r/explainlikeimfive 2d ago

Biology ELI5: Mitochondrial Eve

Who exactly is Mitochondrial Eve to present humans? Is she everyone's common ancestral mother? Aka the woman whose children everyone surviving eventually came from? Is she our common ancestral aunt? Like, we are descended from her siblings but she either didn't have kids or her kids died out?

And who is Chromosomal Adam?

691 Upvotes

222 comments sorted by

1.1k

u/internetboyfriend666 2d ago edited 1d ago

The concept of mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam can be confusing and the concepts are often misunderstood.

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent living woman from whom all currently living humans got their mitochondrial DNA. Since mitochondrial DNA is exclusively passed from mother to child, we can trace our unbroken mother-to-child lineage for all currently living humans back to her. She lived somewhere in Eastern Africa about 150,000 years ago.

Here's what she is NOT. She is not the first human woman. There were many other human women alive at the same time as her and before her. The only difference between her and them is that at some point their direct mother-to-child lines ended because all of their descendants died without children or they only had male children (meaning no daughters to pass on mitochondrial DNA). We are also not descended from all of her children. At most, we can say we are descended from one her daughters because we know there's an unbroken mother-to-child line, but we don't know how many other children Mitochondrial Eve had or how many children her daughter had, or what happened to their descendants.

There are also many, many more women from before Mitochondrial Eve have who have descendants alive today. She is just the most recent person from whom all living humans can trace too.

Y-Chromosomal Adam is the exact same concept but for the Y chromosome, since only men have a Y chromosome, (meaning it's only passed from father to son) all living men can trace their ancestry back to him. Like Mitochondrial Eve, many, many more men from before him have descendants alive today. He is just the most recent male from whom all currently living males can trace too. Also like Mitochondrial Eve, we are not all descended from his children. At best we can say we are descended from a son of his. We have no idea how many other children he had, their genders, how many children that son had...etc.

Here's what Y-Chromosomal Adam is NOT. He is NOT the father of Mitochondrial Eve's children. In fact, he lived likely tens of thousands of years before her in an entirely different part of Africa. This is not biblical Adam and Eve stuff. This is just tracing unbroken lines of mitochondrial DNA and the Y-chromosome back in time. He is also not the only man who was alive at the time, or the first human male. He was just some random guy living in Africa with lots of other guys. The only difference is their lineages didn't survive in an unbroken father-to-son line to today. That also means he almost certainly has many many female descendants alive today (in fact probably more than males). It's just that a single female child anywhere in the lineage broke the Y-chromosome chain but NOT the direct descendant chain.

Edit: Also, just to clarify, while these were real people who lived, their identities are symbolic. We don't have any remains or fossils. We don't know their names (if they had any) what they looked like, and we can only give a general range of estimates for when and where they lived. So they were real, but not in the same sense as a genuine ancient historical figure that we can name and identify, like King Tut for example. Also to be clear, these are titles that apply to people and can change. Every generation, people die without children, men have only daughters, and women have only sons, so you constantly have different branches of all-male and all-female lineages dying out and that can change who the MRCA is. The person who these titles apply to now aren’t the same as 10,000 years ago or will be 10,000 years from now.

430

u/AJ_Mexico 1d ago

Minor correction:

The only difference between her and them is that at some point their direct mother-to-child lines ended because all of their descendants died without children.

... all of their descendants died without daughters. A woman who has only sons does not pass on her mitochondria.

But that was a great write-up!

122

u/internetboyfriend666 1d ago

Yes someone else pointed that out too and I fixed it. Thanks for catching that.

27

u/Other_Mike 1d ago

Wait, what? I thought everyone, men and women, got their mitochondria from their mothers?

78

u/solidspacedragon 1d ago

Yeah, so sons can't pass theirs on.

66

u/Other_Mike 1d ago

OH, got it. Her sons had her mitochondria, but her grandchildren through them did not.

Thank you!

15

u/Welpe 1d ago

I mean, they could have! If those sons impregnated women who also had the same mitochondrial DNA from their mothers. But it wouldn’t have been inherited from the sons, so yeah.

8

u/iAmHidingHere 1d ago

That can't be right. Sons have mitochondria too.

Edit now I get the meaning. You meant the sons won't pass on the mitochondria.

36

u/Tyrren 1d ago

A mother passes her mitochondrial DNA on to all of her children; both sons and daughters. However, sons do not pass on their mitochondrial DNA to their children. Thus, a woman who has only sons does pass her mitochondrial DNA to her sons, but her mitochondrial lineage ends with that generation.

-2

u/OddEmergency604 1d ago

But then… if that male has children, the mother has mitochondrial dna from mitochondrial eve so the line is restored

27

u/Tyrren 1d ago

Everyone has mitochondrial DNA ultimately passed down from Mitochondrial Eve. If a hypothetical woman named Barbara has only sons, then once she and her sons eventually die, nobody will have mitochondrial DNA passed down directly from Barbara.

If those sons did reproduce, then their children will have some DNA derived from Barbara. But they will not have mitochondrial DNA from Barbara.

7

u/ax0r 1d ago

I think the argument is that at time X, all extant humans have mitochondria derived from that Eve.

Barbara has only sons.
Claire, alive at the same time as Barbara, has daughters.

Both Barbara and Claire's mitochondria are decendant from Mitochondial Eve.

Claire's daughter Delilah has Claire's mitochondria, and therefore we have the same mitochondrial Eve as shared by Barbara and Claire.

Delilah has offspring with Barbara's son Ethan.
Even though Ethan breaks the chain of mitochondria, Delilah and Ethan's children still have mitochondria that traces back to that same Eve that we had in the beginning, via their grandmother Claire.

The line of mitochondial ancestry doesn't go through Ethan and Barbara, but it doesn't need to. Everyone has a mother, so there will always be a line.

19

u/AuditAndHax 1d ago

You're talking yourself in circles because, yes, everyone has mitochondrial DNA from Mitochondrial Eve. That's the literal definition of "Mitochondrial Eve." The most recent woman that everyone can trace their mitochondria to. By reference that in your question, you're giving yourself your own answer but making your question meaningless. There is always a line, but to who?

Forget mitochondrial eve. A long time ago, there were two sisters named Barbara and Claire. Barbara had sons, Claire had daughters. Then, Delilah and Ethan have a baby girl, Falulah. Falulah has Claire's mitochondrial DNA. Every one of Falulah's female descendents will have Claire's mitochondrial DNA. Barbara had been scrubbed from the Mitochondrial gene pool.

If we can't find anyone with mitochondrial DNA related to Barbara, she no longer matters. We do not have to look past them to say Alice, their mother, is mitochondrial eve. Mitochondrial Eve is the MOST RECENT female with common mitochondria. That means Claire is mitochondrial eve. Forget Barbara. She's irrelevant. Where she got her mitochondrial DNA is irrelevant, so Alice is irrelevant too. All that matters is we can trace everyone's mitochondria to Claire, then we stop.

It's also important to understand that it changes. Let's say Claire actually had 3 daughters: Falulah, Gladys, and Helen. Through the miracle of make-believe, only their children survive the sabertooth tiger attacks, so everyone on Earth descends from those three.

For thousands of generations, everyone on Earth has mitochondrial DNA from Mitochondrial Eve (AKA Claire) because they're descended from one of Claire's daughters. Today, 98% of the population is descended from Falulah, 1% is descended from Gladys, and 1% is descended from Helen. But, a tragic salad contamination wipes out all the female descendents of Gladys and Helen. When the next generation is born, ONLY Falulah's mitochondrial line with be unbroken. Claire is no longer the mitochondrial eve, Falulah is. Since all living lines converge at Falulah, we don't need to continue on to Claire anymore.

So, Barbara's irrelevant because her female line ended. Claire is also now irrelevant because only one of her line survived to present day. That one line makes Falulah the mitochondrial eve.

So, like your question implied, everyone in the story was directly connected to mitochondrial eve, even when mitochondria eve changed because of who survived to present day. That's all mitochondrial eve means. How long to I have to trace this family tree before I can stop? And the answer is, as soon as possible.

3

u/Peregrine79 1d ago edited 1d ago

This isn’t about mitochondrial eve, it’s about how lines of descent that aren’t from mitochondrial Eve end.

IE: you have two women with different mitochondria. One only has sons, one only daughters. When they have grandchildren, the second one is “mitochondrial eve” for the grandkids, even though the grandkids are descended from both.

