Talk:Mitochondrial Eve

removal of pop culture statement

I have removed this. Firstly its not a part of "popular science" in fact there no science behind it at all. We simply cant have ever pop culture reference listed here. In no way is a TV show that mentions Mitochondrial Eve is some abstract way relevant here. I can list hundreds of TV shows and movies that refer to Mitochondrial Eve, but not one is based on science, they are all fictional works. Lets keep the "pop culture" out of this scientific article.Moxy (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Find me the policy that says that pop culture sections are banned from "science" articles. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping "pop culture" out of an article like this, but then, I'm not a fan of "pop culture" in any article. Science related "pop culture" items are often editors' misinterpretations of the public media's misinterpretations (or misrepresentations) of more or less ambiguous scientific findings. -- Donald Albury 10:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture sections are not my favorite thing but I do not really see the big problem with properly sourced and notable references to pop culture. In fact, this encyclopedia has clear guidelines about this type of question of when to include things and when not, I would think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is one thing to includes references to how a theory or scientific meme has played a major part in a movie, play, well-known novel, etc. I remain opposed to trivia, such as a brief mention in some song, or someone's recollection of some wild claim made in an info-tainment program. -- Donald Albury 14:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, so according to our policies, what you are talking about are differences in notability, so that gives a policy-based way of discussing whether something should be in or not. Notable non-scientific information should not normally be deleted automatically from WP on any simple point of principle. WP is not a specialist technical encylopedia. True trivia is of course not notable, but just because something is not "scientific" does not automatically make it trivia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections "Trivia sections should be avoided" {{in popular culture}}. I vote to remove the child like reference to a An American TV show, Pls lets not encourage the kids to add more of this crap. I see only one person thus far likes the kid stuff. I will remove it tomorrow if noone else likes it.Moxy (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is reliably sourced, hence not trivia. As per Andrew. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not everything reliably sourced is notable. It depends how popular the TV show was, and how discussed the mitochondrial Eve bit of that show was, in publications apart from the show.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree - as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". How many articles does this need to be in??. No one will care about this topic in the article. Moxy (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the section as there is no bases to keep it in multiple articles let alone this one aswell. It's clearly not notable for this scientific article. The "I like" position does not hold any weight vs the 3 policies that have been quoted for its exclusion.Moxy (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• This doesn't seem worth including. --John (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree would be nice if Michael C. Price at some point came back to the talk over just reverting. I tried to get his attention with my edit summaries but I see hes does not care to talk. Ownership problems i guess Moxy (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is she called "Eve"?

The article on Lucy (Australopithecus) explains why it is called Lucy. Why doesn't this article explain the basis for the name? 98.221.125.119 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's so blindingly obvious, does it really need spelling out?Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is possible that an English speaker who was not raised in one of the Abrahamic religions, and was educated in a country where practitioners of those religions are uncommon, is unaware of the story in Genesis. -- Donald Albury 01:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Suppose I know nothing of evolution OR the Genesis story. This is an encyclopedia, and I think it should be clarified. 98.221.125.119 (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And I just reverted you. This is an encyclopedia that requires that all material added to it be verifiable from reliable sources. While I may agree that the Eve in Genesis is quite likely the inspiration for the term Mitochondrial Eve, we need a reliable source that explicitly says that. Moreover, I think the question of what the article should say about it should be discussed here first. It may be enough to just refer to the concept of Adam and Eve as the first couple without invoking details of any religious tradition. -- Donald Albury 11:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And I just reverted you. The material was helpful and informative and correct. Why don't you do something constructive if the lack of sourcing concerns you and find some? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the editor who adds new material to cite a reliable source for it. If such a reference is easy to find, then Michael should add it. If no such reliable source can be found, even though it is obvious, then the Biblical reference should be removed until someone finds a reference. Greensburger (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Stupid. And ignored by most editors. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a reference some time ago Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your constructive work is appreciated. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

