The Mitochondrial Eve - Do all humans have one common ancest

[I Will Deny You]

Here's a question for those of you who subscribe to the theory of evolution: Do any of you believe the Mitochondrial Eve (http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/4118/misc/eve.html) theory? I got to thinking about it after reading an article in the latest issue of The Atlantic which described how many humans are related. Of course, the Mitochondrial Eve theory relies on a person who does not believe that humans evolved in separate groups, but even then, it's so staggering to think about. The implications are enormous: I'm related to BatistaNationalista, and the Che was related to Hitler! And it's hard to imagine the woman who was the actual Mitochondrial Eve. There was no way that she could have known that every single member of such an incredible species would be a descendant of hers. It just gets you thinking about so many things . . . and feeling so insignificant.

Well, these were simply some random thoughts of a tired, overworked student. I'm off to bed now. But I really would be interested to know how many of you believe this theory and how many of you believe in separate evolution. Good night.

[MJM]

I think we're all related in some distant way. I remember reading about an iceman about 10,000 years old who is related to 1/4 of the world's population. I'm not too knowledgeable on the theory you mentioned, but if you take 1/4 related over 10,000 years and add another zero we'd all be related by my reckoning.

[Valkyrie]

Carl Sagen believed this too. In his book about billions he has some specific numbers of how many ancestors one has, and that ultimately everyone shares a common ancestor, though not neccessarily the same one. I will try to find that book and give you the stats. Unfortunetly, I have billions of books too, so it may take awhile.

Also, kind of like the six degrees of separation theory which is that everyone can find a common acquaintance that they both know, through not more than six other people. This theory has always proven correct for me so far.

[Fires of History]

Of course we descend from a common ancestor. The idea that homo sapiens sprung up spontaneously in separate groups around the globe is...lol...well just absurd.

You said, "It just gets you thinking about so many things . . . and feeling so insignificant."

Humans have this tremendous need to feel cosmically significant. I've never understood why.

[IzmSchism]

in terms of quantum physics, we all share common atoms, we are constantly shedding old atoms and gaining new ones, atoms that have circum-navigated the globe

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from Fires of History on 11:23 am on April 24, 2002
Humans have this tremendous need to feel cosmically significant. I've never understood why.
I meant insignificant time-wise, not space-wise. But either way, what you said hits the nail on the head, more or less. Perhaps I'm codependent?

[Ho]

I do not agree with the mitochondrial eve theory.
To many differences to come from only one mother!
Impossible tha people like che are related like people as hitler

[Fires of History]

"To many differences to come from only one mother!"

Do you understand evolution?

"Impossible tha people like che are related like people as hitler"

Why? Humans have 99.8% of the SAME EXACT DNA as Chimpanzees. Go to www.allmanlab.caltech.edu/bi216home/apegenome.pdf (http://www.allmanlab.caltech.edu/bi216home/apegenome.pdf) to learn more.

Humans are definitely all related, and descend from a common mother that was the bearer of the final genetic shift that makes us 'homo sapiens.' Gorillas and chimps are our cousins in the evolutionary sense, and every other human our brother or sister.

Keep in mind Ho that this process took hundreds of thousands of years.

[Fires of History]

Quote: from I Will Deny You on 12:36 am on April 25, 2002
I meant insignificant time-wise, not space-wise. But either way, what you said hits the nail on the head, more or less. Perhaps I'm codependent?


Our adapted tribal psychology certainly engenders us to become co-dependent, mostly because for our entire evolution we were dependent on others for survival. We are primates, not solitary big cats after all. We are a communal creature, much like Chimps and Gorillas. Which is my way of saying that if you are co-dependent, it's because your genetic instinct is helping you along in that category :)

Agree about the time-line too. Go HERE (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html) to feel even more insignificant.

We are a just a bleep on the historical screen. And we are ensuring are extinction to be sooner than later everyday. Goddamn we suck...

[El Che]

I hope this theory can be proven scientificly. For the simple fact that it would be a smack a cross the face of all neo-nazi and all other rascist groups.

[Anarcho]

It already has been proven, or at least as proven as any scientific theory can be proven. Mitochondrial DNA is seperate from your personal DNA.

They test the M-DNA, to track how deviated it is, just as they do with Human DNA, but it is my understanding that the M-DNA is simpler, and therefor easier to quantify.

And, honestly, not a lot of difference between Che and Hitler... both charismatic leaders, both passionate about their cause, both willing to put the good of their cause before their own. The differences are there though, and in the end that's what makes one a monster, and one a hero.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from Ho on 9:43 pm on April 24, 2002
To many differences to come from only one mother!
It's not that we all come from one mother. Many women who were alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve would have had descendants. And as Trance said, this is going back thousands and thousands of years. If you can get your hands on some conflicting mathematical or biological evidence I would be interested, though.


