It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mitochondrial Eva

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
i dont have much if any knowledge of this and was wondering if someone could explain this to me

Mitochondrial Eva is a common ancestor of all mankind correct?

does this mean that mankind went through this extreme bottleneck? or does it mean that its possible we all came from one woman?




posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans via sons and daughters, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineages, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA.


From Wikipedia: Mitochondrial Eve. It has a pretty good summary explaining this. It even covers common misconceptions, etc.

[edit on 2008/5/19 by TLomon]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TLomon
 


i read that, lol. which lead me to make the thread.

point that im confused on is that there is an ¨eve¨ one person that is the ¨mother¨of everyone on earth, right?

so from an evolution point of view how is this possible? the only thing i can thing of is an extreme bottleneck where humans almost went extinct and there was only one woman left.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
i dont have much if any knowledge of this and was wondering if someone could explain this to me

Mitochondrial Eva is a common ancestor of all mankind correct?

does this mean that mankind went through this extreme bottleneck? or does it mean that its possible we all came from one woman?


I'm admittedly not well versed on the subject; But from what i do know, it all seems highly unlikely.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Not my area either but this site might help you Miriam, I think its ME was the ancestor for the majority of Mitochondrial DNA in women today though it doesn't mean that ME didn't have rivals/ friends or so forth only that her Female family line 'survived' to become the dominant one. Guys have their own version as well, a fellow labeled Y-chromosomal Adam.

ME is estimated to have lived around 200,000 years ago, Y-c-A is estimated to have lived 60,000 years ago. So in a way it is possible that disasters and bottleneck causing events helped their lines become the dominant ones but there is still debate within the Biological/Genetic Science community with regards to the reasons behind their lines survival

www.talkorigins.org...

But as with anything take what ever anything or anyone says or writes with a pinch of salt so to speak. Hopefully that as at least helped you in some way, or given you something to read until a poster more versed in Genetics comes along :-)

[edit on 19-5-2008 by Marshall Ormus]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   
We may all be related through her not because of a bottleneck but because all later lineages died out. She and her "sisters" and "cousins" (because she wasn't a human in the homo sense) could all have had children and descendants for another many thousands of years, just their lineages all died out.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I did read something related to an extreme bottleneck, I remember it based mostly off a specific talking point about 90% of the population of our ancestors at the time being wiped out (I believe due to the ice age.) The main point was there was a very good possibility to there perhaps only being 40 (cringe) or so females.

Although truth be told, I'm not sure if is relating to this or not. From my recollection it does.


I'm going to google-fu for a second and get back with the paper I read if I can find it...

(Although it puts modern dating either way into an interesting light..)


Edited to put in link.


Biology discussing (although brief) the possibility to the bottleneck and "Eve". Bit technical, but a good read.

I can't seem to find the actual paper I read, but this is along the lines.
books.google.com... 7f8sk&hl=en#PPA127,M1

[edit on 5/19/2008 by Anesthesia]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
possibly a bottle neck...
but for consideration to understand this evolution and inheritance must be understood.
It may be as stated a few proto-humans which gave rise to the next...
or the one and her daughters (all having the same mitochondria)
gave rise to homo sapiens- where the rest of the tribe was homo erectus or something similar- all species show up somewhere as a mutation or variation of the surrounding like creatures.
so the primitive H.sapiens came from one mutation and here we see the link of that one change saved in the mitochondria of the first H.s...
there are other genetic markers in other animals showing lineage and a bottle neck or similar events
cheetahs for example all are more related than all humans are to each other
but that;s the gist so they call it the Eve story as we all derive from a single soure- and sadly the proto human 'adam' will never be identified



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Hello Miriam.


Here are some articles that you might find interesting. They come from one of my favorite websites, Answers in Genesis. Evolutionists hate it but I can't remember the last time their opinions mattered to me.


A Shrinking Date For Eve.

Biblica Genetics.

It's been a while since I read up on the subject but the M. Eve and Y.C. Adam hypotheses have always intrigued me.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
According to Sykes, there were seven ancestral mothers.
Others claim the number is too limited.






[edit on 19-5-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkey_descendant
We may all be related through her not because of a bottleneck but because all later lineages died out. She and her "sisters" and "cousins" (because she wasn't a human in the homo sense) could all have had children and descendants for another many thousands of years, just their lineages all died out.


ok, this is what alot of people are saying but im having a problem with it alittle.

for us to be able to identify ME, wouldnt these lineages have to be COMPLETELY separate?



let me just illustrate this for a moment from the way im seeing it.

you have carmen.
carmen has (for the sake of simplicity) 2 daughters. eva and luisa.
eva and luisa both have many children for thousands of years (generations)

now basically what is being said is that we all are prodigy of eva. that luisa´s prodigy died out.

but lets say one of eva´s prodigy took a wife from one of luisa´s kin, luisa´s group dies off, but her M DNA would still live on correct?

i mean for all of us to be from eva´s kin, her kin would have to be in some way isolated.

am i mistaken?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Hello Miriam.


Here are some articles that you might find interesting. They come from one of my favorite websites, Answers in Genesis. Evolutionists hate it but I can't remember the last time their opinions mattered to me.


A Shrinking Date For Eve.

Biblica Genetics.

It's been a while since I read up on the subject but the M. Eve and Y.C. Adam hypotheses have always intrigued me.




the shrinking date for eve was a real help.

it explained the how eve could be with other women and still be our ancestor. i was having a real problem figuring it out.

thank you very much



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anesthesia
90% of the population of our ancestors at the time being wiped out
[edit on 5/19/2008 by Anesthesia]


hmmmm i wonder how that happened?!~




new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join