"Mitochondrial Eve" is Not The Eve of the Bible

Copyright © 2014 by Gun Lap

It is claimed that recent DNA research shows that all women alive today might be descended from the same woman (called "Mitochondrial Eve"), and that all men alive today might be descended from the same man (called "Y-chromosomal Adam").

Although the Churches of God (COGs) often don't trust science, whenever science seems to agree with their interpretation of the bible, they are happy. As a result, some COGs (and other fundamentalist churches) have seized upon the discovery, from DNA research, of a so-called "Mitochondrial Eve" in order to support the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Whether we believe or disbelieve the story of Adam and Eve is a different subject from what I want to cover in this article. I'm just trying to focus on the topic of Mitochondrial Eve (and Y-Chromosomal Adam) and show how some churches misapply science to "prove" whatever they want.

The COGs simply have not put in the effort to understand what the poorly named so-called "Mitochondrial Eve" really means. For one thing, the terms "Adam" and "Eve" in the names "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" are meant to be figurative, not literal.

According to Wikipedia, Mitochondrial Eve is "not the biblical Eve".

"Owing to its figurative reference to the first woman in the Biblical Book of Genesis, the Mitochondrial Eve theory initially met with enthusiastic endorsement from some young earth creationists, who viewed the theory as a validation of the biblical creation story. Some even went so far as to claim that the Mitochondrial Eve theory disproved evolution. However, the theory does not suggest any relation between biblical Eve and Mitochondrial Eve because Mitochondrial Eve:

I got that quote from the Wikipedia article Mitochondrial Eve taken from here on June 23, 2014.

Wikipedia is not always accurate. Politics sometimes corrupts what is written there (as is the case with other encyclopedias). Furthermore, any "Tom, Dick, or Harry" can (at least try to) alter the content. But on purely technical issues, Wikipedia is often accurate. So I would trust Wikipedia more than David Pack on this.

Anyway, I checked the Wikipedia answer with a more reliable source and got pretty much the same information.

"We're not saying they [Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam] are exact contemporaries or they actually met or all men and women descended from the same couple," says study coauthor Carlos Bustamante of Stanford University. Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve aren't the first human male and female but instead represent the common ancestors of the modern Y chromosome and modern mitochondrial DNA. (Science News, Sept 7, 2013, here).

Note that, i) there is no reason to suggest that this "Adam" and this "Eve" were alive at the same time, ii) there is no reason to think that they actually met, iii) not all men or women are necessarily descended from either of them, and iv) they were not the first male or female humans.

Wow. From that description, it sounds like this Adam and Eve have nothing in common with the Adam and Eve of the bible!

Pack It In

Here is what David Pack's Restored Church of God foolishly wrote (in the article "Footprints After the Flood" by Bradford G. Schleifer) about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the improperly named "Mitochondrial Eve".

The first attempt to map the origins of modern people was done in the mid-1980s. Researchers at the University of California-Berkeley used these markers, actually mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), in an attempt to create a genetic map. This research began creating what has been described as [a map of] the human family [tree].
Their research indicated that all human beings came from a single ancestor! Of course, this is exactly what is explained in the Bible [actually, the bible says we came from two ancestors, Adam and Eve, not just Eve]. All human beings can be traced back to the first woman—Eve.

I got the RCG article from here on June 23, 2014. However, if Pack comes to his senses he might take that down (or change it), so it might not be there by the time you read this.

What's wrong with that statement? Well, the researchers do not claim that all humans can be traced back to the same woman, or that that woman was the first woman. The RCG does not understand what the research actually means.

Now notice this:

All human beings can be traced back to the first woman—Eve. And this would mean that all people also originated from a single father—Adam. (RCG, same article).

Really? David Pack's church does not seem to understand sex. Even if all people originated from a single woman, it does not follow that all people necessarily originated from a single man. The single woman could have had multiple sex partners. I guess David Pack and his writers just didn't think of that obvious point. That's because they are simply reading the Genesis story into the scientific finding. They can believe the story of Adam and Eve is literal if they want to, but to read that into the science is a distortion of science.

