Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
312 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,518 Year: 1,266/23,288 Month: 1,266/1,851 Week: 390/320 Day: 90/72 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Origins: Let's Talk Mitochondrial Eve
Pensees
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 29 (272327)
12-24-2005 12:28 AM


Is'Mitochondrial Eve' as an evidence for Biblical monogenism?

"in genetics, popular term for a theoretical female ancestor of all living people, also known as mitochondrial Eve. In 1987 biochemist Allan C. Wilson proposed that all living human beings had inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from a single woman. Using statistical and computer analysis of mtDNA—which is almost always inherited by a child from the mother—from people of various ethnic groups and assuming a slow, constant rate of genetic mutation, Wilson concluded that the oldest mtDNA was African and that every person's mtDNA stemmed from one woman who lived about 200,000 years ago. (He did not suggest that this woman was the only female ancestor alive 200,000 years ago.) Critics questioned the appropriateness of the mtDNA samples used in the study and argued that computer analysis of the data was flawed and that Wilson's conclusions were not supported by the fossil record. A further study using more diverse mtDNA samples and supporting Wilson's theory was published in 1991, but other computer analyses of mtDNA samples have indicated that several different “family trees” can be constructed from the same data and that the order in which samples are analyzed by the computer program affects the results."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/E/Eve-gen.asp

While Wilson himself did not suggest that this woman was the only female ancestor alive 200,000 years ago, what would prevent other rational persons from arriving at this conclusion? In an area of knowledge where absolute certainty is impossible, it is not surprising that different people would arrive at different answers.

"But if we shared common ancestry in Africa only 200,000 years ago, then these older Homo erectus populations in Europe and Asia are not ancestral to Homo sapiens, and we evolved from a later branching event in Africa."
Steven Jay Gould, http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/7261/eve.html

If H. erectus became extinct 250,000 years ago, from whom did mEve (or the ancestral population formally known as mEve) come from?

Even if this were a small ancestral group instead of one woman, wouldn't that rule out fossil forms that existed much earlier than 200,000 years ago as our direct ancestors? If there is a substantial gap between our own species and the nearest fossil ancestor, would that not pose a problem to Darwinian gradualism? In other words, if H. erectus became extinct 250,000 years ago, from whom did we come from?

This message has been edited by Pensees, 12-24-2005 03:52 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNWR, posted 12-24-2005 12:41 AM Pensees has responded
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 12-24-2005 6:14 PM Pensees has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 6:51 PM Pensees has not yet responded
 Message 15 by U can call me Cookie, posted 02-08-2006 3:54 AM Pensees has not yet responded
 Message 16 by ramoss, posted 02-08-2006 8:36 AM Pensees has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 06-25-2006 1:57 PM Pensees has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 29 (272331)
12-24-2005 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pensees
12-24-2005 12:28 AM


Welcome to EvC
Welcome to the forum Pensees

I think your topic would be better if you simply omitted the first two paragraphs. In the science forums should be discussing the topic, not you.

If you want us to discuss you, then you could also open a thread in the Coffee House to introduce yourself.

I suggest you edit your OP (opening post), to make the suggested changes. Then reply to this message and we can take another look at your topic.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Pensees, posted 12-24-2005 12:28 AM Pensees has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 3 by Pensees, posted 12-24-2005 3:52 AM AdminNWR has not yet responded

      
    Pensees
    Inactive Member


    Message 3 of 29 (272361)
    12-24-2005 3:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNWR
    12-24-2005 12:41 AM


    Re: Welcome to EvC
    Is it better now?

    Peace.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by AdminNWR, posted 12-24-2005 12:41 AM AdminNWR has not yet responded

      
    AdminNWR
    Inactive Member


    Message 4 of 29 (272396)
    12-24-2005 9:05 AM


    Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

      
    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 20479
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 5 of 29 (272550)
    12-24-2005 6:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Pensees
    12-24-2005 12:28 AM


    ethiopia fossils corroborate the dates
    Even if this were a small ancestral group instead of one woman, wouldn't that rule out fossil forms that existed much earlier than 200,000 years ago as our direct ancestors?

