Her mtDNA is found in all living humans today, she lived 140000 years ago.

The counterpart, the Y-chromosomal Adam could have lived as recently as 3000 years ago (and all living humans are the descendent of him).

Is there any way to know what couple (Adam AND Eve) that are the common anscestor to all now living humans? Something that goes along from each generation of both father and mother?

Also, it would be interesting to know if there could be another common anscestor to all living humans at a earlier point of time (some 2000 years ago), but that the lineage could have died out?

You seem to be a little confused as to the implication of the ancentral Eve and ancestral Adam.

Specifically, the ancestral Eve means that she is the ancestor through matrilineal descent to everyone. Contemporary women will also be ancestors, but at some point in the descent, it had to be through males.

The ancestral Adam is similarly an ancestor to everyone through patrilineal descent. Contemporary men will also be ancestors but not entirely through men. I think the 3000 year figure for "Adam" is wrong. I vaguely remember it being similar to the ancestral Eve time.

A corollary (don't you just love that word?) here is that you can't consider Mitochondrial Eve, or any Adam, as actual individual humans.

That's like imagining you can listen in to all the phone calls going through some exchange, and pick out a single conversation, say.

A corollary (don't you just love that word?) here is that you can't consider Mitochondrial Eve, or any Adam, as actual individual humans.

That's like imagining you can listen in to all the phone calls going through some exchange, and pick out a single conversation, say.Hmmm...but you can imagine Mitochondrial Eve to be a single human. We know for a fact that one person can breed so much that an entire country can be affected by it.

This is what must have happened in the past too. Otherwise we couldn't all share her gene.

All other lines died out, something have been going on here :)

Ok, but what they looked at was essentally a heap of phone calls, and the most commonly used words, say.
Of course, you can imagine an individual, but she's a composite of a lot of different individuals.

... you can't consider Mitochondrial Eve, ...as actual individual human...Yes, we can. (apologies to Obama) She existed and we know one fact about her. She had more than one daughter. (think about why this must be true. - If no one tells why, and I get back, I will tell how this is known. -It is sort of obvious.)

I await with antici ...payshion?!?

I wonder what Billy has on the slab here? They apparently were able to narrow it to a small group of no more than a few thousand, but at least or near 10^3 individuals, or a few hundred potential mating pairs, assuming a roughly equal spread. I think there may have been reasons for there being a bit of a skew, but I'll wait and see what's in the pipeline...

I await with antici ...payshion?!?

I wonder what Billy has on the slab here? They apparently were able to narrow it to a small group of no more than a few thousand, but at least or near 10^3 individuals, or a few hundred potential mating pairs, assuming a roughly equal spread. I think there may have been reasons for there being a bit of a skew, but I'll wait and see what's in the pipeline...Well, I can give my view on it, while we wait.

If a woman has no daughters, her mitochondrial DNA (called mtDNA) line dies out.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

This link states that it's about a individual Eve.

MRCA = most recent common ancestor.


The matrilineal MRCA of humans is estimated to have lived between 150,000 to 200,000 years ago (note that there are other MRCAs; eg the MRCA as measured by the X-chromosome - since the X-chromosome descends through fathers and mothers, the lineage is different - but there is still the concept of the individual from whom the X-chromosomes of all people alive today descended. That concept is not the same as matrilineal MRCA or Mitochondrial Eve).


Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans via sons and daughters, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineages, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. While Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have been living around 140,000 years ago, according to probabilistic studies,[2] the MRCA could have been living as recently as 3,000 years ago.[3]

Allan Wilson's naming Mitochondrial Eve[4] after Eve of the Genesis creation story has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time.
...
Eventually, there will be a point in past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point and is estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived more than hundred thousand years before the identical ancestors point, every woman contemporary to her is either not an ancestor of any living people, or a common ancestor of all living people.[2][5]

Still looks kind of statistical, rather than actual individual, or individuals. I'm not convinced the signal does resolve to a single female, whenever it was she theoretically (or statistically) lived.

MRCA = most recent common ancestor.
Still looks kind of statistical, rather than actual individual, or individuals. I'm not convinced the signal does resolve to a single female, whenever it was she theoretically (or statistically) lived.No Eve is not stastical, but one specific woman. There were relatively recently (compared to Eve) at least two (one male, one female) who can claim the title of MRCA, but only one Eve, and individual woman, who died at least 50,000 years earlier than the MRCAs.

