Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The 'Out of Africa Eve Hypothesis'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The 'Out of Africa Eve Hypothesis'

    In a thread in apologetics some vague statements made by Tassman and Jordon river that the 'Out of Africa Eve Hypothesis' was some superseded or replaced? by another theory or model of human origins. I was interested in discussing this topic, because I was not aware of any significant change in this theory of human origins. There are of course changes in the time frame and some issues, but I was not aware of anything significant.

    I do believe oversimplification in layman's articles has lead to misinformation concerning the actual scientific theory of African origins of humans called 'Out of Africa Eve Hypothesis'.

    The wiki article does well summarizing these problems to begin the discussion. The following is the part discussing the Criticism and other issues. The rest is also reasonably well written:

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Criticism_and_new_evidence



    Criticism and new evidence[edit]

    Soon after the watershed publication, some population geneticists criticised the analytical method as flawed, and also criticised some of the secondary conclusions[40] while some claimed the interpretation as dubious.[41][42][43][44] Alan Templeton asserted that the study did "not support the hypothesis of a recent African origin for all of humanity following a split between Africans and non-Africans 100,000 years ago" and also did "not support the hypothesis of a recent global replacement of humans coming out of Africa."[45] This criticism was popularised into a general conception that human mtDNA analysis and the hypothesis of recent African origin are false.[46][47]

    Although the original research did have analytical limitations, DNA tests among African residents suggest the "Out of Africa" hypothesis still could be accurate.[48][49] However they should be interpreted, estimates of the age of the last common mitochondrial ancestor continue to be refined. A recent estimate (March 2013) from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology shows that Mitochondrial Eve lived about 160,000 years ago (within the reserved estimate of the original research) and also that the non-African humans were separated from Africans about 95,000 years ago.[50] In August 2013, a study led by Stanford University School of Medicine geneticists reported the age of Mitochondrial Eve to be about 99,000 and 148,000 years, and the Y-MRCA to have lived between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, based on genome sequencing of 69 people from 9 different populations.[5]

    Implications of dating and placement of Eve[edit]

    Further information: Multiregional origin of modern humans and Recent African origin of modern humans

    There was initial resistance among some scientists to the Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis, in part because it challenged the widely accepted multiregional evolution hypothesis held by some leading paleoanthropologists, such as Milford Wolpoff. This prevailing theory held that the evolution of humanity from the beginning of the Pleistocene (2.5 million years ago) to the present day has been within a single, continuous human species, evolving worldwide to modern Homo sapiens. More resistance came from those who argued that there was too little time between Homo erectus and modern Homo sapiens to allow for another new species, and others who argued the regional evolution from archaic hominin forms into modern ones. Consequently, the finding of a recent maternal ancestor for all humans in Africa was very controversial.

    Cann, Stoneking & Wilson (1987)'s placement of a relatively small population of humans in sub-saharan Africa, lent appreciable support for the recent Out of Africa hypothesis. The current concept places between 1,500 and 16,000 effectively interbreeding individuals (census 4,500 to 48,000 individuals) within Tanzania and proximal regions. Later, Tishkoff et al. (2009) using data from many loci (not just mitochondrial DNA) extrapolated that the Angola-Namibia border region near the Atlantic Ocean is likely to be near the geographical point of origin of modern human genetic diversity. In its relatively southern origin proposals, this autosomal study was considered by the authors to be broadly consistent with previous mitochondrial DNA studies, including one by some of the same authors who associated the origins of mitochondrial haplogroups L0 and L1 with "click languages" in southern and eastern Africa.[51]

    To some extent the studies have already revealed that the archaic Homo sapiens present in Northwest Africa (Jebel Irhoud) were not likely part of the contiguous modern human population. Better defined is the genetic separation among Neanderthals, Flores hobbit, Java man, and Peking man. In 1999 Krings et al. eliminated problems in molecular clocking postulated by Nei, 1992 when it was found that the mtDNA sequence for the same region was substantially different from the MRCA relative to any human sequence. Currently there are 6 fully sequenced Neanderthal mitogenomes, each falling within a genetic cluster less diverse than that for humans, and mitogenome analysis in humans has statistically markedly reduced the TMRCA range so that it no longer overlaps with Neandertal/human split times. Of all the non-African hominids, European archaics most closely resembled humans, indicating a wider genetic divide with other hominids.

    Since the multiregional evolution hypothesis (MREH) revolved around a belief that regional modern human populations evolved in situ in various regions (Europe: Neandertals to Europeans, Asia: Homo erectus to East Asians, Australia: Sumatran erectines to indigenous Australians), these results demonstrated that a pure MREH hypothesis could not explain one important genetic marker.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  • #2
    Interesting.