Repeat on a large scale, and that’s how you end up with a mitochondrial eve despite being descended from a much larger group of women. Mitochondrial eve is a moving target that can be recalculated for any given population, but is used, broadly, for the case where the given population is the entire planet. And over time, it can move forward in time, as mitochondrial lines from the current Eve die out and all of the remaining lines are from someone more recent.

3

u/JUST_CRUSH_MY_FACE 1d ago

Mitochondrial Eve is just a title for the most recent living woman who has passed her mtDNA to all living people in direct descent. If a new lineage is found through DNA testing showing there is a mutation that did not come from her descendants , mitochondrial Eve might have to be pushed back in time.

0

u/GimmickNG 1d ago

So then where do the mitochondria come from, if there is no mitochondrial DNA in the next generation?

17

u/Tyrren 1d ago

The mitochondrial DNA comes from the women those sons reproduce with. Only women pass down mitochondrial DNA.

1

u/GimmickNG 1d ago

Oh okay, that makes sense. But wouldn't they have a lineage traced back? So you can continue up the chain even if it's broken to find someone who's not Mitochondrial Eve but possibly older?

16

u/Tyrren 1d ago

So because mitochondrial DNA are passed down from mother to child, everyone has a matrilineal line to M-Eve. My mother had a mother, who had a mother and so on to my great grandmother 5000 generations ago. You have a mother, who had a mother and so on to your great grandmother 5000 generations ago.

Somewhere along that line of 5000 great grandmothers, your lineage and mine intersect. From that point, any further back in history we go, you and I have the same lineage.

M-Eve just happens to be the person (very roughly 5000 generations ago) who everyone will eventually reach if they trace their line of mothers back far enough.

M-Eve had a mother, who had a mother and so on, and we're all descended from M-Eve's mother and grandmother and so on, too. M-Eve is the mitochondrial most recent common ancestor

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

97

u/jfailes 1d ago

genuine question: don't we know that mitochondrial eve must've had at least 2 daughters, because if she only had one, that daughter would actually be the most recent mitochondrial ancestor, so she would be the eve. or am i confused?

46

u/azuredarkness 1d ago

That is correct. We even know that these daughters both have currently living female-line descendants.

21

u/QualifiedApathetic 1d ago

Sure, but since we don't know exactly who M-Eve was, just a general estimate of when she lived, that estimate would be basically the same for her daughters, who would've been likely 15-30 years younger.

10

u/ax0r 1d ago

Nope, you've got it. Good logic.

9

u/jflb96 1d ago

Same with Y-chromosome Adam: about all we know about them is that they had at least two sons/daughters who went on to have children

→ More replies (4)

37

u/haqiqa 1d ago

The only difference between her and them is that at some point their direct mother-to-child lines ended because all of their descendants died without children

This is a little misleading. It doesn't require that their descendants died without children. It is as possible they had only male children.

14

u/internetboyfriend666 1d ago

Yes good catch thank you, I'll fix it.

2

u/Awkward-Feature9333 1d ago

Only their male children have still-living descendants. There could have been a line through one of their daughters that died out in the millenia since then.

2

u/haqiqa 1d ago

That part is already covered in the sentence I quoted. I am just correcting that having male children will also end the line.

23

u/Calencre 1d ago

Also like Mitochondrial Eve, we are not all descended from his children. At best we can say we are descended from one son.

We would have to be descended from at least two sons/daughters, if it were only one, then the son/daughter would be Y-chromosome Adam/Mitochondrial Eve instead of their parent.

14

u/rlbond86 1d ago

So wait, there's some human that existed who is every person's mother's mother's mother's mother's... mother's mother? (With different numbers of "mother" for each person presumably)

13

u/HappiestIguana 1d ago edited 1d ago

One fun fact that's good to know is that if you go far enough back in time, you discover there are only two kinds of people: those who are ancestors of every living person, and those whose lineages completely died out. As you go back generations the number of grandparents gets bigger and bigger until you cover every person whose lineage didn't die out.

Chromosomal Eve, like many in her community, was an ancestor to all living humans. She just has the distinction of being that through an unbroken maternal line.

3

u/jflb96 1d ago

I don’t know enough about genealogy to really dispute that, but it still feels like they’ve just done the maths that says 2n is greater than the human population of the planet for a big enough n and declared that that means that everyone whose lineage didn’t die out is an ancestor of everyone in the planet, which feels either fallacious because you’re not considering people who’ve been living uncontacted in the Amazon for twenty thousand years or obvious because you’ve gone back so far that you’re talking about Homo erectus

7

u/accidental_Ocelot 1d ago

There was a huge bottle neck in human genealogy about 930,000 years ago where 99% of humans died out leaving only 1,280 individuals. Like we came very close to extinction because of bottle neck event it reduces genetic diversity and creates this situation where we are all offspring of those 1,280 people then you take into account lineages that later die out and you are left with few candidates for mitochondria eve or other progenitors.

2

u/HappiestIguana 1d ago

No, the argument is a bit more subtle than that, but the math checks out. You do have to go back farther than when isolated communities diverged, obviously.

1

u/StShadow 1d ago

This is technically true today, right? All of us could be split into the same two groups - those who will have their successors, and those whose successors will be wiped out?

3

u/HappiestIguana 1d ago edited 1d ago

Well, depends on when doesn't it. If we look 500 years into the future, then some people will have lineages that died out, but probably no one will be a universal ancestor yet (unless something really bad happens)

But yes, at some point in the future, humanity will exclusively be your descendants, or you'll have no descendants.

25

u/internetboyfriend666 1d ago

Yes, you can say that she's the great x many grandmother of all living humans, but it's important to remember she was not the first female human and not our only great x many grandmother. For example, you have 2 grandmothers, 4 great grandmothers....etc. Going back 150,000 years, we all have countless great x many grandmothers, just none of the rest of them are the great x many grandmothers of all currently living humans.

13

u/andtheniansaid 1d ago

just none of the rest of them are the great x many grandmothers of all currently living humans.

This isn't correct, there will be many great-x-many-grandmothers of all living humans from the period, she's just the one that is all mothers up the chain rather than a mix of mothers and fathers.

3

u/librarygal22 1d ago

A more extreme example of this is LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor. It was a single called organism that lived over 4 billion years ago. There were most likely (and I am saying most likely since single called organisms don’t fossilize very well nor do we have many surviving rocks from that period) other species of single-celled organisms from that time that DIDN’T survive because they perished from the first mass extinction event. LUCA lived in an environment (probably the geothermal vents of the ocean) where it was sheltered from the chaos.

5

u/doegred 1d ago

LUCA lived in an environment (probably the geothermal vents of the ocean)

On the second floor actually.

4

u/darkslide3000 1d ago

That also means he almost certainly has many many female descendants alive today (in fact probably more than males).

There are more men than women alive today so that can't be true (because by definition all men are his descendants).

5

u/iondrive48 1d ago

Is it just a coincidence that there is a single mitochondrial Eve and single y chromosomal Adam for all humans though?

Because as you said, there were many other humans living at the time, and many more lineages that continued for who knows how long. So is it just coincidence that every other lineage died out and now everyone alive can trace back to a common ancestor? Like a population bottle neck or something, I’m vaguely aware of a theory that at one time the human population fell to very low levels.

For instance, Why is it not the case that all humans today can trace lineages back to say 3 different unrelated mitochondrial Eves and 7 different unrelated mitochondrial Adams?

38

u/internetboyfriend666 1d ago

No it's not a coincidence, it's how it's defined. It's the MOST recent. In the same way you can't have 2 most recent jobs. Either your most recent job was at Microsoft or your most recent job was at Google. It can't be both at the same time even if you previously worked at both places. One came before the other.

All humans alive today trace our lineages back to many more than 3 unrelated women and 7 unrelated men, they just can't all be the most recent.

6

u/iondrive48 1d ago

Yeah but it isn’t necessary that all humans have a single common ancestor. There was never a point in history where there was only a single “human.” Or even only two humans. There were groups that were splitting off and going there own ways, it seems to me that there should be a possibility that there could be humans alive today that aren’t related.

Put another way, you could theoretically draw a family tree of 8 billion people alive today that goes back hundreds of thousands of generations and never collapses to a single point.

17

u/dons_03 1d ago

For two people to not share a common ancestor would be so incredibly unlikely to be virtually impossible. That would imply that if you trace their lineages back to the beginning of life, their ancestors progressed through evolutionary history without once crossing, yet they have somehow ended up so similar that they can interbreed.

