A little chromosome resides inside the energy-producing organelles of human cells, the mitochondria. This DNA loop is passed down from mother to child and contains intriguing information about mankind’s past. Geneticists are utilizing that data to try to pin down when the “mother” of all humans existed (Thomas, 2010). Studies on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) raise several questions. First, can a presumed first mother’s mtDNA be reconstructed? In that case, how does it compare to our descendants’? Is there enough information in today’s mtDNA to determine when “Mitochondrial Eve” lived?
When these topics were originally investigated decades ago, there was hope of finding that first mother’s date. However, studies have demonstrated that statistics alone cannot offer a solution. The data might provide quite different “ages” for Mitochondrial Eve depending on the researchers’ assumptions. A 1998 study in the evolutionary journal Science revealed that: Whatever the origin, evolutionists are most worried about the consequences. For example, scientists estimate that “Mitochondrial Eve” lived 100,000-200,000 years ago in Africa. Her age would be less than 10,000 years with the new clock. No one believes that, but when should models move mtDNA time zones?
Therefore, to reconcile the age with existing evolutionary hypotheses of human origins, further computations assumed Mitochondrial Eve lived over 100,000 years ago. This kind of study is characterized by circular reasoning: evolutionary assumptions of deep time are utilized as an interpretative filter that produces deep-time outcomes (Thomas, 2010). This was clearly stated in a Rice University news release on the latest effort to date Mitochondrial Eve. According to researchers, the “Mother of all humanity lived 200,000 years ago.” In discussing how they arrived at this figure, the researchers unwittingly exposed their own pre-calculated bias. To convert DNA base variations “into a measure of time,” the news announcement listed certain processes.
“How they developed through time depends on the evolutionary model you employ,” says research co-author Krzysztof Cyran of Poland’s Silesian University of Technology. Of course, starting with an evolutionary model implies evolutionary outcomes. To each model were included coefficients that quantified critical issues such as the rate of DNA base change, the influence of mutational hot spots, the reference DNA sequence (typically the chimpanzee’s) and the period between generations. All those numbers were assumed: Each model’s assumptions have mathematical ramifications. Moreover, certain assumptions are not applicable for human populations. Some models, for example, assume constant population size. However, the best available evidence still support past research showing that Mitochondrial Eve’s age matched the biblical Eve’s age. For example, a 2008 mitochondrial chromosomal research revealed that “individuals in our sample deviated by 21.6 nucleotides from the Eve consensus.” A comparison of over 800 current DNA samples with the estimated sequence for “Eve” revealed mi
Furthermore, for just 21.6 nucleotides out of 16,569 to be different, it must have been significantly less than “200,000 years” before Mitochondrial Eve emerged on the scene (Thomas, 2010). To stretch out the occurrences of such few DNA changes throughout evolutionary time involves juggling coefficients in several models, and a physiologically implausible, super-slow mutation rate. This needs a broken, circular-reasoning-based evolutionary “clock.”
Primary Source: Dr. Brian Thoams; Mother of All Humans Lived 6,000 Years Ago; ICR.