There's an interesting article dealing with the Eve Hypothesis in July's issue of Scientific American. Since I'll assume you might not read it, I'll briefly summarize it.

As many of you are probably already aware of, geneticists working with d.n.a. have been mapping out how people throughout the world may relate to one another, and they've hypothecized a couple of decades ago based on the rates of permutations and combinations of d.n.a. that we all are related to an "Eve" that lived in the horn region of sub-Sahara Africa a bit over 200,000 years ago. What the article mainly deals with though is how Eve's ancestors eventually spread throughout the world.

Very briefly, they appeared to have stayed in Africa until about 60,000 years ago whereas they rapidly spread eastward and even some migrated to the west coast of the U.S. and Canada around 50,000 years ago, although most Indians came later (around 30,000 years ago) and spread east of the Rocky Mountains. Most of Europe appears to have been settled much later (-30,000), probably due to the colder climate there. Because the setlement of Europe was later and had smaller numbers at first, there are more genetic defects that show up than they found in Asia or Africa, largely because of more in-breeding (which is a problem that most of you posters here seem to have ).

Gotta go for now.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

If we all came from one woman, wouldn't there have to have been in-breeding. Maybe we are all genetic defects and aren't at all what humans were meant to be.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

The whole Eve hypothesis is based on mitochondrial DNA (which is, normally, inherited only from the mother), and the assumption that this DNA would mutate at an even rate, in a fairly straightforward manner. There's a fair bit of assuming going on there, but I will let that pass.

Anyway, since mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from the mother, it means that, if a lineage produces (at some point) only male progeny who survive to breading age, then that lineage of mDNA will be extinguished. In that case, no one will inherit the mDNA of that line, although the nucleic DNA, and genes would still be diverse.

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

As far as I am aware the mtDNA from the mother is still passed on and it's only if no children survive to pass on their genes that the mDNA lineage stops (to compare the Y chromosome is only inherited from the father as well, but it doesn't mean his line stops just because an individual only has daughters). Mitochondrial DNA doesn't alter as it doesn't combine like DNA so the only way for it to change is to mutate which is a slow process and predictable so comparison between two populations can be identified by looking at the differences, working out the mutation rate and then looking at the fundamental similarities. Because they rely on the data to work this out, assumptions don't really factor in that much.

This doesn't mean inbreeding at all, it just means one maternal line was very successful in passing on her genes and the others died out along the way. Interesting concept.

__________________
Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. Marie Curie

Only the female parent passes on mDNA;the mDNA in the sperm is contained in the tail, which is (normally) left outside the egg on fertilization.
Link here

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

Yes, we all are genetic defects in a way, and that's not all bad by any means since it's mutations that create the diversity that allow natural selection and random genetic drift to then to kick in. And some diversity would have been there from the get-go since Eve must have mated with someone, plus the fact that Homo sapiens sapiens wasn't the only "game" in town. However, how much genetic material we have from Homo sapiens neanderthalensis ("Neanderthal Man") is undetermined at this juncture, but the early indication is that it appears to be not that much.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

E.P. and a.i., thanks for your imput. I'm an anthropologist (retired), but my biology is quite suspect, especially when it comes to genetics.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

I have read a number of Zecharia Sitchin's books in the past few years and they have a very interesting slant on the whole Eve story.

Also, given the remains which have been found in the America's the whole notion of migrating primates across the Bering Strait is pretty much a myth.

The Indian's were not the first nation, there were others before them.

Something I've been wondering about "Eve" is if she was the first human woman then what was her mother? I mean at what point in evolution is the line crossed from being 1% ape to 100% human?

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."

Mitochondrial Eve isn't the first woman, but a common ancestor.

__________________
We do not fear the night, who have loved the stars so fondly.