Re: African Eve

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Melanie L Chang: "Re: Aquatic Ape: Titanic Effect"
• Previous message: Danny: "Re: AAT (faces, fossils)"
• Maybe in reply to: Patrick H. Adkins: "African Eve"
• Next in thread: dmitry pruss: "Re: African Eve"

From: pruss@helix.nih.gov (dmitry pruss)
Subject: Re: African Eve

DP> The problem with mit DNA analysis in H.sapiens was that it produced
too counterituitive results - and wasn't paralleled by anything
similar on other modern (recently evolved) species.

[interesting material (thanks!) deleted]

One of the things I don't understand about this approach is _whose_ mit DNA
are we tracing back to? For instance, if we have an "Eve" (individual with a
mutation that makes her the first of what will become H. sapiens), why should
we presume that the mit DNA originated with her--instead of with her non-
mutated mother, grandmother, or some still more distant ancestor, perhaps
even an earlier species. Why should be presume that mit DNA leads back to
the beginning of H. sapiens, instead of H. erecti, H habilis, etc?

Sorry if this is an uninformed question.

---

 € SLMR 2.1a € Just say no to Big Government.

                                                                                                    

• Next message: Melanie L Chang: "Re: Aquatic Ape: Titanic Effect"
• Previous message: Danny: "Re: AAT (faces, fossils)"
• Maybe in reply to: Patrick H. Adkins: "African Eve"
• Next in thread: dmitry pruss: "Re: African Eve"