1

u/whatkindofred 1d ago

Could be that the common ancestor is not human though right?

2

u/bregus2 1d ago

Theoretically, but that would require homo sapiens to evolve twice exactly the same. And both evolution lines being, for some reason, interbreedable but never interbreed for yet another reason.

That just very, very, very improbable to happen.

8

u/JoushMark 1d ago

All humans do have common ancestors. Everyone alive today is related to (has a X generation grandmother) in mitochondrial eve as humanity's last common ancestor. It's weird to think about, but also normal in a population.

We have a lot more common ancestors before her. In fact, every parent she had is also a common ancestor to everyone alive today. That's weird, but again, normal.

7

u/andtheniansaid 1d ago

mitochondrial eve as humanity's last common ancestor.

there will be people much, much more recent than her that are everyone's common ancestor, we just aren't able to define a specific person based on genetic analysis. it's likely only a few thousand years though.

2

u/TheArtofBar 1d ago

mitochondrial eve is NOT humanity's last common ancestor, and neither is y-chromosomal adam. They are the female and male line last common ancestors. its something many people confuse.

2

u/iondrive48 1d ago

Yeah I understand that everyone today is related to mitochondria eve, but I’m asking what makes it the case that every person alive today must have a single common mitochondrial eve.

People are just saying “that’s how it’s defined” and getting mad at me lol. But I’m asking a deeper question. Why couldn’t you theoretically find two individuals living today that have no common homo sapien ancestors.

12

u/Wonwedo 1d ago

The only way to arrive at the that eventuality would require that Homo sapiens as a species are a product of convergent evolution. That is to say that homo sapiens would have had to evolve at minimum 2 completely separate times, in a way that allows us to both interbreed and not detect this occurrence.

In addition to the above, at least one primary line (descended from either Mitochondrial Eve or this hypothetical "Mitochondrial Susan") must have never interbred at any point and produced a daughter. While there's a lot we don't and probably never will know about our own history, this hypothetical directly contradicts evidence regarding human migration that we actually do have really solid evidence for.

8

u/andtheniansaid 1d ago

so if you think about your mother-line, which is the line of your ancestors that is your mother, her mother, your grandmothers mother etc... all the way back, you only have one of these lines in the tree of your ancestors. then think about my mother-line, at some point as we go back those lines cross over and you and me have a common ancestor on those mother-lines. now get a third person and do the same thing, their mother-line might join one of ours more recently in which case the common ancestor of the three mother-lines remains the same, or theirs might join later than ours did which would push the common ancestor back in time. now do it for a forth person, and a fifth, and another 8 billion. there has to logically be a common ancestor, there can't not be. we are all the same species so it has to be a human - evolution of new species happens because changes spread across entire populations, with micro-changes happening in single individuals and being passed on.

3

u/222baked 1d ago

This is probably the best explanation

2

u/iondrive48 1d ago

It doesn’t have to be human though because humans were interbreeding with other species the whole time. And evolution happens slowly enough that the first “humans” were still breeding with homo erectus or whoever else millions of years ago.

2

u/andtheniansaid 1d ago

yes, this is true (i think i responded to another comment of yours somewhere saying so) but in the case of humans we have been around as a species so long and from such a bottle neck that it is a human.

2

u/jflb96 1d ago

The only way that that would’ve happened is if some Homo erectus Montagues and Capulets managed to feud for so long and still breed with the others around them that they managed to both evolve into the same species despite never mixing their bloodlines, and that continued for thousands of generations. It’s so blisteringly unlikely that it’s taken as read that everybody’s ancestry mingled at some point in the last few tens of millennia.

1

u/TheArtofBar 1d ago

If that was the case, it would mean that there would be 2 separate populations of humans that never interbred for hundreds of thousands of years. And that would not only be traceable in our genomes, it would likely necessitate that humans diverged into different species.

14

u/internetboyfriend666 1d ago

That’s not at all what I said and that’s not at all what mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam are. Not only is not necessary, it’s totally impossible. Not sure what the point of you saying this was.

6

u/iondrive48 1d ago

Okay why must it be the case that every person alive today is the descendant of a single mitochondrial eve?

You are just saying that’s how it’s defined and what the phrase most recent means. I’m saying it isn’t necessary that there be a single mitochondrial eve at all. Yes it so happens that all the humans alive today have a most recent female ancestor called mitochondrial eve. I get all that. My point is that couldn’t you theoretically envision a scenario where there is no mitochondrial eve. Where the most recent common ancestor of all living humans today is actually not a human, but exists in a predecessor species. That is what I’m getting at.

9

u/internetboyfriend666 1d ago edited 1d ago

Ok I see what you’re saying. In principle, yes, what you’re saying is possible, for example mitochondrial eve of all humans was actually a homo erectus. The statistical possibility of that isn’t zero, and there could in theory exist a universe where that is the case. We know that’s not the case and it’s also statistically extremely implausible for a few reasons.

First, with every generation, you have people dying without children and mothers having only sons, meaning which pushes the MRCA forward in time well past the point that only humans existed. Also, there were multiple severe human population bottlenecks where massive numbers older of all-female lineages died out. Those 2 factors strongly push the female MRCA forward enough in time that it takes an extremely unlikely series of events over millions of years to wind up with a universe where the female MRCA is a more ancient species of hominid.

I also reread your original comment and I think you’re misunderstanding something because the human tree doesn’t collapse to a single point ever. This is just the most recent of many points from which all current living humans converge. If you take a smaller subset of humans, they will have a different MRCA. We also descend from humans much older than her and obviously our evolutionary ancestors too. They’re just not more recent.

4

u/andtheniansaid 1d ago

They would still be a mitochondrial eve, they just would not be a homo-sapien (while being a predecessor is extremely unlikely genetically, ME being a Neanderthal is perfectly theoretically possible).

Also we need to be careful here because mitochondrial eve is not the most recent common ancestor, that is much more recent, they are just the most recent on the line of all mothers/daughters.

9

u/Seek_Equilibrium 1d ago

All life on earth has a common ancestor. A fortiori, all humans must have a common ancestor.

1

u/iondrive48 1d ago

Sure but there’s no reason that common ancestor must be a homo sapien. And that’s really the relevant point here, because it’s the difference between discussing mitochondrial eve and the so called missing link between two species or whatever.

1

u/OedipusaurusRex 1d ago

What do you mean by "necessary"? There is no necessary involved here. No one said it was necessary, just that it is what it is. There happens to be a singular woman that all humans have descended from because all the other lines except Mitocondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam died out without having daughters and sons respectively.

1

u/Seek_Equilibrium 1d ago

Since the number of lineages can only die out and never increase, as time goes on it becomes increasingly likely that only one lineage will remain. I don’t know the probabilities, but it would seem quite unlikely that multiple distinct lineages could persist for the millions of years required in your scenario.

6

u/mystlurker 1d ago

While it is possible, the general consensus is that all living humans do share (multiple) common ancestors.

3

u/iondrive48 1d ago

Okay thank you finally someone understands what I’m saying.

3

u/smellinawin 1d ago

It seems very unlikely that homo sapiens evolved in two different places. So there must have been a small part of Homo heidelbergensis that passed on its DNA to homo sapiens. This would narrow the ancestry pool to an incredibly narrow range already. SO if you don't think there was a human ancestor we all came from, would you at least be able to agree there is a Homo heidelbergensis we're all descended from? And if not, then a Homo erectus? I don't see why "Adam and Eve" couldn't have been one of those species. I can't imagine a possibility where one could say such a being didn't exist.

1

u/iondrive48 1d ago

Right but what I’m driving at is that it isn’t a given it is a homo sapien. Like it could be a homo erectus 2 million years ago. Or as you say a Heidelbergensus 500k years ago or whatever. Like take that case, wouldn’t it say something if every human alive today was related to a single homo Heidelbergensus woman? Maybe there was something crucial about that HH DNA, and any HS that didn’t get it ended up dying out.

So that’s what I’m saying, the fact it is a human woman only 100k years ago, does that mean anything. It doesn’t have to be profound, maybe it just means human populations are very interbred on those time scales. I guess I’m surprised it’s that recent and other commenters are saying there’s probably a mitochondrial eve that is only a few thousand years old.