Not only did one Eve exist, she had two (or more) daughters, and both those daughters, at least, had one or more daughters who helped send their mothers Mitochondrial DNA down to the present population of Earth. I.e. If "candidate Eve" had had only one daughter, then that daugther would have the claim to being the most recent Eve from which all now existing people (male and female) descended from. Surely there were many other women living when Eve did. - Quite possibly Eve even had one or more sisters, but if she had sisters, none of them sent their mother's Mitochondrial DNA down to the present. If they had, the mother of these sisters would be the Eve who had at least two fertile daughters presenting her with fertile female grandchildren. Possibly when "our Eve" lived and earlier "Eve" existed, but if so, she is not "our Eve." - It is all just logic and clear thought, not deep biology.

On the MRCA, I suspect there were several, not just two. Probably all were members of the same in-breading African tribe. I.e. I am suggesting that the gene pool was so well mixed within the individuals of that tribe, that it is not correct to say that the genes of “member 27” of the tribe, who had no children, were not still represented in the next few generations of the tribe. I tend to think that the MRCAs were the survivors of some relatively small, highly in-breading, tribe that first developed what I call the Real-Time Simulation, RTS, way to understand their environment. For more on the RTS, see:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
for details, and evidence supporting this non-standard POV. It is a long read, about 8 pages if printed.

The RTS explains many things difficult to understand without it about current humans and their history. Specifically how and why one African group "exploded" out of Africa and conquered the world*, including the larger, stronger and bigger brained Neanderthals, in addition to dozens of strange psychological characteristics of humans (behaviors), which do not have currently any satisfying explanation in more accepted psychology of humans.

I.e. only a few accept my RTS concept, but their number is growing. Still so few still, however, that I must be considered a "crackpot" to suggest it, but I am 99% convinced it is the correct POV as so much, obviously true, in many unrelated fields, is explained ONLY by this POV.

*As this “Out of Africa” event is generally thought to have occurred about 50,000BP, I tend to think that the MRCAs were further back in the past by about a factor of three than is commonly accepted.

I'm still unable to see past the identical ancestor point.

Mitochondrial Eve lived ~100,000 years prior to this, which means the only possibility for her other contemporaries, is their mtDNA didn't get inherited by any modern female, or it did.

So which of the contemporaneous females that lived with this Eve, do we ignore to see Eve's contribution?

I've always figured that mtEve (damn that's a sweet abbreviation) was due to a population bottleneck, since it's such a recent MRCA. Some catastrophe where we all almost died.

Are you telling ME to go away?
Shit son, I've done more population genetics than 99% of Sciforums.

John

Please, son, don't troll. If the subject matter is too much for you, post elsewhere.. Consider this an official warning.

So Roman complained again? Why cant i ask questions? whgat did i do?

Is there any way to know what couple (Adam AND Eve) that are the common anscestor to all now living humans? Something that goes along from each generation of both father and mother?

Quite simple, actually.

If mtEve lived 140,000 ybp, then she was born of a single woman, who was impregnated by a single man; i.e. her parents. They would have been the Adam AND Eve. That presumes that Y-chromosome Adam came much later, which is strongly believed.

I didn't make any complaints.
And I didn't see any questions asked; just a demand for me to go away.

So Roman complained again? Why cant i ask questions? whgat did i do?

No. Roman did not complain. I read the thread and saw you trolling. If you wish to discuss your warning, you may do so in the appropriate forum (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12) or by PM.

You did not ask any questions in the two posts I deleted. If you have questions regarding the subject matter, please, by all means, ask them. But if you are going to troll, then I will delete your trolling posts and then take it from there.

I've always figured that mtEve (damn that's a sweet abbreviation) was due to a population bottleneck, since it's such a recent MRCA. Some catastrophe where we all almost died.I read that the group was supposedly a bunch of modern humans forced to the African coast (somewhere east of the rift valley perhaps), by climate change and savannafication. Something like 200 - 150 K years ago.

