The saga of Mitochondrial Eve continues

Where do we place Mitochondrial Eve on the human family tree? How many mutations have occurred within the human mtDNA sequence? How much of that sequence is evolutionarily constrained? Are mtDNA mutations predictable? All this and more in this installment of Biblical Genetics. Dr Rob is going to discuss some fascinating new details and bring up some old stuff that needs explaining.

Show notes and the podcast link:

Support Biblical Genetics!

[wesleycolemanmusic]

Dr. Carter, do you have anything in the works for this channel? I love your content!

[drgitschlag]

Hi Dr. Carter, fellow mitochondrial geneticist here! If you recognize that human mtDNA is under purifying selection, then you'll surely know that the substitution rate will be slower than the mutation rate, making it difficult to compress human mtDNA diversity into a ~6kyr timeline (especially in light of empirical mtDNA mutation rates).

[vikingskuld]

As always very good video. I really appreciate all the work your doing.

[koreanfan]

Thank you for braving the cold to bring us another great video. I can't get enough of these videos. It's because I am hungry for the truth. Thank you so much.

[owlfethurz]

Thanks for braving the cold to bring us some more information!
It almost sounds like the geneticists who are trying to put holes into your paper are grabbing for straws to find some faults. As you said, Dr Carter, they could be afraid of looking at the raw data. Hope you got a hot chocolate for your ride back; and that your vehicle's heater is working well!

[HuFlungDung]

In David Wood's recent video on Squares on Mars, he makes an interesting argument along this line: If I tell you this plant is fake, then you will say well someone made it. But if I say it is real, then you will say no one made it, because you are wilfully against intelligent design.

This conundrum exists with all biological evolutionary arguments. Devolution is real, because the perfect degrades to less than perfect. Survival of the fittest is not even an argument because it's simply what happened, and we have no quantifiable metric for fittest except for generic reproductive success. That is an abstraction that is consensual, with about the same quality as 'luck' has an influence. Luck is nothing but hindsight.

[JK-trmt]

Thanks for sharing this vitally important topic. At least your work is now being cited by the majority evolutionist publications.

[conniearancivia]

After reading the comments it makes me think that you are onto something. Your are taking a lot of flack. Not a big scientific buff but genetics has always fascinated me. Loved the video BTW.

[markoconnell]

This is awesome information and a great story.

[Kel-dv]

Why not record indoors?
🙊
Very fascinating information. This is exciting.
Thanks.

[kyleepratt]

10:09 you wonder if they saw your paper and made a decision based on it? Any basis for that other than you think your paper was important?

[Critter]

I love the fact that you’re using actual scientific methods to show the Bible is an accurate record of real history.

[kyleepratt]

7:08 mutations are stochastic. Some regions are known to experience mutations at faster or slower rates than others (demonstrated and recorded by research). And like you said earlier, the C to T is chemically easier than others.

[JungleJargon]

Skeptics are so convinced they are right in thinking that mistakes wrote all the programming for all of the variation and variety of life that we see.

[CreationMyths]

That's certainly a, uh, creative solution.

[docsavage]

Aren't you embarrassed by this drivel? Best Wishes, Dr Ian

[kyleepratt]

18:37 Natural selection is once again the answer. Also, be a little more precise in your claims. These papers are all taking about human mtDNA, which no one thinks has been around for billions of years. Mitochondria are only thought to have evolved in the first place 1.45 billion years ago. And genus homo has only been around for a couple million years. Did ancestral mtDNA have more C's and fewer T's? If so, what percentage has changed? I don't know, that would be a cool study though

[JuniorSilva-bpw]

I really want to know how the math is done to reach 6500 years ago eve.
What are the numbers? mutation rate and such?

[ronaldl]

I don’t understand the dna stuff but the evolutionists defending their religion is hilarious. Keep up the good work and keep poking the bear!

[kyleepratt]

11:59 you wonder why they made a creationism connection when you published in a creationism journal? What was your paper even about? What was your argument and conclusion?
Are you saying you found 3 "branches" in an un-rooted phylogenetic tree and lined that up with 3 individuals? Knowing that phylogenetic trees are about populations, not individuals? And that even this analysis would require one of the daughters-in-law to be the descendant of another daughter-in-law?