Originally posted by Ooook!
I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Can you explain exactly who you think a mitochondrial ‘Eve’ is, in your own words and how you can trace the human mitochondrial line past this point without looking at chimpanzee mitochondria.
I copy a part of text from the website:
According to the GMCMI model, every species have two Eves. The first one is the single ancestral mother, who gave birth to a new species, the second Eve or ‘Eves is a group of females with very similar genetically structure, who are the first generation or seed of new species. In terms of human, most likely, its ancestor or first Eve was one member of ape-like animals; the second Eves was a group of mothers with identical human genetic structure and phenotype.
However, Allan Wilson's study did not show alone Eve. I do not know how to trace to single Eve(s), assuming there was one.
Likewise here. Are you suggesting that there is 80,000 years worth of error between the way 'Adam' and Eve' dates were estimated?
I do not think error a proper word, these numbers are based on sample in the study. If ones repeat the study with different sample, the number could be quite different. However, implication is similar, which is the human origin from very few seeds, if not one.
Or are you agreeing with me that there is no way of distinguishing between a possible 'Super-twinning' event and one entirely due to neutral drift and natural selection?
Super-twinning (ST) is not consistent with NS, which implies a new species arrived by a population after long term RM&NS. Super-twinning occur at individual level. In terms of neutral drift, ST can not rule out possibility for such thing. Several models are based on neutral drift, such as Robertsonian translocation, and few more. The problems are there are too many steps or assumptions. ST only has ONE assumption. Parsimony is one of major characterics of truth.
Well, if common ancestry is required then you would expect consistant molecular phylogenies, not (as you suggest) inconsistant ones. Luckily for you, they are consistant with common ancestry, unluckily this supports the current ToE as well.
Thing is that current ToE consists of everything, including instantaneous speciation and founder theory. My point is that except instantaneous model and founder(which is similar to ST in certain point), all other models are wrong, including NS, genetic drifting, geographical isolation.
Among other things, there is a real practical problem with these tests. How do you suggest we go about finding these 'supertwins' in the first place before you sequence them? How do you determine whether past bottlenecks are supertwinning events?
You have no way to find out ST in the wild. However, if you have sequences of many new-found species, they should be much more homologous than general population. If bottleneckes occur, there are signs for tremendous deaths in the same species.
So in this case there is no difference between your ideas and those accepted as part of the current ToE!
There are big differences between ST and current ToE: by ToE Darwin's RMNS is main mechanism, plus several others. ST states Darwinian RMNS wrong, all speciation or biodiverstiy occur instantaneously. I think they are hugely different.
Why don't you state this plainly instead of trying to drag discussion of asexual organsims (evolution of mitochondria, antibiotic resistance) into the mix?
Using other examples in asexual organisms is important, as it shows all biodiversity occur instantaneously, Darwinian RMNS in role of speciation or biodiversity wrong in all cases, no exception.
Earlier, you admitted that both single point mutations and large scale mutation like HGT or duplication could be classed as 'gross' mutations.
I never admitted single point mutations as 'gross mutation'.
As you describe a gross mutation as one capable of causing speciation, what possible mechanisms are there for stopping twins with a such a small mutation from mating with their mother?
ST does not have to stop mating with their mother or other non-mutated siblings. Mating between ST and mothers would have no healthy offspring or no offspring at all, this is how species defined biologically.
This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 05-04-2005 09:45 PM
Jianyi Zhang
™ Version 4.2