The concept of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are certainly not gone. In fact, it’s a mathematical certainty that existing human mitochondria and the non-recombining portion of the Y-chromosome coalesce to single ancestors. The mtDNA Eve is dated at 175,000 years ago, and the Y-chromosome Adam at about 75,000 years ago. But these are not evidence for monogenism - they just mean that all people alive today have a single ancestor in the strictly maternal line, but also have other female ancestors in the same generation as mtDNA Eve whose ancestry passes through the male line at some point. The same goes for the NRY.
See above.And my second question, wouldn’t a “Mitochondrial Eve” imply a first male human too?
Nope. The transition between a homo sapien and their immediate ancestor did not occur in a single generation. Populations evolve, not individuals.
A mitochondrial Eve is a necessary ingredient for monogenism, but far from sufficient. Supposedly, there are ways to estimate the size of the human population in the time of the mitochondrial Eve (wikipedia suggests ~10,000 individuals), but they are beyond my area of expertise. I recommend asking an evolutionary biologist about it, if you are interested. You can find one in the directory of your local college or university.Many refer to the “Mitochondrial Eve” as evidence of monogenism, that all humans descended from an original pair of two humans. My question is does this “Mitochondrial Eve” still appy today? Or has it been refuted?
And my second question, wouldn’t a “Mitochondrial Eve” imply a first male human too?
THANKS
Huh??
Because as has been pointed out populations evolve not individuals, you have to remember that the “species” is only a human classification of that particular hominid model.
I am accustomed to set-theoretic definitions, so I will answer your question thusly: Consider species S and species T, each with a set of ancestral species A(S) and A(T). Then S is the immediate ancestor of T if and only if A(T) = A(S) ∪ {S}.
But you’re just talking about pure-breeding. You’re saying that one is not an immediate offspring of the other unless both parents are of the pure blood.
So then populations must not be made of individuals, they must be something else entirely.
Oh dear
.Haha…
Now that makes more sense.Oh dear
OK individuals contain mutations, in other words organisms reproduce with variation.
For these mutation to propagate throughout a species, the individual containing them must pass them on, and they must be selected. This takes multiple generations.
Put very crudely, the individuals mutate and the gene pools evolve.
Oh dear
OK individuals contain mutations, in other words organisms reproduce with variation.
For these mutation to propagate throughout a species, the individual containing them must pass them on, and they must be selected. This takes multiple generations.
Put very crudely, the individuals mutate and the gene pools evolve.
Let me add on thing.
ok, you got me, evolution states that one day a monkey gave birth to manHaha…
There is no species called “mut.” There is the dog, which includes the mut, and its immediate ancestor was some kind of ancient wolf.
Who said that about purebred dogs? Not I. And no one in this thread, as far as I can see.
I am only explaining what cerad meant by that. “Immediate ancestor” is not some kind of formal term in biology.