«Attempts to reconstruct the biological past solely on the basis of the living is dangerous: the road of anthropology concerning evolution is crowded with the debris of such efforts; several of them, following more recent discoveries of authentic human remains, or of better data, have been shown to be completely wrong». (William Howells, 1986)
«It is now clear that the molecular record rather than the fossil record is a more suitable indicator in clarifying the phylogenetic relationship among extant species and in dating the branching events among them». (Hasegawa & Yano, 1984)
Abstract
Being based solely on neontological data, all «unique parent» evolutionary hypotheses, of which «Mitochondrial Eve» is one, fall into the category ofscala naturae. Mathematical treatment of neontological data bases, using cladistic approaches does not confer the status of scientific hypotheses onto such scenarios. Apart from these fundamental problems, such hypotheses are flawed on a number of other bases, including the fact that there is a proportion of parental contribution to mitochondrial lineages, despite widely publicised statements that mithocondrial DNA in mammals is «strictly» maternally inherited. Other weaknesses of «unique mother» hypotheses on that their proponents endeavour to describe the evolution of diploid organisms on the basis of variability in extant haploid organelles, the evolution of which is delinked from that of the diploid organism. A further difficulty is that it is not possible to reconstruct interspecific relationships on the basis of intraspecific variability. There is a general ignorance among proponents of «unique mother» hypotheses regarding the distribution of biological variability on the surface of the globe, a fact which renders the molecular clock inaccurate, and which upsets the simplistic proposal that molecular diversity equates with time. «Unique mother» scenarios are also invalidated by the presence of shared chromosome and other polymorphisms in african great apes and humans at similar percentages in the different lineages, a fact which indicates that these evolving populations did not experience «bottlenecks». These and other difficulties effectively refute the «Mitochondrial Eve» hypothesis, which in any case much resembles creationism of a special kind, in which the offspring of a breeding pair are visualised as belonging to a species different from its parents. Such extreme examples of the punctuational mode of evolution are highly likely to be incorrect.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brown W.M. 1980.Polymorphism in mithocondrial DNA of humans as revealed by restriction endonuclease analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 77: 3605–3609.
Cann R., Stoneking M. &Wilson A.C. 1987.Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature, 325: 31–36.
Darlu P. &Tassy P. 1987a.Disputed African origin of human populations. Nature, 329: 111.
Darlu P. &Tassy P. 1987b.Roots. Human. Evol., 2: 407–412.
Excoffier L. &Langanay A. 1989.Origin and differentiation of human Mitochondrial DNA. Am. Jl Hum. Genet., 44: 73–85.
Excoffier L. &Roessli D. 1990.Origine et évolution de l'ADN mitochondrial humain: le paradigme perdu. Bull. et Mém. Soc. Anthrop. Paris n.s., 2: 25–42.
Ferris S.D., Wilson A.C. &Brown W.M. 1981.Evolutionary tree for apes and humans based on cleavage maps of mitochondrial DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 78: 2432–2436.
Gyllensten U., Josefsson A., Wharton D. &Wilson A. 1991. Nature. Vol. 352: pag. 355–357.
Hasegawa M. &Yano T. 1984.Phylogeny and classification of Hominoidea as inferred from DNA sequence data. Proc. Japan. Acad., 60 Ser B 10: 389–392.
Howells W.W., 1989.Origine de la diversité actuelle. In: Ferembach D., Susanne C. & Chamla M.C., L'Homme, son évolution, sa diversité. CNRS Paris.
Humboldt A., von, 1805.Essai sur la géographie des plantes.
Ibraimov A.I. In press. The origin of modern humans: a cytogenetic model. Human Evol.
Johnson M.J., Wallace D.C., Ferris S.D., Rattazzi M.C. &Cavalli-Sforza L.L. 1983.Radiation of human mitochondrial DNA types analysed by restriction endonuclease cleavage patterns. Jl Mol. Evol., 19: 255–271.
Lucotte G. 1989.Evidence for the paternal ancestry of modern humans: evidence from a Y-chromosome specific sequence polymorphic DNA probe. In: Mellars C. & Stringer C., (eds) The Human Revolution, New Jersey, Princeton University Press: 39–46.
Pickford M. 1987.The diversity, zoogeography and geochronology of monkeys. Human Evol., 2: 71–89.
Spuhler J. 1988.Evolution of mitochondrial DNA in monkeys, apes and humans Yrbk. Phys. Anthrop., 31: 15.48.
Stehli F.G. 1968.Taxonomic diversity gradients in pole location: the recent model. In: Drake E.S. (ed). Evolution and environment: 163–219, New Haven and London, Yale University Press.
Stoneking M. &Cann R. 1989.African origin of human mitochondrial DNA. In: Mellars C. & Stringer C. (eds.). The Human Revolution: 17–30, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Stringer C. &Andrews P. 1988.Genetic and fossil evidence for the origin of modern humans. Science, 239: 1263–1268.
Wallace A.R. 1876.The Geographical Distribution of Mammals. London, MacMillan.
Wienberg J. &Stanyon R. 1987.Fluorescent heterochromatin staining in primate chromosomes. Human Evol., 2: 445–457.
Wolpoff M. 1989.Multiregional Evolution: the fossil alternative to Eden. In: Mellars C. & Stringer C. (eds). The Human Revolution: 62–108. New Jersey, Princeton Univeirsity Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pickford, M. Paradise lost: Mitochondrial eve refuted. Hum. Evol. 6, 263–268 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02438149
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02438149