Quote: from Ho on 9:43 pm on April 24, 2002
Impossible tha people like che are related like people as hitler
There's an article in the latest issue of The Atlantic that you might be interetsed in. Basically, if you go back around half a millenium (or less), you would find a common ancestor of Hitler and Che.

[vox]

El Che,

I recall reading an article that said, from a geneticist's point of view, there is no such thing as race, but I can't find the damned article now. Fires of History, any idea about this?

vox

[Fires of History]

The concept of 'race' is a superficial one, and has NO basis in evolutionary biology. It's a long article so I refuse to regurgitate it all here. Go read Race, Culture, and Human Evolution (http://www.fathom.com/feature/122207) for some very interesting insights on 'race' from the world of anthropology.

From article:

"Human 'races' are genetically close because they never were isolated. These races are not branches on an evolutionary tree, and for the most part are not like the races, or subspecies, found in other animals."

"Human races are nothing like this. They are far less different from one another, and they are not distinct lines of descent, because each has multiple ancestors. This is not to say that the human species is homogeneous, or that its features are uniformly distributed. There is geographic variation within our species, and within broad regions it is possible to find some common combinations of physical features that reflect physical proximity, common adaptation, and ancestral geographic identity. But this is not much like they pattern of how features are distributed within the subspecies of most other species. While 'race' can more clearly describe geographic variation in many other species, there are significant problems in using the term to describe human geographic variation, because of the pattern of mixing we describe above and since the primary meaning of 'race' is sociocultural and is only very loosely linked to biology."

And so on and so forth, good article.

[El Che]

Of course it wont matter anyway, hate doesnt listen to reason. It must be fought foremost with force. To fight rascism in a debate of ideas is to do it an honor it does not deserve, but to be prepared to take up arms against is to be wise.

[Valkyrie]

This is what Carl Sagen has to say in his book "Billions and Billions", 1997.

"Everyone has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, etc. Every generation back we go, we have twice as many lineal ancestors. You can see that this is very much a Persian Chessboard kind of problem. If there are , say 25 years to a generation, then 64 generations ago is 64 x 25 =1,600 years ago, or just before the fall of the Roman Empire. So, everyone of us alive today had in the year 400 some 18.5 quintillion ancestors (direct)-- or so it seems. And this says nothing about collateral relatives. But this is far more than the population of the Earth, then or now; - it is far more than the total number of human beings who have ever lived. Something is wrong with our calculation. What? Well we have assumed all those lineal ancestors to be different people. But, this of course, is not the case. The same ancestor is related to us by many different routes. We are repeatedly, multiply connected with each of our relatives - a huge number of times for the more distant relations.

Something like this is true of the whole human population. If we go far enough back, any two people on earth have a common ancestor. Whenever a new American President is elected, there's bound to be someone - generally in England - to discover that the new President is related to the Queen or King of England. This is thought to bind the English-speaking peoples together. When two people derive from the same nation or culture, or from the same corner of the world, and their genealogies are well-recorded, it is likely that the last common ancestor can be discovered. But whether it can be discovered or not, the relationships are clear. We are all cousins ---- everyone on Earth. "




(Edited by Paris at 8:16 pm on April 26, 2002)

[deadpool 52]

Yeah, 98%, but most of our DNA is from other organisms that have just leached their onto ours. And by two percent, means millions of different patterns.

"They're are three kind of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

(Edited by deadpool 52 at 9:41 pm on April 27, 2002)

[eudaimonia]

I don't think it's necessary to state the differences between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Nor is it necessary to state that keeping the theory of evolution in mind, we did have a common ancestor in the first lifeform on Earth (or wherever we came from). It's important to keep in mind that Homo sapiens did not spontaneously appear after the Neandertals. Likely a fetus (be it male or female) was in the right place at the right time to have a specific gene (it's extremely unlikely that more than one gene was altered) altered beneficially. Maybe the altered gene made a protein better at its job, so that our skulls and brains grew slightly larger. Something along those lines. But the most important thing to know is that the reason that we can draw lines between subspecies (habilis, erectus, etc.) is because we don't have fossil records of every single human that ever lived. Not only that, but we only have their bones, so we can really only observe changes in skeletal structure (unless other tissues are preserved somehow). If we DID have all the remains of our ancestors perfectly preserved, we'd simply see a blending, as each beneficial mutation spread throughout humanity. There can be no single ancestor, unless you look back to the beginning. And even then, there was evolution that brought the cell into being. Back further, and I think the first form of organic matter is the only thing that can close to an answer. Amino acids have been found to form, by themselves, on comets. That, from my point of view, is our one ancestor. :-)