"Adam" is older than previously thought

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

"Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:09 pm

So maybe he and "Eve" could have hooked up!

New data on Y-Chromosome MRCA:

“Adam,” humankind’s most-common male ancestor, is from an older era than once thought, living about the same time as genetic “Eve,” a study found.
Using the complete strand of DNA that determines male sex, researchers have determined that Y Chromosome Adam lived 120,000 to 156,000 years ago, overlapping with Mitochondrial Eve, who probably lived 99,000 to 148,000 years ago, according to a paper published today in the journal Science. Researchers previously thought Adam lived 50,000 to 150,000 years ago.
The new data provides a richer picture of the outlines of human history, helping scientists more precisely understand the evolutionary tree. Previous efforts to date a common ancestor didn’t use the whole Y chromosome, leaving undetected the rare variations that help define commonality with past generations.
...


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-0 ... sumed.html
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5373
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Austin Harper » Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:20 pm

What? No. Adam is 27 years old. He just had a birthday and he's sitting like 50 feet away from me.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5373
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Austin Harper » Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:20 pm

Oh you know what? He says there are other guys named Adam. Maybe you know a different guy.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:22 pm

Austin Harper wrote:Oh you know what? He says there are other guys named Adam. Maybe you know a different guy.



Be sure you tell him he's older than he thinks! :lol:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:58 pm

I have always been a bit cynical about the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis. While there is clearly low levels of genetic diversity in human mitochondria, I think that is a frail strand of data to hang the idea of a single (or even a few) female ancestors on. All I think that means is that at one stage in human prehistory, there were relatively small numbers of females.

But what does 'small numbers' mean? It could be several entire tribes - hundreds of women - based on the limited data.

If we want a better date for human origins, we can look at the fossil record. The oldest traces of Homo sapiens appear to be from southern Africa, and near enough to 200,000 years ago.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:00 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:All I think that means is that at one stage in human prehistory, there were relatively small numbers of females.

That's not what it means, and mitochondrial dna isn't necessary to reach the conclusion that modern humans have a single female ancestor. With each passing generation, the likelihood that some female from a particular generation in the past is winning the reproductive competition with her competitors in that generation increases.

Eventually, one female wins the competition for the same reason that one player always ends up with all of the property in a game of Monopoly. The mitochondrial dna evidence only helps evolutionary biologists determine roughly when the game began. A small number of players at the beginning of the game is not necessary.

Also, every human (or pre-human primate) living at the time of the Eve who is the common female ancestor of every human living today also had a common female ancestor, and this prior Eve is also a common female ancestor of every human living today, so we have more than one common female ancestor.

At some point in the future, a few females living today will be the ancestors of practically everyone living in the future, and practically all females living today will have few descendants left. The same goes for males living today, so get busy boys.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 13748
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Major Malfunction » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:42 am

Image
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:32 am

Martin

I suggest you re-think that idea. It is flawed. Human descent comes down through a gene pool that has been large enough to involve hundreds of women at least at every stage. No single woman is the single ancestor of all of us.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Daedalus » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:42 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Martin

I suggest you re-think that idea. It is flawed. Human descent comes down through a gene pool that has been large enough to involve hundreds of women at least at every stage. No single woman is the single ancestor of all of us.


You're not wrong, but you're not right either... mostly because of a common misunderstanding of just what "Mitochondrial Eve" really is.

From Wikipedia...

Wiki wrote:One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time.[6][30] However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:41 am

Daedalus

That is one interpretation. The truth is more likely that there was a period in human pre-history in which the number of forebears was limited, and we are all descended from a relatively small number of related individuals. How small that number was is seriously debatable.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22770
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:54 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Daedalus

That is one interpretation. The truth is more likely that there was a period in human pre-history in which the number of forebears was limited, and we are all descended from a relatively small number of related individuals. How small that number was is seriously debatable.

Why is that more likely?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:05 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Daedalus

That is one interpretation. The truth is more likely that there was a period in human pre-history in which the number of forebears was limited, and we are all descended from a relatively small number of related individuals. How small that number was is seriously debatable.


It's not an interpretation. It's true. It's science. Biological/Genetic science.

You are not understanding either what a MRCA is or how mitocondrial/y-chromosome DNA analysis works.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Human descent comes down through a gene pool that has been large enough to involve hundreds of women at least at every stage.

