Wrestling With Mitochondrial Eve

[John Bauer]

When the Google AI summary said she "was not the first to have this mutation," I suspect it means she was not necessarily the first. She may have been. They don't know. But she wasn't necessarily the first (i.e., there is no indication that it started with her). If you traced a particular family surname back to one woman (because the lineage of anyone else with that name had died out), you wouldn't conclude that the name started with her or that nobody else at the time shared it. Perhaps others did share that surname, but since their lines died out there was nothing to trace. She is the last common source of every surviving instance of that name, but "she wasn't [necessarily] the first to have that name.

Ok, this is puzzling.

There are Smiths, Jones, and Nelsons. Eve belonged to the tribe Smith. She had ancestors Smith. In the geneology records, all the Jones and Nelsons die out or are absorbed into Smith. So, the one ancester we can trace back to is Eve Smith.

But Eve is not the index case. She is a member of a tribe and she had parents named Smith. Index case: none, no beginning. There would always be a tribe and ancestors of that tribe. So, there could never be an index case, initial one. Therefore, the age of the earth would be infinity.

When it comes to Mitochondrial Eve, the analogy is more like this:

Imagine three women—Jane Smith, Emily Smith, and Sarah Smith—all living at the same time. They each have children, and perhaps even grandchildren. But eventually Emily's and Sarah's lines either stop having daughters or die out entirely. Only Jane's daughters go on to have more daughters, and so on, until every person alive today with the surname Smith is descended from Jane. That makes her the most recent common ancestor of all current Smiths.

But Jane wasn't the first Smith. She had parents, after all, who were also Smiths. And there were other Smiths in her generation, such as Emily and Sarah. So, Jane did not originate the name, she's just the one whose daughters had daughters who had daughters all the way to the present. She is the most recent common ancestor of every surviving instance of that name, but "she wasn't the first to have that name," to paraphrase Google (i.e., she is not the "index case" for the name). I shall state it in the clearest terms that I can muster: Jane is not the earliest common ancestor of the surviving lines, she is the most recent common ancestor.

So, her existence doesn't imply infinite ancestry or age. It just means that if you follow all currently surviving maternal lines back through history, they eventually all converge on this one woman—not because she was the first, but because her line endured.

 

[John Bauer]

Related side note: Just because Jane is the most recent common ancestor of all current Smiths, that doesn't imply the surname extends infinitely into the past. Two things can be true at the same time: (a) She is the most recent common ancestor of those bearing that name; (b) that name had a definite origin (coming from the Old English word smiþ which traces back to Proto-Germanic smithaz, meaning skilled worker or craftsman).

 

[QVQ]

Jane is not the earliest common ancestor of the surviving lines, she is the most recent common ancestor.

Thank you for the prompt, courteous and thoughtful reply.
I appreciate splitting the thread. It was a good idea

This subject requires much thought so I will make a reply in the fullness of time.

 

[QVQ]

Jane is not the earliest common ancestor of the surviving lines, she is the most recent common ancestor.

Ok, there is nothing to make mt Eve special other than her line survived of all the sister lines.

So we keep tracing back to find the Earliest Eve

According to current theory, the earliest common ancestor is LCA (chimp human) speciation 3 million yrs, to LUCA, prokaryotes. 3.5 to 4 B yrs.

Gives rise to some interesting problems
In the Beginning, Eve would be a prokaryote.

 

[John Bauer]

Okay, there is nothing to make mtEve special other than her line survived of all the sister lines.

Exactly.

So, we keep tracing back to find the earliest Eve. ... In the beginning, Eve would be a prokaryote.

To what are we tracing back? What is "Eve" in this scenario? The first human? The first lifeform? The first cell? And why "Eve"? Please be as specific as possible.

According to current theory, the earliest common ancestor is LCA (chimp–human) speciation 3 million yrs, ...

[All emphases mine. --John Bauer]

This is a bit messy.

First, there is a difference between the "earliest" common ancestor (ECA) and the "last" common ancestor (LCA). In the analogy used by the opening post, Jane is the "last" (most recent) common ancestor while her mom is the "earliest" common ancestor (although you can go back even earlier, which is why ECA is muddy and LCA is preferred in science-based literature).

If you and your cousin trace your family tree, (a) your LCA is your shared grandparent, the most recent ancestor you have in common, while (b) your ECA might be a great-great-great-grandparent, depending how far back you go and how wide the comparison (e.g., second cousin). In evolutionary terms, the LCA is the node where two branches split, and the ECA is any shared node further back, even if it's deep in the trunk of the tree—such as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).

Second, the LCA of humans and chimpanzees is estimated to have lived about six or seven million years ago, not three million.

At three million years ago, we are looking at something like Australopithecus afarensis (so-called Lucy), which is several million years after the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged (which means she is not in the chimp line at all).

Gives rise to some interesting problems.

You have my attention: What problems, exactly?

 

[QVQ]

To what are we tracing back? What is "Eve" in this scenario? The first human? The first lifeform? The first cell? And why "Eve"? Please be as specific as possible.

It has occured to me that mt Eve could be Eve of the Garden as all humans descend from her.
All the sister lines died out which would mean there were people before and after who could be the wives of Cain and the inhabitants of Nod

However, the Garden.
Adam and Eve were without sin. And the Garden was not what is described in Genesis 3: 16-19
So there was some sheltered place in this world that God created for Adam and Eve?
Then there is Nod. If it existed before the Fall then the people would be the same as in the Garden and free of sin.

Anyway
There would have to be the Garden. And all men, if there were any would have to be as Adam and Eve so the Biblical account would mean that Adam was representative of all men who were all sent out of the Garden.

But the Bible seems to indicate in Genesis 2: 16 that Adam was alone and the first man. Eve was definitely the first woman

You have my attention: What problems, exactly?

Are you asking what it the problem with Eve being a Prokaryote?
It doesn't fit the Biblical account. For one thing I doubt Prokaryotes ate apples, but then what do I know. Maybe the Prokaryotes who evolved into coddling moths got their first taste by consuming the Prokaryotes who evolved into apple trees.
Old habits die hard, aye?

I hope this answers your questions.

 

[John Bauer]

It has occured to me that mtEve could be Eve of the garden, as all humans descend from her.

Well, for one thing, Mitochondrial Eve cannot be the person we find in Genesis because those women are separated by nearly 200,000 years. For another thing, not all humans are descended from the biblical Eve—particularly those who existed before she did, such as those who built the Neolithic site of Göbekli Tepe (which was inhabited from around 9500 BCE), as well as those living in the land of Nod, yes. And the Bible never says that all humans descended from her anyway; she is the "mother of all the living" but not all humans are of the living (cf. Gen 3:15).

However, the garden. Adam and Eve were without sin. And the garden was not what is described in Genesis 3:16-19. So, there was some sheltered place in this world that God created for Adam and Eve?

Correct, there is inside the garden of Eden and outside the garden (which is still Eden).

Then there is Nod. If it existed before the Fall, then the people would be the same as in the garden and free of sin.

They would be free of sin, but they would not be the same as in the garden—for in the garden Adam and Eve had pure communion with God in a covenant relationship. That did not exist until Adam and the garden. (That is why those people in Nod prior to the garden would be free of sin: Until Adam and the garden, there was no covenant relationship with God that defines sin.)

The biblical account would mean that Adam was representative of all men who were all sent out of the garden.

According to Genesis 2 and 3, only Adam and Eve were in the garden (e.g., "The LORD God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed," Gen 2:8; cf. v. 15). Therefore, everyone else would have been outside the garden, such as in the land of Nod, which was to the east of Eden.

But the Bible seems to indicate in Genesis 2:16 that Adam was alone and the first man. Eve was definitely the first woman.

He was alone and the first man in the garden. The planet, however, was much larger than the garden, which was in Eden. For example, there was the land of Nod further east. And Eve cannot be the first woman, as Mitochondrial Eve proves (who lived 200,000 years earlier than biblical Eve).

Are you asking what it the problem with Eve being a Prokaryote?