    Not quite, this age is a theoretical date for the genetic population that became Homo sapiens when it first diverged from those older direct ancestors, based on the theory of a common ancestor and fairly uniform gradual change in the DNA since then.

    Note that the earliest fossil now known for Homo sapiens comes from Ethiopia and is almost 200,000 years old:

    From 160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans(click):

    The fossilized skulls of two adults and one child discovered in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia have been dated at 160,000 years, making them the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.

    The skulls, dug up near a village called Herto, fill a major gap in the human fossil record, an era at the dawn of modern humans when the facial features and brain cases we recognize today as human first appeared.

    The fossils date precisely from the time when biologists using genes to chart human evolution predicted that a genetic "Eve" lived somewhere in Africa and gave rise to all modern humans.

    "We've lacked intermediate fossils between pre-humans and modern humans, between 100,000 and 300,000 years ago, and that's where the Herto fossils fit," said paleoanthropologist Tim White ....

    The most complete of the three new fossil skulls, probably that of a male, is slightly larger than the extremes seen in modern Homo sapiens, yet it bears other characteristics within the range of modern humans - in particular, less prominent brow ridges than pre-Homo sapiens and a higher cranial vault. Because of these similarities, the researchers placed the fossils in the same genus and species as modern humans but appended a subspecies name - Homo sapiens idaltu -to differentiate them from contemporary humans, Homo sapiens sapiens.

    Also see Ethiopia is top choice for cradle of Homo sapiens -- if you have a log-in subscription to Nature.

    This would be the youngest that Homo sapiens could be, but it is still possible that older fossils will be found.

    Thus this is pretty good confirmation of the theoretical genetic age being in the right ball-park.

    There is also evidence that before spreading out to cover the globe that the founding population went through a "bottleneck" event

    From The new batch - 150,000 years ago (click):

    Clues from genetics, archaeology and geology suggest our ancestors were nearly wiped out by one or more environmental catastrophes in the Late Pleistocene period. At one point, the numbers of modern humans living in the world may have dwindled to as few as 10,000 people.

    By a strange twist of fate, the harsh conditions that caused this near extinction may also have allowed the cultural explosion that gave rise to human behaviour as we know it today.

    Professor David Goldstein, a molecular biologist at University College in London, has uncovered evidence of a very ancient population bottleneck. A bottleneck is an event that reduces the genetic difference, or diversity, in a population of animals.

    This puts the genetic information in a little different light: the "eve" may date from the bottleneck and not from the beginning of Homo sapiens. OR this could explain the difference in dates for the mtDNA "eve" and the Y choromosome "adam" (which is younger, but based on the same genetic theory).

    Enjoy.


    www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand

    RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Pensees, posted 12-24-2005 12:28 AM Pensees has not yet responded

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 878 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 6 of 29 (272557)
    12-24-2005 6:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Pensees
    12-24-2005 12:28 AM


    Let me put it this way
    Even if this were a small ancestral group instead of one woman, wouldn't that rule out fossil forms that existed much earlier than 200,000 years ago as our direct ancestors? If there is a substantial gap between our own species and the nearest fossil ancestor, would that not pose a problem to Darwinian gradualism? In other words, if H. erectus became extinct 250,000 years ago, from whom did we come from?

    Look at it this way:

    You are decended from your mother. You are also decended from your grandmother. You are also decended from your great grandmother. Etc.

    Let's say that you are a red head. That your mother is a red head. That her mother is a red head.

    We can say that you are decended from your grandmother, and that that is where you get your red hair. However, we can just as easily say that you are also decended from your great great great grandmother.

    The fact that your grandmother is closer in line than your great great great grandmother doesn't mean that you are not decended from both.