This fact is irrelevant. A game of Monopoly starts with many players owning no property and ends with one player owning all property. It always ends this way, even if the progress of a game is purely a matter of chance, with another roll of the dice determining when players buy and sell, because that's how the stochastic process evolves. The number of players at the beginning of the game is irrelevant.

Similarly, the game of reproduction starts with every individual in a particular generation having no descendants and ends with one individual in that generation having all descendants. That's the game in asexual reproduction anyway.

No single woman is the single ancestor of all of us.

Like I said, many individual females are the ancestor of us all. An Eve exists a hundred thousand or so years ago, and this Eve's contemporaries, in her species, also had a common female ancestor who is also a single ancestor of us all. Biologists did not discover this fact by analyzing mitochondrial DNA. They realized that it must be true by understanding the reproductive process and then used mitochondrial DNA to estimate how long ago this Eve must have lived.
Last edited by Martin Brock on Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:39 am, edited 4 times in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:26 am

Wiki wrote:Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line

That's a good point. Because we reproduce sexually, some of Eve's female contemporaries may have descendants today, but only Eve is the mother of us all.

Some of us in this generation do not reproduce, so we have no descendants. Some of us who do reproduce in this generation have progeny who don't reproduce in the next generation, and so on. I could have one descendant ten generations from now, and another individual could have thousands of descendants or tens of thousands.

Because the number of one's descendants can grow (or shrink) exponentially, even tiny differences in reproductive success eventually imply vast differences in the number of descendants, and eventually, one player wins this game. The Eve hypothesis assumes nothing else.

See Geometric Brownian Motion.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Daedalus » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:48 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
Wiki wrote:Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line

That's a good point. Because we reproduce sexually, some of Eve's female contemporaries may have descendants today, but only Eve is the mother of us all.

Some of us in this generation do not reproduce, so we have no descendants. Some of us who do reproduce in this generation have progeny who don't reproduce in the next generation, and so on. I could have one descendant ten generations from now, and another individual could have thousands of descendants or tens of thousands.

Because the number of one's descendants can grow (or shrink) exponentially, even tiny differences in reproductive success eventually imply vast differences in the number of descendants, and eventually, one player wins this game. The Eve hypothesis assumes nothing else.

See Geometric Brownian Motion.


It's that, but more too. Remember, Mitochondrial DNA is a contribution only of the mother. So Eve could have had many descendants who had only sons, or who's daughters never managed to reproduce. The sons would still have progeny alive today, but they wouldn't have a Mitochondrial contribution of Eve. Any line which turns male-only for a generation is a terminus for Mitochondrial records.

@Lance: You're incorrect, what you think is open to interpretation is not for reasons everyone is trying to explain.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:51 pm

Daedalus wrote:It's that, but more too. Remember, Mitochondrial DNA is a contribution only of the mother. So Eve could have had many descendants who had only sons, or who's daughters never managed to reproduce. The sons would still have progeny alive today, but they wouldn't have a Mitochondrial contribution of Eve. Any line which turns male-only for a generation is a terminus for Mitochondrial records.

So if the Y-Chromosome Adam had only one mate, his mate is also the mother of us all, but she almost certainly is not the Mitochondrial Eve. The sexual reproduction game is a lot more interesting.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Daedalus » Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:18 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
Daedalus wrote:It's that, but more too. Remember, Mitochondrial DNA is a contribution only of the mother. So Eve could have had many descendants who had only sons, or who's daughters never managed to reproduce. The sons would still have progeny alive today, but they wouldn't have a Mitochondrial contribution of Eve. Any line which turns male-only for a generation is a terminus for Mitochondrial records.

So if the Y-Chromosome Adam had only one mate, his mate is also the mother of us all, but she almost certainly is not the Mitochondrial Eve. The sexual reproduction game is a lot more interesting.


I'm not sure that I understand Martin.

All I'm saying is that mitochondria are entirely supplied by the ovum, from the mother obviously. A male offspring of "Eve" almost certainly could have lines alive today, but they would have mitochondrial DNA from their mother, not traceable back to "Eve".
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Martin Brock » Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:24 pm

Daedalus wrote:I'm not sure that I understand Martin.

All I'm saying is that mitochondria are entirely supplied by the ovum, from the mother obviously. A male offspring of "Eve" almost certainly could have lines alive today, but they would have mitochondrial DNA from their mother, not traceable back to "Eve".

I understand that. The mitochondria is essentially a cell within a cell, and it reproduces asexually. It's something like a bacterial parasite in all human cells, including the ova. Since your ovum came exclusively from your mother, you have a copy her mitochondrial DNA.

Also, a male's Y-chromosome comes exclusively from his father, because it doesn't participate in crossing over. The Y-chromosome also reproduces asexually, because except for mutations, you have a copy of your father's Y-chromosome, and he has a copy of his father's Y-chromosome.

Your other chromosomes reproduce sexually. Each of your other chromosomes (except the X paired with your Y) gets half of its genes from each parent, because they participate in crossing over, a process in which each pair of chromosomes (except a male's X-Y pair) exchanges genes.

Just as all mitochondrial DNA today can be traced back to a single mitochondria from a single female in the past, all Y-chromosome DNA today be traced back to a single Y-chromosome from a single male in the past. You and I need not have the same Y-chromosome genes (if we aren't brothers for example), but both of our Y-chromosomes are nonetheless traceable back to a single Y-chromosome in the past.

The single female in the past is mitochondrial Eve, and the single male in the past is Y-chromosome Adam, but this Adam and Eve did not procreate. Both are the ancestor of everyone living today, but they could have lived tens of thousands of years apart.

If mitochondrial Eve mated with only one male, then this male is also the ancestor of everyone living today, because if Eve is my ancestor, this male must be my ancestor too.

Similarly, if Y-chromosome Adam mated with only one female, then this female is also the ancestor of everyone living today, because if Adam is my ancestor, this female must be my ancestor too.

However, it's unlikely that Eve mated with only one male and extremely unlikely that Adam mated with only one female.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:50 pm

Daedalus wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:
Daedalus wrote:It's that, but more too. Remember, Mitochondrial DNA is a contribution only of the mother. So Eve could have had many descendants who had only sons, or who's daughters never managed to reproduce. The sons would still have progeny alive today, but they wouldn't have a Mitochondrial contribution of Eve. Any line which turns male-only for a generation is a terminus for Mitochondrial records.

So if the Y-Chromosome Adam had only one mate, his mate is also the mother of us all, but she almost certainly is not the Mitochondrial Eve. The sexual reproduction game is a lot more interesting.


I'm not sure that I understand Martin.

All I'm saying is that mitochondria are entirely supplied by the ovum, from the mother obviously. A male offspring of "Eve" almost certainly could have lines alive today, but they would have mitochondrial DNA from their mother, not traceable back to "Eve".


Yes and no. If there is a DNA sample as part of determining Mitochondrial Eve then it by necessity is descended from the MRCA Eve. That's the whole point.

Certainly some lines die out and could not ever be part of the analysis, but any alive (that are part of the sample for analysis) will necessarily point to a female MRCA
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Fri Aug 02, 2013 6:52 pm

And just to confuse you all a bit more, sperm have mitochondria as well, they have to, to have the energy to do their work, but their mitochondrial dna (at least in humans) does not become part of the fertilized egg.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Daedalus » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:04 pm

kennyc wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:
Daedalus wrote:It's that, but more too. Remember, Mitochondrial DNA is a contribution only of the mother. So Eve could have had many descendants who had only sons, or who's daughters never managed to reproduce. The sons would still have progeny alive today, but they wouldn't have a Mitochondrial contribution of Eve. Any line which turns male-only for a generation is a terminus for Mitochondrial records.

So if the Y-Chromosome Adam had only one mate, his mate is also the mother of us all, but she almost certainly is not the Mitochondrial Eve. The sexual reproduction game is a lot more interesting.


I'm not sure that I understand Martin.

All I'm saying is that mitochondria are entirely supplied by the ovum, from the mother obviously. A male offspring of "Eve" almost certainly could have lines alive today, but they would have mitochondrial DNA from their mother, not traceable back to "Eve".


Yes and no. If there is a DNA sample as part of determining Mitochondrial Eve then it by necessity is descended from the MRCA Eve. That's the whole point.