I think I might have the hang of this mtDNA thing:

...it can be shown that every female contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve either has no living descendant today or is an ancestor [(but not a matrilineal one)] to all living people.
...
Eventually, there will be a point in past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today.
(Back one para)
Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have descendants alive today. They may have left descendants via either son or daughters (and grandsons or granddaughters, and so on). Nuclear genes from these contemporary women of Mitochondrial Eve are present in today's population, but mitochondrial DNA from them is not.[1]

What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.
Righty-ho
So mtEve must be the ancestral female with no males in her line of descent...?
They could pick out the signal that is a "purely matrilineal" descension.
So the answer to "which females that were contemporaneous do we ignore?", the answer is: "all the ones that don't have a pure mtDNA signal"...?

I guess.

...So mtEve must be the ancestral female with no males in her line of descent...?
They could pick out the signal that is a "purely matrilineal" descension.
So the answer to "which females that were contemporaneous do we ignore?", the answer is: "all the ones that don't have a pure mtDNA signal"...?As I understand it all cells in all people alive today, (males, included) have DNA from Eve (in the mitochondria, which are a distinct structures, outside of the cell nucleus, which holds most of the DNA. This "nuclear DNA" comes equally from you mother and father, but mDNA comes only from your mother, who got it from hers, etc. all the way back to Eve.). I.e. mDNA is only passed down from the mothers, but your father got his from his mother too. Thus, Eve may have had sons -or not. That is not important. She had two or more daughters (if only one, that daughter would qualify as Eve, - the most recent female from whom we all got the currently existing mDNA.) Each of these daughters had daughters and at least some of the people living to day have these daughters of Eve as their Great.....great.... grandmother. (All the desendents of all of Eve's sisters, if Eve had sisters, are dead now, probably long ago, as if they were not then the mother of these sisters would be "Eve" not any one of the sisters.)

We do not need to ignore the desendent from Eve's sisters. They would have the same mDNA as Eve, but if Eve did have sisters (AND THAT IS POSSIBLE) All of her sisters failed to send the mDNA down to the present. Again this is not biology, only logic as if two sisters, did send the same mDNA down that they recieved form their mother, then neither is "Eve" - their mother is "Eve"

Eve is defined as the ONE (most recent one) woman from whom all of the people now living recieved their mDNA. -Apply this definition correctly and what I have stated follows. Note this does not mean that the detailed structure of everyone's mDNA is exactly identical. Minor variations do exist (and are very useful to the experts to determine origins and inter relations of various population groups now living.) I think these "variations" (or at least some of them) are called "polimorhpism," but may be wrong about that. -This is not my field and I work from memory of what I have read.)

Quite simple, actually.

If mtEve lived 140,000 ybp, then she was born of a single woman, who was impregnated by a single man; i.e. her parents. They would have been the Adam AND Eve. That presumes that Y-chromosome Adam came much later, which is strongly believed.Ok, so if I got this right then we all share the genes of mtEve, and with all I mean both men and women.

Also, if I got this right then we all share the genes of Y-chromosomal Adam (both men and women), so the earliest common ancestor pair would be Adam and the woman that Adam mated (since he was the latest ancestor), Adam must then also have had two sons (in correlation with mtEve that must have had two daughters).

I had another question though also:

I think it's plausible to think that there was a common ancestor which line has died out now, but was the common ancestor of earlier times, is this a correct statement? Even if that line died out 2000 years ago?

Adam must then also have had two sons (in correlation with mtEve that must have had two daughters).Huh?
Adam can only be traced back to a statistical individual - the only "pure" connection is the matrilineal one.
She's the individual who inherited from a mother who had no female siblings or the others didn't produce any female offspring; the "pure" signal, or last undiluted female progeny of the surviving ancestral individuals.

Huh?
Adam can only be traced back to a statistical individual - the only "pure" connection is the matrilineal one.
She's the individual who inherited from a mother who had no female siblings or the others didn't produce any female offspring; the "pure" signal, or last undiluted female progeny of the surviving ancestral individuals.Well, from what I gathered the Y-MRCA only passes from father to son.

Quote from wikipedia:
but he probably co-existed with a large population of human males. None of Y-chromosomal Adam's contemporaries, however, have a direct male line to the present day. Either their lines died out, or they had at least one generation within each line that did not produce sons.


-This would correspond pretty much with the Mitochondrial Eve, meaning that Y-chromosomal Adam would have had to have 2 sons using the same argument as with Mitochondrial Eve.

I guess it allways comes down to individuals, when it comes to this? Even if we today have a "broader" focus and can only discern statistics.