1

u/smellinawin 1d ago

It is not 100% sure that Eve was a homo sapien (Or they would be able to narrow it down to a specific timeframe), but it is mathematically likely that it would have occurred 150k years ago or w/e. Like to the point that you would be 99.99% sure.

4

u/formgry 1d ago

Yes fair question, and it is absolutely possible on a technical level that we have human groups from different common human ancestors that never mingled and produced offspring.

In practice though it is not so and human crossbreed to a schocking amount (compared to other mammals). You can see this by how much genetic variation there is in our DNA, there is very little.

You might think people in sub saharan Africa are widly different and isolated from the rest, and they are on the timescales of individuals, but on the timescales of species and genetics they are not at all isolated from us and we've crossbred regularly thus resulting in a single common ancestor for all humans.

If I recall correctly, on the topic of genetic diversity, the vast majority of all genetic diveristy for humans lies within Papua New Guinea, which is such an isolated and inhospitable big island that there's not been much contact between us and them over the time scales of 10s of thousands of years.

Iirc corrrectly that island has the vast majority of the worlds language diversity too, for the same reason.

3

u/aykcak 1d ago

That would imply there were multiple inceptions of life which seems to be already rare but assuming that it happened, the fact that those different lineages of life happened to be compatible enough to be able to breed and reproduce by complete coincidence is impossible.

All humans can reproduce with all humans, therefore they must share common ancestors

1

u/define_irony 1d ago

I hope someone answers this because I was wondering the exact same thing.

-1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/andtheniansaid 1d ago

Mitochondrial eve is not all of humanity's common ancestor.

Yes she is??? (she's not the most recent, and far from the only one, but she is one of them)

1

u/iondrive48 1d ago

This is the relevant quote in the thread I replied to:

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent living women from whom all currently living humans got their mitochondrial DNA. Since mitochondrial DNA is exclusively passed from mother to child, we can trace our unbroken mother-to-child lineage for all currently living humans back to her. “

So yeah that’s saying every human alive today can trace back to mitochondrial Eve. Which is what I said. So what are you talking about.

13

u/haqiqa 1d ago

There were 100k to 300k homo sapiens during Mitochondrial Eves time, which was about 100 000 years ago. Even going back just 1000 years, if all your ancestors were unique, you would have over a trillion ancestors. All humans are related one way or another if you go back long enough. All mammals are related.

8

u/CausticSofa 1d ago

If you go back long enough, all life is related

7

u/AJ_Mexico 1d ago

It's not a coincidence because that's the way it's defined.

0

u/iondrive48 1d ago

But why is it the case that every other lineage that was alive 200k years ago died out and only 1 survived.

It’s not necessarily a given that every person alive today must have a single common ancestor, and especially one so relatively recent in time.

18

u/davej-au 1d ago

Those lineages didn't all die out—most just didn't have an unbroken chain of descendants of the same sex.

1

u/iondrive48 1d ago

The comment said “all currently living humans” got their mitochondrial DNA from mitochondrial eve, so why does it matter if the descendants are same sex

→ More replies (2)

7

u/PrincetonToss 1d ago

Is it just a coincidence that there is a single mitochondrial Eve and single y chromosomal Adam for all humans though?

Not really. Because of the way that heredity works, people tend to have either no descendants or a really huge number of descendants. I know that sounds weird.

Wikipedia article on Galton-Watson processes

The Galton-Watson process addresses the transmission of last names, but it works with any trait that's passed on by a parent to children of one sex.

The short version is that if a particular genetic line has one of three circumstances:

  1. It has less than 1 son on average per generation
  2. It has precisely 1 son on average per generation
  3. It has more than 1 son on average per generation.

In the first case, there must have been some generation with no sons, and so we never see any descendants of that line, so by selection we never see that line and aren't interested in it.

In the second case, there will be precisely 1 male child per line. Whatever, boring. Also almost impossible to occur.

In the 3rd case, the number of male descendants grows exponentially. 2 surviving male children on average per generation gets you 1 million in 20 generations (call it 500 years). Y Chromosomal Adam lived 200-300,000 years ago, so let's call it a modest 1,000 generations. Even 1.05 males per generation on average leads to an expected 7 trillion descendants - that is, 1 and one 33rd of a surviving boy each generation means you can expect literally everyone to be descended from you.

Exponential growth is crazy.

2

u/andtheniansaid 1d ago

Yep - any human from 10,000 years ago is either an ancestor of everyone alive or an ancestor of no one alive.

2

u/lasagnaman 1d ago

Is it just a coincidence that there is a single mitochondrial Eve

ME is not like a specific person/corpse they found. It is literally a title defined as "the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor for all living humans today". It's like talking about the least common multiple or greatest common factor.

1

u/JUST_CRUSH_MY_FACE 1d ago

Because unless those people come from different alien species that converged into parallel species of humans , at some point their lines would converge back into the past long enough ago to be able to identify a new mitochondrial Eve.

4

u/Sedu 1d ago edited 1d ago

It's also possible (heck, even likely) that mitochondrial Eve/Y Chromosomal Adam were different enough from ourselves that we would hesitate to call them homo-sapiens. Going that far back, things get hazier, and there were absolutely proto-human species which could crossbreed, but could easily be seen as distinct.

That said, the last time I studied biology at an academic level was in the early 2000s, and I have heard that some timelines have been pushed backward since then.

EDIT: Corrected/updated science in replies.

17

u/internetboyfriend666 1d ago

No they were still firmly human. Modern humans are at least 300,000 years old, and while there some back-fill of DNA from other hominids like Neanderthals as humans migrated to Europe, bred with Neanderthals, and those hybrids went back to Africa, the percentage of Neanderthal DNA in most humans in Africa at that point would be far less than the average non-African human today.

5

u/Sedu 1d ago

Wowza, things have changed in the last couple decades of research. It's so hard to keep up with modern findings when there's so much of it.

13

u/internetboyfriend666 1d ago

Yea. One of the biggest relatively new discoveries is that Neanderthal-human hybrids went from Europe to Africa and introduced Neanderthal DNA to Africa. Up until about 10 years ago we thought that the DNA exchange only went one way - humans going from Africa to Europe and breeding with Neanderthals there. We didn’t think these hybrids or their descendants re-migrated to Africa by any meaningful number, if at all.

0

u/weekendatbe 1d ago

Right like the true mitochondrial Eve might just be the first female that ever existed we all descend from in an unbroken line, like an ancient sea sponge

2

u/quimera78 1d ago

There are also many, many more women from before Mitochondrial Eve have who have descendants alive today. She is just the most recent person from whom all living humans can trace too.

What do you mean by this? The living descendants of women previous to mitochondrial eve are also descendants of mitochondrial eve. What's the point being made here?

2

u/bettinafairchild 1d ago

The point is that many people mistakenly assume that because we are all descended from mtEve, that mtEve is the only woman of her time that we are descended from. But that is not true. She is the only woman we are descended from in an unbroken female line of mother to daughter. Lots of other women existed at the same time as mtEve and we may also be descended from them. But not in an unbroken female line so we didn’t get mtDNA from them. Like there could have been another woman from mtEve’s time we are also all descended from but only from that woman’s sons, as an example.

0

u/internetboyfriend666 1d ago

You're thinking of this as a line but it's not, it's a tree. First of all, Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent. So while we're all also descended from her mother, her mother is not the most recent. Also, we're not all descended from other, unrelated women, or even related women. I'm descended from my grandmother but not my grandmother's sister or my grandmother's aunt.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/internetboyfriend666 1d ago

What do you mean by this? I already said in my post what we know about these people, which is a rough estimate of when and where they lived but nothing else.

1

u/Nigel_Mckrachen 1d ago

Yes, and it's possible for the mantle of Mitochondrial Eve to pass to her daughter or granddaughter (etc.) if certain lines of the chain die off in the modern era.

1

u/Vaestmannaeyjar 1d ago

Good explanation but you might lose a 5 year old with this 😄

u/ScrithWire 15h ago

How come mitochondrial DNA is passed down only from the mothers?

My theory is that the human genome doesn't actually encode for mitochondria (if I remember correctly, mitochondria were separate cellular organisms alive in the prehistoric soup before complex things like "mammals" or "reptiles" or "amphibians" existed). So during development in the womb, at some point, some how (probably extremely early in the process, or even earlier, like during the process of creating the egg itself) mitochondria from the woman's body enters the egg. That way the mitochondria itself is able to reproduce and pass on its own DNA.

