This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Why is she called Eve? Was she Jewish or Muslim? This choice of naming is discriminatory. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
should be Lucy (Charlie's pal)
Please rant elswhere 'bout discrimination - we go by reliable source usage around here. Vsmith (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Sykes ("The Seven Daughters of Eve") cites the concept in a 1987 unidentified paper; it is likely that the epithet was adopted by the press reporting on the finding at that time. Oddly, he also points out that it is hardly an African name. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Using the name Eve seems to be a purposeful slight at non-Christian religions. Wouldn't Mitochondrial Mother be a better name? I know people are going to argue: 'All prominent scientists use the term Eve' or some other way to shirk the duty of critically considering the name use. However, part of Wikipedia's duty is to move thought forward, and neutalizing the religious favouritism is a step forward. Besides, the alliteration sounds better. Steven McIntire ALLEN 07:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedians aren't allowed to make stuff up. See WP:No original research. Since when does a free encyclopedia written by volunteers have a "duty" other than to stick to the facts and respect copyright? HelenOnline (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
That is right. We use the most common name being used in published reliable sources. To do otherwise would certainly not be neutral. It seems to me there is always a minority somewhere who will endeavour to be offended at pretty much anything. (I certainly do not think most Christians or any scientists see this as an insult.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This would not be the first time most Christians would be insulting others without realising their insult. A web search for "mitochondrial mother" (with quotes) gives 3,220 results. Admittedly, mitochondrial eve has more, but 3,220 results suggests I am not making stuff up. Moreover, we should not be simply using the term that scores highest in search results. An encyclopaedia is meant to educate, so we could say Wikipedia has a duty to educate. If most of the English speakers in the world were using a religiously derogatory name, would Wikipedia use that name? Steven McIntire ALLEN 06:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Generally speaking the term "mitochondrial mother" is not used as a proper name while "Mitochondrial Eve" is. This article is about our "mitochondrial mother" who has been named "Mitochondrial Eve". HelenOnline (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
First, this article is about a well-establish term in science. Second, Adam and Eve are central to all three of the Abrahamic religions. Third, the Talk page is not for furthering personal, uninformed opinions. Lklundin (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no need to be insulting. Opposing opinions may seem equally uninformed to the other. There is no dispute the term is well-established. You bring up a good point that the term bias relates to non-Abrahamic religions rather than non-Christian. None of your points are logically dispositive. Steven McIntire ALLEN 05:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The lede reports: "Mitochondrial Eve lived later than Homo heidelbergensis and the emergence of Homo neanderthalensis, but earlier than the out of Africa migration." I believe that having emerged after heidelbergensis and/or neanderthal is not required by the definition nor proven. The splitting off of either, if indeed either happened to the same parent stock as H. sapiens, is independent of the occurrence of mEve's life. With the findings of the last three years on Neandertal (that most sapiens have common genetics with neanderthals), it would appear that it is a variety of sapiens rather than a brother clade, and if not actually covered by a common mEve's umbrella due to extinction, may still have a "thumb in the fire" through living direct descendents who must, by definition, be covered. However, I'm just a lowly engineer, and I'd like to hear from someone with more biological/anthropological horsepower than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkoreKeep (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless I'm misunderstanding the biology here, we should surely have a section "Variable Eve" here, to match the section "Variable Adam" in the Y-chromosomal Adam article, and a mention of this in the intro?
Something like this?
The title "Mitochondrial Eve" is not permanently fixed on a single individual. It follows from the definition of Mitochondrial Eve that she had at least two daughters who both have unbroken lineages that have survived to the present day. If the lineages of all but one of those daughters die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two daughters who both have living, matrilineal descendants. Once a lineage has died out it is irretrievably lost and this mechanism can thus only shift the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" forward in time.
In addition to the ability of the title of Mitochondrial Eve to shift forward in time, the estimate of Mitochondrial Eve's DNA sequence, her position in the family tree, the time when she lived, and her place of origin, are all subject to future revisions.
