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)

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)

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)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

Between this discussion having finished over three years ago, and no one having tried to justify a literalist interpretation of the Bible (which makes it hard to believe that you actually read any of the discussion)... there was absolutely no point in you responding. I'm not even going to address your arguments because the above posts already deal with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please bear with me for one sentence. The name for the planet Jupiter is an allusion to a commonly known reference from Greek mythology, it made sense for the original proponents of the discovery/theory and their peers, using the word Jupiter in no way indicates superiority of Greek mythology over other mythology, and modern scientists who do not believe in Greek mythology can still feel comfortable using the word without feeling insulted or inferior. Now replace "Jupiter" with "Mitochondiral Eve" and "Greek mythology" with "Abrahamic religions." Is there a logical difference between the original sentence and the sentence with the words replaced? Please continue this argument after you've also requested to rename each of the non-Earth planets in our solar system on their respective Wikipedia pages. Cheddar3210 (talk) 07:59, 29 September 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)

Outdated information

"The identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans was the time at which all humans who were then alive either left no descendants alive today or were common ancestors of all humans alive today. In other words, "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors" alive at the "identical ancestors point" in time. This is far more recent than when Mitochondrial Eve lived.[36]" This seems to be outdated. The idea is from a 2004 article. I think we did not know back then that humans outside of Subsaharian Africa have Neandertal genes. The identical ancestors point has to be put back to the time before Proto-Neandertals left Africa, i.e. not "far more recent than when Mitochondrial Eve lived" but far far older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiskrof (talk • contribs) 09:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please double check this and let the talk page here know what you find? I believe however that the 2004 article involved was not based on genetic assumptions, but simply mathematical simulations about interbreeding. The question of archaic populations does not effect this because there are not people alive who are purely of archaic descent, and we are talking about ancestry shared with the rest of humanity, not DNA they do not share with the rest of humanity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction in the article

I find the notion of a mitochondrial Eve very strange. Is it really likely that we are all descended from a very small human population of a few thousands people somewhere in Africa? Remember that at the same time, there were Neandertalians and Denosovians (and other species too?) in Eurasia and we carry some of their genes. Does it mean we are descended from Neandertalian males exclusively? The article is contradictory: "Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2] Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, excluding her mother, may have produced direct unbroken female lines only to portions of the present day human population." This is not possible. Any present day human can have only and only one matrilinear great-great-great...... great-grand mother in a given generation. There can be no such thing as a female contemporary of Eve being the direct matrilinear ancestor of anyone alive. Of course, many female contemporaries of Eve might be our great-great... grand-mothers, but not in a direct matrilinear way. Not that I am convinced that Eve existed. Let's imagine some Neandertalian woman was adopted into a Sapiens family 50 000 ears ago (I leave it to you to imagine a violent abduction or a romantic dalliance). Let's imagine this woman is our matrilinear great-great-great... grandmother. Is there a scientific way to tell out the new polymorphisms she brought into our line from new mutations appeared randomly? You have to demonstrate this before you can argue that Eve existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiskrof (talk • contribs) 08:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that " There can be no such thing as a female contemporary of Eve being the direct matrilinear ancestor of anyone alive." I will look at that wording.

The best sources all insist the evidence does show we descend from a small population, so we have to report that, based on the way Wikipedia works.

But you are right to point out that in recent years, it has also been shown that the small population who were our main ancestors also seem to have interbred with some other small populations, very distantly related, such as Neanderthals. But how should that affect what we write in this specific article?

If I understand correctly you are proposing that we are not really sure that the most recent common ancestor of all human mitochondrial lines, might actually have been a person from one of those other populations, such as the Neaderthals. I am not sure about that, but I am also not sure whether it is relevant to any thing in the article? It would indeed be interesting to know if any published source has ever looked into that question, but I am not sure it would make the article wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

by definition, mt-Eve's mother was a "female contemporary of Eve being the direct matrilinear ancestor of [everyone] alive", just not the most recent one. --dab (𒁳) 09:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not the Biblical Eve

I believe this section was written to prove that Mitochondrial Eve is not the same person referenced in religious texts. I question the need for this section, but more importantly, I call for citations. Until equipped with citations, this section is more of a dogmatic rant than a scientific encyclopedia.

• The page suggests that Mitochondrial Eve is not a "fixed" individual. Perhaps we have not found the year/generation/genetic sequence of Mitochondrial Eve, but we are precisely searching for a "fixed" person: the most recent common ancestor. By definition, we are not looking for her mom, her sister, or someone living in her neighborhood; we are looking for her. In terms of population genetics, you cannot be more of a "fixed individual" than this.
• While it is safe to assume that Mitochondrial Eve had a mother based on the evidence that we all have mothers, I think specific cited evidence is warranted for such a special case as Mitochondrial Eve.
• If we have genetic evidence that indicates that Mitochondrial Eve's contemporaries had similar mitochondrial DNA, please cite. Short of this, please cite fossil evidence indicating a larger human population contemporary to Mitochondrial Eve.
• Suggest rephrasing the last point to be more scientific: Although the estimated timelines of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam overlap, there is no genetic evidence to indicate that they were alive at the same time or knew each other. Given the large time ranges and large geographies involved, their chance meeting would be extremely improbable.