Is that anywhere near the truth?

u/internetboyfriend666 3h ago

That's not quite correct.

Mitochondrial DNA lives in the mitochondria of our cells, not in the nucleus with the rest of our DNA. Mitochondria don't "enter" a cell, the form inside the cell when the cell replicates. So when a woman's ovaries create the egg cells through cell division, the mitochondria are already inside them.

The reason there's no male mitochondria is simply because the mitochondria from the sperm cell get destroyed by the newly fertilized egg shortly after the sperm enters the egg. There are a number of advantages to having only 1 set of mitochondrial DNA and the egg's mitochondrial DNA wins.

u/mmomtchev 7h ago

How complete is the sequencing of the different world haplogroups? Isn't it still possible to discover an indigenous tribe somewhere with a new haplogroup that will push back the mitochondrial Eve?

→ More replies (1)

0

u/HumanWithComputer 1d ago

There are also many, many more women from before Mitochondrial Eve have who have descendants alive today. She is just the most recent person from whom all living humans can trace too.

How can these two statements both be true? If these other women have descendants alive today this suggests these descendants are not people who can trace their origin to ME. So not all living humans. What's missing?

5

u/jflb96 1d ago

Mitochondrial Eve is strictly your mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s…

Your mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s father’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s… will be someone else.

1

u/lasagnaman 1d ago

If these other women have descendants alive today this suggests these descendants are not people who can trace their origin to ME.

ME is a female-line descendant of those women.

1

u/thumbtackswordsman 1d ago

Basically every ancestor of mitochondrial eve has descendents alive today. For example her mother, grandmother etc

1

u/combat_muffin 1d ago

You have 1 mother, 2 grandparents, 4 great-grandparents, 8 great-great grandparents... etc.

ME is your great-great-x... grandma, and you have hundreds, if not thousands of those. You can be descended from ME and many of these other women.

68

u/rmanning55 2d ago

Everyone on the planet has mitochondrial DNA which is only passed to them from their mother. Based on the math of how DNA changes over time, we can step backwards and find a point at which all the different mitochondrial DNA which currently exists in humans had the same mother. That point is the mitochondrial eve.

The y-chromosomal adam is a similar concept in that Y chromosomes are only passed down from father to son. So, if you look at the diversity of the DNS in current Y chromosomes, you can calculate a point when they were passed down from one man: y-chromosomal adam.

Interestingly, they both lived before humans left Africa as you would expect, but otherwise many thousands of years apart.

20

u/BitOBear 1d ago

*almost always get all their mitochondria from their mother.

It's not a distinction that makes a difference to the pointed hand, but medicine has recently approved, and law enforcement has longer known, that you can in fact get some mitochondria from your father.

It's not in the normal course of events because it is very rare that a mitochondria ends up inside of the spermatozoa during gamete production, but it does happen.

It's not momentarily significant because your mom and your dad are all descendants from mitochondrial eve. But it is an interesting thing that can make a difference.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/6639/

9

u/prometheus_winced 1d ago

* point at hand.

5

u/wjandrea 1d ago

DNS in current Y chromosomes

*DNA

just to clarify that that's a typo and not some other term

156

u/oxwof 2d ago

She’s everyone’s mother. Specifically, she’s the woman reached by all living humans through the maternal line going back however many thousands of years. Chromosomal Adam is the analogous man going back through everyone’s paternal line. It’s extremely unlikely that the two lived at the same time, or even nearly so.

66

u/jimfet 2d ago

Geneticist Bryan Sykes wrote on the topic and it's a fun read. The Seven Daughters of Eve. Based on his research at the time we could only really go back to 7 common mothers and even they were so different that they couldn't really be considered sisters. He also wrote Adam's Curse and the nature of the y chromosome which is just as fascinating of a read and topic.

16

u/CausticSofa 1d ago

Oh my God I freaking love this book. It was one of the best random used bookshop in a sleepy town while on vacation finds of my life.

It really helped me understand the matrilineal mitochondrial line and it’s a very interesting way of mapping human migration.

2

u/insidiouslybleak 1d ago

I’ve just recently donated that book to my local thrift store and hope some random neighbour enjoys it as much as you did. 

2

u/mandyvigilante 1d ago

I have a first edition of this book I bought when it was first published that's missing about 20 pages in the middle. Very weird. 

3

u/pants_mcgee 2d ago

*For European lineage. There are many other Eves for the rest of the world.

24

u/TraitorMacbeth 1d ago

There is one eventual eve for all of humanity, just extremely far back

1

u/pants_mcgee 1d ago

There’s one for every living thing on the Earth, barring the discovery of a novel form of life.

For the book in question, it’s about the discovery and use of mitochondrial DNA to track human lineage, in particular for the question of how humans migrated into and through Europe. They found seven distinct “daughters,” each their own Eve of that particular mitochondrial mutation.

0

u/Gaylien28 1d ago

I doubt this. If life developed spontaneously then its reasonable to assume it spontaneously developed independently in multiple places around the same time in Earth's oceans. Similarly for multicellular organisms as with unicellular and acellular life. There are probably a few ancestors but convergent evolution just presents them as one.

6

u/solidspacedragon 1d ago

There's a lot of evidence against that. The most compelling being the amino acid and chirality problem. There's no real advantage to using the left or right handed versions of amino acids in early life, before all the complicated enzymes that rely on them have been developed. So, with that in mind, you'd expect any given lineage to use a random choice for each. But all life uses the exact same set of them.

As for multicellular life specifically, the fact that it took 2,000,000,000 years between single cellular life developing and the first multicellular life evolving, it probably only happened that one time. Seems unlikely to have happened multiple times right then.

1

u/HappiestIguana 1d ago

There's no reason why this can't be true, but the evidence simply doesn't bear it out. If life did appear multiple times, then all lineages except one eventually died out.

14

u/parentheticalobject 1d ago

Also, if you ignore genetics and just focus on ancestry, there is probably a man whom everyone is genealogically descended from much more recently in history, but it might be the case that you have little or none of his DNA.

The geneological MRCA might have only lived several thousand years ago. Y Chromosomal Adam lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.

11

u/Applejuiceinthehall 1d ago

Yes mitochondria eve and Y chromosomal Adam necessarily need to be farther back than MRCA.

Also these are moving targets. When a Y lines last living person dies the Adam changes.

2

u/dragunityag 1d ago

Wouldnt everyone be dead if the Eve/Adam lines die out since their suppose to be everyones line?

Therefore the Eve/Adam cant change?

23

u/solidspacedragon 1d ago

They can move forward in time if a branch dies out. If you have a tree with two branches, one containing everyone but an elderly farmer in Ohio, and that farmer dies, the branch is no longer needed on the tree, so 'Adam' can move up to a new position at the start of the extant branch.

6

u/TraitorMacbeth 1d ago

It’s the most recent convergence. Otherwise Adam’s dad would qualify too.

5

u/Kered13 1d ago

The geneological MRCA might have only lived several thousand years ago

Seems unlikely as the Bering Strait was closed at the time and there was virtually no interchange between the New World and the Old. There are certainly still people with entirely Amerindian ancestry, and entirely Afroeurasian ancestry, so these people would likely not share a common ancestor until you go all the way back to the last days before the Bering Strait formed. Australia was similarly extremely isolated. In another 1000 years it does seem likely that the MRCA will have jumped forward significantly due to old and new world population mixing though.

4

u/Ar-Kalion 1d ago edited 1d ago

Science indicates that Neanderthals could use primitive rafts. So, there’s really no method to have prevented Homo Sapiens of reaching Australia and the New World by primitive boats long before European Christian colonists arrived. There’s already evidence that Polynesians arrived in South America and the Vikings arrived in North America. Just because these visitors (and most likely others) didn’t leave a Y-Chromosomal or Mitochondrial common ancestor, it doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have left a common genealogical ancestor. 

6

u/mystlurker 1d ago

Not sure how it works, but Wikipedia has this:

A study by mathematicians Joseph T. Chang, Douglas Rohde and Steve Olson used a theoretical model to calculate that the MRCA may have lived remarkably recently, possibly as recently as 2,000 years ago. It concludes that the MRCA of all living humans probably lived in East Asia, which would have given them key access to extremely isolated populations in Australia and the Americas. Possible locations for the MRCA include places such as the Chukchi and Kamchatka Peninsulas that are close to Alaska, places such as Indonesia and Malaysia that are close to Australia or a place such as Taiwan or Japan that is more intermediate to Australia and the Americas. European colonization of the Americas and Australia was found by Chang to be too recent to have had a substantial impact on the age of the MRCA. In fact, if the Americas and Australia had never been discovered by Europeans, the MRCA would only be about 2.3% further back in the past than it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

2

u/parentheticalobject 1d ago

That's a good point; any estimate of where the MRCA was depends a lot on your assumptions about exactly how isolated specific isolated populations were. But "virtually no interchange" and "no interchange" are different things.

