I thought I read i n a news week or US weekly around spring of 2003 that the neanderthal genome was considered the source of Caucasian DNA?? am I completely stupid about that??
@halalmeatz Non African people have some (4%) neanderthal in their DNA. It means that their ancestors had sex with neanderthals at one time. Neanderthal is not and never was the source of Caucasian DNA.
@shanedk I suggest that you view "All NON-Africans are NOT "out-of-africa", and you will see that it is rated up to 4%. Some say one percent and another says two percent in the video.
Why don't you just say like it is: that ,according to creationists, there wasn't even a woman left when Cain killed Abel ;-))
Million creation idiots have wasted their entire live on trying to explain how the entire human race olny came forth from Cain. So, they are now very quit about that "miracle" ;-)
@kotoroshinoto its more complicated; it is known that they both would have lived together in Europe in the last period of Neanderthals . And recent findings show that both might as well have mixed at that time. So the few Neandertals left (not adapted phisically to the changing climate) were "absorbed"
No wonder some Neaderthals are still living today! LOL
@DePetrick so they were different spcies in the sense that different bear species are different. Most modern ursids can reproduce with other extant ursid species, but they're still considered separate species due to behavioral mating seperations.
@MrPerfectlogic That isn't the case; watch the video again. There were LOTS of other common ancestors; Adam and Eve were just the most recent among the male-only and female-only lines.
When I was thinking about religion the other day, it occurred to me that most Christians hate everything about their religion. They hate going to church, they hate tithing, they hate praying, they hate reading the bible, they hate being forced to publicly acknowledge their belief at all.
So I asked myself, why do they pretend otherwise? The answer was obvious. They don't want to be socially ostracized.
This was interesting, because it meant that religion is so prevalent only because it is so.
Good topic, horrible presentation. Your first debate class would have you know that the moment you become emotional and/or devolve to name-calling the opposing party, you irrevocably sabotage your credibility.
I'm an evolutionist, and I think you're doing more damage than good by being purposefully mean. Irrefutable empirical facts don't need to be supplemented with insults, they can just be hammered over and over into creationists' heads.
@Fetternity When arguing with calm, intelligent, rational people, that may be true. Creationists are none of those things. They respond to emotional outbursts and embarrassment. If you can't make them feel like a piece of shit, they won't lose they're only reason to adhere to their belief, which is to say, fitting in.
@johnrainrules I have seen them occasionally use it in a debate with creationists for clarity's sake, but not any other context. And they REALLY don't like the term Darwinist!
@johnrainrules lol. Then I guess you need to get involved a bit more, since it is decidedly a two-sided argument and the only room for alternative thinking besides those two options is for the UFO kooks :p
Here's some etymology: if you believe in something, that something usually acquires a -ism at the end.
This really helped me to understand the idea, so thanks a lot.
I think people who understand science should spend less time arguing with people who don't want to understand it (creationists) and more time teaching it to those who do. Certainly a more productive expendure of time for all parties.
Richard Dawkins taught me a lot in his books 'The Selfish Gene' and 'Ancestor's Tale'. Sadly, he then went on to write 'The God Delusion' - a waste of a brilliant mind. It sold better though...
@BringBRToTheUK The God Delusion wasn't that bad in my opinion, altough to each his own. I think he made amends with his new book though. Granted, it is aimed at children predominantly but this is important as it allows parents to teach their kids the real truth about our origins, raher than that creationist bullshit. We need more people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris...
The Earth has been destroyed many times but Humans find a way to survive. I believe the people that have trace routes back to the earliest of times through DNA testing are descendants of ancient races. Time did not end it changed and the people changed with it. I am excited at the prospect of one day knowing what lies hidden beneath frozen Antarctica if anything.
@jspecaspec23 i dont know of what you are babbling about, but the earth have not been destroyed even once, and certainly not while humans have been on the earth. If you are talking about global disasters, none of them destroyed the earth, they only caused large portions of life to die out, with many species going extinct, and others flourishing.
Eve was about five foot tall, brown eyes, hairy back, hairy front, opposable thumbs, cute smile, bad breath, very bad breath, and would only do it doggie style.
Not only that but there has been many instances where the clonal aspect on mtDNA has been completely refuted. Even a human from modern society was found with paternal leakage, meaning the patient had both maternal and paternal mtDNA followed by a recombination. in order to effectively trace back lineages mtDNA has to be non-recombining and solely from the mother, which is not always the case! research both sides before you put your obnoxious voice all over youtube.
@Quintinohthree It was always known that, in extremely rare circumstances, some mtDNA can come from the father. But even in the case of that one child, most of the mtDNA will still be from the mother, and it's statistically laughable to think that there would be anywhere near enough "leakage" to mess up the whole mtEve thing.
Ok, so it just messes up the accuracy a bit. Maybe you could do a debunking of this story some day as a "part 2" to this video. Anyway thanks for the clarification and you keep doing what you do for science.
@Quintinohthree its not just accuracy any small error drastically alters the 'age' of mtEVE.
“Mitochondrial DNA as a marker of molecular diversity: a reappraisal”
Molecular Ecology 2009
N. Galtier, B. Nabholz, S. Glemin & G.D.D. Hurst
^ a scientific article proposing the fors and againsts of mtDNA for its use in evolutionary studies and it becomes clear that it is completely unreliable not just due to paternal leakage cases. Try googling DNA Mutation Rates and Evolution Sean D. Pitman M.D.
@Maliboubarbie I've READ the papers. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER in them that allows mtEve to have lived anywhere NEAR as recently as 6,000 years ago!
Shane, just let it go. Unless you do get the answer that you want, and we know you won't anyway, don't reply. We all know how excited you can get, and with good reason, but sometimes you just have to stop.
@Quintinohthree Perhaps, but I've found it's best to keep pushing someone 'til they give. That's when their true colors come out. Then not even other creationists can defend them. Stop too early, and people get the impression that there is legitimacy to both sides.
I get what you're saying, and everything seemed pretty likely to be going that way up until the 1990's when further studies proved their own theory of mitochondrial eve wrong or at least had no further significance over any other possibilities. Rebecca Cann et al traced back to mitchondrial eve only to realise the computer programs etc were biased. Creationists believe that recent research put her into the biblical time frame.
A very good book to explain this to a layman is The 7 Daughters of Eve By Prof Bryan Sykes. Despite its title.. it is complete science.. no religion included. It s is a very excellent start to understanding this and written in a non textbook manner for those who..dont do so well with a textbook LOL. Prof. Sykes has done a lot of interesting and fun research regarding mitochodrial eves and y nuc adams as well.
- Every person has a unique mother. Several people may have the same mother.
- Starting with all people alive today, stepping upwards by generations makes the set of maternal ancestors smaller (or at least the same size) in count at each generation.
- Ultimately, that set will be a single female. That's mitochondrial Eve. Same applies to yAdam.
This is simply another way of saying that all humans are related.
(This is not my proof, but I cannot find who originally put it so succinctly.)
@puncheex "Starting with all people alive today, stepping upwards by generations makes the set of maternal ancestors smaller (or at least the same size) in count at each generation."
THIS is where you keep going awry, no matter how many times I explain it to you: mtDNA ONLY comes from the FEMALE LINE. This means of your grandparents, it only represents 1/4th of them--your mother's mother, NOT your father's mother! And of your great-grandparents, 1/8, then 1/16, 1/32, etc.
So there is NO ultimate single female; there are LOTS of female common ancestors, many of them SINCE mtEve. MtEve is just the most recent common ancestor on the female-only line, but HER mother was also a mtEve, as was her mother before here, as was her mother before her! It is RIDICULOUS--not to mention BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE--for mtEve to be the single, one and only female who populated the entire human race!
@shanedk DNA shows that you need a male to make a male....females can only combine xx, xx, xx. You have to have a y chromosome first or you can never get men...just women. How is this going to work?
@smoothpeople33: That's absolutely right, and absolutely irrelevant to the argument. The tracing of the matrilineal line disregards males, but doesn't say they are unnecessary, just that for purposes of tracing matrilineage and thus mitochondrial inheritance, beside the fact that they too get their mDNA from their mothers, they are not part of the tracing.