    In this case - the "red hair" is the mDNA we can trace back to M-Eve. However, that doesn't mean that Eve's mother is not also a relative. Nor does it mean that Eve's great great great grandmother is not also a relative.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Pensees, posted 12-24-2005 12:28 AM Pensees has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by Theus, posted 12-28-2005 12:17 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
     Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-29-2005 4:14 PM Nuggin has responded

      
    Theus
    Inactive Member


    Message 7 of 29 (273405)
    12-28-2005 12:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Nuggin
    12-24-2005 6:51 PM


    Overly simplistic
    Mitochondrial DNA, as mentioned before and *must* be stressed, is passed only through the egg, there is no contribution from the father. This is because sperm are only interested in making good time to it's destination, and carry minimal luggage. This also means that there is no contribution from the father's mother, or her father, or his mother, not to mention a vast array of other relatives. This is still indicitive of a vibrant genetic landscape that is constatly evolving with different and unique genotypes for each individual in each generation (except for Pat Robertson, who oddly enough is a full 107 generations closer to mitochondrial eve than the rest of us).

    Think of it this way. Grab a penny, any penny you can. Hold it in your hand, stare at ol' Lincoln in his koine copper form, and think that ultimately, at some point, through all the hands that have held that penny, that there was one person who held it first. Now, that doesn't mean that neither pennies nor people existed before that moment, it just means that for that particular penny, there was a first person to hold it fresh of the mint.

    Mitochondrial DNA are the same. We all have it, and ultimately someone had our copy... but that doesn't mean neither mitochondrial DNA or people didn't exist before that moment, it just means for that particular mitochondrial DNA strand, there was a first person to hold it fresh of the mint.

    And, keep in mind, that mitochondrial DNA strand will go back far beyond that eve, back to every animal's ancestory, going no earlier than that first hungry eubacteria who goppled up a bacterium in that legendary act of endosymbioses, which itself doesn't necessarily mean that life or bacteria didn't exist before hand...

    Well, you get the point. In fact, the whole "eve" thing isn't the only use for handy-dandy mitochondrial DNA. It is often used to sequence levels of relation among higher levels of taxa, namely at the family, order, and phylae level. If you don't believe me, check out http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter34/text34.htm (remember to leave out the r after www). I'm sure there are better examples, but one post won't make a difference, right?

    سلام
    Theus

    This message has been edited by Theus, Tuesday, 27-December-2005 10:25 PM


    Those that can make you believe absurdaties can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 6:51 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

      
    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1433 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 8 of 29 (273891)
    12-29-2005 4:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Nuggin
    12-24-2005 6:51 PM


    Re: Let me put it this way
    The OP writes:

    Even if this were a small ancestral group instead of one woman, wouldn't that rule out fossil forms that existed much earlier than 200,000 years ago as our direct ancestors? If there is a substantial gap between our own species and the nearest fossil ancestor, would that not pose a problem to Darwinian gradualism? In other words, if H. erectus became extinct 250,000 years ago, from whom did we come from?

    Nuggin responds writes:

    Look at it this way:

    You are decended from your mother. You are also decended from your grandmother. You are also decended from your great grandmother. Etc.

    Let's say that you are a red head. That your mother is a red head. That her mother is a red head.

    We can say that you are decended from your grandmother, and that that is where you get your red hair. However, we can just as easily say that you are also decended from your great great great grandmother.

    The fact that your grandmother is closer in line than your great great great grandmother doesn't mean that you are not decended from both.

    In this case - the "red hair" is the mDNA we can trace back to M-Eve. However, that doesn't mean that Eve's mother is not also a relative. Nor does it mean that Eve's great great great grandmother is not also a relative.

    You completely dodged and evaded the aqua-blue box point/question.

    Why ?

    Inability to refute.

    Where is the links/EVIDENCE between Erectus and us ?

    Evolutionists can assert like crazy what supposedly happened millions of years ago (because their assertions are not falsifiable) but are tongue tied concerning recent anthropological ancestry.

    Genesis is literally true.

    History shows the farther back in calendar time = the more intelligent homo genus was. This falsifies the reverse claims of the Evolutionary scenario in its tracks. In response Darwinists must deny the intelligence increase lest sudden Adam, created ultra-intelligent, is seen as true.

    The irony of also using red-heads in your dodge: do you know where the only red-race (Irish) originates from ?

    Answer: read the description of David in your Bible.

