Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Age of Our Ancestors-How Our Genetic Adam Is Much Younger than Genetic Eve
abcnews.go.com ^

Posted on 02/02/2004 12:31:53 AM PST by chance33_98

Age of Our Ancestors

How Our Genetic Adam Is Much Younger than Genetic Eve

Commentary By John Allen Paulos

Feb. 1 — A new book, The Journey of Man, demonstrates how recent advances in genetics, particularly those involving the Y-chromosome, allow us to follow the arc of human migration out of Africa, our ancestral home.

Although Neanderthals and other hominids related to Homo sapiens date back hundreds of thousands of years, the book's author, geneticist Spencer Wells, shows that our origins are much more recent. Presenting the work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Richard Lewontin, and other eminent researchers, Wells argues convincingly that all men on earth (the Y-chromosome is passed only from father to son) can trace their roots to a particular male who lived in Africa, almost 60,000 years ago.

Likewise, all humans on earth can trace their lineage through our maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA back to a particular woman, who lived in Africa roughly 150,000 years ago. This "Adam" is my great-grandfather roughly 2500 times removed and this "Eve" my great grandmother roughly 6500 times removed. (Yours too, so we're all distant cousins.)

In coming to these conclusions, Wells relies upon a variety of mathematical techniques, ranging from statistical tests to measure the similarities between and among the genomes of present-day populations to carbon dating and other methods commonly employed at archeological sites.

The probability of branching processes lends additional support as does empirical research on the world's various ethnic groups. Most revealing is the use of the rate at which random mutations naturally occur to infer the paths of our ancestors around the globe.

Family Recipes as a Metaphor

Wells employs a culinary metaphor to clarify the notion of a genetic Eve, whose existence was long disputed by those who believed that mankind developed independently in several locations around the world. Altering Wells' metaphor a little, let's imagine a small village that has been inhabited for millennia. Imagine further that we go way back in time and note that the few families in the village use different recipes for their primary meal, and that the recipes are handed down from mother to daughter only.

Very complex, the recipes can be modified in hundreds of ways — a different ingredient here, longer cooking time there, etc. — and every once in a while a daughter makes a tiny change in her mother's recipe, which she then passes down to her daughter(s). Sometimes because of accident, disease, or simply a line's not having any daughters, a family's recipe and its variants die out. In fact, let's assume that all but one of the original recipes and their variants disappear. Thus in the village we can now find only one of the dozen original recipes, dating back X thousand years, and its many variants.

If for the village we substitute Africa, and for recipes we substitute the human genome, the surviving original recipe is analogous to the genetic makeup of African Eve since all the surviving recipes derive from it just as we all can trace all our mitochondrial DNA back to a particular woman who lived 150,000 years ago.

And just as our mitochondrial DNA is inherited only through our mothers, the male Y-chromosome is passed only from fathers to sons. So let's invent another just-so story about, say, elaborate hunting rituals that are passed down from father to son with very rare changes. We again go back to a time when there were very few families and hence few different hunting rituals.

Once again, each of these elaborate hunting rituals changes very slowly. Furthermore, because of famine, disease, or not having any sons, a family's hunting ritual and its variants die out. Let's assume that all but one of the original rituals and their variants disappear. Thus in the village we can find only one of the few original rituals, dating back Y thousand years, and its many variants, and thus conclude that all existing rituals derive from the original one, the analogue of a genetic Adam.

The Paths We Took

Note that X and Y need not be equal since recipes and hunting rituals will no doubt change and die out at different rates, so our genetic Eve did not meet our genetic Adam (and both, of course, had parents, grandparents, and other progenitors).

There is, however, much more in Journey than this absence of a prehistoric romance. As mentioned, the bulk of the book examines how geneticists study small changes in the DNA of our Y-chromosomes and use the rate at which they naturally occur as a sort of molecular clock to determine when and where various groups and clans of our prehistoric ancestors split off and spread over the earth (along the coast of India to Australia, later into Eurasia, and then down to the Americas across the Bering Sea).

If we know where we originated, and if a distinct recipe or ritual and its descendants, to revert to our metaphor, appears only in a neighboring village, then this (along with much other evidence) indicates that these people left the original village at a certain time. And if their descendants' recipes and rituals appear only in an even more distant village, then these others left still later.

The common childhood game in which we change, a letter at a time, one sequence of letters into another — say GENE to GONE to GORE to MORE to MARE to MARS — also sheds some light on what geneticists do when analyzing the branching changes in the very long sequence of "letters" that constitute our DNA. If each of the changing sequences of letters also gave rise to other changing sequences of letters and if some of these sequences split off and moved to different physical locations, we would be led to the sort of considerations and methods that are described in The Journey of Man.

We've come a long way, and the fascinating, sometimes counterintuitive details of the trip are finally becoming a little clearer.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: archaeology; dna; genetics; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; history
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last
To: CobaltBlue
Adam created first and then Eve..not eve wandering around in Africa for years and years and then stumbled up on Adam and got him drunk and then all that "begatting" began.
41 posted on 02/02/2004 10:13:44 AM PST by cajun-jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Math aside, why then don't we see a piece of the progenitors of either?
42 posted on 02/02/2004 10:15:43 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
What did his father contribute, nothing?

Darwin, speaking on pigeons, mused that all pigeons descended from a single, mated-pair.

43 posted on 02/02/2004 10:18:25 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Math aside, why then don't we see a piece of the progenitors of either?

We do. Here, for example.

There are a lot more "pieces" of DNA which can be traced than just the mitochondrial or Y-chromosome DNA, and each one gives different views into the big picture.

44 posted on 02/02/2004 10:21:17 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
nor was there ever any time where there was just one pair of humans on the planet.