Certainly some lines die out and could not ever be part of the analysis, but any alive (that are part of the sample for analysis) will necessarily point to a female MRCA


Some lines don't die out, but have terminated from the point of view of the MRCA Eve, because the only surviving lines descended only from males. Again, any generation that produces only males which reproduce, represents a terminus for that line in relation to an MRCA ancestor.
----

@Martin: Ahhh, I see your point, thanks for the clarification.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:25 pm

Daedalus wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:
Daedalus wrote:It's that, but more too. Remember, Mitochondrial DNA is a contribution only of the mother. So Eve could have had many descendants who had only sons, or who's daughters never managed to reproduce. The sons would still have progeny alive today, but they wouldn't have a Mitochondrial contribution of Eve. Any line which turns male-only for a generation is a terminus for Mitochondrial records.

So if the Y-Chromosome Adam had only one mate, his mate is also the mother of us all, but she almost certainly is not the Mitochondrial Eve. The sexual reproduction game is a lot more interesting.


I'm not sure that I understand Martin.

All I'm saying is that mitochondria are entirely supplied by the ovum, from the mother obviously. A male offspring of "Eve" almost certainly could have lines alive today, but they would have mitochondrial DNA from their mother, not traceable back to "Eve".


Yes and no. If there is a DNA sample as part of determining Mitochondrial Eve then it by necessity is descended from the MRCA Eve. That's the whole point.

Certainly some lines die out and could not ever be part of the analysis, but any alive (that are part of the sample for analysis) will necessarily point to a female MRCA


Some lines don't die out, but have terminated from the point of view of the MRCA Eve, because the only surviving lines descended only from males. Again, any generation that produces only males which reproduce, represents a terminus for that line in relation to an MRCA ancestor.
----

@Martin: Ahhh, I see your point, thanks for the clarification.


Right, but you are still misunderstanding. Those males, if used as part of the analysis point to a MRCA Eve. That line dies out after they fail to pass on their mDNA. That line dies out. Their is no difference between that mDNA line dying out and being terminated. Same thing.

Mitochondrial Eve is changing all the time. That precisely what a MRCA is.

You may be saying that that male's genetic line does not die out. That's absolutely true, but that's not what this mitochondrial Eve subdiscussion is about. :D
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:35 pm

The Y-Chromosome Adam case is somewhat simpler because Y-chromosomes can only be traced through fraternal lines....

Any man with only daughters or no children will die out from a y-chromosome MRCA Adam perspective
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11870
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:37 pm

The genetics of mitochondria do vary from individual to individual. However, geneticists pointed out that the level of variability is lower than pretty much any other species. From this came the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis. However, the level of variability is consistent with a single Eve or a group of Eves. The group will be related, but not necessarily all descended from just one female ancestor.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:47 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:The genetics of mitochondria do vary from individual to individual. However, geneticists pointed out that the level of variability is lower than pretty much any other species. From this came the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis. However, the level of variability is consistent with a single Eve or a group of Eves. The group will be related, but not necessarily all descended from just one female ancestor.



Yes and no. The idea behind the MRCA is based on what is called a genetic clock which is a measure of variability -- as you say -- in any DNA. Applying this to mitochondrial DNA gets us a female MRCA. Applying it to nuclear dna of the human species as a whole gets us a MRCA (neither male or female) but a time frame and possible location. Applying the genetic clock to Y-Chromosomes gets us a MRCA Adam.

according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve:
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, except her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day.


Which says it was a specific individual. If you have support for it being a group of 'Eves', I'd love to see it.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:02 pm

Here's the Fox News Version if anyone is interested:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/ ... uncovered/

Just happened to see it pop up.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Daedalus » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:09 pm

kennyc wrote:Right, but you are still misunderstanding. Those males, if used as part of the analysis point to a MRCA Eve. That line dies out after they fail to pass on their mDNA. That line dies out. Their is no difference between that mDNA line dying out and being terminated. Same thing.

Mitochondrial Eve is changing all the time. That precisely what a MRCA is.

You may be saying that that male's genetic line does not die out. That's absolutely true, but that's not what this mitochondrial Eve subdiscussion is about. :D


Yeah, I think you're disagreeing with me over something I'm actually agreeing with you about. I just keep reiterating the point because Lance seems (seemed?) not to get it.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:46 pm

Daedalus wrote:
kennyc wrote:Right, but you are still misunderstanding. Those males, if used as part of the analysis point to a MRCA Eve. That line dies out after they fail to pass on their mDNA. That line dies out. Their is no difference between that mDNA line dying out and being terminated. Same thing.

Mitochondrial Eve is changing all the time. That precisely what a MRCA is.