    Now here is the truth about Mitochondrial Eve:

    http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Mitochondrial_Eve

    According to Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), one of the three Great Uncial mss, genealogic calculations place the creation of Adam at 5100 BC. [source: Dr. Adam Rutherford]

    In ancient history matters, 1500 years is nothing, that is the difference between the links 6500 and the Codex chronology of 5100 BC.

    The point is we are in the ballpark while evolution is in outer space suppressing the truth just like the Bible predicted:

    Romans 1:18 (New KJV)

    "....who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

    Ray


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 6:51 PM Nuggin has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2005 7:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 878 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 9 of 29 (273967)
    12-29-2005 7:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object
    12-29-2005 4:14 PM


    Re: Let me put it this way
    You are either smoking crack or can not read well.

    OP:

    Even if this were a small ancestral group instead of one woman, wouldn't that rule out fossil forms that existed much earlier than 200,000 years ago as our direct ancestors?

    Me:

    The fact that your grandmother is closer in line than your great great great grandmother doesn't mean that you are not decended from both.

    That is a DIRECT answer. Just becuase you are decended from your grandmother does not mean that you are not ALSO decended from an earlier woman as well.

    As for the rest of it, if you like I'll answer it here:

    If there is a substantial gap between our own species and the nearest fossil ancestor, would that not pose a problem to Darwinian gradualism? In other words, if H. erectus became extinct 250,000 years ago, from whom did we come from?

    Just like I posted in another thread with Randman just this morning, this sort of a question holds a HUGE assumption. It's assuming that evolution is multiregional and gradual. I have seen evidence for neither.

    H.E.spread out of Africa and spread across Asia, reaching as far as some islands in the Indonesian chain. It also spread into Europe.

    During that time there were still H.E. populations in Africa.

    There was climate change - specifically an Ice Age. While the glaciers were not in Africa, the African climate changed along with the rest of the world.

    A group of H.E., likely seperated from other major populations by an ecological barrier (desert, etc.) evolved into H.S. This group breached the barrier and began a process of replacement, out competing the H.E. populations it came across.

    However, not all the H.E. populations which had left Africa had remained exactly as is. When H.S. reached Europe, they found that the H.E. populations there had evolved into a species better able to handle the glacial environment - Neandertals.

    When they reached Eastern Asia they found Peking Man and Java Man.

    It just happened that H.S. out of Africa (our mDNA forebearers) happen to be better suited for ALL environments thanks to our more advanced tools and more complex social structures.

    That pretty much answers that question -

    Now, class, let's move on to Herepton's other quotes:

    History shows the farther back in calendar time = the more intelligent homo genus was.

    Unrefutable! Herepton has hit it on the nose! That's why Homo Habilus had jet planes, Homo Erectus had Steam Trains and we're left today with rudamentary rock tools. So sad.

    Genesis is literally true.

    I agree again! Especially the part about you living in the "Land of Confusion". Those puppets were out of sight!

    In ancient history matters, 1500 years is nothing, that is the difference between the links 6500 and the Codex chronology of 5100 BC

    So, since 1500 years is your +/- on this thing. Why isn't the world 4500 years old? Or for that matter, why wasn't the world Created in 1348? Noticed you completely skipped that thread.

    Why ?

    Inability to refute.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-29-2005 4:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-30-2005 1:19 PM Nuggin has responded

      
    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1433 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 10 of 29 (274198)
    12-30-2005 1:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 9 by Nuggin
    12-29-2005 7:29 PM


    Re: Let me put it this way
    Nuggin writes:

    It's assuming that evolution is multiregional and gradual. I have seen evidence for neither.

    This is the only thing you wrote worth commenting on.

    Evolution not gradual ?

    This is tantamount to flat earth beliefs.

    This places you in wacko land amongst your own.

    Time and space would fail me for all the Darwinian authority quotes I could paste to humiliate you for your ridiculous comment.

    The reason I don't is because to do so would be, like I said, attempting to prove the uncontested (flat earth), and most importantly to do so would cast doubt on that which there is no doubt: Darwinists claim evolution is a painstakingly gradual process.

    Why the Admins have not booted your stupid ass to Boot Camp is beyond me and only shows how "open minded" they are - so open they stand for nothing.

