Talk:Mitochondrial Eve

Including more research

There are a variety of studies who bring in another perspective to the ones mentionned in the article, these studies have been published and recognized by a number of scientists. I would like the opinion of an editor with a genetics education background to incorporate those views in the article properly. The articles: Carter, Criswell, & Sanford ICC.indd, calibrating the mitochondrial clock, In light of genetics . It seems , in these articles, that the hypothesis suggested to estimate the 200 000 years of age still have some points of contention. Notably in the the number of 'mutations' happening in every generations. These mutations seems to be within a wide range depending on which study is read, with some saying the rate of mutation means a 200 000 years of time, others saying that would be 20 times more than they have observed in their samples. The study ' the eve mitochondrial consensus sequence' had a sample of 800 genetic sequences, and cannot be simply dismissed as an 'exception'... Excluding the debate over the origin of Mitochondrial Eve and Adam and Eve, the facts brought by those articles , among others, seem to be science-based and worth mentionning. What is particularly interesting is the study of the genomes itself. I would need the opinion of said editor to determine the other points of contention worth mentioning. Emli89 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Emil89, if the points you mentioned are well supported by reliable sources, then please feel free to add a few sentences to reflect those. Don't forget to include the citation info. Lightest (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Naming?

"The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to the biblical Eve, which has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic."

And not just journalistic accounts, but among the religious who hold a very belief in Biblical "Adam & Eve" of paradisiacal garden fame. If this is so confusing for such a large group of people, why do these names persist? Surely other, less provocative, names could be applied. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Ooops! Make that: "...among the religious who hold a very FIRM belief in Biblical "Adam & Eve" of paradisiacal garden fame." Sorry, Wordreader (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Not the place to fix that type of problem. On Wikipedia we follow the publications.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing chart link from the journal Nature.

The chart linked to by @Donald Albury in Nature under Archive 4 does not lead to a chart. Mr Albury - is this perhaps the chart to which you referred? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046/figures/1 Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned three different charts in that archive. It turns out that the links I added for the charts in Nature do not match anything found in the Internet Archive. The chart you link to above was in an article published 3+1⁄2 years after the archived discussion. Sorry, but that discussion happened more than nine years ago, and I remember nothing of it, or of what the charts looked like. Donald Albury 20:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Note 3 typo

"neighbourhood of 15 ka" should read 150 ka 99.59.182.228 (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Date range typo

How can the estimated range begin before the overall given range? "As of 2013, estimates for the age Y-MRCA are subject to substantial uncertainty, with a wide range of times from 180,000 to 580,000 years ago[6][7][8] (with an estimated age of between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago" The wider range should begin with 120,000 rather than 180,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.13.131.219 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem. Would anyone object to trimming the content about Y-MRCA age to just

As of 2015, estimates of the age of the Y-MRCA range around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, roughly consistent with the emergence of anatomically modern humans.

It's what's in the main article. The level of uncertainty is better left to the body of this article or the lead of the Y-MRCA one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I went for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)