MatrilinealAncestor.PNG

This image is very confusing, and does not illustrate the concept of matrilineal (MRCA) clearly. It only shows a single tree of descent, with no offspring or parents for population off the tree. It does not illustrate that non-matrilineal grandmothers exists, and does not show that the mEve has a common ancestor with the rest of the population. Additionally, the image appears to be unsourced in any way, suggesting that the problems with the image are due to improper synthesis. I suggest it be removed. aprock (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the image. It doesn't show non-matrilineal grandmothers or a common ancestor of mEve because those are not parts of the mEve concept. Non-matrilineal grandmothers are irrelevant to mitochondrial inheritance and a common ancestor of mEve is "out of Africa", etc. Rmhermen (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here. Non-matrilineal grandmothers are relevant as they illustrate the difference between a grandmother and a matrilinear grandmother, something which the illustration confuses rather than clarifies. As noted above, this is by no means the only problem with the image. aprock (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Another example of the problems with image is the fact that men are colored blue, despite having nothing to do with matrilineal MRCA. aprock (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But they do. They carry the same mitochondria - they just can't pass it down. mEve is the source of all mDNA, not just that of all women. Rmhermen (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"they just can't pass it down." Exactly, which is why they have nothing to do with matrilineal MRCA. That you're confused on this is a good illustration of how the image confuses rather than clarifies. aprock (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that I am confused. Rmhermen (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You may or may not be confused, but your claim that men play a role in matrilineal MRCA is incorrect. You appear to understand the mechanics, but your statement "But they do." indicates that something is confused. aprock (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

All men and all women inherit their mitochondria from their mothers. Men have exactly the same mitochondrial DNA as their sisters (with the same mother), allowing for possible mutations after the eggs have formed in the mother. All men and all women have inherited their mitochondria (and therefore, their mitochondrial DNA) in an exclusive matrilineal descent from mitochondrial Eve. Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor in the matrilineal line for all men as well as for all women. The concept of the matrilineal line was developed in anthropology. Men are always in a matrilineal line. In many societies, a man's clan membership, eligibility for positions of power, etc. is inherited through his mother (see Matrilineality). The inheritance of mitochondria is directly analogous.

Another way of looking at it is that mitochondria reproduce asexually (remember, the widely accepted theory is that mitochondria are descended from a Proteobacteria). Every person, man or woman, has a population of mitochondria descended from the population present in mitochondrial Eve. Only women can pass on mitochondria from their population, but the mitochondria are also in men. -- Donald Albury 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Only women can pass on mitochondria from their population, but the mitochondria are also in men." Quite. Which is why highlighting the men blue in the illustration of matrlinial most recent common ancestor is at best confusing. aprock (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it confusing? The chart clearly shows how ALL people, men and women, have come to have only mitochondria descended from the mitochondrial Eve. -- Donald Albury 01:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The chart and it's caption do not explain what blue means, so it is by no means clear what blueness is or how it is passed on. Likewise the chart is not explained in the text of the article. The chart appears to show that pink, green and red people just pop into existence in successive generations with no parents. I realize that this isn't possible, but it's what the chart illustrates. As noted above, this chart appears to be original research and not based on any source whatsoever. I suspect that more than anything is the source of the problems. I suggest removing it until a properly sourced chart can be found. aprock (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note to the image caption explaining the colors. As for retaining the image in the article, I support keeping it, and I presume that Rmherman does as well. I do not see the image as original research. It is illustrating a process that is described in the article. It is no more "original research" than other user-created images in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 12:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think user created images are appropriate here, how would you feel about an updated image? aprock (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) User created images, charts and diagrams are used throughout Wikipedia. But the chart would need to be an improvement on the current one. As I have seen no problems with the current one, I have no ideas on how to improve it. But we can always try. Rmhermen (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost all of wikipedia is user created. The issue I brought up earlier is one of sourcing. aprock (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Mitochondrial Eve and the estimated year not in dispute?