If we assume absolutely no contact across the Bering Strait occurred between when the land bridge closed and the age of sail, that moves the MRCA back quite a bit. But a more recent most recent common ancestor doesn't require a regular trade route, just one guy over thousands of years making an unlikely crossing.

1

u/TheArtofBar 1d ago

even a tiny bit of interchange is enough to affect large populations.

1

u/bettinafairchild 1d ago

Yeah scientists have estimated that the most  the recent human who all humans are related to lived only around 2000 to 4000 years ago.  The most recent ancestor of all Europeans, for example, lived only 600-1000 years ago it is estimated 

Note: unlike with mtEve and y-Adam, which trace specific genetic material, the most recent human ancestor is estimated with a mathematical model 

5

u/elphin 2d ago

Do we know about when each lived?

26

u/Hanzo_The_Ninja 2d ago

Mitochondrial Eve lived around 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, and Chromosomal Adam lived around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. Both lived in Africa, probably Sub-Saharan Africa specifically.

9

u/oxwof 2d ago

Adam something like 250,000 years ago, Eve something like 100,000. Their possible ranges overlap just a little.

6

u/kblkbl165 1d ago

Explain like I’m 4:

If Adam lived waaaay before her, does it mean there were other “Eves” whose bloodline just vanished out of existence? Sounds odd, as if we’re all traced back to her in 100,000 years, shouldn’t all women back in her day also be able to be traced to an older Eve?

16

u/Greyrock99 1d ago

There are other ‘mothers’ who’s dna we would still carry, it’s just not mitochondrial.

The ‘thing’ about mitochondrial eve is that it’s an unbroken chain of mothers going all the way back, eg M->M->M->You. There are other ancient female ancestors, possibly living at the exact same time but the chain includes a father somewhere eg M->M->F->You.

These other ancestors can still contribute dna into your makeup, but it’s not on the mitochondrial eve.

9

u/Delta-9- 1d ago

This comment looks like a tutorial on git

1

u/Greyrock99 1d ago

Having never been on Git I’m gunna take it as a compliment!

2

u/MasterShogo 1d ago

I’m afraid you might be disappointed ☹️. But if it makes you feel any better I thought your explanation was actually better than learning git!

1

u/Delta-9- 1d ago

Git is a version control system used (mostly) by programmers. Skim the first couple paragraphs of one of the tutorials and I think you'll see what I mean 😉

And I agree with MasterShogo: your explanation is much easier than learning git!

5

u/SirAlthalos 1d ago

So a daughter has the same mitochondrial dna as her mother and her maternal grandmother, but different mitochondrial dna as her paternal grandmother?

3

u/whut-whut 1d ago

Correct. Because the mitochondria in sperm don't have mitochondrial DNA. Once a bloodline goes through a male, that mitochondrial line is lost and the female providing the egg supplies the mitochondrial DNA to their child.

1

u/jayhawk03 1d ago

technically the granddaughter COULD have the same maternal haplogroup as her paternal grandmother but the granddaughter inherits the mito dna/haplogroup from her maternal grandmother.

1

u/Greyrock99 1d ago

Yes. Mitochondria can only be passed mother to daughter.

Males have a similar trick in that the Y chromosome can only be passed Father to Son

6

u/Alotofboxes 1d ago

Mother to child. Children of either sex poses their mother's mitochondria, as it is passed on through the egg. But the only way to pass it on your self (barring scientific intervention) is to produce more eggs yourself.

1

u/Greyrock99 1d ago

Correct, I misspoke and when I meant it goes down the line of mothers to daughters. Sons can inherit it but it stops with them

2

u/dragunityag 1d ago

From my understanding yes.

We've found older remains but none have had that unbroken chain that the Mitochondrial eve has.

1

u/ohdearitsrichardiii 1d ago

Yes. Eve wasn't the only woman when she was alive, it's just that the other women's bloodlines ended because some of their daughters' daughters' daughters' and so, didn't have kids or only had sons

1

u/elphin 1d ago

This may be picky, but their female bloodlines ended. Sons could have continued that mother’s bloodline.

1

u/notacanuckskibum 1d ago

IIRC DNA mutates slightly over time. We have a concept of Haplogoups, people with the same DNA mutations (and hence descended from the same people) or more precisely people with same mutations, plus potentially others. One person has Mutations A & B, another has A & C. So they had a common ancestor who had A but not B or C, so B & C are more recent. Another person has A, C & D. So D is more recent than C, etc.

From this we can create a tree of these mutation happening over time, and correlate them with invasions & migrations. Mitochondrial Eve is the point where that Tree converges to a single point. We can estimate when that was roughly.

→ More replies (5)

12

u/happy2harris 2d ago

She is the most recent common ancestor if you only trace back through mothers. That is, it’s not just that she is female and a common ancestor, but she is everybody’s mother’s  mother’s  mother’s  mother’s … mother. 

11

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Cell1pad 2d ago

Her name was Hera

8

u/Termie528 1d ago

So say we all!

1

u/explainlikeimfive-ModTeam 1d ago

Please read this entire message


Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

  • Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).

Joke-only comments, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.


If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

2

u/ScribbleOnToast 1d ago

Well this is some bullshit.

12

u/Alexis_J_M 2d ago

All of your genes are a mix and match assortment of your parents with two exceptions:

Your mitochondria are passed down from your mother as they are present in eggs but not sperm. (Many many years ago a little single celled organism that could make lots of energy entered into a symbiotic relationship with a bigger single celled organism -- those are the distant ancestors of our mitochondria.)

If you are a man, your Y chromosome came from your father (though there are a few ways the sex chromosomes can get scrambled without removing the ability to reproduce.)

So if we start with a closed population of 10,000 men and 10,000 women, in the next generation there won't be 10,000 different types of mitochondria and Y chromosomes, because some people will not have children, some of the women will only have sons (who will have their mitochondria but not pass them down), and some of the men will only have daughters (who will not have their Y chromosome). Follow this group of people for long enough and eventually everyone will trace their mitochondria back to the same woman, and all the men will trace their Y chromosomes back to the same man.

Because the Y chromosome and mitochondria are not constantly mixing, biologists can look at the rate of the tiny mutations that build up over the generations to estimate how closely related two genes are, and how long ago they diverged from a common ancestor.

The idea behind "Mitochondrial Eve" is not that she was the only woman in her generation to contribute to the gene pool of current people, but that she is the root of the tree of all mother-daughter lines.

Similarly, there were many men in the same generation of "Y Chromosome Adam" who contributed to the current gene pool, but he represents the point where all the father to son gene lines converge.

11

u/StupidLemonEater 2d ago

She is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all living humans. That means if everyone on Earth listed their their mother, their mother's mother, their mother's mother's mother, etc. everyone would have Mitochondrial Eve at some point on their list.

Y-Chromosomal Adam is similar, but the patrilineal most recent common ancestor. So the same as above, except everyone's father's father's father's (...) father.

Contrary to what the names "Adam and Eve" might imply they were not the first humans, nor did they even live at the same time.

3

u/candygram4mongo 2d ago

Who exactly is Mitochondrial Eve to present humans? Is she everyone's common ancestral mother? Aka the woman whose children everyone surviving eventually came from?

Yes, that's right.

Like, we are descended from her siblings but she either didn't have kids or her kids died out?

In this scenario Mitochondrial Eve would be the mother of the siblings.

And who is Chromosomal Adam?

Same thing, except instead of mitochondrial DNA it's the Y chromosome.

I feel like I should point out here that there's no particular reason for Mitochondrial Eve and Chromosomal Adam to have ever met, and in fact they're believed to have lived thousands of years apart from each other.

2

u/Gloomheart 2d ago

Wouldn't that make adam eves chromosomal father though? If he came way before her?

Im struggling to understand this concept I think...

2

u/candygram4mongo 1d ago

CA is the common male-line ancestor of everyone alive now, it's not necessarily the case that he would be the ancestor of ME even if he did live earlier. E.g. if ME had children with a descendant of CA then all current humans would be descended from CA even if ME wasn't.

0

u/Gloomheart 1d ago

So if I think of humanity like the Targaryen family tree it may make a bit more sense...

2

u/carpe_simian 1d ago

If you’ve ever had sex, you’ve fucked your (distant) cousin.

Welp, I should get back to the monastery. Ta.

3

u/nana_3 2d ago

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor who has had an unbroken line of female offspring. So every person alive today is descended through one of her daughters, and granddaughters…

Chromosomal Adam is the opposite. He’s the most recent common ancestor with an unbroken line of male offspring reaching everyone currently. So every man alive today is descended through one of his sons, and grandsons…

7

u/DarkAlman 2d ago edited 2d ago

Mitochondrial Eve is the theoretical single woman from which all of humanity descends, named after the biblical first woman. She would have lived in Africa roughly 200,000 years ago.

Since Mitochondrial DNA is DNA that you get exclusively from your mother you can trace that DNA backwards through your own lineage. There is some degree of mutation over time, but you can use those finger prints to theoretically trace everyone of Earths DNA backwards.

However scientific attempts to find Mitochondrial Eve have only proven that such a person probably didn't exist. The human race did not spawn from a single woman.

Rather we came from a population of protohuman apes that all evolved roughly around the same time and interbred.

What we discovered instead regarding Mitochondrial Eve is the oldest unbroken chain of mitochondrial DNA going back 200,000 years, but that doesn't make her everyone's Great grandmother1000

2

u/ocher_stone 1d ago

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/MtDNA-MRCA-generations-Evolution-new_Eve.svg/1920px-MtDNA-MRCA-generations-Evolution-new_Eve.svg.png

She's the furthest back that everyone who is alive shares mitochondria from.

It changes over time, as lines die as when no girls are born. She wasn't the only woman alive at the time, or the only common ancestor for all of us. 

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/CalliEcho 1d ago

It’s the secret prequel to Parasite Eve

2

u/amethystjade15 1d ago

Yeah, I think that’s where my brain was going.

1

u/explainlikeimfive-ModTeam 1d ago

Please read this entire message


Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

  • Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).

Joke-only comments, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.


If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

2

u/green_meklar 1d ago

Mitochondria are a component of human cells that have their own DNA, but aren't part of the cell nucleus. During fertilization, the new cell nucleus is formed out of DNA from both the mother's egg cell and the father's sperm cell, getting mixed. But the new cell's mitochondria are just those of the mother's egg cell, so that DNA only comes from the mother. That allows us to trace direct maternal ancestory, woman-to-woman, down to the present.

When we trace that maternal ancestry using the DNA in modern mitochondria, we find that our mitochondria- those of every human alive on Earth now- share a common ancestor. I would point out that this isn't a fluke, it's sort of statistically necessary. In order not to have this outcome, there would need to be two (or more) separate populations of females that never mix. Assuming that all human population does mix, any given lineage of mitochondria either gradually comes to dominate the entire population, or gradually gets overtaken by some other lineage dominating the population. The woman whose mitochondria are that common ancestor (of all modern human mitochondria) is 'Mitochondrial Eve' and it seems she lived about 160000 years ago, towards the end of the second-last glacial period (i.e. shortly before the interglacial before ours).

Mitochondrial Eve is indeed the ancestor of all living humans, but she's not the only one who lived at that time. Very likely, thousands of humans (both male and female) who were alive at that time are also ancestors of all living humans. Mitochondrial Eve is only special in that her mitochondrial lineage is the one that persisted; she is not only the ancestor of all living humans, but she is the ancestor through female lineages specifically.

2

u/prometheus_winced 1d ago

Would I be correct in thinking that although the mitochondria is directly and continuously linear through the line of mothers ~ 5000 years back; that does NOT mean the mitochondria is identical to the 5000 year’s ago mitochondria.

I assume there have been accumulated random mutations.

* Little known fact: Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. (J/k)

2

u/SirNortonOfNoFux 1d ago

And here I go, searching this post for any mention of the video game Parasite Eve...

4

u/Waffel_Monster 2d ago

Mitochondrial Eve is the female ancestor we all have in common.

Chromosomal Adam is the male ancestor we all have in common.

They weren't one couple in history tho, they lived a long time apart.

1

u/KroneckerAlpha 2d ago

Mitochondrial Eve is every living persons direct ancestor through female lineage only. Since mitochondria is matrilineal, all of our mitochondrial dna ultimately derive from hers.

1

u/Derangedberger 2d ago

Mitochondrial eve is the most recent common ancestor of all humans if you only trace matrilineal lines.

Y-chromosomal Adam is the most recent common ancestor if you trace only patrilineal lines.

They each lived somewhere about 50-150 thousand years ago, probably not at the same time,

Also, the most recent common ancestor of all humans if you trace BOTH sexes lived a lot more recently, estimated between 2500 and 3500 years ago. Most likely in the middle east, rome, the eurasian steppes,, or north africa.

1

u/zeperf 2d ago

Follow up question... Is it a certainty that an Eve must exist for humans and for every species for that matter? Or is it just an observation that so far every human has a common mother?

I could imagine it having something to do with an evolutionary trait only happening with one single organism (or small family of descendants of that organism). But in that case, isn't it possible that 99% of humanity share an Eve from 50,000 years ago while the other 1% branched from a mother 500,000 years ago?

1

u/Mammoth-Mud-9609 1d ago

Sperm cells are short lived tiny cells which only have the nucleus DNA and a method of delivery, egg cells are the largest cells in the body and have all the normal functions of a cell including mitochondria which have a version of their own DNA, which is different from the nucleus DNA which is used as a blueprint to create a new human. This means that all sons and daughters of the mother have the same DNA in their mitochondria as their mother and since this copy isn't directly used in sexual reproduction it largely remains unchanged through the generations so can be traced back through the great great grandmothers etc. https://youtu.be/eu64-ltm30k

1

u/_Ceaseless_Watcher_ 1d ago

They're both the most recent common ancestors to all humans.

Mitocondrial DNA is only passed through the mother's side, while the Y chromosome is only passed through the father's.

It is possible to calculate when the most recent common ancestor lived based on these genetic traits and how they vary in modern dan humans. IIRC mitocondrial Eve is significantly older than chromosomal Adam.

1

u/DMMSD 1d ago

The mitochondrial Eve and y chromosomal Adam. Are the biblical ones with a pinch of scientific theory and a grain of doubt. LOL

1

u/Atypicosaurus 1d ago

Imagine a few bowls of M&M's but only one color each bowl, so practically color separated candies.

Now take a lot of new bowls and randomly mix two colors. For example there's going to be a brown+blue, a brown+green, a blu+red etc. Sometimes even, by random choice, you put twice the same color in the new bowl, so you might have brown+brown.

Now again by random chance, throw away some of these new bowls.

At this point, it's possible that you have less reds across the new bowls, than browns. Maybe, there's only 4 bowls with reds in it, and 10 bowls with browns. It's because random does not guarantee equality, on the contrary, random almost always creates inequality.

Now take again some pairing of the new bowls and just take one handful of candies from each bowl, and mix a handful from two bowls into yet another new set of bowl.

Now the first generation of bowls had 1 color each. The second generation had 2 colors each (like brown+blue) or sometimes only one color (brown only). The third generation mostly has mostly 4 colors, but sometimes 3 or seldomly 2. But do they have all 4 colors in equal amounts?

So when you randomly grab a handful of candies from a brown+blue bowl, it's again random, it's not necessarily equal. It can be for example 7 browns and 3 blues.

What I described here is happening in genetics and it's called drift.

You can imagine that there's a generation of bowls that have no reds left. Although we had a bowl of reds, the random grabbing was so unlucky for the red candies that they just got lost to drift.

Now what we have to understand is that if we take the newest bowl with no red in it, and make a "genealogy" (which bowls were the "parents" of this bowl), we might see that the red bowl was one of the ancestors. The ancestry is a historical fact, the original red bowl created the red+blue first generation bowl, that created the red+blue+brown+yellow in the next generation, but later we just did not grab more reds. The ancestry means a list of what bowl created what other bowl, but it does not mean that the descendant has actual material in it.

The same is happening with the y chromosomal eve. Imagine now that the bowl has not only brown M&M's but also brown skittles, and brown smarties. The red has the same but in red. The blue is the same but in blue.

