Replies

What's the hoax with the mitochondrial Eve thing?

Here's the thing: the valid research was "sexed up" and presented to the public as supporting something it absolutely did not. Even the name is misleading..."Eve" has very definite connotations, yes? People were presented with the idea that this "Eve" was the common female ancestor of all humanity; there is absolutely nothing to support this. What the mtDNA evidence suggests is that she might be the oldest common female ancestor that most of humanity shares that we happen to have comprehensive genetic material from in the form of regressive generational sets. This is a far different thing; the public was led to believe that this being was our primal ancestor, when in reality, the data simply shows that her offspring were successful enough to survive (genetically) to this day. Big whoop; there are literally thousands of such beings, we simply don't have the data on them. The next problem is that, contrary to what the public is told, evidence suggests that mtDNA is not solely inherited from the mother, but that the father can contribute as well.

Bottom line, popular media paints "mtDNA Eve" as some discrete woman who gave birth to our various races, a mother-figure to all of humanity. The reality is that this being simply had some successful children who in turn gave birth to children who in turn (etc., etc.) survived to the present day. There's absolutely nothing special about that; we're all descended from various people who (obviously) were similarly successful.

Sorry but your explanation (#12) does not spell "hoax".
Nor do I see use of "Eve" as implying anything other than the small cluster of related individuals that is described in the article...not some attempt to identify "the" first woman.

As I understand the studies, a very large majority of European and North African (semetic?) people share a common marker. That marker is not found in others, so a break away by people of common heritage is implied.
Further, it is possible (?) to crudely date the arrival of that marker in places that form a pathway out of Africa, into the middle east & south china, and then into europe. Other studies have identified migration of he same marker into south America at a date well before the advent of "Native Americans" because...
The native americans appear to have used a different and later route which can also be mapped using similar tracking methods to map a different mtDNA marker.

I don't see much of a hoax in that and the possibility that both male and female ancestors might contribute to mtDNA is a red herring - if a marker exists and can be passed on, it seems a valid clue.

It is, after all, merely informed guess work.