Another "Icon" bites the dust.

[bob b]

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992716

[CamabanIII]

1. How is that an Icon of Evolution?
2. Doesn't that damage Biblical creationism more than Evolution (if it damages evolution)

I mean, Kinda casts doubt on the existance of a common female ancestor (Eve) doesn't it?

[bob b]

>>1. How is that an Icon of Evolution?<<

It has been evolutionary dogma for a long time that mitochrondrial DNA was passed down only through the female (despite a paper several years ago by John Maynard Smith et. al. reporting experiments to the contrary).

From the article:
"Evolutionary biologists often date the divergence of species by the differences in genetic sequences in mitochondrial DNA. Even if paternal DNA is inherited very rarely, it could invalidate many of their findings."

>>Kinda casts doubt on the existance of a common female ancestor (Eve) doesn't it?<<

I do not see why this discovery would cast doubt on the existence of a common female ancestor, but I am willing to change my mind if you can explain why this would be so.

On the other hand note the first sentence quoted above, ""Evolutionary biologists often date the divergence of species by the differences in genetic sequences in mitochondrial DNA."

What is affected by this new finding is the date derived using the old assumption. If the DNA is mixed with the paternal DNA then the sequences variability will be greater, thus confounding the calaculation which assumes that variations are due strictly to random mutations. The net result is that estimates of human divergences between various populations will be off, essentially giving dates older than the actual case.

The bottom line is that previous "Eve" mitochrondrial studies which estimated the rise of the human race 100,000 or more years ago could be off by large factors, perhaps a factor of 20 too large. :D

[Stratnerd]

Bob B.,

It has been evolutionary dogma

Really, someone should tell the scientific community? I thought this was something known for years!!!!

What is affected by this new finding is the date derived using the old assumption.

ditto

If the DNA is mixed with the paternal DNA then the sequences variability will be greater, thus confounding the calaculation which assumes that variations are due strictly to random mutations.

Seems like you are suggesting that the article is suggesting that mitochondria are swapping DNA!?

could be off by large factors, perhaps a factor of 20 too large.

an appropriate use of a smiley since your number was simply plucked out of your mind. this article does nothing to support an alternative to evolutionary theory.

[dconklin]

Did you see the report off to the right that said the earth was formed twice as fast (their number not mine) as previously thought?

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992735

[bob b]

S,


>>could be off by large factors, perhaps a factor of 20 too large. <<

>an appropriate use of a smiley since your number was simply plucked out of your mind. this article does nothing to support an alternative to evolutionary theory.<

Actually my factor of 20 was "plucked" out of Science magazine.

"Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. "(Science. 28 February 1997, p. 1256). ;)

[rbisback]

OUCH!!!!

--------------------------

'Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to an inescapable interpretation.'

Stephen J. Gould, "Ever Since Darwin" BurnettBooks, 1978. 161-162.

[Mr. Ben]

As far as the mitochondrial eve is concerned.. there has been a lot of doubt about the validity of mitochondrial dating before this discovery. One of the problems with mitochondrial inferences is that it does not really match the data from the male sex chromosome.