    I had a DNA analysis done through 23andMe.com and discovered that I have some alleles common in North Africa. Not sure if this is relevant, but it indicates some of my distant ancestors were (probably) African.

    K54

    Father's lineage:

    ottos_lineage.png

    Mother's lineage:

    ottos_lineage.png

    Comment


    • #3
      T thought I would add this from the other thread, which explains some of the problems of science communication to the public through layman's media.

      The problem with the Eve Mitochondrial Hypothesis is in the 'figurative name' and the layman literature and layman's perception of science. The thread in Natural Science is posted to address these issues. The following are the facts, and misconceptions.

      (1) The theory of Eve 'Mitochondrial Hypothesis' has not been 'superseded,' replaced nor discredited. Continued research has modified the theory and clarified it.

      (2) The Mitochondrial Eve is not an individual, but a group of women within a larger population, likely the species we call Homo Erectus.

      (3) The population bottle neck was tens of thousands of individuals, not a few hundred or a few thousand.

      (4) The population of the Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor. The most likely common ancestor is more ancient and related to the population of Homo Erectus that Homo Sapiens evolved in and replaced. Neanderthals likely evolved out of this same population. Ultimately the survival advantage of Homo Sapiens in changing climates led to the domination of Homo Sapiens. I believe this reflects evolution of the brain, resulted in Homo Sapiens mixing with and replacing both Homo Erectus, and Neanderthals.

      There is ongoing research and disagreements among some scientists concerning this theory, but as usual I caution lay people taking issue with a theory because not all scientists agree on the details. This is simply the way science changes and evolves.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-08-2015, 05:13 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        T thought I would add this from the other thread, which explains some of the problems of science communication to the public through layman's media.

        The problem with the Eve Mitochondrial Hypothesis is in the 'figurative name' and the layman literature and layman's perception of science.
        Who did you have in mind who had this problem?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          Who did you have in mind who had this problem?
          Like many issues and science, such as evolution and global climate change, the problem is a combination of media mishandling the information, communication gaps from science to the public, science literacy of the public, a recent trend in distrust of science, and religious agendas.

          I may provide some sources that present scientific objections to the 'Eve mitochondrial Hypothesis,' but most of them do not attack the 'Out of Africa' concept, or the over all timing as occurring in the past 2 million years. They question the conclusions based on the need for more research and what they believe are unanswered questions.

          The shift from what some believed or reported as one? Mitochondrial Eve to the more realistic view of a population of women within a larger population of Homo Erectus.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-08-2015, 07:43 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            T thought I would add this from the other thread, which explains some of the problems of science communication to the public through layman's media.

            The problem with the Eve Mitochondrial Hypothesis is in the 'figurative name' and the layman literature and layman's perception of science.
            Who did you have in mind who had this problem?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              Who did you have in mind who had this problem?
              I am not sure of your question??

              Tassman and Jordonriver in this thread http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...g-Badly/page26 described the Eve Mitochondrial Hypothesis as 'superseded?' by something else. I asked for clarification as to what 'superseded' this theory.

              My view is that the Eve Mitochondrial Eve theory that was proposed ~1987 is an evolving theory of the 'Out of Africa' view of the evolution of Homo Sapiens. One competing theory is the multiregional hypothesis, which at present is not favored.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                You said that there was a "problem with the Eve Mitochondrial Hypothesis", and the the problem stems from "the 'figurative name' and the layman literature and layman's perception of science."

                I'm asking you who had this problem? Can you give us actual names of people who are having issues based on the figurative name "Eve"? Can you quote them directly?

                If Tassman and Jordanriver are examples of people who were having issues based on the figurative name "Eve", can you quote them so we can see where they did that, and how that happened?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  You said that there was a "problem with the Eve Mitochondrial Hypothesis", and the the problem stems from "the 'figurative name' and the layman literature and layman's perception of science."

                  I'm asking you who had this problem? Can you give us actual names of people who are having issues based on the figurative name "Eve"? Can you quote them directly?

                  If Tassman and Jordanriver are examples of people who were having issues based on the figurative name "Eve", can you quote them so we can see where they did that, and how that happened?
                  Previously you did not make the question clear. You needed to specify what problem you were referring to. Ok. Previous I gave a brief summary of the problem, which was dead on when included with the references below.