@shanedk: Shane, damn it, climb off the high horse. It's not me you've been "how many times explaining" to. As I said, that is not my proof of the existence of mEve; as it turns out, it's Daniel Dennet's, as quoted in talkorigins(.)org (I searched and found where I had read it). It's not meant to be completely descriptive; it is a set proof. No where does it rule out other ancestors; it merely disregards them. Notice the word "maternal" ancestors in the line you quote. Here's Dennet's quote:
Dennet: "Consider all the humans alive today on Earth. Put them into a set S.
Next, consider the set of all those women who were the mothers of the people in the set S. Call this set S'. A few observations about this new set S'. It consists of only women (while set S consists of both men and women)---this is because we chose to follow only the mother-of relationship in going from set S to set S'. Also note that not every member of set S' needs to be in set S--- ...
... set S consists of all people living today, while some of the mothers of living people could have died, they would be in set S' but not in set S. Third, the size of set S' is never larger than the size of set S. Why? This is because of the simple fact that each of us has only one mother. It is however overwhelmingly more likely that the size of set S' is much smaller than that of set S---this is because each woman usually has more than one child. ...
... Repeat the process of following the mother-of relationship with set S' to generate a new set S''. This set will consist of only women, and will be no larger (and very likely smaller) than set S'.
Continue this process. There will come a point when the set will consist of smaller and smaller number of women, until we finally come to a single woman who is related to all members in our original set via the transitive-closure of the mother-of relation. There is nothing special about her. ...
... Had we chosen to follow the father-of relation, we would have hit the Y-chromosome Adam (more on him later). Had we chosen to follow combinations of mother-of and father-of relations, we would have hit some other of our common ancestors. The only reason why the mother-of relationship seems special is because we can track it using the evidence of mitochondrial DNA.
Thus there must exist a single woman whose is the matrilineal most-recent common ancestor of every in set S."
@puncheex "thus there must exist a single woman whose is the matrilineal most-recent common ancestor of every in set S."
You sorta get it? If you keep counting backward generation by generation you will get to the start...this will be Meve. Your belief is that we go back to no single mother in particular, just one that managed to sleep with all of are grand parents and edge the other multitudes out. I don't see the biological problem of 2 people spreading their seed over the entire planet
@smoothpeople33 "If you keep counting backward generation by generation you will get to the start...this will be Meve."
NO....IT...WON'T!!! POPULATIONS evolve, NOT individuals. Again, if you look at the mtDNA from Neanderthals, we have a different mtEve with them, going back EVEN FARTHER!
And if, say, a disaster in Australia wiped out all of the aborigines, then the new mtEve of the current living population will be moved to a more recent woman.
@smoothpeople33: I don't "believe" what you think I believe, so I'll thank you to step back and not put words in my mouth, particularly with your western religious moralization on mtEve's sex life. The quote you quoted was Dan Dennet, not me. This is a set theory proof that a mtEve must exist, not intended to be descriptive. I'm sorry if the results don't fit your faith, but then he wasn't intending to cater to religious superstitions.
Meanwhile, I'll tell you just what the problems with "2 people spreading their seed over the entire planet". Humans are no different from all other species; why they should have evolved differently, just because Jews didn't understand genetics 2600 years ago, is a non-sequitur. A population of less then 100s-1000s is not viable; there is insufficient genetic variability to handle small environmental changes, particularly where in-breeding is the norm. Perhaps a biology course would help?
3:09 "luck has it Meve was the one who passed on her dna to everyone...followed by shes not the ancestor of everyone who ever lived. Shes only related to the people we can test....hahaha Write the book how you want
@smoothpeople33 No, she's the ancestor of everyone who's CURRENTLY alive. In Eve's time, OF COURSE she wasn't the ancestor of everyone who WAS alive back then; they all had their own mtEve.
@shanedk Which tests? The data we just watched shows one mother. The science of the matter is interesting once the personal beliefs are left behind. Both sides look at the same facts and fit it into the system they believe, it is many of the same facts on both sides. It takes a closed minded person to only understand and look at a problem from another view. Please link me to tests proving pre-Meve...thanks
@smoothpeople33 "The data we just watched shows one mother."
Wha??? Mitochondrial DNA is passed down the maternal line. The point you're REALLY making is "everyone just has one maternal line." DUH! We knew that already!
Why don't you learn THE BASICS before you try to accuse other people of not having evidence?
@smoothpeople33 By the way, they've sequenced the mtDNA of Neanderthals. Humans and Neanderthals had a mtEve that was MUCH earlier than the one for just humans.
An interesting bi-biproduct of this argument is a clear reshuffling of the evidence. One side Believes 1.Millions of years 2. mEve separated by 100,000 years from the first adam. 3. Ancestor from common apes 4. Positive Mutating gene pool responsible for all changes from ape One Side believes: 1. Shorter time 2. Adam and Eve Created at the same time 3. Ancestry from other people 4. Mutations are negative and could never create new animals Make the argument scientific not philosophical
@smoothpeople33 Yes, and the first side has all of the evidence in favor of it, and the second has no evidence for it at all and all sorts of evidence contradicting it.
I love the way these inbred hicks, who probably do incredibly simple, menial jobs, think they know more than top scientists of dozens of different fields.
170,000 YBP eh? I recall reading that they investigated those claims and well, it turns out that mutations occured in the mitochondria a lot quicker thant they had previously assumed. Because of the faster mutation rate, they needed to recalibrate the clock. Using the new system, it pits Eve to actually be about 6000 YBP. Just thought you out to know.
Works cited: Ann Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock" science, 2 January 1998(Volume 279, number 5347), p. 28
@Descipleofchrist101 Not even REMOTELY true. A mutation rate required to have mtEve be 6000 years ago would be high enough to KILL OFF OUR ENTIRE SPECIES.
@Descipleofchrist101 First of all, the Gibbons article was not a research study. It was a Science(Mag) news article comparing other actual research ideas (also, those ideas are now outdated). What you said is certainly not what her article says! Go read the paper... it is on Google Scholar. The latest estimates are still higher than 100,000 ybp for mitochondrial Eve. Y-Chromosome Adam is much much younger.
Thats amazing how God allowed Eve to live for 110,000 years to be with Adam =). I'm surprised that she was able to still have children at that age. Never underestimate the power of God!
It's a typical mistake for Creationists to mistake the symbol for the thing and to argue that the semantics disproves the science. In this case it twists their perception of what is actually happening.
.
I wish scientists and reporters would be more careful before they attach concept twisting labels like Mitochondrial Eve (or Near Death Experience). The science minded might get the distinction (or the joke) but Bible literalists are likely to be led astray.
This all only works if you say that there must be other mothers and fathers because Adam and Eve were born. With more questions then answers in the area of cells is it safe to assume the dating methods placing very far apart are accurate.
Your video seams to show one womans DNA with other sisters...but those lady's never passed any genetics down?
@smoothpeople33 Not the mitochondrial DNA, no. The others would have passed down nuclear DNA, but it's impossible to predict which of their genes would have been passed down and which would have been destroyed by recombination.
@shanedk SO what you're saying is that there is no proof to back up your or "the" claim that there were other women besides this "Mitochondrial Eve"? In other words it's just a notion. yes? If no, please explain using valid scientific evidence to back-up your claim. Thanks. :)
- several mitochondria, each of which has a small amount of DNA; it comes from your mother's mother's mother...mEve.
- a nucleus, containing a Y chromosome (if you are male), from your father's father's father ... Y-chromosome Adam.
- 45 (46 for female) other pieces of DNA, called the nuclear chromosomes; they come from ALL of your ancestors, so you're the product of all your ancestors; you just got a little extra from yAdam & mEve.
Also, don't ever forget that mEve and yAdam also had ancestors; they are the products of them, and therefore so are you. In a way, mEvE's mother is also a mitochondrial Eve to you, since mEve has her mDNA, but the definition of mEve says it is the latest such person.
