Talk:Mitochondrial Eve/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Why is she called "Eve"?

The article on Lucy (Australopithecus) explains why it is called Lucy. Why doesn't this article explain the basis for the name? 98.221.125.119 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's so blindingly obvious, does it really need spelling out?Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is possible that an English speaker who was not raised in one of the Abrahamic religions, and was educated in a country where practitioners of those religions are uncommon, is unaware of the story in Genesis. -- Donald Albury 01:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Suppose I know nothing of evolution OR the Genesis story. This is an encyclopedia, and I think it should be clarified. 98.221.125.119 (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And I just reverted you. This is an encyclopedia that requires that all material added to it be verifiable from reliable sources. While I may agree that the Eve in Genesis is quite likely the inspiration for the term Mitochondrial Eve, we need a reliable source that explicitly says that. Moreover, I think the question of what the article should say about it should be discussed here first. It may be enough to just refer to the concept of Adam and Eve as the first couple without invoking details of any religious tradition. -- Donald Albury 11:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And I just reverted you. The material was helpful and informative and correct. Why don't you do something constructive if the lack of sourcing concerns you and find some? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the editor who adds new material to cite a reliable source for it. If such a reference is easy to find, then Michael should add it. If no such reliable source can be found, even though it is obvious, then the Biblical reference should be removed until someone finds a reference. Greensburger (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Stupid. And ignored by most editors. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a reference some time ago Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your constructive work is appreciated. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

MatrilinealAncestor.PNG

This image is very confusing, and does not illustrate the concept of matrilineal (MRCA) clearly. It only shows a single tree of descent, with no offspring or parents for population off the tree. It does not illustrate that non-matrilineal grandmothers exists, and does not show that the mEve has a common ancestor with the rest of the population. Additionally, the image appears to be unsourced in any way, suggesting that the problems with the image are due to improper synthesis. I suggest it be removed. aprock (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the image. It doesn't show non-matrilineal grandmothers or a common ancestor of mEve because those are not parts of the mEve concept. Non-matrilineal grandmothers are irrelevant to mitochondrial inheritance and a common ancestor of mEve is "out of Africa", etc. Rmhermen (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here. Non-matrilineal grandmothers are relevant as they illustrate the difference between a grandmother and a matrilinear grandmother, something which the illustration confuses rather than clarifies. As noted above, this is by no means the only problem with the image. aprock (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Another example of the problems with image is the fact that men are colored blue, despite having nothing to do with matrilineal MRCA. aprock (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But they do. They carry the same mitochondria - they just can't pass it down. mEve is the source of all mDNA, not just that of all women. Rmhermen (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"they just can't pass it down." Exactly, which is why they have nothing to do with matrilineal MRCA. That you're confused on this is a good illustration of how the image confuses rather than clarifies. aprock (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that I am confused. Rmhermen (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You may or may not be confused, but your claim that men play a role in matrilineal MRCA is incorrect. You appear to understand the mechanics, but your statement "But they do." indicates that something is confused. aprock (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

All men and all women inherit their mitochondria from their mothers. Men have exactly the same mitochondrial DNA as their sisters (with the same mother), allowing for possible mutations after the eggs have formed in the mother. All men and all women have inherited their mitochondria (and therefore, their mitochondrial DNA) in an exclusive matrilineal descent from mitochondrial Eve. Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor in the matrilineal line for all men as well as for all women. The concept of the matrilineal line was developed in anthropology. Men are always in a matrilineal line. In many societies, a man's clan membership, eligibility for positions of power, etc. is inherited through his mother (see Matrilineality). The inheritance of mitochondria is directly analogous.

Another way of looking at it is that mitochondria reproduce asexually (remember, the widely accepted theory is that mitochondria are descended from a Proteobacteria). Every person, man or woman, has a population of mitochondria descended from the population present in mitochondrial Eve. Only women can pass on mitochondria from their population, but the mitochondria are also in men. -- Donald Albury 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Only women can pass on mitochondria from their population, but the mitochondria are also in men." Quite. Which is why highlighting the men blue in the illustration of matrlinial most recent common ancestor is at best confusing. aprock (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it confusing? The chart clearly shows how ALL people, men and women, have come to have only mitochondria descended from the mitochondrial Eve. -- Donald Albury 01:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The chart and it's caption do not explain what blue means, so it is by no means clear what blueness is or how it is passed on. Likewise the chart is not explained in the text of the article. The chart appears to show that pink, green and red people just pop into existence in successive generations with no parents. I realize that this isn't possible, but it's what the chart illustrates. As noted above, this chart appears to be original research and not based on any source whatsoever. I suspect that more than anything is the source of the problems. I suggest removing it until a properly sourced chart can be found. aprock (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note to the image caption explaining the colors. As for retaining the image in the article, I support keeping it, and I presume that Rmherman does as well. I do not see the image as original research. It is illustrating a process that is described in the article. It is no more "original research" than other user-created images in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think user created images are appropriate here, how would you feel about an updated image? aprock (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) User created images, charts and diagrams are used throughout Wikipedia. But the chart would need to be an improvement on the current one. As I have seen no problems with the current one, I have no ideas on how to improve it. But we can always try. Rmhermen (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost all of wikipedia is user created. The issue I brought up earlier is one of sourcing. aprock (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

African Origination?

Historical ancestry trees show mtDNA is strongly suggested to have originated in eastern Africa. Ethnic groups from Tanzania, Africa and an ethnic global mixture were taken into consideration when conducting this research. A breakdown of inheritable traits of mtDNA genomes of two groups show strong characteristics of similar nature to overpower more so in the African mixture than the global. African’s were shown to belong to the utmost lowest possible level of haplogroups in this gene tree. The confusion in this study comes from the denser African population. This study did note a possible elevation by this selection as the sequence of genomes selected would purposely maximize strong similarities in haplogroup manifestation. I find that it is uncertain this study took all aspects of diversity into consideration and may have unfairly grouped specifics enhancing the idea of mtDNA to of originated in Africa (Gonder, M., Mortensen, H., Reed, F., de Sousa, A., & Tishkoff, S. (2006). Whole-mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 24(3), 757-768. doi:10.1093/molbev/msl209. http://library.mtroyal.ca:2048/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msl209Bnixo006 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We are trying to summarize what published experts have had published. So the question is whether you have other sources you can add to this article in order to improve it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

His comment gives his source right at the end "Gonder, M., Mortensen, H., Reed, F., de Sousa, A., & Tishkoff, S. (2006)" Smitty1337 (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And the link leads to a page with, "Note: Access to this database is permitted only to current students, faculty, and staff of Mount Royal University". The abstract for the article can be seen here. It looks like the article is arguing for an area of origin specifically in East Africa, and so does not contradict the "out-of-Africa" hypothesis. However, it looks to me as though the comment at the top of this section is criticizing the referenced study, which would be OR. -- Donald Albury 11:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misunderstood the aim of the post. I had assumed, like Donald, that the citation being given was being criticized, but I then assumed that (in order for this criticism to be relevant) that this means this study is used as a source in our article. But our article only cites two more recent studies which are authored by "Tishkoff et al." groups. So I am also now confused about what the point of this discussion is. Why are we talking about the possible problems of a 2006 study we do not even cite?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Mitochondrial Eve and the estimated year not in dispute?

I'm no molecular evolutionary biologist, but I was just telling someone about the common ancestor theory and they thought I was trying to use it as proof of the "biblical" Adam and Eve. So I went to Google up mitochondria eve and this wikipedia page was the first entry, and the second was an article titled "The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve". I read it thinking that perhaps I had been wrong, but it appears to cite sources saying that mtDNA can be derived from the father as well as the mother, and that mutations in mtDNA were higher than initially expected. I may be wrong in assuming this isn't a well worn debate and that articles sources have been dismissed, but I felt like I should mention it since I saw it. [1] HackTheGibson (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether there can be non-standard mitochondrial inheritance in rare cases is really another subject. There is a clearly defined mitochondrial eve. But concerning exactly when she was you are right that there is debate concerning this calculation. All calculations are very approximate. In our wording we should reflect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have found significant evidence that there is a serious question to as to paternal leakage and other ways in which there can be significant recombination of mtDNA. It doesn't seem from my research to be a rare occurrence by could very well be quite common.Ravendvs42 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)ravendvs42

The idea that mitochondria can be inherited from the father is used as part of a creationist argument. While it has been noted in a few very infrequent cases that paternal mtDNA has made its way into an offspring, it is only in the extreme smallest of cases, often involving human intervention in the fertilization process. It would involve having non-sperm cells from the father present at fertilization in the mother and their mitochondria being incorporated into the egg. A quick check on the title of the article in Google reveals that the article is widely disseminated among anti-evolution and creationist websites. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Most recent common ancestor

The intro says she is the "most recent common ancestor" of humans. I am not an expert in this, but presumably Richard Dawkins is, and he says otherwise. To quote from this interview: [2]

"Dawkins: I refer to things like the belief that Mitochondrial Eve was, like the mythical Biblical Eve, the only woman on Earth. Nonsense, she could have been the member of a huge population. She's simply the common ancestor of all living humans. Another error is to think that Mitochondrial Eve is our most recent common ancestor. She most certainly is not our most recent common ancestor. That distinction much more likely goes to a male. The reason for that is pure logic and it's spelled out in River Out of Eden."

Maybe that bit of the Lede needs some work? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The lede does not say that. Have a look again. I am sure that a lot of people read it wrongly, so if you can think of a better way of wording it please mention it here on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, she is the MRCA through the exclusively female line of all living people today. The religious Adam and Eve were the sole common ancestors of everyone, dead or alive. There are two big differences in the latter case, a smaller but still important distinction in the former. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

inconsistent dates

When he is first mentioned, Adam is said to have lived long before Eve, but twice later in the text, he is said to have lived much later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.76.37 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that all references are consistent at this point. It used to be thought that yAdam was relatively recent, on the order of about 25,000 years, but a recent finding that the y-chromosome ancestor of a South Carolina resident, Mr Albert Perry, could not be found in the known tree of y-chromosome configurations lead to the location of an obscure group of Africans who don't fit the known groups. Including them moved the date of a y-Adam back at least 100,000 years, and possibly much farther. This change was probably only half done at the time of the comment, but now appears to be complete. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Other species

The lede reports: "Mitochondrial Eve lived later than Homo heidelbergensis and the emergence of Homo neanderthalensis, but earlier than the out of Africa migration." I believe that having emerged after heidelbergensis and/or neanderthal is not required by the definition nor proven. The splitting off of either, if indeed either happened to the same parent stock as H. sapiens, is independent of the occurrence of mEve's life. With the findings of the last three years on Neandertal (that most sapiens have common genetics with neanderthals), it would appear that it is a variety of sapiens rather than a brother clade, and if not actually covered by a common mEve's umbrella due to extinction, may still have a "thumb in the fire" through living direct descendents who must, by definition, be covered. However, I'm just a lowly engineer, and I'd like to hear from someone with more biological/anthropological horsepower than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkoreKeep (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Variable Eve?

Unless I'm misunderstanding the biology here, we should surely have a section "Variable Eve" here, to match the section "Variable Adam" in the Y-chromosomal Adam article, and a mention of this in the intro?

Something like this?

“ Variable Eve

The title "Mitochondrial Eve" is not permanently fixed on a single individual. It follows from the definition of Mitochondrial Eve that she had at least two daughters who both have unbroken lineages that have survived to the present day. If the lineages of all but one of those daughters die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two daughters who both have living, matrilineal descendants. Once a lineage has died out it is irretrievably lost and this mechanism can thus only shift the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" forward in time.

In addition to the ability of the title of Mitochondrial Eve to shift forward in time, the estimate of Mitochondrial Eve's DNA sequence, her position in the family tree, the time when she lived, and her place of origin, are all subject to future revisions.

The following events could also change the estimate of who the individual designated Mitochondrial Eve was:

• Further sampling of mitochondria could uncover previously unknown divergent lineages. If this happens, mitochondrial lineages would converge on an individual who lived further back in time.
• The discovery of additional deep rooting mutations in known lineages could lead to a rearrangement of the family tree.
• Revision of the mitochondrial mutation rate can change the estimate of the time when she lived.

”

Can someone with expertise in biology take a look at this, and check it for accuracy, or otherwise, please?

-- The Anome (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think this section is needed? It sort of reads like a bit of personal reflection.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't at all obvious to me, as a non-biologist. The first thought that comes to mind on reading the intro of the article was that Mitochondrial Eve was a specific single person, much like the hypothetical biblical Eve, not a placeholder role that can move from one person to another as scientific evidence changes and lineages die out. -- The Anome (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with your explanation or intention, but it is rather a long section to insert with no specific source. In some ways the explanatory intention (at least of your first proposed paragraph) is similar to the common misconceptions section and maybe a shorter version of what you propose could be inserted there? There is already a sentence in the first section saying "Whenever one of the two most ancient branch lines dies out, the MRCA will move to a more recent female ancestor, always the most recent mother to have more than one daughter with living maternal line descendants alive today." But I guess it could be argued that this is not doing the trick yet. I'll try something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2013 (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)