As we read above, the so-called "Mitochondrial Eve" is not a single person. The term "Mitocondrial Eve" is more like a title or a role than the name of a person. A title or role like king, CEO, or sheriff can refer to different people at different times. A person reading a history of the Middle Ages who sees the term "King of England" would be foolish to assume that it refers to the same person who was a "King of England" in the 1900s. The two kings are not the same person. The two kings of England would have lived hundreds of years apart.

Similarly, the person with the title or role of Mitochondrial Eve changes as time goes on. So science did not prove that we all came from Eve.

There Were Other Women at the Time of "Mitochondrial Eve"

The chart below illustrates that tracing ancestry throught mtDNA does not prove that the human race started with only one woman.

chart

The woman colored in black at the top of the chart is labelled mtDNA MRCA [i.e. the mitochondrial DNA, Most Recent Common Ancestor]. Notice that there are other women at the top of the chart which are drawn in different colors. But by the bottom of the chart we see that all the female figures are colored in black. This means that all the women at the bottom can trace their ancestry, through their mtDNA, back to the same woman (in black) at the top. But even though all those women can be traced back to only one woman at the top, there is more than just one woman at the top. In other words, mtDNA studies do NOT prove that the human race (or any other population group) started with one woman.

Each woman at the bottom could be descended from several of the women at the top. But using mtDNA, a woman at the bottom can only be traced back to one of their female ancestors at the top level. That's because, in order to be traced all the way back using mtDNA, there must be an unbroken chain of females.

Similarly, scientists attempt to trace all men back to a single male ancestor through the Y-Chromosome, which females don't have. The single male ancestor that can be traced through the Y-Chromosome is called "Y-Chromosomal Adam". That does not mean that there was only one man alive at the time of Y-Chromosomal Adam, or that Y-Chromosomal Adam was the only male that had descendants who are still alive today. It just means that he is the only male that we can trace males back to, using the Y chromosome.

COG Folly

The RCG just does not understand these genetic studies. This is typical of the COGs. They can't seem to get science right. They selectively take information from science that they don't understand, blur it together with the bible, and then they think they have proven that science supports their interpretation of the bible.

If they are really so deeply inspired and led by God, how can they make such stupid mistakes? Why should we think that anything they say about DNA is accurate? Is there no fact-checking or quality control going on over there? Is there no multitude of wise counsel?

... modern science understands that there was originally one mother and father for all of mankind... (RCG, same article as before).

Sorry, but that is not what the scientists are saying.

Shame on them: "Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish" (Proverbs 18:13, New Living Translation).

The bible instruction on how to deal with David Pack is as follows: "Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech." (Proverbs 14:7, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

Notes:

1. Noah

For what it's worth, if the Y-Chromosomal "Adam" was a person in the bible, that man would more likely be Noah than Adam. According to the bible, we all descended from Noah. The flood wiped out everyone but eight persons: Noah and his wife, and his three sons and their wives.

Noah's three daughters-in-law would have descended from Eve, so, including Noah's wife, there would have been four women alive who descended from Eve. But all the men after the flood would have been descended from Noah and carry his Y-chromosome. Tracing DNA all the way back to Adam would seem to be impossible, since all males (supposedly) descended from Noah.

2. More Dubious RCG Stuff

More from the same RCG article.

It is interesting to note that the Bible states Noah was physically "perfect in his generations" (Gen. 6:9); and, as such, his DNA would contain very little or no mutations. However, nothing is said of his wife, and it is through the mother that mtDNA is passed on. The Bible's silence on Noah's wife's lineage allows an assumption to be made that she already possessed some of the first genetic mutations from which we can trace. (RCG, same article)

Why would God preserve Noah perfect but not his wife and the rest of his family? Unless all eight persons on the ark were perfect, what would be the point?

The Bible's silence on Noah's wife's lineage allows an assumption to be made ... (RCG, same article)

No, it does not allow us to make assumptions. Making assumptions is risky. The COGs condemn others for making assumptions, so they shouldn't make assumptions either.

Since these genetic markers are permanent, if two people have the same two markers, it can be demonstrated that they, at some point, share a common ancestor. (RCG, same article)

Does that mean humans and chimps have a common ancestor, since humans have about 98% the same DNA as chimps?

The RCG article is so full of unsupported claims and mixed-up ideas that it's painful to read. I think I'll stop there before I get a headache.

