Age of Our Ancestors-How Our Genetic Adam Is Much Younger than Genetic Eve

abcnews.go.com ^

[Woodman]

Maybe he traveled in "Dream Time"? Just ask "the people" (Australian Aborigines).

[Stallone]

Simple.

Women were hatched until approximately 60,000 years ago.

At that time, males were created, and contributed the 'brain'.

Unfortunately, the species only passes them only to the male offspring.

[Stallone]

What else explains Socialism?

[Professional Engineer]

ping

[longtermmemmory]

all that tells us is that that part of DNA was less in need of change over time than the other parts of DNA.

I am not being stubborn. I am just stating that if it worked there was no reason to fix it.

I am also stating the ABCnews article does employ some PC spin.

[CobaltBlue]

I am baffled by your assertion that politics has anything to do with this. It has nothing to do with feminism, nor PC.

I do geneaology as a hobby. Some people don't have children, and so their branch on the genetic tree dies off. Maybe they died young. That doesn't mean that the ones who have children are better people.

We're all descended from a long, long line of people who survived long enough to procreate. If you trace the genes back far enough, they're all related to one woman who lived about 120,000 years ago, probably in Africa, and one man who lived about 60,000 years ago, probably also in Africa.

The disparity in time suggests that human beings almost died out for some reason we can only imagine.

[CobaltBlue]

Your buddy Stallone just posted a theory that the article shows that men are better than women. That should make you happy, and you can stop pouting.

[longtermmemmory]

piddle.

Such who is more entitled to the remote is useless. The real issue here to me is the fact ABC is taking some other article and misusing it.

This is no differnt than saying portions of our brain are reptilian.

I have seen journal articles which purported that the Y chromosome was subject to very little change. This lead to arguments and spin in some "other" direction. All piddle.

My background includes hard science biology. The media usually gets it wrong based on their personal agenda. One should not just be sceptical about such articles one should disbelieve them FIRST and then have them proven correct. They are just trying to sex it up.

[CobaltBlue]

Astonishing. Words fail me. Well, not for long, words never fail me for long. -g-

So, if the shoe were on the other foot, and "Adam" were 120,000 years old and "Eve" were 60,000, would that make you happier?

Because what bothers you are the facts. The article is relating the facts as they are presently known to exist.

[Old Professer]

That's always the hard part; agreeing on what someone said when there are two or more ways of looking at it.

[CobaltBlue]

Some links for you - you can probably get these books from your library.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393020185/ref=pd_sim_books_1/002-0045269-8427250?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201407558/ref=pd_sim_books_5/002-0045269-8427250?v=glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618091572/ref=pd_sim_books_2/002-0045269-8427250?v=glance&s=books

Scientific American special on the topic:
http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=4162B5FD-F647-054F-1EE56488B04DB853&ARTICLEID_CHAR=41743B46-FEB5-AA86-1A2D5EF0BA284305

Recent articles in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ejhg/journal/v11/n3/abs/5200949a.html
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ejhg/journal/v8/n9/abs/5200514a.html

[PatrickHenry]

If you trace the genes back far enough, they're all related to one woman who lived about 120,000 years ago, probably in Africa, and one man who lived about 60,000 years ago, probably also in Africa. The disparity in time suggests that human beings almost died out for some reason we can only imagine.

It may not indicate a bottleneck. It may just mean that male lines are more subject to being snuffed out, as in warfare. When one tribe conquers another, the defeated men may be killed (or perhaps castrated). The women may be kept alive, as they are less of a threat and otherwise good to have around. Therefore, an unbroken female line can be very long indeed, compared to most -- if not all -- male lines.

[blam]

"Mankind may have evolved independently in several locations, but the DNA doesn't lie - if there was independent evolution, there was also convergence. So you've got to come with a theory that fits the evidence."

I was watching a documentary about the Super Volcano Toba and they explained that as few as 2,000 people worldwide survived the explosion 75,000 years ago.
Now, it wasn't a week later while watching another documentary that I saw a female archaeologist excavating a human site in Indonesia that was just above the volcano ash layer...to soon for another group to walk from Africa.

I understand that these people could have (somehow) gone extinct...But, I don't think so. Something is going on with the DNA that we don't understand....and then, there's Mungo Man in Australia.

[CobaltBlue]

The most recent research I am aware of on Mungo Man shows that he's only about 40,000 years old, which certainly gave him time to have migrated from Africa.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=143&art_id=qw1045634408844B223&set_id=1

[blam]

Okay. (Boy, you're tough today, lol)

I think there are some rock painting in Australia that have been dated to 60k+ years ago. I did a search and could find anything on the net. (It's nap time for me)

[CobaltBlue]

I don't doubt for a minute that human beings or something very much like them roamed the earth longer ago than 60,000 years. They were certainly in Europe before the last glacial maximum, but appear to have all been pushed back or killed off. Maybe pockets hung on for a long time, and then died off, dead ends on the gene tree.

Sorry if I am coming across too tough. I am feeling rather grumpy today. I'll try to be more polite. ;^)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

In the end this will be re-re-re-re-re-re-revised.

I agree with this part. Plus the article was poorly written. Common sense tells me the 60,000 year-old man had a father and inherited his DNA.

[Doctor Stochastic]

True. These aren't the ur-parents. These are just nexi throuth which all lines of descent pass.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Throuth" should be "through."

[KingNo155]

I know Catholics don't worship Bones (I am Catholic) but there are many chapels that have the bones of Saints and their remains(bones,ect..) are treated as venerated objects.