So several specimens sprang at once?

45 posted on 02/02/2004 10:21:30 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cajun-jack
But the story isn't about the Biblical Adam and Eve. They just call them that as a metaphor.

Look, you believe in DNA testing, right? If someone tested your DNA and it turned out that you weren't related to your mother's husband, you'd think there was something funny going on, wouldn't you? And if your kids had different DNA from yours, you'd probably want a divorce, right?

Well, the story is about DNA. Everybody on earth today is descended from the DNA of one woman who lived 120,000 years ago, and one man who lived 60,000 years ago, probably in Africa.

So if God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, it was at least 120,000 years ago, and probably in Africa. But of all the generations between 120,000 years ago and 60,000 years ago, none of the males survived to pass on their genes. Something happened to kill off all but a very few people, from whom we are all descended, is the most logical explanation. Maybe it was the climate, maybe a disease, who knows?
46 posted on 02/02/2004 10:22:59 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I was assuming that the 60,000 year ago man was descended from the 120,000 year ago woman. It's a reasonable assumption, under the circumstances, but just an assumption on my part.

Oh no ... incest!!

47 posted on 02/02/2004 10:24:01 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: KingNo155
"The Catholic Church has lots of bones of "saints" who were stolen and moved to places for worship! "

The head of John the Baptist is being held captive in a mosque in Damascus. Good excuse for us to invade Syria.

48 posted on 02/02/2004 10:25:14 AM PST by bayourod ( Dean's anti-terrorism plan: "treat people with respect and they will treat you with respect"12/1/03)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
If I'm to believe your link then I must believe that we are but one in a chain of many changes in ME and that there is still no known first person, correct?
49 posted on 02/02/2004 10:26:04 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
why then don't we see a piece of the progenitors of either?

How long have there been human beings, homo sapiens sapiens?

50 posted on 02/02/2004 10:26:53 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
I worked with a guy in California who swore that he saw half-men, half-apes in Guyana just after WWII when he was being brought back to the States.
51 posted on 02/02/2004 10:29:14 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
That is the question.
52 posted on 02/02/2004 10:32:05 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Darwin, speaking on pigeons, mused that all pigeons descended from a single, mated-pair.

No, he didn't.

Great as the differences are between the breeds of pigeons, I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct, namely, that all have descended from the rock-pigeon (Columba livia), including under this term several geographical races or sub-species, which differ from each other in the most trifling respects.

[...]

from these several reasons, taken together, I can feel no doubt that all our domestic breeds have descended from the Columba livia with its geographical sub-species.

[...]

Fourthly, pigeons have been watched, and tended with the utmost care, and loved by many people. They have been domesticated for thousands of years in several quarters of the world; the earliest known record of pigeons is in the fifth Ægyptian dynasty, about 3000 B.C., as was pointed out to me by Professor Lepsius; but Mr. Birch informs me that pigeons are given in a bill of fare in the previous dynasty.

-- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859

The confusion may have arisen from this passage:
I have discussed the probable origin of domestic pigeons at some, yet quite insufficient, length; because when I first kept pigeons and watched the several kinds, knowing well how true they bred, I felt fully as much difficulty in believing that they could ever have descended from a common parent, as any naturalist could in coming to a similar conclusion in regard to the many species of finches, or other large groups of birds, in nature.
However, in the context of the rest of the discussion surrounding this passage, it's entirely clear that he's talking about a common parent *species*, not a common parent individual, since the chapter concerns itself with whether different breeds of domesticated animals (e.g., all domesticated pigeon breeds) were derived from different wild species, or the same wild species.
53 posted on 02/02/2004 10:33:48 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
If I'm to believe your link then I must believe that we are but one in a chain of many changes in ME and that there is still no known first person, correct?

"ME"?

In any case, the answer to the question depends on how precisely one chooses to define "first person". It's not as simple a term as it first seems.

54 posted on 02/02/2004 10:34:56 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
The "first persons" are inferred from the DNA. All the chains that have been traced go back to one person, or a small group of people.


55 posted on 02/02/2004 10:43:10 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
Oh, what the hey, it's a big image but a good one.


56 posted on 02/02/2004 10:45:40 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I understood that. It seems the article is written with a bend to politics rather than science. There is more spin by omission than hard science.

Just because certain parts are older than other parts means nothing.

Remember its all a matter of who gets killed off vs who does not.

DNA is DNA, so the sequence which forms mitochondria is older than the DNA which forms the other parts of the cell are 60 million years old. All parts of the cell are made of DNA. The descriptions in this article are sloppy and not to be taken seriously.

Hence my (s). It can be spun any which way.
57 posted on 02/02/2004 10:49:02 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
DNA is DNA

No. Mitochondrial DNA comes only from your mother. Cellular DNA comes half from your mother, half from your father.

58 posted on 02/02/2004 10:52:39 AM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: cajun-jack
That is the purpose of the article, spin. They want to create such confusion. Remember who watches the most network television. Liberal women. This "spin" feeds feminsts.

The article mischaracterizes DNA and inheritance.

It is all DNA. It is all who lived long enough to have babies. This is PC to make "eve" come before "adam" so to speak. This is just to annoy people. In the end this will be re-re-re-re-re-re-revised. But that will be published in a science journal nobody reads. By then ABC will not be interested.
59 posted on 02/02/2004 10:55:29 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Nice threads for 120,000 years ago. Polyester?

"#$%$#@!! This what I get for buying a PDA running an OS from Microsoft! Maybe those homo sapiens sapiens guys will let me borrow a PalmPilot."

60 posted on 02/02/2004 10:56:51 AM PST by Heatseeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson