Talk:Mitochondrial Eve

Mitochondrial Eve is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 28, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 9, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 8, 2005	Featured article review	Demoted
December 15, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
February 27, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Former featured article

Mitochondrial Eve in popular culture was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 02 April 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mitochondrial Eve. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biology C‑class Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Mitochondrial Eve is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Molecular Biology: Genetics / MCB C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Human Genetic History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Anthropology C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's History C‑class Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

"234 kya"

The article has been pretty much slaughtered since 2009. The "234 kya" estimate was left over without any indication where it originated. It turns out it was derived from a detailed review of the estimates available in 2009,[1] summarized as

"There are various estimates given for when Mitochondrial Eve lived, ranging between 234,000 years ago and 82,000 years before present(BP), with the majority of estimates clustered between 160,000 and 200,000 BP" (from page 82 "Supplemental Data", mmc1.pdf Soares et al. (2009); see Results, p. 897; Table 3, p.898 of Endicott & Ho (2008))

It is inadmissible to throw out these specific references and just retain "234 kya" without any kind of citation. Anyway, the studies from 2012/13 seem to favour 160 kya, so I am citing this for now.--dab (𒁳) 10:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I misread that. The 2009 studies has "150-234 kya", and the 2013 study has "99-148 kya". I.e. the CIs do not even overlap. An explanation is needed for this (rather than just saying "ca. 150 kya" because this is where the conflicting CIs happen to meet). Also, this duplicates the scope of Macro-haplogroup L (mtDNA), it would be easier to maintain only one page with a topic as complex as this one. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mitochondrial Eve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X-chromasome Adam or x-Chromasome Noah

If the naming of the most recent common ancestor were to strictly follow Biblical terminology, the male counterpart of mitochondrial Eve would be x-chromasome Noah. While the Bible reports that 4 females with possibly 4 different mitochondreal heritiges survived the flood, all of the males were either Noah or his sons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:0:1148:CD12:3B40:6137:AC08 (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that Noah's wives weren't promiscuous. Given this uncertainty, I argue for Adam! Klbrain (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y chromosome Adam has nothing to do with the Adam or Noah, the name is just a metaphor he was not the only human in existence or the first one. RIHKARRDOH (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

I noticed that the capitalization of the m in the phrase "Mitochondrial Eve" has been inconsistent throughout the article. I changed several of these in the sections I was reading, but haven't been able to proofread the entire article. Feel free to change any others you see. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about Paternal mtDNA transmission?

Perhaps it merits at least some mention here - possibly with the remark that it's thought to be too rare to change the picture significantly? --95.42.25.28 (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Including more research

There are a variety of studies who bring in another perspective to the ones mentionned in the article, these studies have been published and recognized by a number of scientists. I would like the opinion of an editor with a genetics education background to incorporate those views in the article properly. The articles: Carter, Criswell, & Sanford ICC.indd, calibrating the mitochondrial clock, In light of genetics . It seems , in these articles, that the hypothesis suggested to estimate the 200 000 years of age still have some points of contention. Notably in the the number of 'mutations' happening in every generations. These mutations seems to be within a wide range depending on which study is read, with some saying the rate of mutation means a 200 000 years of time, others saying that would be 20 times more than they have observed in their samples. The study ' the eve mitochondrial consensus sequence' had a sample of 800 genetic sequences, and cannot be simply dismissed as an 'exception'... Excluding the debate over the origin of Mitochondrial Eve and Adam and Eve, the facts brought by those articles , among others, seem to be science-based and worth mentionning. What is particularly interesting is the study of the genomes itself. I would need the opinion of said editor to determine the other points of contention worth mentioning. Emli89 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emil89, if the points you mentioned are well supported by reliable sources, then please feel free to add a few sentences to reflect those. Don't forget to include the citation info. Lightest (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naming?

"The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to the biblical Eve, which has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic."

And not just journalistic accounts, but among the religious who hold a very belief in Biblical "Adam & Eve" of paradisiacal garden fame. If this is so confusing for such a large group of people, why do these names persist? Surely other, less provocative, names could be applied. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Make that: "...among the religious who hold a very FIRM belief in Biblical "Adam & Eve" of paradisiacal garden fame." Sorry, Wordreader (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing chart link from the journal Nature.

The chart linked to by @Donald Albury in Nature under Archive 4 does not lead to a chart. Mr Albury - is this perhaps the chart to which you referred? https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046/figures/1 Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned three different charts in that archive. It turns out that the links I added for the charts in Nature do not match anything found in the Internet Archive. The chart you link to above was in an article published 31⁄2 years after the archived discussion. Sorry, but that discussion happened more than nine years ago, and I remember nothing of it, or of what the charts looked like. Donald Albury 20:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]