinOR]

Unfortunately, many childhood immunizations are given right around the same age that the symptoms of autism are likely to show up. Correlation is heartbreaking, but not evidence of causation. What neurotoxins do you think there are in immunizations? No modern childhood vaccines have mercury in more than vanishingly trace amounts (left over thimerosal that was mostly removed at the end of the manufacturing process; the body breaks down thimerosal into ethylmercury, which is different from the neurotoxin methylmercury), and no reputable scientific study (Wakefield's study had many many problems) has found any association between vaccines and autism.

[@fritnat]

@@JaniceinOR Right, however in contrast to any correlation with immunisations, the correlation with ritual infant penectomy has a very plausable explanation in the trauma of the ritual triggering the genetic disposition. Unfortunately little interest has been shown in exploring this further in the eight years since the correlation was shown to exist thanks to Western, mostly US, cultural bias and despite the increasing interest in autism.

[@JaniceinOR]

@@fritnat Are you claiming a link between circumcision and autism? Where was this correlation shown? Is there any data looking at the relative ratios? The groups to compare would be: A1) people who were circumcised and have autism; A2) people who were not circumcised and have autism; B1) people who were circumcised and do not have autism; B2) people who were not circumcised and do not have autism. To support your claim, A1/B1 would have to be significantly larger than A2/B2. Further work would also need to show that there were not confounding factors.

[@fritnat]

@@JaniceinOR "Ritual circumcision and risk of autism spectrum disorder in 0- to 9-year-old boys: national cohort study in Denmark" Frisch et al 2015. Do you have a special interest in autism?

[@saliksayyar9793]

They also have the same elements, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen etc. The expression and when and where is as important as sequence. A single mutation can lead to severe mental retardation, problem with bipedalism, etc. Besides epigenetic and chromatin disposition. Toosimplistic to just look at linear genome sequence. Without genome sequence from H. Erectus it is difficult to say what were the differences. Hominid is not human. Awkward fact seems to be that proximity of genome, the engine of evolution , is not sufficient to explain the human phenotype. No evidence chimps are evolving, they appear to be quite stable in their niche for the last 3.5 million years.

[@johnchristopherrobert1839]

Here is something that could be a fun, exercise in probability. Have AI’s generate human images from genetic interpretation. In other words teach an AI what the particular gene does and let in put together a composite of what it thinks a human should look like from the Gene sequence it’s given. I wonder if the AI would have us looking like giant blobs. 😂

[@johannageisel5390]

Before we can teach AI to do that we would have to fully understand it ourselves. We know a couple of genes and how they influence, for example, skin and hair and eye colour, but there are a lot where we don't know how they influence the phaenotype (looks).

[@granthurlburt4062]

I don't beleive AI thinks at all. It just takes what information has been fed into it and produces it. It does seem able to interpret what is logical but I think that is on the basis of comparing statements. I don't think it is creative at all, and actually forming hypothesis and imagining possibities is what humans can do and not AI.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

DNA doesn't have information how to make you only how to make organic materials it knows nothing how to build an organ

[@gastronomist]

@johnchristopherrobert1839 There's now reason why you would need an AI to do this, but the concept of a computer program that can predict the phenotype based on the genotype is something every geneticist dreams of. Unfortunately, we are so far away from doing it that it's not worth spending a whole lot of time thinking about.

[@stevenpace892]

This is a work in progress. Obviously the police would like to know as much as possible about a person from their DNA; interesting facts would include their face, first and last name, etc. clues to these facts are in the DNA. And these technologies are being developed.

[@leischutte9179]

How fast does deoxyribonucleic acid break down in a carbon based organism once it dies? Is it a consistent rate like C14? How often (if it actually can survive and exist even after the rare geological process of fossilization occurs) is it present in a non-corrupted form that allows actual effective analyzation of the genetic material. Why does this, Paabo, and all other videos claiming things I am very skeptical about in paleoanthropology never actually the science behind how deoxyribonucleic acid and how, why, and if it gets preserved in the rare event of fossilization?

