Mitchondrial DNA

[Jimlarmore]

When it comes to DNA humans have more than just nuclear DNA. In the cell's energy producers called mitochondria there are strands of DNA that came only from our mothers. So all mitochondrial DNA comes only from the female side of the union that produces an offspring.

A probing question of course should be where did the first female get her mitochondrial DNA? Likewise the "Y"chromosome that determines whether an embryo will be male or not comes only from the Father. Focusing however on the female side of this science has found that all humans have the same mitochondrial DNA. This conclusion came in 1987 by a team from the University of California at Berkely who published a study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the worlds geographical locations. They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor later dubbed her "Mitochondrial Eve".

To me I would be seriously interested in finding out how long ago this woman lived. The shocking discovery based on the frequency of mutations that occurr on the mtDNA we can conclude that Mitochondrial Eve lived approxiamately 6,000 to 6500 years ago. ( Ann Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock" Science, Vol 279, 2 Jan 1998 p. 29 ). No one is shouting this from the roof tops to my knowledge because it refutes the mainstream paradigm.

The same thing exists in the "Genetic Adam" and the "Y" chromosome. From a world wide study of 38 men there appeared no difference in the "Y" chromosome at all. Had humans evolved and all men descended from one male who lived millions of years ago each should carry at least 40 or more mutations. No changes were found.

Just a few things to question the mainstream paradigm.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[lemmings]

Mitochondrial Eve would not be the Eve written in the Bible even if Creationism where true. She would have to have lived around 2000BC for it to be true.

Oh, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 140,000 years ago. It would be impossible for her to have lived 6,000 years ago since Native Americans have been isolated from Eurasia for 10,000 years.


Here is the original report from Nature.

http://www.nature.com/nature/ancestor/pdf/325031.pdf

 

[juvenissun]

When it comes to DNA humans have more than just nuclear DNA. In the cell's energy producers called mitochondria there are strands of DNA that came only from our mothers. So all mitochondrial DNA comes only from the female side of the union that produces an offspring.

A probing question of course should be where did the first female get her mitochondrial DNA? Likewise the "Y"chromosome that determines whether an embryo will be male or not comes only from the Father. Focusing however on the female side of this science has found that all humans have the same mitochondrial DNA. This conclusion came in 1987 by a team from the University of California at Berkely who published a study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the worlds geographical locations. They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor later dubbed her "Mitochondrial Eve".

To me I would be seriously interested in finding out how long ago this woman lived. The shocking discovery based on the frequency of mutations that occurr on the mtDNA we can conclude that Mitochondrial Eve lived approxiamately 6,000 to 6500 years ago. ( Ann Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock" Science, Vol 279, 2 Jan 1998 p. 29 ). No one is shouting this from the roof tops to my knowledge because it refutes the mainstream paradigm.

The same thing exists in the "Genetic Adam" and the "Y" chromosome. From a world wide study of 38 men there appeared no difference in the "Y" chromosome at all. Had humans evolved and all men descended from one male who lived millions of years ago each should carry at least 40 or more mutations. No changes were found.

Just a few things to question the mainstream paradigm.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Very nice information. Thanks.

Since the genetics has been studied many years, why don't we hear more story of this nature advocated by evolutionist (I guess it is what you called the "main stream")? I am very bored by paleontology. I would like TE people to tell me more about studies that demonstrate genetics DOES support evolution.

 

[gluadys]

When it comes to DNA humans have more than just nuclear DNA. In the cell's energy producers called mitochondria there are strands of DNA that came only from our mothers. So all mitochondrial DNA comes only from the female side of the union that produces an offspring.

A probing question of course should be where did the first female get her mitochondrial DNA? Likewise the "Y"chromosome that determines whether an embryo will be male or not comes only from the Father. Focusing however on the female side of this science has found that all humans have the same mitochondrial DNA. This conclusion came in 1987 by a team from the University of California at Berkely who published a study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the worlds geographical locations. They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor later dubbed her "Mitochondrial Eve".

To me I would be seriously interested in finding out how long ago this woman lived. The shocking discovery based on the frequency of mutations that occurr on the mtDNA we can conclude that Mitochondrial Eve lived approxiamately 6,000 to 6500 years ago. ( Ann Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock" Science, Vol 279, 2 Jan 1998 p. 29 ). No one is shouting this from the roof tops to my knowledge because it refutes the mainstream paradigm.

The same thing exists in the "Genetic Adam" and the "Y" chromosome. From a world wide study of 38 men there appeared no difference in the "Y" chromosome at all. Had humans evolved and all men descended from one male who lived millions of years ago each should carry at least 40 or more mutations. No changes were found.

Just a few things to question the mainstream paradigm.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I don't know where you get the idea that mtDNA or Y-chromosome DNA has not changed in humans.

