Talk:Mitochondrial Eve

Semitism

Why is she called Eve? Was she Jewish or Muslim? This choice of naming is discriminatory. --144.122.104.211 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

should be Lucy (Charlie's pal)

Please rant elswhere 'bout discrimination - we go by reliable source usage around here. Vsmith (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sykes ("The Seven Daughters of Eve") cites the concept in a 1987 unidentified paper; it is likely that the epithet was adopted by the press reporting on the finding at that time. Oddly, he also points out that it is hardly an African name. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Merged from "7 Mother not Eve"

Using the name Eve seems to be a purposeful slight at non-Christian religions. Wouldn't Mitochondrial Mother be a better name? I know people are going to argue: 'All prominent scientists use the term Eve' or some other way to shirk the duty of critically considering the name use. However, part of Wikipedia's duty is to move thought forward, and neutalizing the religious favouritism is a step forward. Besides, the alliteration sounds better. Steven McIntire ALLEN 07:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians aren't allowed to make stuff up. See WP:No original research. Since when does a free encyclopedia written by volunteers have a "duty" other than to stick to the facts and respect copyright? HelenOnline (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That is right. We use the most common name being used in published reliable sources. To do otherwise would certainly not be neutral. It seems to me there is always a minority somewhere who will endeavour to be offended at pretty much anything. (I certainly do not think most Christians or any scientists see this as an insult.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

For more on what Lancaster said, see WP:COMMONNAME.
—Sowlos 09:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This would not be the first time most Christians would be insulting others without realising their insult. A web search for "mitochondrial mother" (with quotes) gives 3,220 results. Admittedly, mitochondrial eve has more, but 3,220 results suggests I am not making stuff up. Moreover, we should not be simply using the term that scores highest in search results. An encyclopaedia is meant to educate, so we could say Wikipedia has a duty to educate. If most of the English speakers in the world were using a religiously derogatory name, would Wikipedia use that name? Steven McIntire ALLEN 06:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking the term "mitochondrial mother" is not used as a proper name while "Mitochondrial Eve" is. This article is about our "mitochondrial mother" who has been named "Mitochondrial Eve". HelenOnline (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

First, this article is about a well-establish term in science. Second, Adam and Eve are central to all three of the Abrahamic religions. Third, the Talk page is not for furthering personal, uninformed opinions. Lklundin (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to be insulting. Opposing opinions may seem equally uninformed to the other. There is no dispute the term is well-established. You bring up a good point that the term bias relates to non-Abrahamic religions rather than non-Christian. None of your points are logically dispositive. Steven McIntire ALLEN 05:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no point in trying to make excuses for using genetics to try to justify your belief in biblical stories. The genetic arguments are repeatedly made throughout this article that there was no such person, only tens of thousands of such person. Thus, whilst each will undoubtedly have many descendants, and you may sit in a room one day filled with those who have all descended from the same eve, there are always going to be people on earth who did not, thus, unless you want to be 'Eveist' about things, accept that at best genetics has proven that there were Mitchondrial Eves, tens of thousands of them. your Eve probably wasnt called Eve and neither most likely was mine. this is not to say you have to agree with my beliefs nor that i disrespect yours, but if you wish to take a modern, scientific view then do that and stop referring to a single person. I suggest retitling the article to Mitochondrial Eves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.134.125 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Discovery section

These rants and squabble are, I believe, resolved by the new section "Discovery". Chhandama (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Mutation rates

The article first mentions rates of 0.02 per nucleotide per million years, but then later makes supposedly triple-referenced claims that it is 1 mutation every 3500 years per nucleotide. This needs correction....?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.134.125 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Au sediba?

should this discussion expand to cover Au sediba? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.254.217 (talk) 16:46, April 12, 2013‎