No, I was asking what the problem was—which, apparently, is Eve being a prokaryote. Yes, that is definitely a problem. But it is not a problem for the view I am presenting. In this view, Eve was the very human wife of a very human Adam and they lived 6,000 years ago in Eden—in a sacred garden for a time, but later kicked out (though still in Eden). But they were not the first humans, as sites like Göbekli Tepe demonstrate.

 

[QVQ]

(That is why those people in Nod prior to the garden would be free of sin: Until Adam and the garden, there was no covenant relationship with God that defines sin.)

I like your interpretation except for one small fact
The Garden of Eden was not corrupted. Just as man was not corrupted, man being Adam or all men at that time or before. However the interpretation, man Adam and men over in Nod, were all in Eden

Now, Genesis 3 :18-19 was not the lot of men before 6,000 yrs ago?
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Those conditions did not exist before God sent Adam out of the Garden?

I can see the interpretation that sin was not defined but thorns and thistles and sweat of your brow certainly was.
All men since the dawn of time have sweated, been living in a hostile world of predatory animals, and harvesting food amongst thorns and thistles. Men before Adam suffered disease and disaster.

Perhaps Adam and therefore all men gained knowledge of good and evil. They gained knowledge of being naked but it certainly would not have been anything new to then to be in this corrupt world of Genesis 2 :18-19

So there is the Garden if we are discussing the Biblical account.

 

[John Bauer]

I like your interpretation—except for one small fact: The garden of Eden was not corrupted, ...

The garden was not corrupted in this view, either.

Was not Genesis 3:18-19 the lot of men before 6,000 years ago?

Yes, it was, and throughout the whole world—except for that special, unique garden.

As you said, "All men since the dawn of time have sweated [in arduous labor], living in a hostile world of predatory animals and harvesting food amongst thorns and thistles." But Adam did not while in that garden, from which he was banished when he sinned.

Those conditions did not exist before God sent Adam out of the garden?

They existed everywhere outside the garden—from which Adam was now banished. He didn't have to deal with those conditions in the garden. But now he will be outside the garden.

Addendum: It is worth noting that Adam and Eve were banished eastward from the garden, that God placed angelic sentries on the east side of the garden, barring a return to his holy presence. Why is it worth noting? Because the design of Israel's tabernacle and later temple had its entrance on the east side. Moving from the outer court through the sanctuary to the Holy of Holies was westward—back to God's holy presence. Ezekiel's vision of God's glory returning to the temple from the east (Ezekiel 43:1–5) reinforces this symbolism. "The glory of the LORD came into the temple by way of the gate that faces east" (v. 4).

... but it certainly would not have been anything new to them to be in this corrupt world of Genesis 3:18-19.

It was new for Adam, though.

So, there is the garden—if we are discussing the biblical account.

We are, and this view takes that seriously.

 

[QVQ]

They existed everywhere outside the garden—from which Adam was now banished. He didn't have to deal with those conditions in the garden. But now he will be outside the garden.

Here is the simplest way I can state this:

Then the world was corrrupted from it's inception. God created a corruption except for the Garden.


A Brief History of Time
If a man walks 3 miles an hour and he walks two hours from point A to point B then 3 miles x 2 hours = A to B = 6 miles.
That is the way we measure time and distance in space. Light Years are Time and Distance.

Webb Telescope found fully formed Galaxies at 150 million years after the Big Bang.
Then earth was also fully formed at 150 million years.
If we strip the travel time (light years) between those galaxies and earth, then the creation could be simultaneous in time as well as distance.
If we are at the same time, different distance, that would make our galaxy 150 million yrs old.
Even if the difference in distance is measured as light years, then our planet was still fully formed 150 million years after the creation event.
That is still measured in light years so it could be "created at so many miles within the first 15 minutes."

Time is relative to the position of event and the position of the observer.
In other words:
Time is indeed relative to the observer's position and motion, as well as the relative positions of events being observed.

 

[QVQ]

I am adding an addendum, a direct quote to clarify post #10
“We expected only to find tiny, young, baby galaxies at this point in time, but we’ve discovered galaxies as mature as our own in what was previously understood to be the dawn of the universe.”

As mature...and the same size as the Milky Way.

 

[John Bauer]

Then the world was corrupted from its inception.

If there is any reason to think your claim logically follows, you forgot to include it.

If a man walks three miles per hour for two hours, from point A to point B, then 3 mph x 2 hrs = 6 miles (the distance between A and B).

That is the way we measure time and distance in space.

No, sir. That is incorrect. Your analogy is Newtonian (time and space are separate and absolute), not relativistic (time and space are interwoven and relative), so it doesn't map cleanly to spacetime metrics. At the scale of space, time can stretch or compress depending on things like velocity and gravitational fields. (The 2014 movie Interstellar touched on this concept. When Cooper and Brand return to the Endurance after visiting Miller's planet for a little over three hours, they discover that Romilly had aged 23 years. This is called gravitational time dilation, a phenomenon predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity and something your analogy ignores.)

The James Webb Space Telescope found fully formed galaxies at 150 million years after the Big Bang. Then Earth was also fully formed at 150 million years.

The second sentence is factually incorrect—by about nine billion years—and I have no idea how it connects to the first sentence, which is also factually incorrect.

It is true that the JWST has found galaxies that began forming relatively early, within a couple hundred million years after the Big Bang. While this is interesting and significant, it is not remarkable or surprising. After all, our own galaxy began forming roughly around the same time as those galaxies. (The Big Bang was 13.8 billion years ago, and our galaxy began forming 13.6 billion years ago—or 200 million years after the Big Bang, like those galaxies.)

What did surprise us, though, is how mature some of those galaxies appear to be. They are not “fully formed” in the same sense as our Milky Way, which has been around roughly 10 billion years longer than them, but some exhibit structural features (like disks and bulges) that suggest more rapid formation than our current models predicted.

Remember, looking at a galaxy 13 billion light-years away tells us what it looked like 13 billion years ago. We are seeing those galaxies not as they ARE (now) but as they WERE (then). Galaxies at this stage are dominated by Population III and Population II stars, metal-poor generations. The next stage is metal-rich Population I stars (like our Sun). Who knows, maybe right now they are dominated by Population I stars. We simply have no possible way of seeing what those galaxies currently look like. All we have are these pictures of them as kids that the JWST took.

Speaking of which, let me try using an illustration. If our galaxy was a 40-year-old man, stars like our sun began forming when he was in his late-20s. We expected those early galaxies that the JWST saw to be toddlers and children, but we were surprised to learn that some of them are adolescents. They are not fully developed adults like the Milky Way or Andromeda, but some of them are young teenagers when we expected children.

If we strip the travel time (light years) between those galaxies and Earth, ...

—then those galaxies would look vastly different. We would then see them as they currently are, rather than as they were 13 billion years ago.

If we are at the same time, different distance, ...

Distance and time are tightly linked through the structure of spacetime. You cannot vary one without affecting the other. Again, you can't apply Newtonian sensibilities to the scale of interstellar space. At that scale, you have to switch to relativistic physics (Einstein).

... that would make our galaxy 150 million yrs old.

No, it would make those galaxies 13.6 billion years old. We would go from seeing their childhood pictures to seeing them in-person as the fully-grown adult they are.

 

[QVQ]

there is any reason to think your claim logically follows, you forgot to include it.

From It's Inception, its beginning:

A) If the world was diseased, full of suffering, with man gathering his food amongst predatory animals and thistles
Then that is the way God created the world.

B) If the entire world were akin to the Garden of Eden
That is the way God created the World, a good place, which is what He pronounced it to be.

Then it was the Fall that brought about the disease, the corruption, suffering and sweating, grubbing for food amongst thorns and thistles.
It was a disobedience of Adam and the work of Satan that tarnished the Good that God created.

Time, if we are searching for Eve, we have to place her on a linear line of time. Or consider that time is not linear. Or not.
All I know about the Webb Telescope Mature Galaxies the size of the Milky Way is what I read in the paper.
You read it different then I will simply state that I am wondering if that "Mature Galaxy" at 150 million years is where Eve could possibly be.