[@thatbuckmulligan]

Read the title as "Netherlands Gnomes Project"

[@eddiemunster8634]

Does the genetic contribution from neanderthals to the non-african group explain why there such a great difference between the African group and the other groups, especially as it relates to intelligence?

[@JaniceinOR]

What intelligence difference between Africans and non-Africans that is not related to culturally dependent questions?

[@eddiemunster8634]

@@JaniceinOR all of it, intelligence is innate and not culturally related

[@JaniceinOR]

@@eddiemunster8634 I apologize for my clumsy phrasing. When I read your question, it made me think of the fact that for decades, people have claimed that African Americans are less intelligent than white Americans based on IQ scores. However those IQ tests have questions that make assumptions about cultural knowledge, such as specific vocabulary or life experiences. Therefore, differences in scores on such tests sometimes point to differences in cultural knowledge, rather than differences in intelligence. Please point me to evidence that there is an intelligence difference between Africans and non-Africans.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

South east Asians aren't much smarter than Africans so it's more related to climate and selection people on north have less children these children don't die so often or randomly and they put more resources in their growth in Africa it's all about higher numbers and sheer luck

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

​@@eddiemunster8634 your intelligence and conditions letting you use it properly are two completely different things you can have best potential and still die last outcompeted because conditions do not care about your smartness

[@bluegalacticmonkey4557]

How are we so closeĺy related to chimps when we have a different amount of chromosomes?

[@mcmanustony]

our chromosome 2 is a fusion of primate chromosomes 12 and 13. This was conjectured before it could be tested. it's been know now for some time.

[@stevenpace892]

A different number of chromosomes means you can not breed, but given everything else is the same, the two animals are VERY similar. It is like a version of a program running on the MAC, the other on PC. Not compatible but they do the same thing.

[@bluegalacticmonkey4557]

@@mcmanustony Any idea how long ago that fusion occured?

[@mcmanustony]

@@bluegalacticmonkey4557 0.74 million years ago

[@mcmanustony]

@@bluegalacticmonkey4557 0.74 million years ago.

[@daniels4338]

Jack Cuozzo wrote an interesting book on this subject

[@stephenking4170]

Physical make up and DNA aside, what makes us human is the same as what makes us differ the most from great apes or any other animal. This is not only our "extra dose " of shared characteristics such as emotions, will and intellect (our soul). What sets us apart is our spirit, what the bible calls being made in "the image of God". This is our conscience, our creativity and our spiritual communion (desire, awareness of, ability to communicate with God; our religious quest and search for purpose and relevance). Compared to animals that bear a resemblance of form to humans, these qualities are vastly evident, throughout the world. Take temples, Handel's Messiah, Paganini's violin concerto, the Sistine Chapel, The silicon chip; Microscopes, and telescopes; microbiology and deep space exploration; brain surgery and philosophy. All these are realms apart from the animal experience and are the fingernail of God's nature, or image. Not everything that comprises us is physical material so the answer to the questions of human uniqueness can not be found in our physicality, any more than the music of an Oratario can be found in the ink and cellulose that represents it; or the silicon, plastic and metals of a memory chip can explain the origin of a computer software program. "In the beginning God created...." "In the beginning was the Word (Logos)..." are the most insightful sources of light on this issue., that scientific discovery points to but can not, as a discipline on its own, resolve. Science has shone much light on the dim corner of our infant knowledge but some questions are outside the realm of scientific quest. or beyond resolution by this discipline. We need to become multidisciplinary and more balanced in our study and search for truth, as the old scientific masters were, unafraid the engage the two mutually supporting faiths we have: faith in science and faith in God our Creator and eternal Father, through Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. .

[@Goman1244]

I agree with your analysis.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

show me peer reviewed paper proving existence of soul or ghosts

[@busterbiloxi3833]

"God" and magic and superstition had nothing to do with it.

[@stephenking4170]

@@busterbiloxi3833 Nobody mentioned magic or superstition. These are irrelevant to my points. As for God, by definition, as Creator of all, He as everything to do with everything. Unless of course the faith of scientific materialism is true, in which case "God help us !" A crack up, but many a true word said in jest. As for me. I don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist. I find it far more cohesive to believe the rational evidence of a universal and personal creator. It s even more cohesive when the historical evidence of the life and teachings of Christ are considered and his eternal role in creation and redemption . He is the anchor thread that supports the entire web of life.

[@stephenking4170]

@@busterbiloxi3833 P.S. If you were to look at the works of, or to interview, any of the old masters who were great composers, inventors, scientists, artists or Nobel Prize winners and also believed in God and derived their inspiration from God or their God given intellect, soul and conscience, I doubt that a single one of these well balanced, noble people would consider themselves or their works to be magic or superstition. On the other hand, if you told them that life emerged from a chemical soup with a bolt of lightning or that the universe exploded from a dot which came from nothing and nobody, then I am sure these solid minds would logically explain to you that this fell into the realm of not only magic but probably superstition too.

[@joanie7107]

This guy should invent a anti aging line and patent it . He would be the poster boy of phenomenal skin .

[@fivefttall3316]

My dad is always talking about how scientists haven't found the missing link and yet at the same time he is the only other person I have ever heard tell that joke about faith lol

[@allencottell4241]

Lemurs are actually our closest relatives... update required.

[@sylvester2294]

Why did we evolve but not the apes?? should they exist??

[@carlkaufman2429]

Apes have evolved as much as we gave. Just in other directions. We are not more evolved.

[@eastafrica1020]

Same reason as we don't see just one species of birds or bears or elephant.... Different species develop and not all lines die off.

[@paulmicks7097]

Is there a consciousness gene ?

[@KenSoHappyClegg]

Heres a new idea, what if the earliest hominids (4, 5, maybe 10 million years ago) were all bipedal all along from Day 1? But we were so violent and deadly due to our bipedalness allowing for handheld weapons to be swung with greater force, we drove all the other primate groups of great apes' ancestry up into the trees for protection where they developed hands and feet for climbing. It's difficult to climb a tree and carry a rock at the same time and we're still working on improving the solutions to that problem to this day. Hominins didnt come down from the trees, we drove the hominids up into the trees.

[@victorsauvage1890]

Yes - You may enjoy a very short article by Brewster Smith, (Circa 1970), included in a collection of essays entitled, “What it Means to Be Human”, Ed. by Steven Fitzgerald.

[@KenSoHappyClegg]

@@victorsauvage1890 thank you

[@wooddoc5956]

Sounds like a good video game but there's no reason to think that.

[@victorsauvage1890]

KenSoHappyClegg You have put forward an interesting thesis - I am unable to see any important error in your idea - “wooddoc5956”, suggests that your idea is superfluous - I would be interested to hear him describe exactly how your idea could be simplified.

[@wooddoc5956]

@@victorsauvage1890 The fossil record Goes from tree dwelling to bipedalism. The evolution of climbing hands to holding hands Is well known. Why would you think reversing that process is justified?

[@rubenducheny2788]

Amazing! Thank you!

[@charlesjenner1951]

It is not nice for the Neanderthal humans to take a chimpanzee skull to represent them on the diagrams

[@bimmjim]

My brother and I have pronounced occipital buns. To a degree that makes motorcycle helmets not fit.

[@rubiccube8953]

I have a missing link living next door to me. Plumber man.

