Mitochondrial Eve - 200,000 Years Ago?


#1

trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

Fascinating article.
Any thoughts?

God bless,
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)


#2

[quote=Jaypeeto3]trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

Fascinating article.
Any thoughts?

God bless,
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
[/quote]

Good example of how science works.


#3

I had my DNA analysed for genetic ancestry tracing done by a group at Oxford University in England. Really interesting. I trace back 20,000 years to a descendent of mitochondrial Eve. Actually 40% of all Europeans come from this one decendent of “Eve” in Africa. Through 10 decendents of her all humans alive today are traced back to the African Eve about 200,000 years ago.
This of course has nothing to do with Eve from the Bible.


#4

[quote=Jaypeeto3]trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

Fascinating article.
Any thoughts?

God bless,
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
[/quote]

Here’s the best part:

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


#5

Oh no!! We’re not back to a young earth again, are we??


#6

Not a young earth, no,
but perhaps a Young fully-Human Race.
Love,
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)


#7

[quote=Jaypeeto3]Not a young earth, no,
but perhaps a Young fully-Human Race.
Love,
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
[/quote]

The fully-human race is a lot older than 6000 years!


#8

Indeed. What’s particularly interesting is that there is most likely more than one mitochondrial Eve, and there will most likely be another one at some point in the future - hell, perhaps she’s alive now. Moreover, it is wrong to say that she is the only woman that individuals alive today are descended from. We are all descended from women who were not descendants of this particular mito-Eve (nor was she their descendant).


#9

[quote=EnterTheBowser]Indeed. What’s particularly interesting is that there is most likely more than one mitochondrial Eve, and there will most likely be another one at some point in the future - hell, perhaps she’s alive now. Moreover, it is** wrong to say that she is the only woman that individuals alive today are descended from**. We are all descended from women who were not descendants of this particular mito-Eve (nor was she their descendant).
[/quote]

Why do you say that?
Mitochondrial DNA shows that we are all from that one woman in Africa. It does not mean there were not woman alive before her and nor does it mean there were not other women alive at the same time as her. It simply means that hers is the only line that still exists today.


#10

Hi Bowser,

I found the article interesting cuz I have (on 2 or 3 occasions) watched a documentary on the Discovery Channel called THE REAL EVE which was about this particular African woman.
The researchers interviewed were quite dogmatic that this woman was the Real McCoy and that all of us now living are her descendants. The program was slickly produced, gave timelines of how Eve’s descendants migrated from Africa to other parts of the globe, etc. Not a bit of it was regarded as conjecture.
To see that other scientists today don’t buy that story is something I find quite interesting indeed.

God bless,
Jaypeeto3


#11

Thistle,
when I was a kid in school, we studied evolution (though of course not at a college level !! ), and we were assured by our doctrinnaire textbooks that modern man (Homo Sapiens) had appeared on the scene 30,000 years ago, not 200,000.
Ever since that time (my youth) I have seen widely varying estimates from evolutionists on when fully-Human beings actually appeared on the scene, ranging from 150,000 years ago to 600,000 years ago.

Interestingly, these fully-Human beings never learned how to write until just a FEW thousand years ago, and we all seemed to learn at around the same time on the historical timeline.

I’m not about to buy swampland in the Everglades.

Love,
Jaypeeto3


#12

[quote=Jaypeeto3]Thistle,
when I was a kid in school, we studied evolution (though of course not at a college level !! ), and we were assured by our doctrinnaire textbooks that modern man (Homo Sapiens) had appeared on the scene 30,000 years ago, not 200,000.
Ever since that time (my youth) I have seen widely varying estimates from evolutionists on when fully-Human beings actually appeared on the scene, ranging from 150,000 years ago to 600,000 years ago.

Interestingly, these fully-Human beings never learned how to write until just a FEW thousand years ago, and we all seemed to learn at around the same time on the historical timeline.

I’m not about to buy swampland in the Everglades.

Love,
Jaypeeto3
[/quote]

Okay modern man 30,000 years ago but certainly not 6000, and we still trace back to Mitochondrial Eve 200,000 years ago.


#13

and we still trace back to Mitochondrial Eve 200,000 years ago.