For clarity, I do not argue here that Mitochondrial Eve has any relation with the Eve of religious texts. I only call for citations and rephrasing in order to improve the scientific basis of Wikipedia and shed dogmatic rants. Cheddar3210 (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

First, just as a standard procedure, I will move this new section to the bottom of the page rather than the top.

The article has many citations and those citations show clearly that Mitochondrial eve is defined to mean something handy for scientists, and not with reference to anything else such as these eves being the first woman (not even in science, let alone the Bible). That makes it redundant to ask for a source which specifically says something is NOT true, that no source would ever lead you to think in the first place?

The fact that the mitochondrial eve will in fact change over generations stems from the definition itself, because this person is defined in terms of mitochondrial lines in existence on the day we are talking, and every day there are lines going extinct. Concerning the last two bullets perhaps they need separate discussion:

• Does the article currently say that "Mitochondrial Eve's contemporaries had similar mitochondrial DNA"? Maybe we indeed need to look at that, but please cite the part of the article for discussion here.
• Similarly, concerning the proposed rewording about the overlap with "Y Adam" can you post the text you want to change?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

All the "dumbed down" explanations in this article are here due to our decade-long experience that people will make well-intended but uninformed edits unless we really really go out of our way to explain it so everyone can understand. It's not usual to go so far in Wikipedia articles on technical topics, but this page has really proven to be a magnet for such edits.

Andrew's explanations are correct of course. I seriously do not know how we could make the concept any clearer to avoid being forced to give personalised explanations on talk as well. Perhaps a FAQ page we can point to?

Perhaps using really drastic examples?

"If tomorrow, the entire human population would be wiped out, with the only exception of you, your parents and your siblings, your own mother would become mitochondrial Eve. Not because she was in any way special when she was born, but because she and her decendants later on proved lucky not to be wiped out with the others. If you do not understand that your mother may in principle become mt-Eve after a suitable extinction event in the future, please don't ask for 'citations' saying other women with similar mt-DNA were alive at the same time as mt-Eve." --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"234 kya"

The article has been pretty much slaughtered since 2009. The "234 kya" estimate was left over without any indication where it originated. It turns out it was derived from a detailed review of the estimates available in 2009,[3] summarized as

"There are various estimates given for when Mitochondrial Eve lived, ranging between 234,000 years ago and 82,000 years before present(BP), with the majority of estimates clustered between 160,000 and 200,000 BP" (from page 82 "Supplemental Data", mmc1.pdf Soares et al. (2009); see Results, p. 897; Table 3, p.898 of Endicott & Ho (2008))

It is inadmissible to throw out these specific references and just retain "234 kya" without any kind of citation. Anyway, the studies from 2012/13 seem to favour 160 kya, so I am citing this for now.--dab (𒁳) 10:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I misread that. The 2009 studies has "150-234 kya", and the 2013 study has "99-148 kya". I.e. the CIs do not even overlap. An explanation is needed for this (rather than just saying "ca. 150 kya" because this is where the conflicting CIs happen to meet). Also, this duplicates the scope of Macro-haplogroup L (mtDNA), it would be easier to maintain only one page with a topic as complex as this one. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mitochondrial Eve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229152305/http://download.cell.com/AJHG/mmcs/journals/0002-9297/PIIS0002929709001633.mmc1.pdf to http://download.cell.com/AJHG/mmcs/journals/0002-9297/PIIS0002929709001633.mmc1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420053808/http://www.africandna.com/ScienPapers%5CHistory_of_Click-Speaking_Populations_of_Africa.pdf to http://www.africandna.com/ScienPapers%5CHistory_of_Click-Speaking_Populations_of_Africa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization

I noticed that the capitalization of the m in the phrase "Mitochondrial Eve" has been inconsistent throughout the article. I changed several of these in the sections I was reading, but haven't been able to proofread the entire article. Feel free to change any others you see. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

What about Paternal mtDNA transmission?

Perhaps it merits at least some mention here - possibly with the remark that it's thought to be too rare to change the picture significantly? --95.42.25.28 (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

X-chromasome Adam or x-Chromasome Noah

If the naming of the most recent common ancestor were to strictly follow Biblical terminology, the male counterpart of mitochondrial Eve would be x-chromasome Noah. While the Bible reports that 4 females with possibly 4 different mitochondreal heritiges survived the flood, all of the males were either Noah or his sons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:0:1148:CD12:3B40:6137:AC08 (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You're assuming that Noah's wives weren't promiscuous. Given this uncertainty, I argue for Adam! Klbrain (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Y chromosome Adam has nothing to do with the Adam or Noah, the name is just a metaphor he was not the only human in existence or the first one. RIHKARRDOH (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)