@puncheex And the genes in those extra chromosomes get shuffled together like a deck of cards, meaning you can't really use them to trace lineage like you can with mitochondria and Y-chromosome DNA.
thanks for this. i was having a hard time explaining how mitochondrial eve wasn't the only member of her species for all of humanity to be her descendants. the illustration does that perfectly.
@Fizan989 Mito Eve may not be the only member of her species for all of humanity to have descended from, but she is related to all humans living today. Please correct me if I am wrong.
thanks for the video. i am sure this video would not have succeeded in changing minds of faith-over-facts crowd, but it sure did help me understand the intricacies of mtDNA
Shane, great explanation. Quick question: At the end you say that neanderthals are the same species as us. That confused me. We are of the same genus, but aren't we classified as different species (sapiens vs. neanderthalensis)? Or do you not consider us separate species because of the evidence of inbreeding (ergo, not reproductively isolated species)?
@Daytimeofnight Every definition of species I've ever heard means that they can produce fertile offspring. There is evidence in our genome that our ancestors cross-bred with neanderthals, which should make us the same species.
@shanedk - okay, I figured that's where you were coming from. Mind you, there are some significant morphological differences between sapiens and neanderthals. But then again, there are even greater differences amongst the single species Canis lupus which includes all dogs. Perhaps sapiens and neanderthals are better understood as subspecies. I'll let the taxonomists sort that out.
@Daytimeofnight: Don't forget that what you are calling sapiens, such as you see today, is a hybrid of the preceding sapiens and neandertals, so presumably they were (slightly?) more different than your latter day comparison might indicate.
Many thought they were separate species, having been separated for 600,000 years or so, but Svante's work would indicate that the separation was not as complete as thought.
@shanedk: ...or at least were when the interbreeding took place, presumed to be about 65,000 years ago. Of course, that's little time for a speciation event to take place, so it's likely still right today, or would be if we could see what they would have been today.
@puncheex But if they could interbreed with H. sapiens at all, and have fertile offspring whose lineage remains to this day, then doesn't that by definition mean they're the same species as us?
@shanedk: Yes, it does, if the ability to be interbred is your definition of species. As you and I have pointed out before, a one-size-fits-all definition of species is not easy to come by, but this does seem to fill anyone's bill for inter-species behavior.
@puncheex Yeah, we've discussed the weird in-between cases, but I don't see how this is an in-between case! In order to have offspring that survive to this day, there had to be a LOT of inbreeding resulting in fertile children. Those in-between cases we mentioned just wouldn't do it.
Your statement that Neanderthals were the same species as us is speculative at best, and likely to be incorrect. We have no idea what the reproductive compatibility was between Neanderthals and our Modern ancestors who were their contemporaries.
I guess though that it comes down to how you define "species".
@kshackleton: Ummmmm, Paabo Svante's team would probably beg to differ. They have what they think to be definitive proof that we have some identified neandertal genes in our genome (if "we" aren't southern African). If that is right then it is very difficult to figure how the reproductive compatibility could be anything other than positive.
I clearly understand that Neandethal genes exist in all non-African humans. This does indicate, clearly, that some admixture took place. The evidence is that this took place in the Levant some 60,000 years ago. We do not know what were the conditions of those matings, for instance, we have no idea if it was as easy for the human-neanderthal mating to be as fertile as the human-human. Perhaps it was, perhaps it was more difficult to conceive....we simply do not know such details.
Again, we have no idea. And strictly speaking, it's not correct to say that 4% of their genetic makeup made it to us. We do not know how diverse their gene pool was. We know that about 4% [it's an estimate] of the non-African modern human genome is statistically more similar to Neanderthal than to modern Africans. The conclusion, a reasonable one to be sure, is that this is due to some admixture about 60,000 years ago in the Levant.
@kshackleton: So your point is, then, that a 4% mixture (as you explain) is not enough to have kept us as the same species? What is your point in insisting on this? Keeping in mind the flakiness of the concept, what then do you make of our sapiens/neandertal relatedness?
I don't think that we can make the determination. We don't know if Neanderthal was a separate species or not. We know that some of their DNA got into our gene pool in recent history, and that the more general split between modern and Neanderthal took place some 500k years ago.
Many people are making claims that seems like a stretch...that's all I am saying.
One comment about the question of species. It depends how you define it. As an example, wolves and coyotes are generally regarded as separate species. While they can interbreed, they generally do not, and typical behaviour involves wolves killing coyotes on sight.
I suspect that it was much the same between modern humans and neanderthal. Where we showed up, they tended to disappear. Given that we tend to kill anything that we dislike...it seems plausible to me.
The details are around the fecundity of the matings. Were the matings neanderthal male - human female, or vice versa...or both? Was pregancy rare, or as frequent as human-human? Were hybrid-hybrid pairings fertile? Lots of questions....
We know that some portion of Neanderthal DNA got into our gene pool, and we know that in the extant gene pool, that it comprises about 4% of the non-African genome. I am not sure if these are coding regions or not.
Love the video because I love mtDNA. Creationist should really never try to tackle mtDNA genetics (they can't even grasp mendelian genetics), since I would consider it evidence for evolution. If they attempt this ask them explain the origins of mitochondria and therefore their genome? Why does it resemble a prokayotic genome instead of a eukaryotic? Oh that's right, endosymbiosis meaning mtDNA has a prokaryotic origin.
@shanedk Yes then they still have to explain the mitochondria, with an outer membrane that is eukaryotic and inner membrane that resembles a prokaryotic membrane. And why is mitochondria (in animals) the only organelle with it's own genome? And they want to play the designer card, they need to answer the question of whether the designer was drunk or just an idiot to put a genome close to ROS that can cause damage? This isn't even going into phylogenetics of the 16S rRNA linking to prokaryotic
Ah, this video cleared up a whole lot. I hadnt really thought about the details of MtDNA before this.
Again, it demonstrates that creationists make excellent learning objects as their mistakes, deliberate or not, is a great way of teaching how science does not work.
Black people of today are claiming we all came from one woman in Africa. Thinking that if she came from Africa she must be black even if it was 170K years ago.
So what you are saying is that there could be many other woman, even before the one we could trace, that could have come from any other place in the world. Is that correct?
@wetweasel56 From the fossils that have been gathered, it seems like the ancestors of mtEve would have been from Africa going all the way back to early primates.
@shanedk...but those fossils are of a variety of different looking pre-human creatures.
Meaning, there could have been many different races of humans that evolved from many different Homo Erectus. Not different in that they are not Homo Erectus but they may have all been different races of Homo Erectus.
@wetweasel56: Welll, it could be, but other lines of evidence (including other lines of genetic evidence) seems to indicate that most all of the evolution of monkeys and apes and man took place in Africa, at some point after South America got too far away from Africa to keep old and new world monkeys from going their own ways. She was probably black. The more evidence that accumulates, the more far-fetched the old distributed derivation of H sapiens seems to be.
... Or at least she was black after she lost her hair and UV protection and the destruction of folic acid required some kind of skin protection. Like chimps her predecessors may have been white skinned with lots of hair protection.
Excuse one who doesn't know enough about this but, what will happen when the DNA in the nucleous gets the treatment as Y and MT-DNA? Or has it already been taken into account? Or am I missing something altogether?
@breakaleg10 Neither the Y chromosome nor the mtDNA recombine. The other chromosomes recombine, so your chromosomes are going to be a mixture of genes from both parents.
It is important to note that the existence of an mtEve is a logical certainty given any fixed group of animals. mtEve as used in this video means mtEve for all living H sapiens. You, your first cousins and all their progeny have an mEve in your common grandmother. All living equus equus have an mtEve as well. There is even an mtEve for you and your pet turtle, though that individual was neither human nor turtle. Now, creationists state that humans (sapiens) and apes may have hybridized, ...
@puncheex This is true. And if anyone doesn't believe him, just try making the chart I made in the video WITHOUT a common female-line ancestor. You can do it up to a point, but as you go back generations you'll find it'll be tougher and tougher.
... to create the Neandertals, but they are adamant about humans alive today being pure. Unfortunately, the discovery of undoubted Neadertal genes in the genome of European and Asian sapiens (Paabo, May 2010) puts a stick in the spokes. They're trying to proove that the non-match of mtDNA puts the nuclear DNA story at risk, because that sort of sinful, perverted act could not have happened. I had to point out to him that the only requirement to the evidence at hand is that ...
... the mtEve common to the group of mixed sapiens and neadertal individuals be a descendant of sapiens' mEve; beyond that requirement, all possible mating patterns are possible. Some turkey in the Economist (May 2010) tried to essay such a proof; it fails on a mistaken definition of mtEve.
As I told the Xtian, "It must hurt when you accept a scientific principle, not on the evidence, but just because it supports your biblical fairy tale, then to have it bite you on the fundament."
@puncheex The thing to remember is that this is OUR mtEve, the one for all humans alive today. As I showed in the graph, people in the past would have had a different mtEve. So it's entirely feasible that the Neanderthals had a different mtEve than our current one no matter how much crossbreeding was going on between them and homo sapiens.
@shanedk: I absolutely agree. That's why I specified a "fixed" group of animals. The mtEve for all the humans alive at noon yesterday might or might not be a different person from today's. It is almost certain that the mtEve of all neandertals alive in, say, 25,000 BCE would not be the same as that for sapiens at that same time. The mtEve for all s/n hybrids was probably a third person closer to the event. The data specify only that s/n mtEve has sapiens, not neandertal, mtDNA.
In fact, come to think about it, it would be impossible for the neadertal mtEve to be the same person as the sapiens mtEve, since the mitochondrial DNA in the two isn't commensurate. It's awesome to think that our mtEve may not have been an H sapiens at all, but perhaps a H erectus (depending on where in the grey area between she fell).
Something is instructing the genes in their sequencing, is it that hard to believe that there is an intellegence behind DNA? There is nothing random or accidental about DNA. You people need to realize this in understanding evolution. Evolution is real, but there is an intellegence behind it.
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck
On what do you base this? There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the sequence of genes in the genome. They're all strewn around higgledy-piggledy. It looks EXACTLY like it was something that started randomly that started being coopted for the sequences that were useful, preserved by natural selection.
@shanedk The homeobox genes seem to be more or less strung in an anterior-posterior sequence, but this could well just be an artifact of their highly conserved nature and the manner in which they were duplicated into their current configuration.
So your saying the mutation in the DNA sequence began in multiple places at different times? I'm sorry..anyway you look at it there was a first. If you don't agree with that then explain to me how all the mutations in the genes came together and became modern man. The genes obviously had to be put together by a higher intellegence for modern man to appear, and that goes for all life.. We are not the only intellegent life in the multiverse. Is it that hard for you to believe that we were created?
Why all the aggressive insults? This "war" between creationism and evolutionism is very childish in my opinion. I am ashamed because the immature nature of this video defiles the beauty of science. Because of this, christians have more reason to believe that scientists are evil people, twisted by the devil, to bring down christianity. This is NOT what science is about. Science is there to promote the use of evidence and reason as the basis of belief, not to tear down any other basis with force.
This would have been an informative, eye opening video that I *WOULD* have passed on and posted to my high-traffic site, except for the bashing. You devalue all of your excellent scientific explanation with childish attacks against potential audience members.I'm not religious at all, but when you put in attacks on 'stupid, pathetic' people, I can't do anything to circulate this information. Next time just focus on the science, and let audience come to their own conclusion about religion.
I thought I read i n a news week or US weekly around spring of 2003 that the neanderthal genome was considered the source of Caucasian DNA?? am I completely stupid about that??
halalmeatz 3 weeks ago
@halalmeatz Non African people have some (4%) neanderthal in their DNA. It means that their ancestors had sex with neanderthals at one time. Neanderthal is not and never was the source of Caucasian DNA.
chairde 3 weeks ago
@chairde I believe you're just talking about the mtDNA; we have more in our nuclear genome.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk I suggest that you view "All NON-Africans are NOT "out-of-africa", and you will see that it is rated up to 4%. Some say one percent and another says two percent in the video.
chairde 3 weeks ago
Why don't you just say like it is: that ,according to creationists, there wasn't even a woman left when Cain killed Abel ;-))
Million creation idiots have wasted their entire live on trying to explain how the entire human race olny came forth from Cain. So, they are now very quit about that "miracle" ;-)
DePetrick 1 month ago
u dont actually expect creationists to understand this do you?
managarm1349 1 month ago
@managarm1349
DePetrick 1 month ago
As far as I know, neanderthals aren't considered to be the same species, unless they've been reclassified as a subspecies.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
@kotoroshinoto its more complicated; it is known that they both would have lived together in Europe in the last period of Neanderthals . And recent findings show that both might as well have mixed at that time. So the few Neandertals left (not adapted phisically to the changing climate) were "absorbed"
No wonder some Neaderthals are still living today! LOL
DePetrick 1 month ago
@DePetrick so they were different spcies in the sense that different bear species are different. Most modern ursids can reproduce with other extant ursid species, but they're still considered separate species due to behavioral mating seperations.
kotoroshinoto 1 month ago
Very good explanation! My question is why only eve decedents survived and later on only adam decedents survived?
MrPerfectlogic 2 months ago
@MrPerfectlogic That isn't the case; watch the video again. There were LOTS of other common ancestors; Adam and Eve were just the most recent among the male-only and female-only lines.
shanedk 2 months ago
When I was thinking about religion the other day, it occurred to me that most Christians hate everything about their religion. They hate going to church, they hate tithing, they hate praying, they hate reading the bible, they hate being forced to publicly acknowledge their belief at all.
So I asked myself, why do they pretend otherwise? The answer was obvious. They don't want to be socially ostracized.
This was interesting, because it meant that religion is so prevalent only because it is so.
TheSmackerlacker 2 months ago
@TheSmackerlacker *standing ovation* Very well said.
Fetternity 2 months ago
Good topic, horrible presentation. Your first debate class would have you know that the moment you become emotional and/or devolve to name-calling the opposing party, you irrevocably sabotage your credibility.
I'm an evolutionist, and I think you're doing more damage than good by being purposefully mean. Irrefutable empirical facts don't need to be supplemented with insults, they can just be hammered over and over into creationists' heads.
Fetternity 2 months ago
@Fetternity When arguing with calm, intelligent, rational people, that may be true. Creationists are none of those things. They respond to emotional outbursts and embarrassment. If you can't make them feel like a piece of shit, they won't lose they're only reason to adhere to their belief, which is to say, fitting in.
TheSmackerlacker 2 months ago
@Fetternity Yeah, I'm a little skeptical anytime anyone claims they're a evolutionist. Since that is a word I've only seen creationists use.
johnrainrules 2 months ago
@johnrainrules I have seen them occasionally use it in a debate with creationists for clarity's sake, but not any other context. And they REALLY don't like the term Darwinist!
shanedk 2 months ago
@johnrainrules lol. Then I guess you need to get involved a bit more, since it is decidedly a two-sided argument and the only room for alternative thinking besides those two options is for the UFO kooks :p
Here's some etymology: if you believe in something, that something usually acquires a -ism at the end.
Fetternity 2 months ago
@Fetternity So you also describe yourself as a Spherical Earthist, Germist, Atomist, General and Special Relativist, and Heliocentrist?
johnrainrules 2 months ago
u r a lost soul -09-06-90
SuperMegaMusicMaster 2 months ago
@ZouGou10 Um, monkeys, rodents, and dinosaurs all did that, too!
shanedk 3 months ago
This really helped me to understand the idea, so thanks a lot.
I think people who understand science should spend less time arguing with people who don't want to understand it (creationists) and more time teaching it to those who do. Certainly a more productive expendure of time for all parties.
Richard Dawkins taught me a lot in his books 'The Selfish Gene' and 'Ancestor's Tale'. Sadly, he then went on to write 'The God Delusion' - a waste of a brilliant mind. It sold better though...
BringBRToTheUK 4 months ago 4
@BringBRToTheUK The God Delusion wasn't that bad in my opinion, altough to each his own. I think he made amends with his new book though. Granted, it is aimed at children predominantly but this is important as it allows parents to teach their kids the real truth about our origins, raher than that creationist bullshit. We need more people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris...
DivineLucifer666 3 months ago
The Earth has been destroyed many times but Humans find a way to survive. I believe the people that have trace routes back to the earliest of times through DNA testing are descendants of ancient races. Time did not end it changed and the people changed with it. I am excited at the prospect of one day knowing what lies hidden beneath frozen Antarctica if anything.
jspecaspec23 5 months ago
@jspecaspec23 i dont know of what you are babbling about, but the earth have not been destroyed even once, and certainly not while humans have been on the earth. If you are talking about global disasters, none of them destroyed the earth, they only caused large portions of life to die out, with many species going extinct, and others flourishing.
If you live in fantasy land, get back to reality.
ExcaliburClan 4 months ago
I believe that it's ok to give alternative viewpoints and things like that, but it can be done without being patronizing and condescending.
fomalhauto 5 months ago
This video made me LoL very loud. This made my day.
CosmicGrounds 5 months ago
@CosmicGrounds
u know what makes me laugh?..Genesis
itzahazylife 3 months ago
@itzahazylife Your grammatical structure makes me laugh.
CosmicGrounds 3 months ago
@CosmicGrounds
obviously i'm using it as a shortcut, not because i can't spell YOU..you know what makes me laugh?..Genesis..there, are YOU happy?
itzahazylife 3 months ago
Very well laid out even i got it .
MrStewart149 6 months ago
At 1:57, I have to give you kudos for thinking twice on avoiding incest.
Nifty algorithm.
Kabitu1 6 months ago
Great video... but the thumbs up comes specifically for the image of the Weeping Angel from Doctor Who at 1:19. DON'T BLINK!
nvalentino75 6 months ago
Very informative and clearly explained.
napataatta 7 months ago
Eve was about five foot tall, brown eyes, hairy back, hairy front, opposable thumbs, cute smile, bad breath, very bad breath, and would only do it doggie style.
baxtar1963 7 months ago
Not only that but there has been many instances where the clonal aspect on mtDNA has been completely refuted. Even a human from modern society was found with paternal leakage, meaning the patient had both maternal and paternal mtDNA followed by a recombination. in order to effectively trace back lineages mtDNA has to be non-recombining and solely from the mother, which is not always the case! research both sides before you put your obnoxious voice all over youtube.
Maliboubarbie 7 months ago
@Maliboubarbie
This is fascinating. Could you also give some sources for this? It's good to know that eventually all bad science will be refuted by good science.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree It was always known that, in extremely rare circumstances, some mtDNA can come from the father. But even in the case of that one child, most of the mtDNA will still be from the mother, and it's statistically laughable to think that there would be anywhere near enough "leakage" to mess up the whole mtEve thing.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Ok, so it just messes up the accuracy a bit. Maybe you could do a debunking of this story some day as a "part 2" to this video. Anyway thanks for the clarification and you keep doing what you do for science.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree its not just accuracy any small error drastically alters the 'age' of mtEVE.
“Mitochondrial DNA as a marker of molecular diversity: a reappraisal”
Molecular Ecology 2009
N. Galtier, B. Nabholz, S. Glemin & G.D.D. Hurst
^ a scientific article proposing the fors and againsts of mtDNA for its use in evolutionary studies and it becomes clear that it is completely unreliable not just due to paternal leakage cases. Try googling DNA Mutation Rates and Evolution Sean D. Pitman M.D.
Maliboubarbie 6 months ago
@Maliboubarbie NOT "It could have been 6000 years ago" unreliable!
I really wish people would learn the concept of "error bars"...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk I'm sure you read in depth the sources i just gave...
Maliboubarbie 6 months ago
@Maliboubarbie Perhaps you could cite the portion of the paper that allows mtEve to have lived 6000 years ago.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk youtube gives me a word limit
Maliboubarbie 6 months ago
@Maliboubarbie We all have the same 500 character limit and it doesn't stop any of us. Stop making excuses.
shanedk 6 months ago 3
@shanedk Maybe you should just read the whole article. My life doesn't revolve around discussing mtDNA.
Maliboubarbie 6 months ago
@Maliboubarbie Homework Fallacy. YOU made a claim, YOU need to back it up.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk And i did, you're just too useless to read a few sources that might actually bring up some questions that you, all-mighty you, cant explain.
Maliboubarbie 6 months ago
@Maliboubarbie I've READ the papers. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER in them that allows mtEve to have lived anywhere NEAR as recently as 6,000 years ago!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Shane, just let it go. Unless you do get the answer that you want, and we know you won't anyway, don't reply. We all know how excited you can get, and with good reason, but sometimes you just have to stop.
Quintinohthree 6 months ago
@Quintinohthree Perhaps, but I've found it's best to keep pushing someone 'til they give. That's when their true colors come out. Then not even other creationists can defend them. Stop too early, and people get the impression that there is legitimacy to both sides.
shanedk 6 months ago
I get what you're saying, and everything seemed pretty likely to be going that way up until the 1990's when further studies proved their own theory of mitochondrial eve wrong or at least had no further significance over any other possibilities. Rebecca Cann et al traced back to mitchondrial eve only to realise the computer programs etc were biased. Creationists believe that recent research put her into the biblical time frame.
Maliboubarbie 7 months ago
A very good book to explain this to a layman is The 7 Daughters of Eve By Prof Bryan Sykes. Despite its title.. it is complete science.. no religion included. It s is a very excellent start to understanding this and written in a non textbook manner for those who..dont do so well with a textbook LOL. Prof. Sykes has done a lot of interesting and fun research regarding mitochodrial eves and y nuc adams as well.
AlphaBrenda1 7 months ago
This bitch should not have been called mitochondrial Eve
093darkknight 7 months ago in playlist interesting
- Every person has a unique mother. Several people may have the same mother.
- Starting with all people alive today, stepping upwards by generations makes the set of maternal ancestors smaller (or at least the same size) in count at each generation.
- Ultimately, that set will be a single female. That's mitochondrial Eve. Same applies to yAdam.
This is simply another way of saying that all humans are related.
(This is not my proof, but I cannot find who originally put it so succinctly.)
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex "Starting with all people alive today, stepping upwards by generations makes the set of maternal ancestors smaller (or at least the same size) in count at each generation."
THIS is where you keep going awry, no matter how many times I explain it to you: mtDNA ONLY comes from the FEMALE LINE. This means of your grandparents, it only represents 1/4th of them--your mother's mother, NOT your father's mother! And of your great-grandparents, 1/8, then 1/16, 1/32, etc.
(cont'd)
shanedk 8 months ago
So there is NO ultimate single female; there are LOTS of female common ancestors, many of them SINCE mtEve. MtEve is just the most recent common ancestor on the female-only line, but HER mother was also a mtEve, as was her mother before here, as was her mother before her! It is RIDICULOUS--not to mention BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE--for mtEve to be the single, one and only female who populated the entire human race!
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk DNA shows that you need a male to make a male....females can only combine xx, xx, xx. You have to have a y chromosome first or you can never get men...just women. How is this going to work?
smoothpeople33 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33: That's absolutely right, and absolutely irrelevant to the argument. The tracing of the matrilineal line disregards males, but doesn't say they are unnecessary, just that for purposes of tracing matrilineage and thus mitochondrial inheritance, beside the fact that they too get their mDNA from their mothers, they are not part of the tracing.
puncheex 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33 You have LOTS of men--but men don't pass on their mtDNA!
And the y chromosome is limited to mammals. Other animal groups have different ways of doing it, not all of them genetic.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk: Shane, damn it, climb off the high horse. It's not me you've been "how many times explaining" to. As I said, that is not my proof of the existence of mEve; as it turns out, it's Daniel Dennet's, as quoted in talkorigins(.)org (I searched and found where I had read it). It's not meant to be completely descriptive; it is a set proof. No where does it rule out other ancestors; it merely disregards them. Notice the word "maternal" ancestors in the line you quote. Here's Dennet's quote:
puncheex 8 months ago
Dennet: "Consider all the humans alive today on Earth. Put them into a set S.
Next, consider the set of all those women who were the mothers of the people in the set S. Call this set S'. A few observations about this new set S'. It consists of only women (while set S consists of both men and women)---this is because we chose to follow only the mother-of relationship in going from set S to set S'. Also note that not every member of set S' needs to be in set S--- ...
puncheex 8 months ago
... set S consists of all people living today, while some of the mothers of living people could have died, they would be in set S' but not in set S. Third, the size of set S' is never larger than the size of set S. Why? This is because of the simple fact that each of us has only one mother. It is however overwhelmingly more likely that the size of set S' is much smaller than that of set S---this is because each woman usually has more than one child. ...
puncheex 8 months ago
... Repeat the process of following the mother-of relationship with set S' to generate a new set S''. This set will consist of only women, and will be no larger (and very likely smaller) than set S'.
Continue this process. There will come a point when the set will consist of smaller and smaller number of women, until we finally come to a single woman who is related to all members in our original set via the transitive-closure of the mother-of relation. There is nothing special about her. ...
puncheex 8 months ago
... Had we chosen to follow the father-of relation, we would have hit the Y-chromosome Adam (more on him later). Had we chosen to follow combinations of mother-of and father-of relations, we would have hit some other of our common ancestors. The only reason why the mother-of relationship seems special is because we can track it using the evidence of mitochondrial DNA.
Thus there must exist a single woman whose is the matrilineal most-recent common ancestor of every in set S."
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex "thus there must exist a single woman whose is the matrilineal most-recent common ancestor of every in set S."
You sorta get it? If you keep counting backward generation by generation you will get to the start...this will be Meve. Your belief is that we go back to no single mother in particular, just one that managed to sleep with all of are grand parents and edge the other multitudes out. I don't see the biological problem of 2 people spreading their seed over the entire planet
smoothpeople33 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33 "If you keep counting backward generation by generation you will get to the start...this will be Meve."
NO....IT...WON'T!!! POPULATIONS evolve, NOT individuals. Again, if you look at the mtDNA from Neanderthals, we have a different mtEve with them, going back EVEN FARTHER!
And if, say, a disaster in Australia wiped out all of the aborigines, then the new mtEve of the current living population will be moved to a more recent woman.
Get it now?
shanedk 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33 "I don't see the biological problem of 2 people spreading their seed over the entire planet"
Ask ANYONE who works with fertility. They'll tell you it's IMPOSSIBLE to get a stable population from just two individuals.
shanedk 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33: I don't "believe" what you think I believe, so I'll thank you to step back and not put words in my mouth, particularly with your western religious moralization on mtEve's sex life. The quote you quoted was Dan Dennet, not me. This is a set theory proof that a mtEve must exist, not intended to be descriptive. I'm sorry if the results don't fit your faith, but then he wasn't intending to cater to religious superstitions.
puncheex 8 months ago
Meanwhile, I'll tell you just what the problems with "2 people spreading their seed over the entire planet". Humans are no different from all other species; why they should have evolved differently, just because Jews didn't understand genetics 2600 years ago, is a non-sequitur. A population of less then 100s-1000s is not viable; there is insufficient genetic variability to handle small environmental changes, particularly where in-breeding is the norm. Perhaps a biology course would help?
puncheex 8 months ago
3:09 "luck has it Meve was the one who passed on her dna to everyone...followed by shes not the ancestor of everyone who ever lived. Shes only related to the people we can test....hahaha Write the book how you want
smoothpeople33 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33 No, she's the ancestor of everyone who's CURRENTLY alive. In Eve's time, OF COURSE she wasn't the ancestor of everyone who WAS alive back then; they all had their own mtEve.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk which is OF COURSE not testable or provable....just predictable based on world view
smoothpeople33 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33 Of course it is--they tested it! How do you think they came up with the data?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk Which tests? The data we just watched shows one mother. The science of the matter is interesting once the personal beliefs are left behind. Both sides look at the same facts and fit it into the system they believe, it is many of the same facts on both sides. It takes a closed minded person to only understand and look at a problem from another view. Please link me to tests proving pre-Meve...thanks
smoothpeople33 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33 "The data we just watched shows one mother."
Wha??? Mitochondrial DNA is passed down the maternal line. The point you're REALLY making is "everyone just has one maternal line." DUH! We knew that already!
Why don't you learn THE BASICS before you try to accuse other people of not having evidence?
shanedk 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33 By the way, they've sequenced the mtDNA of Neanderthals. Humans and Neanderthals had a mtEve that was MUCH earlier than the one for just humans.
shanedk 8 months ago
smoothpeople33 8 months ago
@smoothpeople33 Yes, and the first side has all of the evidence in favor of it, and the second has no evidence for it at all and all sorts of evidence contradicting it.
Case LONG closed.
shanedk 8 months ago
The guy that is called "Y-chromosome Adam" was actually Y-chromosome Noah.
Wikipedia article Haplogroup R (Y-DNA) map clearly shows all haplogroups proceeding out of the Biblical "land of Shinar".
In wikipedia article Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup, see the three daughters-in-law of Noah had haplogroups L,M,N.
Of course, they mistakenly think Eve was type L and draw the arrows "out of Africa".
Mdebacle 8 months ago
@Mdebacle i agree with your conclusions...
smoothpeople33 8 months ago
looks live eves playing with her self
lerox22 8 months ago
I KNEW IT!!! They should never have used the name "Eve"! The retarded creationists HAD to misunderstand and start bullshitting..:)
winterstellar 8 months ago
Going way to fast to follow
Jdo4031 8 months ago
I have no idea what your talking about
Jdo4031 8 months ago
I always laugh at the creationists. They do not deduce anything,they just repeat what they want to be real.
TheArashdaklan 9 months ago
I like how he spells "neucleous"
pythor2 10 months ago
Love the part where you covered the breasts of Eve with:
"Yeah, like I'm gonna give you creationist scumbags an excuse to flag this video, too!"
Denon333dash888 11 months ago
I love the way these inbred hicks, who probably do incredibly simple, menial jobs, think they know more than top scientists of dozens of different fields.
WildcardHatesYou 11 months ago
170,000 YBP eh? I recall reading that they investigated those claims and well, it turns out that mutations occured in the mitochondria a lot quicker thant they had previously assumed. Because of the faster mutation rate, they needed to recalibrate the clock. Using the new system, it pits Eve to actually be about 6000 YBP. Just thought you out to know.
Works cited: Ann Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock" science, 2 January 1998(Volume 279, number 5347), p. 28
Descipleofchrist101 1 year ago
@Descipleofchrist101 Not even REMOTELY true. A mutation rate required to have mtEve be 6000 years ago would be high enough to KILL OFF OUR ENTIRE SPECIES.
shanedk 1 year ago 11
@shanedk Ah, but you're still underestimating the power of God.
CosmicGrounds 5 months ago
@Descipleofchrist101 First of all, the Gibbons article was not a research study. It was a Science(Mag) news article comparing other actual research ideas (also, those ideas are now outdated). What you said is certainly not what her article says! Go read the paper... it is on Google Scholar. The latest estimates are still higher than 100,000 ybp for mitochondrial Eve. Y-Chromosome Adam is much much younger.
espiesior 10 months ago
anyone else look this up because of elfen lied?
classicgamerguy112 1 year ago
@classicgamerguy112 Who/what?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk its a anime that mentioned mitochondria eve. I had no idea what they were talking about so i looked it up.
classicgamerguy112 1 year ago
@shanedk Elfin Lied is an anime. ANd a very good, religious one. I suggest it to any and all.
Roxindreamer 9 months ago
@classicgamerguy112 love that Anime!!!
Casualgeoduck 1 year ago
Crystal clear explanation...Thanks a lot...
Varoonmg 1 year ago
Thats amazing how God allowed Eve to live for 110,000 years to be with Adam =). I'm surprised that she was able to still have children at that age. Never underestimate the power of God!
Philosoranen2 1 year ago
@Philosoranen2 Don't forget the time traveling rib.
chodaboy51500 1 year ago
Excellent explanation. Thank you.
.
It's a typical mistake for Creationists to mistake the symbol for the thing and to argue that the semantics disproves the science. In this case it twists their perception of what is actually happening.
.
