Mitochondrial Eve

[coolduude]

Here’s an article from How Stuff Works about this concept (it’s lengthy, so I suggest you read the introduction and the page called “All About Eve”):

science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm

Basically, all of humanity has this one ancestor in common. She is like Eve from the Bible. But here’s what’s disturbing, or at least contrary to Catholic teaching, right?:

If the human population was reduced dramatically, and there weren’t many women around to have kids, the stage is set for one “Lucky Mother,” as Cann puts it, to emerge as a most recent common ancestor. It’s possible that after a few generations, the mtDNA of the other women died out. If a woman produces only male offspring, her mtDNA won’t be passed along, since children don’t receive mtDNA from their father. This means that while the woman’s sons will have her mtDNA, her grandchildren won’t, and her line will be lost.

What this is saying, I think, is that there were other humans around back then, but there lines died out after a few generations. mEve’s line never did, and thus we are all related to her. Doesn’t this contradict Catholic teaching in that it says there could have been many parents?

Thoughts?

A very interesting concept, I think.

coolduude

 

[JohnDamian]

What this is saying, I think, is that there were other humans around back then, but there lines died out after a few generations. mEve’s line never did, and thus we are all related to her. Doesn’t this contradict Catholic teaching in that it says there **could **have been many parents?

The emboldened word explains it all. The concept of a MRCA does not contract a contradiction with Catholic teaching.

Furthermore; Catholic teaching is in no way affected by the truth of falsity of a MRCA; although it is somewhat interesting.

 

[roveau]

I think it should be said that the Mitrochondrial Eve was not a new species of human. That ‘Eve’ had a slight mutation in her Mitochondrial DNA that is now shared by all the earth’s women - ie all people are descended from that one woman.

That ‘Eve’ is unlikely to have any bearing on the Biblical Eve. Scientists just borrowed that name from Genesis.

 

[Anselm33]

The emboldened word explains it all. The concept of a MRCA does not contract a contradiction with Catholic teaching.

Furthermore; Catholic teaching is in no way affected by the truth of falsity of a MRCA; although it is somewhat interesting.

John, I would be very interested in your opinion about whether monogenesis is dogma or doctrine. I have a thin paperback (written some 60 or 70 years ago I think) by Karl Rahner on this, and I can’t make heads or tails of what he says. Mitochondrial Eve is a scientific theory that I believe is consistent with the monogenesis, but I’m not sure about this. By the way, what is MRCA?

 

[grannymh]

John, I would be very interested in your opinion about whether monogenesis is dogma or doctrine. I have a thin paperback (written some 60 or 70 years ago I think) by Karl Rahner on this, and I can’t make heads or tails of what he says. Mitochondrial Eve is a scientific theory that I believe is consistent with the monogenesis, but I’m not sure about this. By the way, what is MRCA?

The original research regarding Mitochondrial Eve has been questioned primarily in 1995. It is not consistent with monogenesis since it is thought that there were other women living at the time. Source: page 3 of the link. Obviously, there had to be some men.

Monogenesis means that there are two, real, sole parents of the human species who are known by Catholics as Adam and Eve. This is a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»
»
»

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 26-31

 

[rossum]

What this is saying, I think, is that there were other humans around back then, but there lines died out after a few generations. mEve’s line never did, and thus we are all related to her. Doesn’t this contradict Catholic teaching in that it says there could have been many parents?

Thoughts?

Science can tell us that Mitochondrial Eve existed and that she was part of a larger population. There is a similar male equivalent, Y-chromosome Adam, who lived many thousands of years later. He also was part of a larger population.

Since we cannot know how many mates either had, you may want to consider the Biblical Adam and Eve as mEve’s parents or y-Adam’s parents since they are scientifically guaranteed to be the ancestors of all living humans.

Science can also tell us that the total population was never as low as two. There is too much variation in the human genome, and too much in common with Chimpanzees, for that low a population. The smallest figure I have seen is 1,000 breeding pairs though that figure comes well after mEve’s dates.

What science cannot tell us is how many, if any, in those wider populations had human souls. From the Catholic point of view any organism without a human soul is not human, not matter what it looked like.

rossum

 

[awatkins69]

Catholics are allowed to believe that the human body was created by God through evolutionary processes, although the soul is created directly by God. One thing you could say is that the humans before Eve were anatomically human, though they were not human in the sense that they were infused with the soul of a person. Look up for instance “behavioral modernity”. Many think it was a sudden event, before which humans acted more akin to animals in terms of behavior. So one thing you could say is that the humans before Eve had human bodies, but not, properly speaking, human souls.

However, I don’t prefer this explanation. In my opinion, the better explanation is that God infused a soul into an ancestor who was not necessarily homo sapiens. They would still be fully human, though the potentialities of the human soul could not be fully actualized in that form of matter. Just like some people may have less intelligence actualized because their brains are somewhat smaller maybe, so it may have been with Eve, and it would be harder to notice major advancements immediately (though there certainly were some, like aesthetics in tools).

These are some of the main hypotheses you can make. Check out “Origin of the Human Species” by Dr. Dennis Bonnette.

 

[JohnDamian]

John, I would be very interested in your opinion about whether monogenesis is dogma or doctrine. I have a thin paperback (written some 60 or 70 years ago I think) by Karl Rahner on this, and I can’t make heads or tails of what he says. Mitochondrial Eve is a scientific theory that I believe is consistent with the monogenesis, but I’m not sure about this. By the way, what is MRCA?

MRCA is most recent common anscestor.

As others have pointed out; monogenesis is not proved by either the male or female cases of a Most Recent Common Anscestor; be those cases true or not; as they are in different time periods they are irrelevant to monogenesis.

One could talk of a geographic rather than personal monogenesis; such as the hypothesis that people all originated from one geographic place. As early as the first four hundred years esteemed theologians such as St Clement and St Augustine were discussing the implications of a literal creation against an analagorical interpretation.

In terms of Doctrine, the belief in MRCA’s are irrelevant in defining the individual persons who constitute the monogenetic foundation for human origin – to cite the CCC; 360- "Because of its common origin, the human race forms a unity, for “from one anscestor [God] made all the nations to inhabit the whole earth.”.

From this it follows that the Catholic Doctrine is that there were first individuals in the human race. This is congruent with EITHER a literal or an analagorical interpretation of the bible.

 

[tonyrey]

MRCA is most recent common anscestor.

As others have pointed out; monogenesis is not proved by either the male or female cases of a Most Recent Common Anscestor; be those cases true or not; as they are in different time periods they are irrelevant to monogenesis.

One could talk of a geographic rather than personal monogenesis; such as the hypothesis that people all originated from one geographic place. As early as the first four hundred years esteemed theologians such as St Clement and St Augustine were discussing the implications of a literal creation against an analagorical interpretation.

In terms of Doctrine, the belief in MRCA’s are irrelevant in defining the individual persons who constitute the monogenetic foundation for human origin – to cite the CCC; 360- "Because of its common origin, the human race forms a unity, for “from one anscestor [God] made all the nations to inhabit the whole earth.”.

From this it follows that the Catholic Doctrine is that there were first individuals in the human race. This is congruent with EITHER a literal or an analagorical interpretation of the bible.

Even from a secular point of view there must have been a specific point in time when individuals first recognised the distinction between good and evil. Many could have done so simultaneously but it seems far more likely that one or two anticipated everyone else.
Such a remarkable event is more momentous than the greatest scientific discoveries because it has enabled us to transcend the law of the jungle. They have been made almost invariably by individuals even though others were in the race. The principle of economy suggests that the moment of moral enlightenment would be to one person at one particular time in one particular place!

 

[grannymh]

Since we cannot know how many mates either had, you may want to consider the Biblical Adam and Eve as mEve’s parents or y-Adam’s parents since they are scientifically guaranteed to be the ancestors of all living humans.

rossum

From the first paragraph of the link in Post 1:

In 1987, a group of geneticists published a surprising study in the journal Nature. The researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today’s major racial groups.

How many people were living in 1987?

And only 147 of them were studied excluding minor racial groups.


Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

.

From this it follows that the Catholic Doctrine is that there were first individuals in the human race. This is congruent with EITHER a literal or an analagorical interpretation of the bible.

First individuals in the human race???

Seems to me, that Catholic Doctrine goes back a lot further to the two, sole, true parents of the human race who had a true, fully complete human nature which is the same as yours and mine.

First individuals in the human race ???

All the humans in the human race are actually individuals. The only individuals of the human race who logically could be considered first would be the parents of the human species.

Real Catholic Doctrine is concerned with the real logical first parents. For convenience, these two parents are named Adam and Eve. Group membership of individuals in the human race logically refers to you and me as their proper descendents.

Blessings,
granny

Our first parent Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[rossum]

From the first paragraph of the link in Post 1:

In 1987, a group of geneticists published a surprising study in the journal Nature.* The* researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today’s major racial groups.

How many people were living in 1987?

And only 147 of them were studied excluding minor racial groups.

You only have one mother. She only had one mother. All the way back, everyone only had one mother. mEve is the MRCM - Most Recent Common Mother.

You are right that the exact date of mEve depends on the sample chosen. That has no impact on her existence since that is down to the mechanism of the inheritance of Mitochondrial DNA. The sample was very carefully selected, with the coverage mirroring what is known about how H. sapiens migrated across the globe. Even if we find a new small isolated population that moves mEve back a few generations there will still be a single mEve. Similarly if the last member of an isolated population dies then that may move mEve forward by a few generations. There will still be a MRCM.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

“The mtDNA that we have inherited from the mitochondiral Eve represents a four-hundred-thousandth part of the DNA present in any modern human.” Source: Francisco J. Ayala, The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins, 1995

My point about the low sample figure in the 'Eve" research and this quote is that there are a lot of humans around who may be different from the 147 people studied. Where did other human beings come from in order to distinguish their human identity from my cousin Chilly Chimp.

Logically, to maintain human oneness/identity of the current human population, all would have had to descend from the very first two human beings with the same human nature. It is the uniqueness of human nature which allows the possibility of diversity without changing the human oneness/identity.

Please refer to post 5 above for Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve.

Blessings,
granny

The fully complete human nature is unique.