                  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Criticism_and_new_evidence



                  Not the biblical Eve

                  Owing to its figurative reference to the first woman in the Biblical Book of Genesis, the Mitochondrial Eve theory initially met with enthusiastic endorsement from some young earth creationists, who viewed the theory as a validation of the biblical creation story. Some even went so far as to claim that the Mitochondrial Eve theory disproved evolution.[37][38][39] However, the theory does not suggest any relation between biblical Eve and Mitochondrial Eve because Mitochondrial Eve:

                  is not a fixed individual had a mother
                  was not the only woman of her time, and Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous to her.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source: http://www.reasons.org/articles/a-burgoo-of-human-origin-discoveries


                  Though often presented and discussed within the context of the evolutionary paradigm, this model has profound biblical implications. In some respects, the Out-of-Africa hypothesis appears to be the biblical model awkwardly forced into the evolutionary framework, like an incorrect puzzle piece. If humanity’s genesis happened in the way described in Scripture, the genetic diversity patterns observed among people groups around the world would be very similar to those discovered by anthropologists. It looks as if Adam and Eve really existed, giving rise to all humanity.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source: http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/mitochondrial-eve/



                  Talking about Mitochondrial Eve was not good for promoting evolution

                  This aspect may not be on the map for those who are debating scientific hypotheses, but I grew up with people who used the 1988 Newsweek Mitochondrial Eve cover to assert that scientists were going to eventually come around and prove the Biblical account of divine creation. Again, this may seem strange to those steeped in DNA sequencing, but the part about hominid and Homo sapien evolution is the most difficult for many people to swallow. Talking about any kind of Eve, even a Mitochondrial Eve, does not help. Moreover, the acrimonious debate let a lot of people tune out, contributing to an idea that scientists simply have no idea what was going on. The brilliant parody Anthropologists Trace Human Origins Back To One Large Goat (2011) in The Onion captures how many people view these debates, and see also the teaching materials in the blog-post Living with Darwin.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-09-2015, 07:37 AM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Previously you did not make the question clear. You needed to specify what problem you were referring to.
                    Hmm. That's odd. I quoted you directly (twice) with the problem you suggested. I'm not sure how I could have been more clear, but I'm glad the issue has been resolved for you.

                    Ok. Previous I gave a brief summary of the problem, which was dead on when included with the references below.

                    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Criticism_and_new_evidence



                    Not the biblical Eve

                    Owing to its figurative reference to the first woman in the Biblical Book of Genesis, the Mitochondrial Eve theory initially met with enthusiastic endorsement from some young earth creationists, who viewed the theory as a validation of the biblical creation story. Some even went so far as to claim that the Mitochondrial Eve theory disproved evolution.[37][38][39] However, the theory does not suggest any relation between biblical Eve and Mitochondrial Eve because Mitochondrial Eve:

                    is not a fixed individual had a mother
                    was not the only woman of her time, and Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous to her.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: http://www.reasons.org/articles/a-burgoo-of-human-origin-discoveries


                    Though often presented and discussed within the context of the evolutionary paradigm, this model has profound biblical implications. In some respects, the Out-of-Africa hypothesis appears to be the biblical model awkwardly forced into the evolutionary framework, like an incorrect puzzle piece. If humanity’s genesis happened in the way described in Scripture, the genetic diversity patterns observed among people groups around the world would be very similar to those discovered by anthropologists. It looks as if Adam and Eve really existed, giving rise to all humanity.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source: http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/mitochondrial-eve/



                    Talking about Mitochondrial Eve was not good for promoting evolution

                    This aspect may not be on the map for those who are debating scientific hypotheses, but I grew up with people who used the 1988 Newsweek Mitochondrial Eve cover to assert that scientists were going to eventually come around and prove the Biblical account of divine creation. Again, this may seem strange to those steeped in DNA sequencing, but the part about hominid and Homo sapien evolution is the most difficult for many people to swallow. Talking about any kind of Eve, even a Mitochondrial Eve, does not help. Moreover, the acrimonious debate let a lot of people tune out, contributing to an idea that scientists simply have no idea what was going on. The brilliant parody Anthropologists Trace Human Origins Back To One Large Goat (2011) in The Onion captures how many people view these debates, and see also the teaching materials in the blog-post Living with Darwin.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    Ok, so this wasn't an issue that stemmed from anyone on this forum. No one here actually had the problem that you mentioned.

                    According to the 1st and 3rd sources you've cited it looks like it was mostly an issue with some YECs when the discovery was first announced. No names are mentioned in your citations.

                    Your 2nd source isn't exactly mistaking Mitochondrial Eve for the Biblical Eve, but is suggesting that, in some "awkwardly forced" way, the theory accounts for the genetic diversity patterns one sees if Adam and Eve really existed. Not exactly the highest praise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      (2) The Mitochondrial Eve is not an individual, but a group of women within a larger population, likely the species we call Homo Erectus.
                      Just a small correction here: given the time frame involved, mitochondrial Eve was almost certainly a H. heidelbergensis:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        Hmm. That's odd. I quoted you directly (twice) with the problem you suggested. I'm not sure how I could have been more clear, but I'm glad the issue has been resolved for you.
                        Simply asking about a problem and not defining the problem. You were vague. The issue of problems is not mine.

                        Ok, so this wasn't an issue that stemmed from anyone on this forum. No one here actually had the problem that you mentioned.
                        The vagueness of the posts of Tassman and Jordonriver lead to this thread to clarifiy ALL the different problems with the Eve Mitochondrial Hypothesis.

                        According to the 1st and 3rd sources you've cited it looks like it was mostly an issue with some YECs when the discovery was first announced. No names are mentioned in your citations.
                        The second clearly gave a named source. Would more 'named' sources satisfy you. The problem is not only at the time of the discovery. The second named source was 2008.

                        Your 2nd source isn't exactly mistaking Mitochondrial Eve for the Biblical Eve, but is suggesting that, in some "awkwardly forced" way, the theory accounts for the genetic diversity patterns one sees if Adam and Eve really existed. Not exactly the highest praise.
                        Reread the second source it is exactly equating Mitochondrial Eve with the Biblical Eve. The 'awkwardly forced' is a deliberate attack at evolution.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-09-2015, 10:01 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Simply asking about a problem and not defining the problem. You were vague. The issue of problems is not mine.
                          I directly quoted you telling us what the problem was. I could not be less vague. The problem is certainly yours.


                          The vagueness of the posts of Tassman and Jordonriver lead to this thread to clarifiy the different problems with the Eve Mitochondrial Hypothesis.
                          But they did not have issues with the metaphorical name.


                          The second clearly gave a named source. Would more 'named' sources satisfy you. The problem is not only at the time of the discovery. The second named source was 2008.

                          Reread the second source it is exactly equating Mitochondrial Eve with the Biblical Eve. The 'awkwardly forced' is a deliberate attack at evolution.
                          I didn't read the source, I read your citation which did not include the source's name. Is this the section you have issues with?: "Amazingly, studies using mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA markers trace humanity’s origin back to a single man and woman. These studies also indicate that humanity’s migration around the world began at or near the Middle East."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            I directly quoted you telling us what the problem was. I could not be less vague. The problem is certainly yours.

                            Not so. You actually were not specific. The part you quoted listed several possible problems.


                            Originally posted by shunyadragon

                            T thought I would add this from the other thread, which explains some of the problems of science communication to the public through layman's media.

                            The problem with the Eve Mitochondrial Hypothesis is in the 'figurative name' and the layman literature and layman's perception of science.
                            Who did you have in mind who had this problem?

                            But they did not have issues with the metaphorical name.
                            I did not know that based on the posts. I asked for clarification. The metaphysical name was only one of the possible problems. This thread is to deal with all possible problems.

                            I didn't read the source, I read your citation which did not include the source's name. Is this the section you have issues with?: "Amazingly, studies using mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA markers trace humanity’s origin back to a single man and woman. These studies also indicate that humanity’s migration around the world began at or near the Middle East."
                            Incomplete. Next time read the source. Do you need more sources to be satisfied.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-09-2015, 10:57 AM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Not so. You actually were not specific. The part you quoted listed several possible problems.


                              Who did you have in mind who had this problem?



                              I did not know that based on the posts. I asked for clarification. The metaphysical name was only one of the possible problems. This thread is to deal with all possible problems.
                              The problems you listed that I quoted included:

                              (1) Confusion about the metaphorical name of Eve
                              (2) layman literature
                              (3) layman perception of science

                              I was fine with a name and a citation from anyone who exhibited any of these problems (though I must admit that number 3 seems a bit redundant).

                              Its amazing that you would have such a hard time understanding such a simple request, but then, you often seem to have a hard time understanding questions put to you, so I suppose one shouldn't find this so surprising.

                              Incomplete.
                              What do you mean by "incomplete". What is incomplete?

                              Next time read the source.
                              Next time cite the relevant bit from your source.

                              Do you need more sources to be satisfied.
                              Sure, I wouldn't mind more sources if you have them, but why did you dodge my question? Shall i ask it again?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, Yesterday, 10:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              7 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post lee_merrill  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              56 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              25 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              15 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X