I wish scientists and reporters would be more careful before they attach concept twisting labels like Mitochondrial Eve (or Near Death Experience). The science minded might get the distinction (or the joke) but Bible literalists are likely to be led astray.
Noisegator 1 year ago 7
This all only works if you say that there must be other mothers and fathers because Adam and Eve were born. With more questions then answers in the area of cells is it safe to assume the dating methods placing very far apart are accurate.
Your video seams to show one womans DNA with other sisters...but those lady's never passed any genetics down?
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33 Not the mitochondrial DNA, no. The others would have passed down nuclear DNA, but it's impossible to predict which of their genes would have been passed down and which would have been destroyed by recombination.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk SO what you're saying is that there is no proof to back up your or "the" claim that there were other women besides this "Mitochondrial Eve"? In other words it's just a notion. yes? If no, please explain using valid scientific evidence to back-up your claim. Thanks. :)
Descipleofchrist101 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33: In every cell of your body you have:
- several mitochondria, each of which has a small amount of DNA; it comes from your mother's mother's mother...mEve.
- a nucleus, containing a Y chromosome (if you are male), from your father's father's father ... Y-chromosome Adam.
- 45 (46 for female) other pieces of DNA, called the nuclear chromosomes; they come from ALL of your ancestors, so you're the product of all your ancestors; you just got a little extra from yAdam & mEve.
puncheex 8 months ago
Also, don't ever forget that mEve and yAdam also had ancestors; they are the products of them, and therefore so are you. In a way, mEvE's mother is also a mitochondrial Eve to you, since mEve has her mDNA, but the definition of mEve says it is the latest such person.
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex And the genes in those extra chromosomes get shuffled together like a deck of cards, meaning you can't really use them to trace lineage like you can with mitochondria and Y-chromosome DNA.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk: Yup.
puncheex 8 months ago
thanks for this. i was having a hard time explaining how mitochondrial eve wasn't the only member of her species for all of humanity to be her descendants. the illustration does that perfectly.
Fizan989 1 year ago
@Fizan989 Mito Eve may not be the only member of her species for all of humanity to have descended from, but she is related to all humans living today. Please correct me if I am wrong.
123bigr 1 year ago
@123bigr You are correct. Mitochondrial eve--by definition--is the most recent female-line ancestor of everybody alive today.
shanedk 1 year ago
thanks for the video. i am sure this video would not have succeeded in changing minds of faith-over-facts crowd, but it sure did help me understand the intricacies of mtDNA
pimezon 1 year ago
thank you very much
jimmybobbowater 1 year ago
Poignant video, thanks!
Yolandra101 1 year ago
Shane, great explanation. Quick question: At the end you say that neanderthals are the same species as us. That confused me. We are of the same genus, but aren't we classified as different species (sapiens vs. neanderthalensis)? Or do you not consider us separate species because of the evidence of inbreeding (ergo, not reproductively isolated species)?
Daytimeofnight 1 year ago
@Daytimeofnight Every definition of species I've ever heard means that they can produce fertile offspring. There is evidence in our genome that our ancestors cross-bred with neanderthals, which should make us the same species.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk - okay, I figured that's where you were coming from. Mind you, there are some significant morphological differences between sapiens and neanderthals. But then again, there are even greater differences amongst the single species Canis lupus which includes all dogs. Perhaps sapiens and neanderthals are better understood as subspecies. I'll let the taxonomists sort that out.
Daytimeofnight 1 year ago
@Daytimeofnight That's the thing: when I learned about this, they were called Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and we were Homo sapiens sapiens.
shanedk 1 year ago
@Daytimeofnight: Don't forget that what you are calling sapiens, such as you see today, is a hybrid of the preceding sapiens and neandertals, so presumably they were (slightly?) more different than your latter day comparison might indicate.
Many thought they were separate species, having been separated for 600,000 years or so, but Svante's work would indicate that the separation was not as complete as thought.
puncheex 8 months ago
@shanedk: ...or at least were when the interbreeding took place, presumed to be about 65,000 years ago. Of course, that's little time for a speciation event to take place, so it's likely still right today, or would be if we could see what they would have been today.
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex But if they could interbreed with H. sapiens at all, and have fertile offspring whose lineage remains to this day, then doesn't that by definition mean they're the same species as us?
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk: Yes, it does, if the ability to be interbred is your definition of species. As you and I have pointed out before, a one-size-fits-all definition of species is not easy to come by, but this does seem to fill anyone's bill for inter-species behavior.
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex Yeah, we've discussed the weird in-between cases, but I don't see how this is an in-between case! In order to have offspring that survive to this day, there had to be a LOT of inbreeding resulting in fertile children. Those in-between cases we mentioned just wouldn't do it.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk: Agreed.
puncheex 8 months ago
Hehe, 24 retarded christians have watched this video: )
winterstellar 1 year ago 3
Your statement that Neanderthals were the same species as us is speculative at best, and likely to be incorrect. We have no idea what the reproductive compatibility was between Neanderthals and our Modern ancestors who were their contemporaries.
I guess though that it comes down to how you define "species".
kshackleton 1 year ago
@kshackleton: Ummmmm, Paabo Svante's team would probably beg to differ. They have what they think to be definitive proof that we have some identified neandertal genes in our genome (if "we" aren't southern African). If that is right then it is very difficult to figure how the reproductive compatibility could be anything other than positive.
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex
I clearly understand that Neandethal genes exist in all non-African humans. This does indicate, clearly, that some admixture took place. The evidence is that this took place in the Levant some 60,000 years ago. We do not know what were the conditions of those matings, for instance, we have no idea if it was as easy for the human-neanderthal mating to be as fertile as the human-human. Perhaps it was, perhaps it was more difficult to conceive....we simply do not know such details.
kshackleton 8 months ago
@kshackleton: That's true. It couldn't have been overly difficult, though, since 4% of their genetic makeup made it into us.
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex
Again, we have no idea. And strictly speaking, it's not correct to say that 4% of their genetic makeup made it to us. We do not know how diverse their gene pool was. We know that about 4% [it's an estimate] of the non-African modern human genome is statistically more similar to Neanderthal than to modern Africans. The conclusion, a reasonable one to be sure, is that this is due to some admixture about 60,000 years ago in the Levant.
kshackleton 8 months ago
@kshackleton: So your point is, then, that a 4% mixture (as you explain) is not enough to have kept us as the same species? What is your point in insisting on this? Keeping in mind the flakiness of the concept, what then do you make of our sapiens/neandertal relatedness?
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex
I don't think that we can make the determination. We don't know if Neanderthal was a separate species or not. We know that some of their DNA got into our gene pool in recent history, and that the more general split between modern and Neanderthal took place some 500k years ago.
Many people are making claims that seems like a stretch...that's all I am saying.
kshackleton 8 months ago
@puncheex
One comment about the question of species. It depends how you define it. As an example, wolves and coyotes are generally regarded as separate species. While they can interbreed, they generally do not, and typical behaviour involves wolves killing coyotes on sight.
I suspect that it was much the same between modern humans and neanderthal. Where we showed up, they tended to disappear. Given that we tend to kill anything that we dislike...it seems plausible to me.
kshackleton 8 months ago
@kshackleton: "Plausible"?? Is this the same fella who was saying "we simply do not know such details"?
:) (I think I agree, though.)
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex
I think we agree too.
The details are around the fecundity of the matings. Were the matings neanderthal male - human female, or vice versa...or both? Was pregancy rare, or as frequent as human-human? Were hybrid-hybrid pairings fertile? Lots of questions....
We know that some portion of Neanderthal DNA got into our gene pool, and we know that in the extant gene pool, that it comprises about 4% of the non-African genome. I am not sure if these are coding regions or not.
kshackleton 8 months ago
Thank you for showing me a very cool biological fact I didn't have the slightest clue about before.
KingKolunikus 1 year ago
I had a creationist tell me the other day that "Mitochondrial Eve" proved that Eve out of the Bible existed.