 

[QVQ]

Addendum
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has identified several mature, massive galaxies that formed surprisingly early in the universe's history, challenging existing cosmological models. These galaxies, observed in the universe's infancy (500 to 700 million years after the Big Bang), are unexpectedly large and contain a high proportion of old, red stars, unlike what was previously expected. This discovery has prompted scientists to reconsider current theories about galaxy formation and evolution.

 

[John Bauer]

From its inception, its beginning:

A) If the world was diseased, full of suffering, with man gathering his food amongst predatory animals and thistles, then that is the way God created the world.

B) If the entire world were akin to the garden of Eden, then that is the way God created the world—a good place, which is what he pronounced it to be.

Then it was the Fall that brought about disease, corruption, suffering, and sweating, grubbing for food amongst thorns and thistles. It was the disobedience of Adam and the work of Satan that tarnished the good that God created.

All of this follows from your view, which holds that Genesis is about material origins and that the entire planet was a kind of paradise, free of thorns and predation. I am willing to grant that from this view difficulties arise when supposing that other people, thorns, and predation existed prior to the events of the garden, and that these things tarnished God's good creation. It is just one of the many reasons behind my rejection of that view in all its forms.

However, your view is simply not relevant when critically examining mine. If your point is that my view conflicts with yours in several ways, then I totally agree. But it's supposed to, so there's that.

If your point is that my view conflicts with scripture, well, then you have a lot of work to do.

For example, you would have to prove that animal predation is contrary to God's good creation—and I mean biblically, not sentimentally. But that would be an uphill battle because of passages like Psalm 104:21, "The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God" (cf. Ps 147:9), and when he opens his hand, "they are satisfied with good things" (Ps 104:27-28). It was God who said to Job, "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness and satisfy the hunger of the lions when they crouch in their dens or lie in wait in a thicket? Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?" (Job 38:39-41). And so on.

You would also have a very difficult time proving that Genesis 1 is about material origins, or that the entire planet was a paradise like the garden of Eden, two more things I reject. If you want to maintain that my view conflicts with scripture, then you have to prove these things exegetically. Until then, it just conflicts with your view and I am genuinely okay with that.

Time. If we are searching for Eve, we have to place her on a linear line of time.

You can situate her wherever you like in history. You can even identify her as a prokaryote, if you wish, or put her in another galaxy on the other side of the universe. It is all a matter of which problems and how many you are comfortable with shouldering.

My view identifies her as a modern human who lived 6,000 years ago in an area where Eastern Anatolia meets the Armenian Highlands. Therefore, she is not (and cannot be) Mitochondrial Eve, who lived elsewhere and so much longer ago.

Addendum
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has identified several mature, massive galaxies that formed surprisingly early in the universe's history, challenging existing cosmological models. These galaxies, observed in the universe's infancy (500 to 700 million years after the Big Bang), are unexpectedly large and contain a high proportion of old, red stars, unlike what was previously expected. This discovery has prompted scientists to reconsider current theories about galaxy formation and evolution.

—all of which I already said.

 

[QVQ]

You would also have a very difficult time proving that Genesis 1 is about material origins, or that the entire planet was a paradise like the garden of Eden, two more things I reject. If you want to maintain that my view conflicts with scripture, then you have to prove these things exegetically. Until then, it just conflicts with your view and I am genuinely okay with that.

I was reading an article about Neandertals.
Did the Homo Sapien immigrants introduce a disease that contributed to the extinction of the Neandertals?
The author listed all the diseases, small pox, diptheria, typhoid, cholera, the scourges of mankind, which are very stable organism, no mutation.
Those diseases all appeared after 9000 BC.
The problem with history is there is so little information and the veracity is always in question.

My view is God created Man, Adam could have been one man, just like Abraham or Moses who represented all men in the Covenant.
Or Adam could have been the First man. And then where did Cain get a wife?
There was a bottle neck, possibly after the Ice Age, where fewer than 10,000 people were alive.
It wouldn't take very many people to populate the earth.

As I said, I like your exegetics.
What I do not want to do is try to shoe horn the Bible into Darwinist Evolution.
I am merely considering all the information.
I doubt we can give any Date for Eve. We can only determine the circumstances and there is very little to go on.

 

[John Bauer]

I was reading an article about Neandertals. Did the Homo sapiens immigrants introduce a disease that contributed to the extinction of the Neandertals?

That is an interesting theory—which I know almost nothing about, sorry.

However, I question just how much that could have contributed to their eventual extinction. It is certainly plausible—we know Neanderthals lacked genetic diversity—but there are other, far more likely causes, such as demographic decline (e.g., population bottlenecks), competition and interbreeding with Homo sapiens, and climate instability (e.g., evidence of Dansgaard–Oeschger interstadials in Marine Isotope Stage 3 from 57 ka to 29 ka).

As for a candidate disease? I would put a wager on kuru-like transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE), a fatal brain disease caused by cannibalism (source). Modern humans commonly carry a variant at codon 129 of the PRNP gene that helps protect against prion diseases (and seems to indicate widespread cannibalism at some point in human prehistory). Neanderthals, by contrast, appear to have lacked this protective variant and instead carried the genotype most susceptible to prion infection. Kuru-like TSE would have been virulent and lethal for them.

The author listed ...

What author? And wrote what?

The author listed all the diseases, small pox, diptheria, typhoid, cholera, the scourges of mankind, which are very stable organism, no mutation.

This is false, incidentally. All pathogens mutate, including those listed. Smallpox virus and cholera bacteria have well-documented genetic variation over time.

Those diseases all appeared after 9000 BC.

There is a reason for that.

My view is that God created man, that Adam could have been one man, just like Abraham or Moses, who represented all men in the covenant. Or Adam could have been the first man. And then where did Cain get a wife?

My view is very similar. The only thing I deny is that Adam was the first human to ever exist.

There was a bottleneck, possibly after the Ice Age, where fewer than 10,000 people were alive.

You might be referring to the Toba supervolcano eruption, which was 70,000–75,000 years ago or the middle of the Last Glacial Period. It decimated the human population, with some scientists suggesting it was reduced to 10,000 people.

(By the way, we are still in the Ice Age. It began around 2.5 million years ago and continues today, as indicated by our polar ice caps. But we are currently in an interglacial period called the Holocene epoch, which began 11,700 years ago.)

As I said, I like your exegetics. What I do not want to do is try to shoehorn the Bible into Darwinist evolution.

You and me both, mate.

I doubt we can give any date for Eve. We can only determine the circumstances and there is very little to go on.

I think there is sufficient evidence in Genesis to put an outside limit on where Adam and Eve are situated historically—less than 10,000 years ago—because it mentions things like domesticated animals.

 

[QVQ]

This is false, incidentally. All pathogens mutate, including those listed. Smallpox virus and cholera bacteria have well-documented genetic variation over time.

Well, it is noted that mutations are 1) sterile 2) not viable 3) revert to type.
If you ask one by one, did Australopithecus, Neandertal, H. Erectus get smallpox, cholera, typhoid and leprosy the answer is No.
There are variants amongst small pox, variola major and variola minor. Both are small pox and occur concurrently. There isn't any mutated small pox that could adapt to a hostile host or mutate to another host. If evolution was fact then smallpox could not be eradicated.

The Neandertals having a gene connected to cannabalism is akin to being lactose intolerant. It did not give them an active disease, like leprosy.

I posted the information about disease as a point in your favor. If you say it is not then, OK.

If, to you, Eve is just an ordinary soul in an ordinary world who was chosen by God for a mission.
I can't agree because God would have created a corrupted world.
The only meaning in the Fall would be Adam was kicked out of the Garden.
If sin only became sin when it was defined by God then He is the author of the definiton.
Therefore God is the author (creator) of sin.

In your view, Adam was banished to the world God created for all the other men that was nasty and brutish from it's inception
And always ruled by Satan.
Moses shared his lot with all the Israelites. And the Covenant was for all of them, not just his family.
I can see your interpretation but I can't agree with it because it diminishes the wages of Sin.
And makes God the author of Sin and earthly corruption
I firmly believe the Garden of Eden and the entire world that God first created was second best only to heaven. The entire world only became a sad reflection of what had been after the fall.

So we can agree to disagree. I cannot accept your view and mine is too literal, perhaps too traditional.