I'm no molecular evolutionary biologist, but I was just telling someone about the common ancestor theory and they thought I was trying to use it as proof of the "biblical" Adam and Eve. So I went to Google up mitochondria eve and this wikipedia page was the first entry, and the second was an article titled "The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve". I read it thinking that perhaps I had been wrong, but it appears to cite sources saying that mtDNA can be derived from the father as well as the mother, and that mutations in mtDNA were higher than initially expected. I may be wrong in assuming this isn't a well worn debate and that articles sources have been dismissed, but I felt like I should mention it since I saw it. [1] HackTheGibson (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether there can be non-standard mitochondrial inheritance in rare cases is really another subject. There is a clearly defined mitochondrial eve. But concerning exactly when she was you are right that there is debate concerning this calculation. All calculations are very approximate. In our wording we should reflect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have found significant evidence that there is a serious question to as to paternal leakage and other ways in which there can be significant recombination of mtDNA. It doesn't seem from my research to be a rare occurrence by could very well be quite common.Ravendvs42 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)ravendvs42

African Origination?

Historical ancestry trees show mtDNA is strongly suggested to have originated in eastern Africa. Ethnic groups from Tanzania, Africa and an ethnic global mixture were taken into consideration when conducting this research. A breakdown of inheritable traits of mtDNA genomes of two groups show strong characteristics of similar nature to overpower more so in the African mixture than the global. African’s were shown to belong to the utmost lowest possible level of haplogroups in this gene tree. The confusion in this study comes from the denser African population. This study did note a possible elevation by this selection as the sequence of genomes selected would purposely maximize strong similarities in haplogroup manifestation. I find that it is uncertain this study took all aspects of diversity into consideration and may have unfairly grouped specifics enhancing the idea of mtDNA to of originated in Africa (Gonder, M., Mortensen, H., Reed, F., de Sousa, A., & Tishkoff, S. (2006). Whole-mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 24(3), 757-768. doi:10.1093/molbev/msl209. http://library.mtroyal.ca:2048/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msl209Bnixo006 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We are trying to summarize what published experts have had published. So the question is whether you have other sources you can add to this article in order to improve it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

His comment gives his source right at the end "Gonder, M., Mortensen, H., Reed, F., de Sousa, A., & Tishkoff, S. (2006)" Smitty1337 (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And the link leads to a page with, "Note: Access to this database is permitted only to current students, faculty, and staff of Mount Royal University". The abstract for the article can be seen here. It looks like the article is arguing for an area of origin specifically in East Africa, and so does not contradict the "out-of-Africa" hypothesis. However, it looks to me as though the comment at the top of this section is criticizing the referenced study, which would be OR. -- Donald Albury 11:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misunderstood the aim of the post. I had assumed, like Donald, that the citation being given was being criticized, but I then assumed that (in order for this criticism to be relevant) that this means this study is used as a source in our article. But our article only cites two more recent studies which are authored by "Tishkoff et al." groups. So I am also now confused about what the point of this discussion is. Why are we talking about the possible problems of a 2006 study we do not even cite?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Most recent common ancestor

The intro says she is the "most recent common ancestor" of humans. I am not an expert in this, but presumably Richard Dawkins is, and he says otherwise. To quote from this interview: [2]

"Dawkins: I refer to things like the belief that Mitochondrial Eve was, like the mythical Biblical Eve, the only woman on Earth. Nonsense, she could have been the member of a huge population. She's simply the common ancestor of all living humans. Another error is to think that Mitochondrial Eve is our most recent common ancestor. She most certainly is not our most recent common ancestor. That distinction much more likely goes to a male. The reason for that is pure logic and it's spelled out in River Out of Eden."

Maybe that bit of the Lede needs some work? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The lede does not say that. Have a look again. I am sure that a lot of people read it wrongly, so if you can think of a better way of wording it please mention it here on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Semitism

Why is she called Eve? Was she Jewish or Muslim? This choice of naming is discriminatory. --144.122.104.211 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)