3. Another COG Botches Mitochondrial Eve

In I Timothy 6:20 Christians are warned to avoid "science falsely so called". I.e. avoid false science. Well, another Church of God is promoting their own false science about Mitochondrial Eve.

Here is a quote from Mario Seiglie writing for the United Church of God:

Regarding Eve, some recent studies analyzing the [sic] woman's mitochondria dates her back to around 6000 years ago. ... 'using the new [rate of mutation] clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.' (See A. Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock Science, 279 (5347):28-29, January 2, 1998). (Taken from here).

Well, let's start with a reminder that Mitochondrial Eve (whom I'll call "mtDNA Eve" for short) has nothing to do with the Eve of the bible. Let me repeat a few points made above: i) not all women are necessarily descended from her, ii) she was not the first female, iii) there were other woman alive at the time, and iv) the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" will change in time to another person.

That presents a few problems for Mr. Seiglie to work on.

Very few genetic studies put the date of mtDNA Eve at 6,000 years, and most put the date much earlier, at about 200,000 years ago.

But the study referred to which supposedly dated mtDNA Eve at 6,000 years ago is not going to help the UCG or RCG. For one thing, the study that gave the 6000 year figure only pertains to Mitochondrial Eve, not Y-Chromosomal Adam. Mr Y-Chromosomal Adam (whom I'll call "DNA Adam") has been dated at a few hundred thousand years earlier than mtDNA Eve. Changes in the clock rate of mtDNA will not change the clock rate used for the Y chromosome. Science is still sorting out the dating methods.

With the advent of mathematical models and computer simulations, some researchers have argued that the MRCA [Most Recent Common Ancestor] of all humans lived remarkably recently, between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago. (Wikipedia article Most Recent Common Ancestor, June 28, 2014).

So, regarding the time our most recent common ancestor lived, there are various estimates, based on either DNA studies or computer simulations. None of them are conclusive. The estimates vary from about 2,000 years to 600,000 years. The COGs can't just pick out the one they want (in the 6000-year ballpark), ignore all the others, and go along pretending that science is on their side.

4. The Lost Ten Tribes

Another problem for the COGs is that the same genetic principles used to trace mankind back to Mitochondrial Eve can be used to disprove the COG doctrine of the lost ten tribes of Israel. Oops!

5. Genetic Pathways

It's important to note that there are many genetic pathways along which the ancestry of a person can be traced.

Given any gene in the body of a person, we can trace a single chain of human ancestors back in time, following the lineage of this one gene. Because a typical organism is built from tens of thousands of genes, there are numerous ways to trace the ancestry of organisms using this mechanism. But all these inheritance pathways share one common feature. If we start with all humans alive now and trace their ancestry by one particular gene (actually a locus), we find that the farther we move back in time the smaller the number of ancestors becomes. The pool of ancestors continues to shrink until we find the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans who were alive today, VIA THIS PARTICULAR GENE PATHWAY. (Wikipedia, Most Recent Common Ancestor, June 28, 2014, emphasis mine).

In other words, if we use a different gene to trace ancestry, we arrive at a different most recent common ancestor. That is we arrive at a different person. Since we have thousands of genes, we could theoretically trace our ancestry back to thousands of different ancestors, not just to one woman and one man.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) ... can be used to trace matrilineal inheritance and to find the Mitochondrial Eve ... the most recent common ancestor of all humans VIA THE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA PATHWAY. (Wikipedia, Most Recent Common Ancestor, June 28, 2014, emphasis mine).

As I understand it, that means she is the most recent common female ancestor via the mtDNA pathway, not the most recent common female ancestor period.

Likewise, [the] Y chromosome ... can be used to trace patrilineal inheritance and to find the Y-chromosomal Adam, the most recent common ancestor of all humans VIA THE Y-DNA PATHWAY (Wikipedia, Most Recent Common Ancestor, June 28, 2014, emphasis mine).

As I understand it, that means he is the most recent common male ancestor via the Y-DNA pathway, not the most recent common male ancestor period.

So, using mtDNA and the Y chromosome does not tell us who all our most recent common ancestors were, just two of them. There are many other ancestors who can (in theory) be traced via different pathways, but those other ancestors are harder to identify because of the way the other genes get mixed during reproduction.