How did Eve's descendants avoid inbreeding if all humans trace to her?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
2 replies · 3K views
JonahHex
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
It is my understanding that the DNA guys have concluded that all Homo sapiens originated as progeny of a single "Eve" in Central(?) Africa.

Since I haven't heard anything about "Adam," I assume that the genetic tracers don't allow anything to be said about the male lineage. Be that as it may.

Presumably, in order for Eve to be "Eve," she had multiple children; presumably some were male, others female.

Does anyone have any idea what happened next? In order for Eve to be "Eve" the immediately logical deduction is that her children would have had to inbreed. Somehow it doesn't make sense that, if her sons had surviving children from females other than their sisters, the DNA would trace directly back to Eve.

Does anyone have a handle on this?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Mitochondrial Eve is the name given by researchers to the woman who is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living humans. We know about Eve because of mitochondria organelles that are only passed from mother to offspring. ...

Although Mitochondrial Eve was named after Eve of the Genesis creation myth, this has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living female of her time — she was not (indeed, had she been, humanity would have probably become extinct). Rather, at all times during humanity's existence there has been a large population of humans. Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve have descendants alive today. However, only Mitochondrial Eve produced an unbroken line of daughters that persists today — each of the other matrilineal lineages was broken when a woman had only sons, or no children at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
 
Ok. No, I wasn't under the misconception that Eve was the only female. It was the "unbroken line of daughters" qualifier that I was missing.

Thx.

Would I be correct in assuming that, short of mass extinction, it is now statistically improbable, if not impossible, to break the line of daughters? If so, any idea how many generations it took to reach that point? (more or less)
 
Last edited: