Mitochondrial "Eve"?

[dale]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitochondrial_DNA#English

The following Origins TV episode says science predicts Mitochondrial
"Eve" is around 6,500 years old.

http://origins.ctvn.org/2018/03/12/adam-eve-genetics/

Discuss?

CTVN broadcasts a couple miles away from me. The Origins show is
recorded there, too.

--
dale - http://www.dalekelly.org/
Not a professional opinion unless specified.

[RonO]

On 3/12/2018 8:39 PM, dale wrote:
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitochondrial_DNA#English
>
> The following Origins TV episode says science predicts Mitochondrial
> "Eve" is around 6,500 years old.
>
> http://origins.ctvn.org/2018/03/12/adam-eve-genetics/
>
> Discuss?
>
> CTVN broadcasts a couple miles away from me. The Origins show is
> recorded there, too.
>

The ID perps ran into reality and didn't publish their stupidity on Adam
and Eve. They were trying to claim that all the variation in the extant
human population could be accounted for by the variation contained in
just two people. They were supposed to publish their results last year,
but the did not. Their problem was that they acknowledged that
Neanderthals had to be considered and this increased the variation
greatly, not only that, but if you included the Neanderthals the common
ancestor would go back to over 500,000 years ago instead of less than
100,000. Half a million years is enough time to change the genetic make
up of any species. It would mean that if they used their mutation and
segregation simulation they would find that the vast majority of
variation in the extant population is new variation that has been
generated by new mutations since we last shared our ancestry with
Neanderthals. Creationists have to include Neanderthals as humans
because we obviously interbred with Neanderthals within the last 80,000
years when our African ancestors left Africa. Before we met up again
with Neanderthals our populations had been separated for around a half a
million years.

The links you have are to the mitochondrial DNA and the mitochondrial
DNA tells an even stranger story. We can obtain DNA sequence from
fossils and we have sequenced multiple Neanderthal remains. Most
Neanderthal fossils have a mitochondrial type that would indicate that
mitochondrial eve existed around half a million years ago. Before we
had Neanderthal sequence we only had extant modern human mitochondrial
DNA sequences and they indicated a common ancestor (Eve) around 100,000
years ago. Denisovans (another fossil species of Homo) have a
mitochondrial DNA with even deeper roots. The common ancestor of modern
human and Denisovan mitochondrial DNA existed around 1 million years in
the past. We know Denisovans interbred with modern humans in Asia, and
Indonesia.

So if you think Neanderthal and Denisovans are human that would put the
mitochondrial Eve back to half a million or a million years ago.

As for Adam we have a Neanderthal Y chromosome sequence, but not a
Denisovan Y chromosome sequence (the Denisovan genome from fossil bone
is from a woman). The Y chromosome tells about the same story as the
Neanderthal mitochondrial genome. This would push the Neanderthal Y
chromosome common ancestor with modern human Y back to around 500,000
years ago. So you might claim that if you don't consider the Denisovan
mitochondrial genome that Adam and Eve could have still be
contemporaries just much longer ago. The catch is that recently they
sequenced another Neanderthal fossil and it had the Denisovan
mitochondrial sequence. It is possible that the two mitochondrial types
were segregating within Neanderthals when the Denisovans split off
around 300,000 years ago. In any case this indicates that mitochondrial
eve existed half a million years before Y chromosome Adam for Homo sapiens.

So if you use the logic of your creationist links there was not a
contemporary Adam and Eve for Homo sapiens if you include Neanderthals
and Denisovans as subspecies of Homo sapiens. DNA evidence does
conclusively demonstrate that Modern humans did interbreed with both
Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Basically there is no creationist argument worth much of anything to
talk about. The fact of biological evolution is unchanged, and what we
find is expected. The Y chromosome and mitochondria do not have evolve
together. Lineages of the Y chromosome would be expected to be lost
like surnames when no male progeny are produced for that lineage. It is
just due to chance expectations. The same goes for maternally inherited
mitochondria. Each would be expected to evolve pretty much
independently of the other, and they have obviously been evolving for at
least a million years for the lineage of Homo sapiens that we can track
back to common ancestral mitochondrial DNA molecule found among the
fossil Homo sapiens.

Ron Okimoto

[John Harshman]

On 3/12/18 6:39 PM, dale wrote:
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitochondrial_DNA#English
>
> The following Origins TV episode says science predicts Mitochondrial
> "Eve" is around 6,500 years old.
>
> http://origins.ctvn.org/2018/03/12/adam-eve-genetics/
>
> Discuss?
>
> CTVN broadcasts a couple miles away from me. The Origins show is
> recorded there, too.
>

It relies on a very bad estimate of mitochondrial mutation rates. You
really shouldn't credit creationist sources for anything.