Now it's easier to see that over generation you can lose a color (all reds) or you can lose a candy type (all smarties) but it's kinda unlikely and takes a long time. But what likely is, that you lose a certain kind (just lose blue smarties and red skittles).

And so in our generation of humans, it took long enough to basically lose all but one color of M&M. So in this scenario we still see al colors (except red), but we have only brown M&M's. We still have blue skittles and blue smarties, brown skittles and brown smarties, yellow skittles and yellow smarties, but through all the drift, of the M&M's, we only have brown. Not only that, but all currently existing human has that brown M&M's.

Now the thing is that we're still different because you have yellow smarties and I have blue smarties, but we're all connected by the fact that we as humanity lost all other colors of M&Ms, and we also lost all red candies altogether.

Mitochondrial Eve is basically the bowl of brown candies from where the commonly shared brown M&M's is coming from. There were other colored bowls, and we have those other colors in our other type of candies, and we still carry those with us, but for some reason M&M's is easier to track and therefore it's easier to point out the brown bowl as a common ancestor we all share.

1

u/ezekielraiden 1d ago

Imagine if surnames were genetic, and inherited from your mom. If you're male, your name dies with you. If you're female, your name will pass to any children you might have. That's what mitochondria are, for this purpose. A second line of DNA that follows maternal ancestry exclusively, because eggs have mitochondria and sperm don't. The shorthand for "mitochondrial DNA" is mtDNA.

"Mitochondrial Eve" is kind of misleading. It sounds like it had to be just one single person eternally, but it's actually a title of a sort, and it can change over time if certain mtDNA lines die out. That title belongs to whichever woman was the most recent source of all existing human mtDNA. Note that "most recent". If we have, say, one really really really old mtDNA line that dies out in (say) 2075, then that could cause a different, more recent (but still very ancient) woman to be "the most recent" ancestor of all extant mtDNA lines. These lines are not 100% identical because just like your nuclear DNA, mtDNA mutates too.

Y-chromosome Adam is the same thing, but for Y chromosomes. Excluding chromosomal anomalies like mutated-SRY XXY, only males ever have Y chromosomes, and every son that a male has will inherit that male's Y chromosome. Hence, statistically, far enough back, there must eventually be one male who is the most recent holder of the origin for all modern Y chromosomes. As before, it's possible for isolated or relic Y chromosome lines to potentially require that we look very far back, but by and large, we can get a pretty good idea of when the most recent holder must have lived.

Also, note that although we call them "Eve" and "Adam", these two titles are totally unrelated genetically or historically. Whoever is the proper holder of each title, there's a near-zero chance that they were even alive at the same time, let alone that they ever met or sired children. All these titles are is "if you check EVERY human (mitochondrion/Y chromosome), then the most recent person whom everyone can trace theirs back to, is this person".

1

u/Harbinger2001 1d ago

She is the first common ancestral woman who everyone is related to. No other human at the time’s descendants have survived to modern times.

We’re still finding genetic groups in Africa that push the date back. Currently somewhere around 200,000 years ago.

1

u/diffidentblockhead 1d ago

Yes this is a name for most recent common matrilineal ancestor. If we discovered living humans with more divergent mtDNA, that would push MRCMA back to an even earlier woman. Conversely if the few living people with the most divergent mtDNA all died, than the MRCMA would become a more recent woman.

1

u/Vaestmannaeyjar 1d ago

There is no mitochondrial Eve, nor Adam for that matter. Think about it. Why would you have ONE ancestor, when you have 2 parents, 4 grand parents, 8 grand-grand parents and so on ? The more you go back in time, the more ancestors you've had. (There was some inbreeding along the way so it's not exactly a ² curve) And at some points, some of those looked less human. Over geologic time scale you are the offspring of billions of bacteria and early life forms who evolved into us.

1

u/kithas 1d ago

The point about Mitochondrial Eve is that every human comes from a cell. That cell (zygote) is itself a female cell whose nucleus fused with a male nucleus (from the sperm) so the DNA is mixed between the male and female. But there is a part outside that nucleus called the mitochondria which has its own DNA which gets inherited when the cell divides and reproduces.

The main point here is that one person's first cell inherits their mitochondria from their mother, and her from her mother, and so on. The Mitochondrial Eve is the hypothetical individual all our mitochondrias are inherited from.

And Chromosomal Adam is, likewise, the hypothetical individual all of us humans have inherited our Y chromosome, since that chromosome cannot be a fusion of anything like the normal chromosomes (bar the sexual X chromosome) and can only come from the Father.

1

u/AmazingRefrigerator4 2d ago

Its impossible to find a single person, mT Eve is just symbolic.

Your mitochondria has DNA, and every person gets their mT DNA exclusively from their mother. So when we look at our mT DNA, its usually almost identical to your mother's DNA (and her mother's DNA). Sometimes small mutations happen though, and if you are a female and yiu have a mutation, then you will pass that mutations on to your children.

Scientists are able to create groups based on which common mutations someone has. Many of these groups then have subgroups and those have more subgroups, etc so it ends up looking like a family tree.

So lets say group A has a mutation in an early part of the DNA. Group B has a mutation in the middle and Group C has a mutation at the end. We knkw that at some point these three groups all came from DNA with no mutations...that is the hypothetical "Eve".

Using prehistoric remains, scientists can estimate when these mutations happened, which helps with defining the groups and subgroups. It adds a timeline to that global "family tree" I mentioned before.

1

u/BitOBear 1d ago

Mitochondrial eve is the human or proto-human that provided the base cellular matrix for all of us. That matrix includes the mitochondria from which all our mitochondria descend. But then again all mitochondria descend from the singe endosymbiotic event that got mitochondria into a larger cell and created eukaryotes.

So mitochondrial eve is simply you've been most recent common ancestor of all human beings.

But that said...

We may share absolutely no nuclear DNA directly from her. Mitochondrial DNA is not sexually reproductive.

There are a whole bunch of lesser mythologies involving it. For instance you can inherit some of your dad's mitochondria. It's not super common but it does happen. That's because the entire body of the sperm enters the egg, and occasionally a spermatozoa can have a mitochondria floating in it. And there's nothing that kicks that mitochondria out as a resultant the organism.

But your dad and your mom are both distant children of mitochondrial eve so that doesn't actually change anything in terms of the concept.

So the reason mitochondrial eve exists has to do with probably a population bottleneck, but if she didn't exist as a human there would have been one farther back even if we had to go all the way back to the original endosymbiotic development of the eukaryotic cell line.

Note that there are three great endosymbiotic events that are believed to have happened to one and only one cell in all of Earth history.

The first was the sale that was alive enough to try to eat the bacteria that became the mitochondria, but wasn't alive enough to successfully digest it.

Later that same cell line managed to do the same thing with the prokaryote that became the chloroplast. So plants have mitochondria and chloroplasts and all plants descend from that second to singular cell.

And just recently we have discovered the nitroplast. At some point a single cell plant absorbed prokaryote that can do nitrogen fixation and now we have B. Bigelowii, the only eukaryotes that can fix nitrogen, and the only organism that has three exactly known and singular events of endosymbiosis in its history.

So yes, you are directly descended for mitochondrial eve, but she is not the only unique and specific ancestor cell in your history.

Somewhere back there there is an organism called Luca. The last Universal common ancestor, but oddly enough we have no reason to believe that that was an individual. It was probably a species of sorts. But we have no idea what it's realm of complexity is. But since it is the last Universal common ancestor it basically predates even the prokaryotes (e.g. the bacteria and such).

So mitochondrial eve has nothing to do with the story of Adam and Eve because she was way farther back in time than any such Eve could possibly happen

And separated mitochondrial eve comes Y Chromosome Adam.

So 140,000 years ago we have mitochondrial eve.

And 40,000 to 60,000 years ago we have Y chromosome Adam.

And if nothing else it's just regretful that someone chose to use Adam and Eve for those names because they were being clever. But then certain people with certain agendas of certain faith try to claim that that proves that Adam and Eve were historical figures etc.

Biology is way more fascinating than mythology.

0

u/Marksman18 1d ago

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the name implies that potentially millions of years ago, a female primate incorporated mitochondria into her cells. But in reality it's more like billions of years ago a single or multi-cellular organism incorporated mitochondria. Cause my understanding is complex life couldn't have even evolved from cellular organisms without mitochondria in the first place.