You may be saying that that male's genetic line does not die out. That's absolutely true, but that's not what this mitochondrial Eve subdiscussion is about. :D


Yeah, I think you're disagreeing with me over something I'm actually agreeing with you about. I just keep reiterating the point because Lance seems (seemed?) not to get it.

Maybe you should reply to his messages rather than mine in that case. ;)
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 13748
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Major Malfunction » Sat Aug 03, 2013 2:35 am

Martin Brock wrote:Your other chromosomes reproduce sexually. Each of your other chromosomes (except the X paired with your Y) gets half of its genes from each parent, because they participate in crossing over, a process in which each pair of chromosomes (except a male's X-Y pair) exchanges genes.

Correction. Chromosomes don't reproduce sexually, or mix genes. You have a pair of each chromosome. When a zygote is formed, it gets a random selection of one of each pair.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Martin Brock » Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:18 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:Correction. Chromosomes don't reproduce sexually, or mix genes. You have a pair of each chromosome. When a zygote is formed, it gets a random selection of one of each pair.

"Chromosomal crossover (or crossing over) is the exchange of genetic material between homologous chromosomes that results in recombinant chromosomes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover

Of each homologous pair, you get a chromosome from each parent, and crossing over then occurs between the two chromosomes, except for the X-Y pair determining gender.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 13748
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Major Malfunction » Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:33 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:Correction. Chromosomes don't reproduce sexually, or mix genes. You have a pair of each chromosome. When a zygote is formed, it gets a random selection of one of each pair.

"Chromosomal crossover (or crossing over) is the exchange of genetic material between homologous chromosomes that results in recombinant chromosomes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover

Of each homologous pair, you get a chromosome from each parent, and crossing over then occurs between the two chromosomes, except for the X-Y pair determining gender.

That's ah... That's a pretty slim article.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:39 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:Correction. Chromosomes don't reproduce sexually, or mix genes. You have a pair of each chromosome. When a zygote is formed, it gets a random selection of one of each pair.

"Chromosomal crossover (or crossing over) is the exchange of genetic material between homologous chromosomes that results in recombinant chromosomes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover

Of each homologous pair, you get a chromosome from each parent, and crossing over then occurs between the two chromosomes, except for the X-Y pair determining gender.

That's ah... That's a pretty slim article.


You can never be too thin or too rich. :twisted:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Martin Brock » Sat Aug 03, 2013 4:15 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:That's ah... That's a pretty slim article.

Google for "chromosomal crossover", and you can spend all day reading about it.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 13748
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Major Malfunction » Sat Aug 03, 2013 4:48 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:That's ah... That's a pretty slim article.

Google for "chromosomal crossover", and you can spend all day reading about it.

Well, you know, that's exactly what I did. Except for the all day bit.

Have you got any articles that might sway the opinion of a biochemist?

Apart from a picture of chromosomes getting up behind one another and twisting a leg?

I mean, that happens, but it's a major {!#%@} mutation, and most of those cells die, commit suicide, or are slain by their neighbours.

Here's an idea. How about you just admit you know bugger all about biology, and stop embarrassing yourself, Martin?

I'll help you understand. I really will.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Martin Brock » Sat Aug 03, 2013 4:55 pm

Major Malfunction wrote:Have you got any articles that might sway the opinion of a biochemist?

If you googled for "chromosomal crossover", you saw this link to Princeton.edu third in the list of results.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... sover.html

It names the two Cornell University biologists credited with discovering chromosomal crossover in 1931. One of them, Barbara McClintock, won the Nobel prize in 1983 "for her discovery of mobile genetic elements".

Are you suggesting that crossover is a controversy among biochemists? Can you link anything on the controversy? I'm only telling you what I learned in an undergraduate biology course a couple of decades ago. Why would that embarrass me?
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 13748
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Major Malfunction » Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:13 pm

Oh, hey. All the links go 'round and 'round.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Martin Brock » Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:18 pm

You aren't helping me understand. You really aren't.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 13748
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Major Malfunction » Sat Aug 03, 2013 5:19 pm

It's BS.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5373
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by Austin Harper » Sun Aug 11, 2013 3:46 pm

kennyc wrote:You can never be too thin or too rich. :twisted:

Image
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Adam" is older than previously thought

Post by kennyc » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:28 pm

That's pretty thin, and that tan is pretty rich. :lol:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama