DNA test finds Direct Descendant of the Worlds first woman 190 000 years ago

Ian Kinnaird is described as Grandson of Eve or the Grandfather of everyone in Britain after a DNA test found
L1B1 genetic marker

that can be followed back all the way to an ancient African lineage that has never before been found in Western Europe.

It seems we are all related to this man

They told him his mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), passed through the female line, was 30,000 years old and only two genetic mutations removed from the first woman, while most men have a genome with around 200 mutations since the earliest humans.

It is a small world
www.telegraph.co.uk...#
www.dailymail.co.uk... oman.html

Cran

well wouldn't that just mean we are all the direct descendant of, not just this man...

Theres some other place I heard that from though Im trying to remember... something about descending from one women, damn I can't remember what book I read that in...

Im sure ill figure it out later.

yikes, I reckon Prince Charles regrets not having a girl now and I hear the illuminati are at Ikea purchasing a 14th chair....

Originally posted by cranspace
It is a small world
www.telegraph.co.uk...#

Wow, what a poorly written article.
A great example of science written by journalists who havnt got a clue.

The "eve" they talk about is just one of many thousands of women living at that time. Its just that the descendants of those women didnt make it through history, and their lines died out, leaving all people today as descendants of that "eve".
Including Ian Kinnaird, you, me and everyone.

The only significant thing about Ian Kinnaird is that his line of ancestry has a lower number of genetic mutations (compared to most of us) introduced during that long ancestral breeding program.

3..2....1... and he's the head of his own religion. Imagine the $$$ if he wanted to exploit this.

It was not the worlds first woman.It was Europes first woman. After a small group of Homo Sapians left the continant of Africa and went to Europe and from them most Europeans are decended.

Antropologists reckon from DNA evidence that about 30,000 years ago some homo sapians from Africa, a small group probably a mother, her daughters and a group of men made it to the European mainland, probably across the straights of Gibralter into southern Spain.From that group most Europeans can trace their liniage.

reply to post by benrl

Theres some other place I heard that from though Im trying to remember... something about descending from one women, damn I can't remember what book I read that in...

Maybe it was the bible

Cran

reply to post by cranspace

Maybe it was the bible

Hmmm, could be, you know what that just might be it, the whole civilization going through a genetic bottle neck at some point where only a lone tribe may have survived (toba event), and that whole Mitochondria eve thing...

yeah, I think the bible does say the one woman thing, and that at some point most of man was wiped out...

Strange indeed, wasn't that thing written by a bunch of ignorant sheep herders? huh, thats odd...

Originally posted by auraelium
It was not the worlds first woman.It was Europes first woman. After a small group of Homo Sapians left the continant of Africa and went to Europe and from them most Europeans are decended.

Antropologists reckon from DNA evidence that about 30,000 years ago some homo sapians from Africa, a small group probably a mother, her daughters and a group of men made it to the European mainland, probably across the straights of Gibralter into southern Spain.From that group most Europeans can trace their liniage.

edit on 30-6-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

Why do they have to have been from Africa?
There is a theory that the Europeans as well as the early Egyptians were refugees from Atlantis.

bahaha. "Further proof that even white anglo-saxon protestants are descended from black Eve".

What the heck does being protestant have to do with DNA?
What a dumb article.

Very misleading thread title. There was no world's first woman. That idea is silly. Humans did almost go extinct a few times, once time dropping down as low as 10-15 thousand people. It was never down to 1 woman and 1 man. If that happened incest would have killed the genetic line and we would have probably gone extinct. When they left Africa they bred with Neanderthals, which is where many of the European characteristics came from.

reply to post by cranspace


Considering that carbon 14 levels are still being created in excess amount above depletion rates proving that the atmosphere (from which carbon 14 is derived, cosmic rays hitting nitrogen atoms) is not yet in equilibrium providing a limiting date that the atmosphere (and therefore life) is less than 30,000 years old on earth it just shows that the date of 190,000 years is complete and total unreliable BS....

Better luck next time

Carbon 14 dating explained in everday terms

Carbon 14 dating

That is until careful measurements revealed a significant disequalibrium. The production rate still exceeds decay by 30%. All the present C-14 would accumulate, at present rates of production and build up, in less than 30,000 years! Thus the earth's atmosphere couldn't be any older than this.
www.icr.org...

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

(and therefore life) is less than 30,000 years old on earth

Wrong
Life kicked in on earth three billion years ago

Life on Earth dramatically surged around three billion years ago, possibly when primitive forms developed more efficient ways to harness energy from sunlight, according to a study published on Sunday in Nature.

And a fossil record

Early fossils date back to a period called the Cambrian Explosion, some 588 million years ago.

news.discovery.com...
There is overwhelming evidence that dates the planet at older than 30 000 years

Cran

reply to post by cranspace


Saying "wrong" then making a statement with no evidence doesn't make you correct, your approach isn't very 'scientific'. I see you are able to provide no argument against....

And how they determine the date to give a fossil is based on what exactly????

Early fossils date back to a period called the Cambrian Explosion, some 588 million years ago

I think this statement is a little misleading, it is already well established that every phylum is found fully developed at the time of the Cambrian explosion (where all living creatures suddenly appear at the same time)....do you know what that means, no evolution from less complex to more complex, no macro-evolution transitions between species.

And other than the textbook we find the fossil record where exactly???

Please show me where exactly is the experiment scientists show they can produce life out of an lifeless chemical soup in the presence of oxygen?

And all the matter that came to make the universe (and the lack of anti-matter) and the stability of fine tuned laws of the Cosmo came from where exactly?

If the universe is billions of years old why are comets still in existence (they should have burnt away already)?