[@avenoma]

good job Denis.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

This was an excellent lecture, but I do have a few suggestions for you to look into, in order to make it even better. Not to be presumptuous or insulting, but it seems your specialty is genetics, not primates. A couple of things about chimps (and about orangs and bonobos), courtesy of Erika, better known as Gutsick Gibbon on here. She is a primatologist, nearing her PhD, and has several very helpful videos. Chimps are in their stone age, and are known to make different tools differently in different areas. They are also warlike, very much like us. They recently were seen to go to war against a group of _gorillas,_ not just other tribes of chimps. Also, bonobos are actually in many ways are more closely related to us than chimpanzees, one of which is most relevant to your lecture. There have been multiple studies showing our genetics are more similar to bonobos than chimpanzees. They also have certain activities that we have which chimps don't have which have been seen by scientists studying them. There's a lab in a forest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, called Lola ya Bonobo. Research there has produced more than 75 published studies over the last few years, showing, among other things, that bonobos show kindness - even to strangers - more than any other primate besides maybe us. I'd suggest you look into the results: they are brilliant, IMO, and to me, very telling. Two negatives: You pronounced orangutan incorrectly. There is NO G at the end of orangutan. They are NOT orangutanGs. You actually pronounce the word like most creationists do, in fact. It was very disturbing. And one final thing: we are not "entities" when we are a haploid sperm or egg, nor are we "entities" in our own right until we are capable of functioning outside of the uterus on our own, around the 20th week or so. You are sticking some non-science something, perhaps humanism, deism, or theism, into the science you are talking about. It really doesn't belong there.

[@arelr6822]

Why are you offended over a decade old lecture?

[@JaniceinOR]

This lecture is very old, even though it was uploaded to KZbin recently. Some of that information you cite may be more recent than the lecture. I wish they had made it much more obvious how old this material is.

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

you never are independent entity you have no truly free will, you aren't conscious most of time, you carry views of which nearly none were your personal creation you aren't independent sane entity especially in phase of hormonal overreaction state of modern science only proves it all these arguments of being factual is usually covering personal biases

[@adiconstantin4598]

We were not bored, (just a little confused). Yet, i hope the lecturer (/ conferent) was not bored to have to explain at the level of our ignorance 😄

[@Bigbudda12]

Thank you so much.

[@penguinista]

Chimpanzee behavior is not similar to that of humans on the Autism spectrum. Normal chimps look you right in the eyes and have complicated, nuanced social interactions with other chimps. The book 'Chimpanzee Politics' by Frans de Waal does a good job of conveying the sophistication of chimp social abilities.

[@stevenpace892]

I don't know about chimps specifically, but in most apes, eye contact is a challenge.,

[@kevanharris3883]

This sort of started out about irritation over wooly thinking and somehow I got to thinking about how the Mitochondria adapt to its various hosts. which is the final part oh and I am proud of my Neanderthal ancestry we existed a long time before homo sapiens did. My questions are simple is there a given rate of how often Mitochondrial DNA mutates? I think my basic postulate that Mitochondrial DNA should mutate to stay compatable with its host is probably right and although I have not heard of a system of built in mutation in terms of mitochondrion or chloroplasts or other genetic parties living in symbosis with a host it still feels logical if not to say right. There are so many holes in the Mitochondrial eve theory, not least that minimumum required genetic variation, secondly treating Mitochondrial DNA as if it human DNA there just might be a difference. why is it blindly accepted It is a given scientific argument that at least 500 pairs of adults are necessary for a human population to survive. does not quite pair with Adam and Eve. Also the mitochomdrial link theory says it must change in only one individual why? if thousands have the same Mitochondrial and identical genetic Mitochondria at that, it should all change at around the same time does that mean that identical genetic material does not have the possibility of an identical change? in many individuals, it is programmed to change so it will change but it may just change the same way in many individuals. Now show me that the same mithochondrial DNA in many individuals is not preprogramed to mutate and that mutataion can not occur in more than one individual in an exactly same manner. Since it starts at the same point why can it not end aty the same point? We get stuck in patterns of thinking, Mitochondrial DNA supposedly mutates only every so often so all of us have the same Mitochondrial DNA so before it Mutated everybody that existed had the same Mitochondrial DNA that is different to human DNA and does not have to behave the same as Human DNA anymore than Virus DNA does. Wolly thinking after all. if after so long a change occurs in Mitochondrial DNA then why if everybody had exactly the same it should have all been at that point so why in only one individuall Presumations are the death of good Science. Presumption 1 all Mutations are singular (thats human genetics talking) Presumption 2 Identical DNA cannot mutate in the same way. Actually one could argue that it should. If Mitochondrial DNA mutates every x thousands of years there should be evidence of differnt Mitochondrial DNA across the human Genome showing a different Genetic change I have seen no such evidence nor heard of any that is why we are all supposedly descended from an EVE. nor have I heard of any having the older premutated form of DNA some evidence of either should exist if their theory is right, Now let us say that Mitochondrial DNA is built with an inbuilt mutative pattern every so often it mutates but it should all mutate perhaps a number of ways but only one of those is successful it does not mean that that Mitochondrial DNA only mutates in that form in one indivual. the whole point of it is it is identical in all of us, but the premuttated form would have been common to all, The Eve theory is that it mutates in one individual and everybody else dies only she has offspring no other mitochondrial mutations are found and no pre existing forms are found either I woud expect to see evidence of both having existed. Neanderthals have the same Mitochondrial DNA oh they must have interbred with humans, wolly thinking, both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals are believed to have had a common ancester and so both would have had the Same un mutated Mitochondrial DNA. If Mitochondrial DNA has a built in mutation pattern and from what I have read about it and how it takes x thousands of years for a change to occur, which is why they shout that it must be in one individual, but suppose it is a function of Mitochondrial DNA to mutate every x thousands of years and suppose it happens species or even over multiple species wide perhaps several variations but only successful variations survive Even Mitochondrial DNA must need to change to stay compatable to its host just not very often. Take all the hominid and Great apes at one time all the ancestors must have shared a common Mitochondrial DNA now how does that Mitochondrial DNA keep up with its hosts an inbuilt mutation pattern would be the best way if ever x years it mutates in all species at the same time probably several variants in each species the various variants have various degrees of success but whichever variant works in a given species becomes standard The Mitochondrial DNA thus adapts to each species as it goes along and has changed to suit each species as the species develop so new mutations are needed to keep that strain compatable to that species. The point is that such a system of species wide change would ensure its hosts and its survival left to individual change is not a genetic survival trait for the Mitochondrial DNA the many have more genetic chance than the one. What I postulate here may seem simplistic but Nature actually adores simplistic because it is efficient. Also note here that the adaptation to each host species is probably the driving mechanism here

[@TheCakeIsNotaVlog]

Oh dear. That first answer was legitimately painful to hear

[@EvolutionWendy]

Gol, tighten it up. QUOTE "Go backwards in life, when you were child, when you were toddler, when you were baby, when you were (pause) an egg cell..." so many meaningless words. Epitome of blah blah blah, Where s the beef.

[@Paulus8765]

This talk seems very dated. 7 billion was the population in 2011.

[@NicolasTheondine]

The lecture was in 2012.

[@Paulus8765]

Yes, but published here only a year ago. Instead of "This draft sequence yields important new insights," I would have put out a disclaimer to the effect that some of the information presented has been superceded.

[@NicolasTheondine]

@@Paulus8765 You're right. Especially for sapien's DNA in Néandertal. If I'm not wrong we gave him our Y and mt chromosomes.

[@janecote]

Wonderful thank you very much

[@palladen1933]

Evolution 😂🐵🐒🦧🦍

[@markmiller8903]

This is the most inexact science ive ever seen.

[@DinoAlberini]

What’s the title of your thesis in biology?

[@robynmitchell9563]

Thanks Professor, when can I attend your lectures in Applied Ignorance?

[@TheCD45]

I love Prof. Green so much! And maybe love his wife even more, Prof. Shapiro!!