    You will undoubtedly act like nothing has happened or spilt hairs or any number of evo ass covering nonsense that your kind does when they stick their foot in their mouth. Punct. Equil. is also viciously attacked by every Darwinian quarter since it was published.

    Happy New Year Nuggin - you surely need it.

    Ray


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2005 7:29 PM Nuggin has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 12-30-2005 1:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
     Message 12 by Nuggin, posted 12-30-2005 2:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

      
    AdminNosy
    Administrator
    Posts: 4754
    From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Joined: 11-11-2003


    Message 11 of 29 (274201)
    12-30-2005 1:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object
    12-30-2005 1:19 PM


    Happy New Year to you too --- you're suspended.
    Too much vitriol not enough rational argument.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-30-2005 1:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-04-2006 7:20 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 878 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 12 of 29 (274233)
    12-30-2005 2:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object
    12-30-2005 1:19 PM


    Enough
    Herepton,

    You are unworthy of debate. Like so many other religious extremists, your agenda of pushing the Jewish faith down everyone's throat is clouding your ability to even read.

    I'm simply going to take your comments to the admins and ask that they remove you.

    {I must assume you, as of posting your message, had not read the previous message. - Adminnemooseus}

    This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-30-2005 03:06 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-30-2005 1:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

      
    Cold Foreign Object 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1433 days)
    Posts: 3417
    Joined: 11-21-2003


    Message 13 of 29 (275873)
    01-04-2006 7:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by AdminNosy
    12-30-2005 1:20 PM


    Re: Happy New Year to you too --- you're suspended.
    Your suspension was correct.

    I apologize for attacking Administration.

    Ray Martinez


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 12-30-2005 1:20 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Speel-yi, posted 02-07-2006 9:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

      
    Speel-yi
    Inactive Member


    Message 14 of 29 (284799)
    02-07-2006 9:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Cold Foreign Object
    01-04-2006 7:20 PM


    Re: Happy New Year to you too --- you're suspended.
    quote:
    Evolution not gradual ?

    It may not be. Check out punctuated equilibrium sometime. You may also wish to check out Sewell Wright's Shifting Balances Theory.

    It is also generally believed that much of what Darwin thought to be true about Natural Selection did not always hold true. Check out Genetic Drift sometime.

    As for Mitochondrial Eve, there are in fact competing hypotheses about how to interpret the data of mtDNA. Check out Multiregional Hypothesis with Milford Wolpoff.

    I also recall we covered this ground a few years ago in this thread:www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=38&m=111#111 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=38&m=111#111">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=38&m=111#111

    This message has been edited by Speel-yi, 02-07-2006 10:04 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-04-2006 7:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

      
    U can call me Cookie
    Member (Idle past 3338 days)
    Posts: 228
    From: jo'burg, RSA
    Joined: 11-15-2005


    Message 15 of 29 (284841)
    02-08-2006 3:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Pensees
    12-24-2005 12:28 AM


    Even if this were a small ancestral group instead of one woman, wouldn't that rule out fossil forms that existed much earlier than 200,000 years ago as our direct ancestors? If there is a substantial gap between our own species and the nearest fossil ancestor, would that not pose a problem to Darwinian gradualism? In other words, if H. erectus became extinct 250,000 years ago, from whom did we come from?

    I don't think any modern paleoanthropologist has said that modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved directly from Homo erectus.
    A number of fossils have been found of Archaic Humans, that existed in a time frame that overlaps the existence of H. erectus and the origin of of modern humans. Look up data on fossils such as Homo rhodesiensis

    It is quite possible, and most phylogenies model it as, that H. ergaster (early African erectus form) is an ancestor to the archaic H. sapiens, who are, in turn, ancestors to modern humans (H. sapiens sapiens).


    Loving is a journey with water and with stars,
    with smothered air and abrupt storms of flour:
    loving is a clash of lightning-bolts
    and two bodies defeated by a single drop of honey.
    - Pablo Neruda

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Pensees, posted 12-24-2005 12:28 AM Pensees has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020