Biology Asked by Smer5 on September 18, 2020
Some creationists, such as Roger Liebi, actively exploit this article:
A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region (published in Nature Genetics, April 1997).
This study directly measured the mitochondrial DNA mutations rate across 327 generational events (mother-daughter, grandmother-granddaughter, and siblings) and calculated it to be 20x greater than values previously estimated by evolutionary models.
It gives the age of mitochondrial Eve to be 6500 years, which is surprisingly similar to the biblical (Jewish calendar) date.
I am looking for the best way to disprove this position.
Since 1997, has this article been disproved?
What is the best way to disprove this estimate?
Estimating the age of the so-called "mitochondrial Eve" (i.e. the most recent common ancestor, MRCA, regarding mtDNA) is a very complex issue, exactly for the difficulty in correctly estimating the mutation rate.
So, it is not so easy to disproof the estimate, but at the same time there aren't particular reasons to choose that (and not the several other available estimates) as the correct one.
I point you to three papers that discuss the issues of estimating mtDNA mutation rates and my be of interest for you:
It will also be an interesting exercise for you to collect from these papers (and the several references therein) all the different estimates of mtDNA mutation rates (and thus of age of the mitochondrial Eve) and you will realize how reliable the 6500 years (without confidence intervals) would be!
Finally, the literature I provide is well established, but also a bit old (but still more recent than the 1997 paper). You might want to see more recent literature.
Correct answer by Fabio Marroni on September 18, 2020
Get help from others!
Recent Answers
Recent Questions
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP