At one time, we were ape-like primates. We lived in the jungle, probably on trees. We became humans. Not overnight. But gradually, over millions of years. This is the accepted scientific theory about how human beings originated. According to this theory, there was no first human being. There was no Adam, nor Eve.
If you accept this to be true, how do you fit Mitochondrial Eve into the scenario?
Isn't this an anti-thesis? On the one hand we are saying that there was no first human being. On the other hand we are saying that we are all descendants of a single human being -- Mitochondrial Eve (ME).
Presently, ME is explained by saying the human population faced a bottleneck sometime in the past and that is why we have ME. My question is why do we assume that we faced a bottleneck? We know that ME existed, but we do not know anything about the others during her time. So, instead of saying ME had companions, why don't we say we do not know whether ME had companions?
I am not saying that ME is the Bilical Eve. But, because we have someone like ME, I think it favours the theory that we are descendants of a single human being. Why then is the theory of bottlenecking more plausible than the theory that we descended from a single human being?
I am just trying to make sense of the little I know about evolution of human beings. Any insight into this will be appreciated. Thanks.
I didn't characterize the threads I referred you to as "satisfactory" because I believed they contained the answer to your question. Rather, they seem like appropriate threads in which to raise your question. If you they're inappropriate for this question and can explain wny then I'll reconsider promotion of your thread, which by the way won't happen while there's a spelling error in the title.
It has been brought to my attention that you were already discussing mitochondrial Eve over in the All Human Beings Are Descendants of Adam thread, a thread you began yourself. You have ample threads in which to discuss mitochondrial Eve, I'm closing this down.