I couldn't even reply I was so disgusted at the level of stupidity.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
Love the video because I love mtDNA. Creationist should really never try to tackle mtDNA genetics (they can't even grasp mendelian genetics), since I would consider it evidence for evolution. If they attempt this ask them explain the origins of mitochondria and therefore their genome? Why does it resemble a prokayotic genome instead of a eukaryotic? Oh that's right, endosymbiosis meaning mtDNA has a prokaryotic origin.
vnorthru 1 year ago
@vnorthru They'd just come back with "Same designer, same design." That's their stock answer for stuff like that they can't explain.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Yes then they still have to explain the mitochondria, with an outer membrane that is eukaryotic and inner membrane that resembles a prokaryotic membrane. And why is mitochondria (in animals) the only organelle with it's own genome? And they want to play the designer card, they need to answer the question of whether the designer was drunk or just an idiot to put a genome close to ROS that can cause damage? This isn't even going into phylogenetics of the 16S rRNA linking to prokaryotic
vnorthru 1 year ago
@shanedk: Or, in some cases, "same designer, different design", as required.
puncheex 8 months ago
Ah, this video cleared up a whole lot. I hadnt really thought about the details of MtDNA before this.
Again, it demonstrates that creationists make excellent learning objects as their mistakes, deliberate or not, is a great way of teaching how science does not work.
Korkzor 1 year ago
Thanks for a little clarity.
Black people of today are claiming we all came from one woman in Africa. Thinking that if she came from Africa she must be black even if it was 170K years ago.
So what you are saying is that there could be many other woman, even before the one we could trace, that could have come from any other place in the world. Is that correct?
wetweasel56 1 year ago
@wetweasel56 From the fossils that have been gathered, it seems like the ancestors of mtEve would have been from Africa going all the way back to early primates.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk...but those fossils are of a variety of different looking pre-human creatures.
Meaning, there could have been many different races of humans that evolved from many different Homo Erectus. Not different in that they are not Homo Erectus but they may have all been different races of Homo Erectus.
wetweasel56 1 year ago
@wetweasel56 True, but why would we be finding them all in Africa?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk...I may be mistaken but Peking Man was found in China and is Homo Erectus.
wetweasel56 1 year ago
@wetweasel56: Welll, it could be, but other lines of evidence (including other lines of genetic evidence) seems to indicate that most all of the evolution of monkeys and apes and man took place in Africa, at some point after South America got too far away from Africa to keep old and new world monkeys from going their own ways. She was probably black. The more evidence that accumulates, the more far-fetched the old distributed derivation of H sapiens seems to be.
puncheex 8 months ago
... Or at least she was black after she lost her hair and UV protection and the destruction of folic acid required some kind of skin protection. Like chimps her predecessors may have been white skinned with lots of hair protection.
puncheex 8 months ago
Excuse one who doesn't know enough about this but, what will happen when the DNA in the nucleous gets the treatment as Y and MT-DNA? Or has it already been taken into account? Or am I missing something altogether?
breakaleg10 1 year ago
@breakaleg10 Neither the Y chromosome nor the mtDNA recombine. The other chromosomes recombine, so your chromosomes are going to be a mixture of genes from both parents.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Here I thought you'd end up with a Hermaphrodite. :P
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@shanedk Thanks a lot. This answers a lot for me.
breakaleg10 1 year ago
It is important to note that the existence of an mtEve is a logical certainty given any fixed group of animals. mtEve as used in this video means mtEve for all living H sapiens. You, your first cousins and all their progeny have an mEve in your common grandmother. All living equus equus have an mtEve as well. There is even an mtEve for you and your pet turtle, though that individual was neither human nor turtle. Now, creationists state that humans (sapiens) and apes may have hybridized, ...
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex This is true. And if anyone doesn't believe him, just try making the chart I made in the video WITHOUT a common female-line ancestor. You can do it up to a point, but as you go back generations you'll find it'll be tougher and tougher.
shanedk 1 year ago
... to create the Neandertals, but they are adamant about humans alive today being pure. Unfortunately, the discovery of undoubted Neadertal genes in the genome of European and Asian sapiens (Paabo, May 2010) puts a stick in the spokes. They're trying to proove that the non-match of mtDNA puts the nuclear DNA story at risk, because that sort of sinful, perverted act could not have happened. I had to point out to him that the only requirement to the evidence at hand is that ...
puncheex 1 year ago
... the mtEve common to the group of mixed sapiens and neadertal individuals be a descendant of sapiens' mEve; beyond that requirement, all possible mating patterns are possible. Some turkey in the Economist (May 2010) tried to essay such a proof; it fails on a mistaken definition of mtEve.
As I told the Xtian, "It must hurt when you accept a scientific principle, not on the evidence, but just because it supports your biblical fairy tale, then to have it bite you on the fundament."
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex The thing to remember is that this is OUR mtEve, the one for all humans alive today. As I showed in the graph, people in the past would have had a different mtEve. So it's entirely feasible that the Neanderthals had a different mtEve than our current one no matter how much crossbreeding was going on between them and homo sapiens.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk: I absolutely agree. That's why I specified a "fixed" group of animals. The mtEve for all the humans alive at noon yesterday might or might not be a different person from today's. It is almost certain that the mtEve of all neandertals alive in, say, 25,000 BCE would not be the same as that for sapiens at that same time. The mtEve for all s/n hybrids was probably a third person closer to the event. The data specify only that s/n mtEve has sapiens, not neandertal, mtDNA.
puncheex 1 year ago
In fact, come to think about it, it would be impossible for the neadertal mtEve to be the same person as the sapiens mtEve, since the mitochondrial DNA in the two isn't commensurate. It's awesome to think that our mtEve may not have been an H sapiens at all, but perhaps a H erectus (depending on where in the grey area between she fell).
puncheex 1 year ago
Something is instructing the genes in their sequencing, is it that hard to believe that there is an intellegence behind DNA? There is nothing random or accidental about DNA. You people need to realize this in understanding evolution. Evolution is real, but there is an intellegence behind it.
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck
RealityDefenseLeague 1 year ago
@RealityDefenseLeague "Something is instructing the genes in their sequencing,"
On what do you base this? There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the sequence of genes in the genome. They're all strewn around higgledy-piggledy. It looks EXACTLY like it was something that started randomly that started being coopted for the sequences that were useful, preserved by natural selection.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The homeobox genes seem to be more or less strung in an anterior-posterior sequence, but this could well just be an artifact of their highly conserved nature and the manner in which they were duplicated into their current configuration.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@RealityDefenseLeague: As LaPlace said to Napolean, "Sire, je n'avais besoin de cet hypothese."
For the Philistenes, "Sire, I had no need for that hypothesis."
puncheex 1 year ago
So your saying the mutation in the DNA sequence began in multiple places at different times? I'm sorry..anyway you look at it there was a first. If you don't agree with that then explain to me how all the mutations in the genes came together and became modern man. The genes obviously had to be put together by a higher intellegence for modern man to appear, and that goes for all life.. We are not the only intellegent life in the multiverse. Is it that hard for you to believe that we were created?
RealityDefenseLeague 1 year ago
@RealityDefenseLeague "So your saying the mutation in the DNA sequence began in multiple places at different times?"
Huh? No one said anything of the kind.
shanedk 1 year ago
> watch?v=89E9tGCeLIY < ^^This video here makes my point precisely
Kyel09 1 year ago
Why all the aggressive insults? This "war" between creationism and evolutionism is very childish in my opinion. I am ashamed because the immature nature of this video defiles the beauty of science. Because of this, christians have more reason to believe that scientists are evil people, twisted by the devil, to bring down christianity. This is NOT what science is about. Science is there to promote the use of evidence and reason as the basis of belief, not to tear down any other basis with force.
Kyel09 1 year ago
This would have been an informative, eye opening video that I *WOULD* have passed on and posted to my high-traffic site, except for the bashing. You devalue all of your excellent scientific explanation with childish attacks against potential audience members.I'm not religious at all, but when you put in attacks on 'stupid, pathetic' people, I can't do anything to circulate this information. Next time just focus on the science, and let audience come to their own conclusion about religion.
ShadesofScorpius 1 year ago
awesome video man! And once again, you creationist morons are proven WRONG! :)
MANBATCOW 1 year ago