Conflicts in Common Ancestry: Mitochondrial DNA and the MRCA

A common mother (as in Mitochondrial Eve) is not the same as the most recent common ancestor. Don't conflate terms.

I don't see wherein the problem lies. Mitochondrial Eve is suggested to have lived ~150.000 years ago, human speciation with respect to the animals that became chimps and the like is suggested to have happened ~6 million years ago. Mitochondrial Eve of dogs lived (presumably) before the separation of dogs and wolves, so you would expect the markers to be present in both, just like human Mitochondrial Eve can be traced in different human races. You could find a Mitochondrial Eve of humans and chimps, who would probably have lived ~7 million years ago (finger in the air estimate), and the markers associated with that Eve would be present in both chimps and humans (assuming no other mutations have "overwritten" them).

Reread your article:

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor. (source)​

1. is not necessarily true, as described in the "common misconceptions" bit of the wiki. When mother-daughter lineages die out, the individual who is Mitochondrial Eve may change. For instance, if all humans died except for your grandmother and her line, your grandmother would become Mitochondrial Eve. Thus, there is nothing saying that dead humans must be able to track their lineage to Mitochondrial Eve.

4. On the common ancestor view, a common matrilinear ancestor can be defined for any group of individuals (that go through sexual reproduction in which someone can be labelled a mother). My dog and I will have a common ancestral mother (probably some kind of mouse-like being). "Mitochondrial Eve" is the name we've given to the matrilinear ancestor that is common to all humans, but on the evolutionary view, any set of individuals (who have mothers and are suggested to have common ancestry) will have them. Humans and chimps will share mitochondrial markers of the common ancestor of both (although Mitochondrial DNA mutates relatively quickly, and the markers may have been "overwritten").

This is in itself relatively unrelated to speciation, although as you say, once speciation is established, no markers will transcend the division.

 

Another example is people living at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve (other than her lineage itself). They would all be human (maybe minor genetic drift compared to today) but they would not be able to trace their lineage to Eve. Not all dead humans need to be able to trace their lineage back to today's Mitochondrial Eve.

 

Mitochondrial Eve probably was the first female "human" to be fertile once a month.
The others probably came into season a few times a year.
Our corporal DNA demonstrates hybridization not represented in the mitochondrial DNA.


Continuity through continuous hybridization.
Denisovian was a hybrid with several identified lineages, yet so many speak of
them as an independent linage.
Lineages That Couldn't hybridize, disappeared.
Chinese anthropologist say their more modern H. erectus skulls showed
the Asiatic cheekbone flattening.
While Western anthropologist push, "conquest and annihilation".


Good movie. Intellectually accurate as one may . . .
"Quest of Fire"

here one group teach another how to make fire.

"They" also make him "breed" with all their fatted females
seemingly knowing diversity makes the tribe stronger.


Moi

Are s a Lineage?

​

 

That seems unlikely. For instance, the title of Mitochondrial Eve changes through history, as mother/daughter lineages die out and get replaced by mother/daughter lineages with a more recent common matrilinear ancestor. Are you suggesting the current mt-MRCA was the first female to be fertile once a month? Are you suggesting that it would be the actual individual or an individual around the same time?

 

I've been distracted, lately, and have not posted much.. i intend to reply to this in greater detail, later. Sorry.

But you are mistaken. The MRCA is only traced THROUGH the mtDNA. It is a matrilineal descendancy that leads to a SINGLE WOMAN, affectionately called 'mitochondrial eve', for a cultural reference.

..more later..

 

You seem to be mixing up several concepts. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve, your understanding is listed under common misconceptions:

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor​

Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived 100.000 to 150.000 years ago, whereas the most recent common ancestor is estimated to have lived ~5000 years ago. Just like if one man has two children with different women, the father will be the most recent common ancestor, but their most common matrilineal ancestor will be older (potentially even as old as Mitochondrial Eve).

You can trace matrilineal descent through mtDNA, but that doesn't mean your paternal line isn't your ancestor.

 

Same problem with Y Chromosome A00

Older than "us".​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam


I prefer Biology over statistic games.






BTW African goats are fertile more times a year than European goats.
Whose females will dominate?
Apparently, for goats the shift to more fertility per year is not sufficient
to make hybrids infertile.

Some wonder about the Neanderthal Y Chromosome. GWTW


You may or may not be entertained by
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-with-common-ancestry.571364/#post-1071691465
Gotta those Dmanisi skulls. Such variance among a family or tribal group.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, /
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy [science].​

 

Greater frequency of procreation doesn't necessarily improve the chances of dominance. Babies require energy and attention, reduce the ability to travel, mean longer periods of vulnerability to predation, the need for food and water in one place for longer time, etc. There are lots of strategies for survival and each has numerous factors relating to the environment, etc. Procreation rate is only one dimension.

It shouldn't be surprising that many species need to drop babies at the same time and then get the hell on the road. Maybe there are places where it's an advantage for some branch of goats to do that twice.

Your last quote is wierd. Judging science by whether it causes people to dream of more things is obviously ridiculous.

In fact, science is specifically designed to cull out the false dreams - and not to address the drames of heaven.

There is a chance that quote looks stupid due to being taken out of context somehow.