The following events could also change the estimate of who the individual designated Mitochondrial Eve was:
Further sampling of mitochondria could uncover previously unknown divergent lineages. If this happens, mitochondrial lineages would converge on an individual who lived further back in time.
The discovery of additional deep rooting mutations in known lineages could lead to a rearrangement of the family tree.
Revision of the mitochondrial mutation rate can change the estimate of the time when she lived.
Can someone with expertise in biology take a look at this, and check it for accuracy, or otherwise, please?
Why do you think this section is needed? It sort of reads like a bit of personal reflection.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't at all obvious to me, as a non-biologist. The first thought that comes to mind on reading the intro of the article was that Mitochondrial Eve was a specific single person, much like the hypothetical biblical Eve, not a placeholder role that can move from one person to another as scientific evidence changes and lineages die out. -- The Anome (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with your explanation or intention, but it is rather a long section to insert with no specific source. In some ways the explanatory intention (at least of your first proposed paragraph) is similar to the common misconceptions section and maybe a shorter version of what you propose could be inserted there? There is already a sentence in the first section saying "Whenever one of the two most ancient branch lines dies out, the MRCA will move to a more recent female ancestor, always the most recent mother to have more than one daughter with living maternal line descendants alive today." But I guess it could be argued that this is not doing the trick yet. I'll try something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
No. Eve lived a couple of million years later and was a different species. DangerHigh voltage! 22:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
And I think more generally we can only make connections to fossil species if an expert has published such a speculation. There is a reason that experts have not done much of that, which is that estimates of ages based on DNA are still pretty speculative.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
We now have a chart, published in Nature, showing an mtDNA tree that includes the Sima de los Huesos hominin, Denisovans, Neanderthals and modern humans. And just for fun, a chart that includes chimpanzees and bonobos in the tree. Now we just need some discussion in a reliable source (beyond statements about confusion) of the relationships between the branches. -- Donald Albury 16:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Neanderthal, Denisovan, and Sima de los Huesos mt DNA are all of course "cousins" to Eve, and not descended from her. There will of course be an earlier Eve from whom all of these cousins descend. My point: if we mention this, we need to be careful not to create confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. We may soon be seeing more mtDNA sequences for fossils at various points in the hominin tree. It will be interesting to see what names are applied by the press to the mtMRCA for all anatomically modern humans (past ~200,000 years), to the mtMRCA for Home sapiens in the broad sense, including Neanderthals, and to the mtMRCA for whatever they call the clade that includes modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans and "Simans". Eve', Eve", etc. probably won't go over well in the popular press. -- Donald Albury 02:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
While I think the Common Misconceptions section is important, it's not NPOV. For example: "And some irate critics are so annoyed as to state that: Poor Eve. How many times, we wonder, will she have to die before she finally can be buried—permanently—and left to “rest in peace”"220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
No. The quote is exactly the crux of the misconception that the entire concept is dead (or atleast to be considered). But it is not. This subsection addresses from a scientific point of view and not from that of the critics. See the references for the scientific development. Chhandama (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the die-out of non-Eve mitochondrial DNA, I object to the flat statement that (implicitly time-after-time and for ALL the non-Eve types) eventually no non-Eve females were born. I added my "Alternately" understating the much more likely circumstance that female hybrids were infertile, for example Neanderthal non-Eve females mated with Eve-descended males and produced "mules", sexually active hybrids who could produce no offspring (or to be more open-ended, no female offspring or only produce female offspring who could only produce females who could produce only females who could not produce female offspring...as seriatim until the process in effect would justify the statement before my "Alternately".) My added words convey more likelihood to the reader without bringing in the whole serial process that may have been the case and that gave cause to the original sentence that I want to modify. That is, give the reader two choices instead of forcing the one on the reader that would necessitate for any reasonable conviction that we state the infinite series scenario? Sorry to be so verbose. Dale Adams M. A., M. S., CPA, ISPE etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleadams81 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)