It is through studying the pattern of mutations that scientists were able to arrive at their conclusions regarding mitochondrial "Eve" and Y-chromosome "Adam".

A readable lay-person's guide to the procedures is available in a publication of the Genographic Project called Deep Ancestry by Spencer Wells.

If the DNA did not mutate, it would not be possible to trace the ancestry the way they do, back to a common ancestor. In fact, the Y-chromosome mutates quite rapidly.

 

[gluadys]

Very nice information. Thanks.

Since the genetics has been studied many years, why don't we hear more story of this nature advocated by evolutionist (I guess it is what you called the "main stream")? I am very bored by paleontology. I would like TE people to tell me more about studies that demonstrate genetics DOES support evolution.

Not only does genetics powerfully support evolution; evolution is defined as genetic change.

Remember that evolution is a change in the distribution of alleles over generations. "Alleles" is a genetic term.

Tracing the pathways of evolution is a matter of tracing genetic change, either directly through DNA sampling, or indirectly through changes in morphology.

 

[busterdog]

When it comes to DNA humans have more than just nuclear DNA. In the cell's energy producers called mitochondria there are strands of DNA that came only from our mothers. So all mitochondrial DNA comes only from the female side of the union that produces an offspring.

A probing question of course should be where did the first female get her mitochondrial DNA? Likewise the "Y"chromosome that determines whether an embryo will be male or not comes only from the Father. Focusing however on the female side of this science has found that all humans have the same mitochondrial DNA. This conclusion came in 1987 by a team from the University of California at Berkely who published a study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the worlds geographical locations. They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor later dubbed her "Mitochondrial Eve".

To me I would be seriously interested in finding out how long ago this woman lived. The shocking discovery based on the frequency of mutations that occurr on the mtDNA we can conclude that Mitochondrial Eve lived approxiamately 6,000 to 6500 years ago. ( Ann Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock" Science, Vol 279, 2 Jan 1998 p. 29 ). No one is shouting this from the roof tops to my knowledge because it refutes the mainstream paradigm.

The same thing exists in the "Genetic Adam" and the "Y" chromosome. From a world wide study of 38 men there appeared no difference in the "Y" chromosome at all. Had humans evolved and all men descended from one male who lived millions of years ago each should carry at least 40 or more mutations. No changes were found.

Just a few things to question the mainstream paradigm.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

In terms of questioning the mainstream paradigm, I think the example is not exactly God on Mt. Sinai writing on stone, but a pretty unlikely match between the stories of Adam/Eve and Noah. While not overwhelming in content, the scoffers should take this opportunity to admire in silence and give credit where its due. Funny how the Bible always seems to be right.

 

[busterdog]

Mitochondrial Eve would not be the Eve written in the Bible even if Creationism where true. She would have to have lived around 2000BC for it to be true.

Oh, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 140,000 years ago. It would be impossible for her to have lived 6,000 years ago since Native Americans have been isolated from Eurasia for 10,000 years.


Here is the original report from Nature.

http://www.nature.com/nature/ancestor/pdf/325031.pdf

The notion of any people isolated from Eurasia is called speculation.

The 140,000 year figure is also one of those estimates that goes away if we wait long enough, like the date at which the earliest diamonds were formed, etc. That is the weakest part of the thesis. The relative position of the earliest common denominators for XX and XY is what is the strongest conclusion. Just chill and accept it. Its not like you have ingest antimatter or anything.

 

[busterdog]

W
To me I would be seriously interested in finding out how long ago this woman lived. The shocking discovery based on the frequency of mutations that occurr on the mtDNA we can conclude that Mitochondrial Eve lived approxiamately 6,000 to 6500 years ago. ( Ann Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock" Science, Vol 279, 2 Jan 1998 p. 29 ). No one is shouting this from the roof tops to my knowledge because it refutes the mainstream paradigm.

One of the really interesting thing is that the seem to have isolated Genetic Noah, not Adam. Scientists chortled that these common ancestors lived at different times, and that Adam couldnt have been around at the same time as Eve. Guess the jokes on them..

http://khouse.org/articles/2006/670/

 

[sfs]

In terms of questioning the mainstream paradigm, I think the example is not exactly God on Mt. Sinai writing on stone, but a pretty unlikely match between the stories of Adam/Eve and Noah.

Sorry, but the actual genetic facts look nothing at all like A&E and Noah. The genetic data, including mtDNA and the Y chromosome, point clearly to a more or less constant-sized human population for at least the last couple of hundred thousand years. mtDNA Eve and Y Adam in no way point to a small population bottleneck.

While not overwhelming in content, the scoffers should take this opportunity to admire in silence and give credit where its due. Funny how the Bible always seems to be right.

Your standards are so low they're underwater.

 

[sfs]

The notion of any people isolated from Eurasia is called speculation.

The 140,000 year figure is also one of those estimates that goes away if we wait long enough, like the date at which the earliest diamonds were formed, etc. That is the weakest part of the thesis. The relative position of the earliest common denominators for XX and XY is what is the strongest conclusion. Just chill and accept it. Its not like you have ingest antimatter or anything.

No, I don't have to ingest antimatter to accept this, just gross ignorance. That's a diet that always gives me indigestion.

 

[busterdog]

No, I don't have to ingest antimatter to accept this, just gross ignorance. That's a diet that always gives me indigestion.

Suit yourself.

 

[lemmings]

The 140,000 year figure is also one of those estimates that goes away if we wait long enough

So you are fine accepting Jimlarmore’s incorrect statement that she had lived 6,000 years ago until the dating method disagrees with a young earth. Of course, if Jimlarmore’s statement where really accurate, it would have destroyed Creationism.

, like the date at which the earliest diamonds were formed, etc.

What is with Creationists pulling random fields of science into a discussion about biology?

That is the weakest part of the thesis.

Once again, you agree with the thesis as long as it doesn't conflict with your theology.

The relative position of the earliest common denominators for XX and XY is what is the strongest conclusion.

The identical ancestors point does not help Creationism either since it will always be far younger than Y-Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve and he still lived before the Noah’s Flood, but Creationism says that he must have lived after it.

Its not like you have ingest antimatter or anything.

I happen to enjoy chocolate antimatter cakes. You can eat as much as you want and still louse mass.

 

[busterdog]

So you are fine accepting Jimlarmore’s incorrect statement that she had lived 6,000 years ago until the dating method disagrees with a young earth. Of course, if Jimlarmore’s statement where really accurate, it would have destroyed Creationism.


What is with Creationists pulling random fields of science into a discussion about biology?


Once again, you agree with the thesis as long as it doesn't conflict with your theology.


The identical ancestors point does not help Creationism either since it will always be far younger than Y-Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve and he still lived before the Noah’s Flood, but Creationism says that he must have lived after it.


I happen to enjoy chocolate antimatter cakes. You can eat as much as you want and still louse mass.

 

[lemmings]

Would you like to elaborate on my reasioning that Jimlarmore's post does not support Creationism?

 

[sfs]

Suit yourself.

Do you care whether your claim was accurate or not? It's a serious question. I've seen you make several claims about scientific matters, but I haven't yet seen you provide a substantial argument to support any of them. Do you actually care about any of this, or are you just trying to poke sticks in people's eyes?

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, but the actual genetic facts look nothing at all like A&E and Noah. The genetic data, including mtDNA and the Y chromosome, point clearly to a more or less constant-sized human population

Could you "briefly" explain how do we know it is pointing to a group of people rather than to one or two individuals? I hope you would NOT pointing me to a research reference. To me, that would be equal to not answering.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Mitochondrial Eve would not be the Eve written in the Bible even if Creationism where true. She would have to have lived around 2000BC for it to be true.

Oh, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 140,000 years ago. It would be impossible for her to have lived 6,000 years ago since Native Americans have been isolated from Eurasia for 10,000 years.


Here is the original report from Nature.

http://www.nature.com/nature/ancestor/pdf/325031.pdf

True but since the original report they have discovered the true rate of mutation on mtDNA and they have recalibrated the probable time that mitochondrial Eve lived to be around 6,000 years ago.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

Very nice information. Thanks.

Since the genetics has been studied many years, why don't we hear more story of this nature advocated by evolutionist (I guess it is what you called the "main stream")? I am very bored by paleontology. I would like TE people to tell me more about studies that demonstrate genetics DOES support evolution.

There's absolutely no doubt that genetics does indeed support micro-evolution especially epigenetics. Where the theory makes a huge jump in the wrong direction is they use it to support "macro-evolution" which is basically one cell forming all that we see in the biota. I have a problem with any change beyond the genus area because the true evidence does not support that change. I also have a big problem with unassisted abiogenesis but that is not evolution.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[busterdog]

Do you care whether your claim was accurate or not? It's a serious question. I've seen you make several claims about scientific matters, but I haven't yet seen you provide a substantial argument to support any of them. Do you actually care about any of this, or are you just trying to poke sticks in people's eyes?

Do I care? No.

Tell you what. Work with the OP and find something good in it. It is proof that you are really engaged on the issue. Anyone can find a reason to attack relentlessly on any position. Once you take the other approach, there will be a basis to proceed.

Then I will care.

I argue and fight with people for a living. I am more than able here, but would prefer not to.

 

[busterdog]

True but since the original report they have discovered the true rate of mutation on mtDNA and they have recalibrated the probable time that mitochondrial Eve lived to be around 6,000 years ago.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Duly noted.