No. Eve lived a couple of million years later and was a different species. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And I think more generally we can only make connections to fossil species if an expert has published such a speculation. There is a reason that experts have not done much of that, which is that estimates of ages based on DNA are still pretty speculative.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We now have a chart, published in Nature, showing an mtDNA tree that includes the Sima de los Huesos hominin, Denisovans, Neanderthals and modern humans. And just for fun, a chart that includes chimpanzees and bonobos in the tree. Now we just need some discussion in a reliable source (beyond statements about confusion) of the relationships between the branches. -- Donald Albury 16:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Neanderthal, Denisovan, and Sima de los Huesos mt DNA are all of course "cousins" to Eve, and not descended from her. There will of course be an earlier Eve from whom all of these cousins descend. My point: if we mention this, we need to be careful not to create confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. We may soon be seeing more mtDNA sequences for fossils at various points in the hominin tree. It will be interesting to see what names are applied by the press to the mtMRCA for all anatomically modern humans (past ~200,000 years), to the mtMRCA for Home sapiens in the broad sense, including Neanderthals, and to the mtMRCA for whatever they call the clade that includes modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans and "Simans". Eve', Eve", etc. probably won't go over well in the popular press. -- Donald Albury 02:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not NPOV

While I think the Common Misconceptions section is important, it's not NPOV. For example: "And some irate critics are so annoyed as to state that: Poor Eve. How many times, we wonder, will she have to die before she finally can be buried—permanently—and left to “rest in peace”"220.244.44.207 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No. The quote is exactly the crux of the misconception that the entire concept is dead (or atleast to be considered). But it is not. This subsection addresses from a scientific point of view and not from that of the critics. See the references for the scientific development. Chhandama (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the die-out of non-Eve mitochondrial DNA, I object to the flat statement that (implicitly time-after-time and for ALL the non-Eve types) eventually no non-Eve females were born. I added my "Alternately" understating the much more likely circumstance that female hybrids were infertile, for example Neanderthal non-Eve females mated with Eve-descended males and produced "mules", sexually active hybrids who could produce no offspring (or to be more open-ended, no female offspring or only produce female offspring who could only produce females who could produce only females who could not produce female offspring...as seriatim until the process in effect would justify the statement before my "Alternately".) My added words convey more likelihood to the reader without bringing in the whole serial process that may have been the case and that gave cause to the original sentence that I want to modify. That is, give the reader two choices instead of forcing the one on the reader that would necessitate for any reasonable conviction that we state the infinite series scenario? Sorry to be so verbose. Dale Adams M. A., M. S., CPA, ISPE etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleadams81 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:reliable source to support your added commentary. Vsmith (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Bible quoting

I've removed rather irrelevant bible quoting three times. Yes, the "Eve" part of the name was biblically inspired as noted in the university webpage ref "...after a journalist's confusing reference to the unrelated Biblical story...". That note and ref is quite adequate, we don't need the Genesis 3:20 quote which was first added by an ip and then re-added twice by an experienced editor. Appears as simple promotion of a specific religion. Vsmith (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"A fixed individual"

The article says that the Mitochondrial Eve can't be the Biblical Eve because, among other reasons, she "is not a fixed individual". I don't understand this. Mithocondrial Eve was a fixed individual, even if we have not identified her. Am I missunderstanding something? Otherwise, I think this argument should be taken away. --RR (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

As explained in the article, as descendant lines die out (i.e., have no living female descendants) the identity of Mitochondrial Eve changes. So no, she is not a fixed individual. Her identity will change with time. Meters (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Besides, Biblical Eve lives within the pages of a book, a character of faith, not science. That alone would disqualify the interpretation of one for the other. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Confused

Is this article about the "woman" that was found in North East Africa and who currently is called Eve, or is it about the theory of Mt Eve? Also can someone explain to me what form the woman was found in North East Africa (bones/fossil etc)? Do they have bones like for Lucy? Thank you Solatiumz (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to do with any particular individual or set of fossils. Meters (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. Solatiumz (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No probs. I can't tell what your question about the "North East Africa" woman is about, but you are unlikely to get an answer here. You would be better off asking that at the reference desk, and adding more specifics so people know what you are asking about. Meters (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)