That’s just the point of the article.
According to the scientists quoted in the article,
we do not all trace back to her, AND there is no way of knowing HOW long ago she lived, if she ever lived at all.

Love,
Jaypeeto3


#14

[quote=Jaypeeto3]and we still trace back to Mitochondrial Eve 200,000 years ago.

That’s just the point of the article.
According to the scientists quoted in the article,
we do not all trace back to her, AND there is no way of knowing HOW long ago she lived, if she ever lived at all.

Love,
Jaypeeto3
[/quote]

That’s an article trying to disprove evolution.


#15

That’s an article trying to disprove evolution.

Big deal. The scientists quoted at length in the article are themselves evolutionist scientists, that’s what’s important.

And besides, I could turn that argument around on you and dismiss the earlier articles on Mitochondrial Eve by saying,
“those are articles trying to prove evolution.”

Love,
Jaypeeto3


#16

[quote=Jaypeeto3]That’s an article trying to disprove evolution.

Big deal. The scientists quoted at length in the article are themselves evolutionist scientists, that’s what’s important.

And besides, I could turn that argument around on you and dismiss the earlier articles on Mitochondrial Eve by saying,
“those are articles trying to prove evolution.”

Love,
Jaypeeto3
[/quote]

Evolution is an accepted theory backed by plenty of scientific evidence which has been cited in the hundreds of threads in these forums about the subject. I accept it and I accept that God is the Creator. I see no conflict.


#17

I didn’t say that there WAS a conflict.
I merely pointed out that just because an article is contra-evolution is not reason to a-priori reject the evolutionary scientists quoted at length in the article.

As for the evidence supporting evolution, personally I find it tenuous and rather elastic. What is accepted today as a transitional form will likely be rejected tomorrow. This has happened over and over again.

So, while I see no inherent conflict between evolution and the Bible, I am still not convinced that the Evolutionists have proven their case.

Love,
Jaypeeto3


#18

[quote=Jaypeeto3]That’s just the point of the article.
[/quote]

I would take anything with a banner that reads, “exposing the myth of X” with a few grains of salt

I’m sure we all have biases but nailing your colors to the mast so stridently leads me to suspect everything that follows.

Especially when they state that a most recent common ancestor (MRCA) is as close as 6,000 YA, which is in complete contradiction to observed data.

[quote=Jaypeeto3]According to the scientists quoted in the article,
we do not all trace back to her, AND there is no way of knowing HOW long ago she lived, if she ever lived at all.

Love,
Jaypeeto3
[/quote]

Well there has to be a MRCA … Otherwise you’d have to have multiple (but amazingly similar) gene lines arising independently
So of course she did live
Exactly when and where…well we have an estimate within a 1000 miles and +/- 100,000 years which is pretty good

There are several ways of arriving at a MRCA such as mitochondria, y chromosome, etc
While there maybe some estimates, conjecture, and/or uncertainty in any one of those the fact that completely different techniques tend to give similar answers reinforces the accuracy of the estimates and lowers the uncertainty.


#19

[quote=thistle]Why do you say that?
Mitochondrial DNA shows that we are all from that one woman in Africa. It does not mean there were not woman alive before her and nor does it mean there were not other women alive at the same time as her. It simply means that hers is the only line that still exists today.
[/quote]

Let’s just say that God makes four people: Steve, Laura, Tom, and Barbara, and places them on an island. Steve and Laura have a daughter called Laurasteve. Tom and Barbara have a son called Tombarbara. Eventually, Laurasteve and Barbaratom have a daughter, who they name Laurastevebarbaratom. Now, all the parents die, and only LSTB is left. Who is the mito-Eve of this one-person population? It is her maternal grandmother, Laura. Is this her only female ancestor? No,LSTB is also descended from Barbara.


#20

[quote=steveandersen]Well there has to be a MRCA … Otherwise you’d have to have multiple (but amazingly similar) gene lines arising independently
So of course she did live
[/quote]

I’m guessing in the next 24 hours there will be a long detailed post explaining why there is no MRCA ancestor for all of man kind. (or at least a reference to said post.)

That should get the same arguments going again for the umpteenth time.

I vote for adding Evolution to the banned topics list. All in favor!

Chuck


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.