If the earth is billions of years old why based on the growth rate of the Great Barrier Reef coral, the Sahara desert westward spread and the age of the oldest tree verified all date this things to be around 4000-4500 years old (right around the time of the Universal flood of Genesis)?

If the Cretaceous layer is the only universal layer in existence across the planet, that it required water to be present to create the 'chalk' (calcium carbonate formed by soft bodied sea creatures) and was an extinction level event then water happened to put the whole world underwater at the same time in the middle of Earth's history? I wonder how those clams found there way to be all the way up the top of Mount Everest!!!

If the process of cell division creates errors and mutations that are degenerative and never beneficial to the organism as a whole then explain the genetic process how more complex information is added into the system to strengthen a species?

The the moon keeps moving away from the Earth about 4 inches each year what limit does this put on the age of the earth?

If the Earth is billions of years old why do coastlines only reflect thousands of years worth of erosion, at observed erosion rates (why hasn't everything eroded into the sea already)?

How does the 'Big Bang' explain planets and moons that spin in the opposite direction than the rest, as according to the 'theory' they should all spin in the same direction?

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Woah, how did this thread go from the topic of A man having low mutations who has a connection to everyone in Britain to debating about Carbon Dating and The Big Bang Theory?

If you don't know, why not just read a book about The Big Bang Theory and make sure you have a good understanding of it? Most people don't. If you have questions why not just research them? I'm sure the scientists who actually research in this field will be able to better explain and answer your questions.

Also, TheIronChariot and TalkOrigins are great places to check out for answers to your questions.

These may interest you:

Refutation To Creationist Claims

Refutation of Young Earth Creationists Arguments

The Age of The Earth

Evidence of The Big Bang Theory

Noah's Ark Hoaxes

How Old is The Earth, really?

Everyone in Britain has the same blood type, I take it! That would be the only way the described scenario could even hold an ounce of truth. Which it doesn't. Furthermore that blood type would need to be RH negative. Not positive. O A B AB irrelevant. RH NEGATIVE. no Rhesus monkey Gene. No rhesus monkey gene means no evolution of Ape to human,period!! Its always been the blood. O negative is the worlds universal blood type. NO antigens, No Rhesus Monkey. NO Aids, No HIV. Think about the word ANTIGEN, fungus on the blood is what it is. Anti genetic.
O neg. no antigens! The whole story of one EVE/LUCY for all, from Africa is a crock of Shiet. WE would need to be RH negative or RH positive. One or the other.
IF a RH negative woman has a RH positive partner. The offspring will be RH positive. Agreed! In this example the offspring will be RH positive.
Without Rho gram (1968) injections to the RH negative woman, Her blood will create antibodies to counteract the infection namely RH positive blood from the offspring. WHY? Rhesus Disease Rho(D) Immune Globulin is a medicine given by intramuscular injection that is used to prevent the immunological condition known as Rhesus disease (or hemolytic disease of newborn). The medicine is a solution of IgG anti-D (anti-RhD) antibodies that suppresses the mother's immune system from attacking Rh-positive blood cells which have entered the maternal blood stream from fetal circulation.
SO the solution is to suppress the woman's IMMUNE SYSTEM! That's natural right???? Are you kidding me?
AUTOIMMUNE disorders are the new flavour of the decade for the medical industry. I Didn't mean to get off track but does that sound like a natural process to you? Mother nature did not intend for RH positive and RH negative blood types to mix. Period! Nature has a natural defense mechanism built in Why? If a horse and donkey mate, the mule will always be sterile. Always. Another natural defense mechanism. Why do you need special tests from the Doctor to get your blood type? Think about it!! If a woman has four kids in her lifetime. Four times her immune system is suppressed. With no ill effects! B U L L S H I T. Yes Ma'am in order to have this child we need to inject you with Rhogram so your blood won't attack the baby. Are you grasping this? RH disease

My Mitochondrial DNA comes from my mama. I was born in 63 pre Rhogram. Firstborn, Dutch descent. My parents blood type obviously matched. I'm Rh negative. No Rhesus monkey gene. Where did my ancestors come from then? Not Africa. That's RH positive territory.
The human race doesn't inhabit this planet. At least two races of humans do and IMHO more likely 4 races. Check the pre 1930 blood types and race profiles.The data is crap after that, because of interaction among the different blood types. Decide for yourself. Do I look at other races differently? Your Dam right I do. Do we all share One common ancestor or mama? There is just no dam way. Mister

Wowzers. It's okay, everyone. This really doesn't change all that much in the big picture. I've never seen so many nonsensical off topic rants in a row!

I noticed a very interesting article in our local (Arizona) newspaper/online paper this morning about humans being bred with "other species" take a look.

The human family tree just got another -- mysterious -- branch, an African "sister species" to the heavy-browed Neanderthals who once roamed Europe.

While no fossilized bones have been found from these enigmatic people, they did leave a calling card in present-day Africans: snippets of foreign DNA.

There's only way one that genetic material could have made it into modern human populations.

"Geneticists like euphemisms, but we're talking about sex," said Joshua Akey of the University of Washington in Seattle, whose lab identified the foreign DNA in three groups of modern Africans.

These genetic leftovers do not resemble DNA from any modern-day humans. The foreign DNA also does not resemble Neanderthal DNA, which shows up in the DNA of some modern-day Europeans, Akey said. That means the newly identified DNA came from an unknown group.

"We're calling this a Neanderthal sibling species in Africa," Akey said. He added that the interbreeding likely occurred 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, long after some modern humans had walked out of Africa to colonize Asia and Europe, and around the same time Neanderthals were waning in Europe.

Akey said that present-day Europeans show no evidence of the foreign DNA, meaning the mystery people were likely confined to Africa.

www.azcentral.com... /20120726dna-links-humans-mystery-species.html