I have read, but cant vouch for the scientific background of, an article which said that D.N.A. testing showed that all humans on earth are descended from one female human. I don't know why the usual rules of genetic diversity did not appply here, although possibly the current spatial and numerical diversity has overcome any genetic weaknesses of an originally small population base. The other possibility is that many of the failures within the human genetic makeup(cancers etc) could be attributable to this earlier genetic limitation.

well if there was adam and there was eve wouldn't there kids not have to have incest sex?
thats wrong in my books

I have read, but cant vouch for the scientific background of, an article which said that D.N.A. testing showed that all humans on earth are descended from one female human. I don't know why the usual rules of genetic diversity did not appply here, although possibly the current spatial and numerical diversity has overcome any genetic weaknesses of an originally small population base. The other possibility is that many of the failures within the human genetic makeup(cancers etc) could be attributable to this earlier genetic limitation.

First, I believe I was listening to NPR's Science Friday when I heard that there were 33 Eves, namely, 33 distinct female mitochondrial DNA's shared by everyone in the world. They were even aged differently, one was like 77,000 years old, one was 35,000 years old, that kind of thing.

Second, just because God made Adam and Eve didn't mean She didn't make OTHER humans, too. They were just the first. However, I have a book of Jewish Legends that talks about this -- allegedly, Cain had a twin sister and Abel had a twin sister, and they were supposed to marry the other brother's sister. But Cain didn't want to marry Abel's ugly sister, he wanted to marry his own beautiful sister. Somehow this is really why Cain slew Abel. How **EDIT** up is that?!

**Genny, I recommend you review the forum rules regarding appropriate language. This is a family forum**

Also could you explain what NPR stands for, not everybody that belongs to this forum lives in the the country you live in.

some sources state that after the catastrophe only a handful of an advanced civilisation survived and went forth accross the world teaching this and that blah blah blah but what i'd like to know is if only a very small amount of people survived (some sources state as little as 1% worldwide) wouldn't that show up in the DNA somehow with such a small gene pool and wouldn't this also lead to genetic defects as from being apes we've always sought out new ''mates'' from other groups to keep the DNA fresh ????

One percent of today's population would be SIXTY million people, more than enough for a viable genetic base.

Even in ancient times that surviving remnant would be still have been in the hundreds of thousands.

Remember the American bison had by the end of the 19th Century been reduced from millions to just SEVEN before conservation efforts began. Today it's once again permissible to HUNT the animal.

...some sources state that after the catastrophe only a handful of an advanced civilisation survived and went forth accross the world teaching this and that blah blah blah but what i'd like to know is if only a very small amount of people survived (some sources state as little as 1% worldwide) wouldn't that show up in the DNA somehow with such a small gene pool and wouldn't this also lead to genetic defects as from being apes we've always sought out new ''mates'' from other groups to keep the DNA fresh ????...

DNA evidence has also shown that every single human being on earth has less genetic variation than what would be found in a single tribe of baboons in a single area of a forest.

Don't quote me on this since I'm speaking from memory but what is stated is that genetic diversity is only about 0.001 % in humans and is much greater in all other species.

This conclusion leads us to think that the origin of our species is based on very few initial members. As few as 1000 - 6000, is the number usually provided.

Genetic drift would account for what you are speaking about. There has to be an effective population size which is generally lower than the actual population size.

This effective population size is the minimum ammount of genetic difference between population members that will allow a repopulation of that species without that same species entering a genetic meltdown.

So, even if you have 6000 people in a population the genetic input would be much lower, say 1000 people. For repopulation to occur I think this is the very minumum one could go to before genetic defects become apparent.

(these are numbers used as an example and do not refer to actual figures)

fascinating stuff, in terms of species destrustion 6000 is such a small amount it wouldn't fill one corner of a football stand just think that was all the people in the whole world

I don't know how many people would survive if something were to hit today but I can tell you for a fact from having guided people on wilderness trips over several years in extremely remote areas that the majority of people panic when placed in extreme survival situations - even WITH supplies at hand.

All it would take to create global pandemonium (God help us if this ever happens) is if electricity weere completely knocked out worldwide for a full month period - during pretty much any time of the year. Remote populations used to having only the basics would be alright, but cities and towns? Forget it. Over three quarters of the human population would be wiped out by lack of hygiene, malaria, fever, pneumonia, not to mention completely barbabric levels of violence - possibly even cannibalism in some areas with extremely high population levels.

All it would take to create global pandemonium (God help us if this ever happens) is if electricity weere completely knocked out worldwide for a full month period - during pretty much any time of the year. Remote populations used to having only the basics would be alright, but cities and towns? Forget it. Over three quarters of the human population would be wiped out by lack of hygiene, malaria, fever, pneumonia, not to mention completely barbabric levels of violence - possibly even cannibalism in some areas with extremely high population levels.

Thanks harte and jor-el, i tried to add a post yesterday, but it timed out and i couldn't retrieve it. I will try to restate briefly. I was aware of the mDNA, and how it works, but found it difficult to believe what the scientific evidence was pointing to because of the implications.What happened to the other "women" who should have been around at that time , and to all their descendants. Either there were no other females descended from different matrilineal ancestors at that time, or there were some, but all their descendants were wiped out. Either scenario postulates a very small population, and therefore limited genetic base, which tends to indicate that either; scientists concerns about this(the need for a significant population base to ensure genetic diversity) are exaggerated; there has been some genetic deterioration due to a limited ancestral base, or the dna lineage does not really mean what it appears to.

Amongst one lot, the english royal family, they have been interbreeding for centuries, even now the queen of england is married to her second cousin.

And how come if you marry your cousin your branded a redneck but when they do it its called keping the blue blood......

Well, first off, I would like to add that human genetics is 99.9% the same for everyone. That's what makes us a species, so the implication that we all came from one female, while not unthinkable, is not necessarily true, as several species evolving together, mating, and evolving into one species could have all came from one single cell organism like most living things on Earth, but does not necessarily mean that we all came from the same woman.

Percisely my point! I mean, people are born with disabilities even when they are not breeding through incest. Without actual experiment, how can we determine that incest is the cause of the disabilities these children are born with? Maybe it is already in the gene of these parents, and it is just activated onto them.

Well, first off, I would like to add that human genetics is 99.9% the same for everyone. That's what makes us a species, so the implication that we all came from one female, while not unthinkable, is not necessarily true, as several species evolving together, mating, and evolving into one species could have all came from one single cell organism like most living things on Earth, but does not necessarily mean that we all came from the same woman.

Second, incest is only condemned after children are found with disfiguration, and thought that it is God's way of punishing incest.

The supposition is not that we all "came" from this primeval woman. After all, she had to "come from" somewhere herself, right? The hypothesis is that we are all descended from her. That is, she is the earliest common relative of all of us - she is all of our "great great, great,...great, great great" grandmother. She is not, for example, the earliest human woman, and it is true that we are all also descended from other people. These other people are the ones that most of us do not have in common with every single other human on the planet.

Inter-species procreation is as far as I know not posssible. As such it would seem that you contradict yourself when you say that different species mate and evolve into a single species..

I'm NOT disagreeing.

But there are towns and even cities in the American West where the average householder keeps a year's supply of food on hand, an emergency power generator with fuel, and is not only well-armed but trained in the use of weaponry. I imagine that such places could well survive for a month.

And for what it's worth, back in 1937, during the Great Flood of that year, in January, Greater Cincinnati went without food deliveries, electricity, refrigeration, gas and fresh water for nearly two weeks. Everybody got on famously and the crime rate actually DROPPED.

You are assuming that all of the DNA is in tact. The fact is that it is not necessarily true. Through evolution, how do you know that we all came from a single human woman and not the difference in genetic code rendered indistiguishable through time?

Mitochondrial DNA is not involved in human genetics. This kind of DNA regulates what goes on in the mitochondria in our cells, and not what goes on anywhere else in our bodies.

The supposition is not that we all "came" from this primeval woman. After all, she had to "come from" somewhere herself, right? The hypothesis is that we are all descended from her.

Nothing at all that we know is necessarily true. However, the mDNA research is different from your statement about human genetics. Mitochondrial DNA is not involved in human genetics. This kind of DNA regulates what goes on in the mitochondria in our cells, and not what goes on anywhere else in our bodies. The mDNA is passed to future generations through the maternal side only.

You are ignoring one huge factor of mitochondria DNA, as I have pointed out. Scientists conducting this research have stated that, while mDNA that pass through during child birth is largely from the mother and stays the same, mutations can occur, either naturally through time and unnaturally through factors like radiation. Mathematically speaking, mDNA can be subjected to a certain number of mutation, so it is not fail proof.

Your theory is based on the assumption that human genetics are perfect, and does not mutate. The truth is our cells are mutating all the time. So in other words, scientists could have discovered that all life originated from Africa based on the research (which, by the way, is highly likely,) but taking mutation into factor, time would have rendered the difference in genetic code indistiguishable. It's like the old game of passing the message, the message could have gone from : I want a hamberger to I am a ham

Who said anything inter species mating? I am saying that single cell organism split, procreate, and through time and evolution, they evolve into different species, who then procreate within their own species until it finally evolve into the world we now know.

as several species evolving together, mating, and evolving into one species could have all came from one single cell organism like most living things on Earth, but does not necessarily mean that we all came from the same woman.

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chris.B @ Nov 18 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]1431408[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
You are ignoring one huge factor of mitochondria DNA, as I have pointed out. Scientists conducting this research have stated that, while mDNA that pass through during child birth is largely from the mother and stays the same, mutations can occur, either naturally through time and unnaturally through factors like radiation. Mathematically speaking, mDNA can be subjected to a certain number of mutation, so it is not fail proof.
No, the mDNA is not "largely from the mother...", it is only from the mother.

And yes, mutations do occur. In fact, the rate of mutation is part and parcel of the entire study. The entire thing is based on mutation rates. It is the very heart and core of the argument that these mutations occur. It is the mutations upon which the entire argument rests. Through examining how much mutation has occurred in the mDNA of various populations around the globe, the geneticists are able to determine the time elapsed as well as the population which has the "oldest" (most mutated) mDNA. This is why I said "depending on which mutation rate you prefer."

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chris.B @ Nov 18 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]1431408[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Your theory is based on the assumption that human genetics are perfect, and does not mutate. The truth is our cells are mutating all the time. So in other words, scientists could have discovered that all life originated from Africa based on the research (which, by the way, is highly likely,) but taking mutation into factor, time would have rendered the difference in genetic code indistiguishable. It's like the old game of passing the message, the message could have gone from : I want a hamberger to I am a ham
Sorry, but you are completely wrong here.

This is not "my theory."

I'm (again) not talking at all about human genetics. This has absolutely nothing to do with where life, or humans originated. This study does not in any way speak to these ideas.

The human genetic code is in no way involved in any aspect of this study.

Mutation over time would certainly render the differences indistiguishable though. However, the differences were not what was being looked at. It was the similarities. How can random mutation account for these similarities?

Your passing the message argument would hold water if we were talking about a much longer time period. For example, it's extremely unlikely that any similar conclusion could be reached using the human genome, since the genetic code of each individual is jumbled when the zygotes merge. But this is the value of looking at mDNA, which is only contributed by the mother. It therefore is much more stable over longer time periods, being subject to change only through mutation.

Please recall that this study is more like a geneaology that anything else. It only purports to trace our human family tree back to a single woman we are all related to. This woman was herself related to several different people, of course (aren't we all?) This woman was not the first woman, nor the first human, nor anything like that. It's just that the offspring of the other women that lived at that time did not have their genetic heritages passed all the way down to the present time.

Harte

If human DNA are 99.9% indentical, and you just accepted the fact that time would render some of the code indistinguishable, then looking at the similarity would be a flaw, as similarity would of course exist, but looking at it is against the scientific method, which needs to look for differences to disprove a theory, and only after one cannot disprove the theory can it be use as a fact. In other words, if there are differences, then the theory does not stand, and those who point to the simlarity as "evidence" that we are from the same women are just looking for the answer they want to see.

He knew He was right.

i always have thought tha the human race was gonna do it self in.some
idiot somewhere will either create and let a deadly airborne virus escape his lab,or we'll blow ourselves up!aids could also develop into a more deadly strain,who knows?

Aside that, how do we prepare to inseminate the future?