[dale]

I watch the network because the people are happy. It is refreshing to me
as opposed to what else is on television. The network also believes in
abundant life on earth, too.

[John Harshman]

On 3/13/18 1:39 PM, dale wrote:
> On 3/13/2018 11:37 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/12/18 6:39 PM, dale wrote:
>>>
>>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitochondrial_DNA#English
>>>
>>> The following Origins TV episode says science predicts Mitochondrial
>>> "Eve" is around 6,500 years old.
>>>
>>> http://origins.ctvn.org/2018/03/12/adam-eve-genetics/
>>>
>>> Discuss?
>>>
>>> CTVN broadcasts a couple miles away from me. The Origins show is
>>> recorded there, too.
>>>
>> It relies on a very bad estimate of mitochondrial mutation rates. You
>> really shouldn't credit creationist sources for anything.
>>
>
> I watch the network because the people are happy. It is refreshing to me
> as opposed to what else is on television. The network also believes in
> abundant life on earth, too.
>

So, Stepford Television.

[Ernest Major]

"That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain." - Shakespeare

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:39:20 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 3/13/2018 11:37 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/12/18 6:39 PM, dale wrote:
>>>
>>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitochondrial_DNA#English
>>>
>>> The following Origins TV episode says science predicts Mitochondrial
>>> "Eve" is around 6,500 years old.
>>>
>>> http://origins.ctvn.org/2018/03/12/adam-eve-genetics/
>>>
>>> Discuss?
>>>
>>> CTVN broadcasts a couple miles away from me. The Origins show is
>>> recorded there, too.
>>>
>> It relies on a very bad estimate of mitochondrial mutation rates. You
>> really shouldn't credit creationist sources for anything.
>>
>
>I watch the network because the people are happy.

So watch it to increase your cheerfulness, not for objective
information.

> It is refreshing to me
>as opposed to what else is on television. The network also believes in
>abundant life on earth, too.

So? Depending on your interpretation of "abundant", that's
like believing in the warmth of sunlight; a no-brainer.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Pro Plyd]

RonO wrote:
> On 3/12/2018 8:39 PM, dale wrote:
>>
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitochondrial_DNA#English
>>
>> The following Origins TV episode says science predicts Mitochondrial
>> "Eve" is around 6,500 years old.
>>
>> http://origins.ctvn.org/2018/03/12/adam-eve-genetics/
>>
>> Discuss?
>>
>> CTVN broadcasts a couple miles away from me. The Origins show is
>> recorded there, too.
>>
>
> The ID perps ran into reality and didn't publish their stupidity on Adam
> and Eve. They were trying to claim that all the variation in the extant
> human population could be accounted for by the variation contained in just
> two people. They were supposed to publish their results last year, but
> the did not.

Do they include a global flood? After all, everything starts over
genetics-wise with that...

[RonO]

At the time I pointed out that they did not estimate the effect of the
global flood and the reduction in population size, but that reduction
would have occurred only a few thousand years after the creation of Adam
and Eve and though it would have resulted in considerable loss of the
genetic variation found in Adam and Eve it wouldn't have mattered that
much to the estimate that they were going to get using their simulation.
They would have found that enough time had elapsed since the existence
of Adam and Eve that most of the existing genetic variation in the human
population is the result of new mutation since the original pair existed.

That is why they have never published the results of the study that they
claimed that they were doing. They admitted that they needed to include
Neanderthals so that made the effort a very stupid endeavor for guys
that have to placate the YEC faction that is the major support base for
IDiocy, and placating the Biblical literalists is the only reason that
they would even try to do such a stupid study.

Ron Okimoto

[Pro Plyd]

To be, um, fair, the flood myth does involve a slightly larger group
of people, not that it's of any help.

Has any ID/creationist "theory" accounted for how the flood survivors
would have accounted for the development of the various races (ignoring,
for the moment, some of the less palatable meaning of the word)?

[Mark Isaak]

Depends on the flood myth. Many have only two survivors. Some have
only one or zero.

> Has any ID/creationist "theory" accounted for how the flood survivors
> would have accounted for the development of the various races (ignoring,
> for the moment, some of the less palatable meaning of the word)?

An element of some flood myths, especially from the Pacific Northwest,
is that groups of survivors drifted to separate areas and diversified.
Some other flood myths have the races created with the re-creation or
re-emergence of people.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin