• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The "Eve gene" - another creationist fail

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Anyone ever heard of the "Eve gene"?

Me neither. Not until yesterday, when I read that a thing called the "Eve gene" is a "flag" and a "marker" that only humans have and thus humans are separate from other Primates.

I have been a professional biologist for 20 years. Prior to that, I was a graduate student, doing research on mammalian evolution for 5 years, and prior to that an undergraduate working full time for about 6 years.
I have taken classes on general biology, cell biology, genetics, anatomy, physiology, molecular biology, microbiology, etc. I have taught genetics, evolution, biological anthropology, anatomy, comparative anatomy, etc., and not once in all that time in any of those classes did I ever hear or read the phrase "Eve gene."

I read my first creationist book (I was shocked to discover there were such people) 30 years ago. I came across it in the library while I was looking for a Carl Sagan book. I have since read 15 or 20 creationist books, read hundreds of 'technical' articles written by creationists (spoiler - most claimed to be technical are not, and none actually present evidence FOR creation), thousands of online screeds, and probably 100s of thousands of discussion forum/listserv posts by creationists, and not until yesterday did I even see a creationist use the phrase "Eve gene."

Why? Because it is a ridiulous phrase that nobody with any actual relevant understanding would use.

Googling the phrase turns up, shockingly, about 47,000 returns (compare to "mitochondrial Eve" - 133,000).
Caveat - even when the phrase "Eve gene" is put in quotation marks, returns with just the two words anywhere in their search space show up, such as this return to a Discovery blog post titled:

"Y, mtDNA, Adam, & Eve - Gene Expression - Discover Magazine Blogs"

In fact, nearly all of the returns on the first 5 pages (didn't bother going beyond that) were to either actual scientific papers that merely mentioned 'Mitochondrial Eve', or to papers that were about the 'even skipped' or 'eve' gene in Drosophila (not on their mitochondrial genome).
So, I infer that actual mentions of this "Eve gene" are very very low, possibly even only to the first couple of hits on the first page.
In fact, the first return is to the 'Bradshaw Foundation", whatever that is, which indicates that "Eve gene" is just a "popular" reference to the mitochondrial DNA, not a specific gene.


Of note, returns not to mitochondrial Eve or 'even skipped' in Drosophila appeared to be are to religious sites or sites like Quora, where, disturbingly, there seems to be a cultish-understanding that "Eve gene" refers to black people:


The Eve Gene is only found in African women and essentially has all the variations possible for the entire human mitrochondrial genome. This means that when an African women posseses a mutation in this gene, mitochondrial DNA of all other skin types come about (caucasian, albino, middle eastern, etc.).


From this special gene, we can trace ourselves back to one woman, the first woman, who lived in Africa.


You really do learn something every day.






 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
This is the level of scientific knowledge among most creationists.

I would be careful on making global statements. It puts into doubt your capacity (although good it may be)
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I would be careful on making global statements. It puts into doubt your capacity (although good it may be)
My capacity for what?

I wrote "most creationists", and in my experience, this is the case.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
My capacity for what?

I wrote "most creationists", and in my experience, this is the case.

Then the proper statement would be "In the circles that I surround myself with, most creationists...."

We would, of course, have to trust you in your statement.

In the circles that I surround myself with, we don't subscribe to that position... as a matter of fact, I don't know of any. (Of course, you would have to trust me in my statement)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's in the quote. :facepalm:
So you see it now. A "Doh!" would have been more appropriate when you pull such a boner.

At any rate back to the title of the thread. I did find a blog that used the term "Eve gene", but blogs are not necessarily the best sources. The same blog also conflated mitochondrial Eve with the MRCA for people:

mtDNA : The Eve Gene

Mitochondrial Eve is the mt-MRCA. We would have a much more recent MRCA but that person cannot be pinpointed.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Then the proper statement would be "In the circles that I surround myself with, most creationists...."

We would, of course, have to trust you in your statement.

In the circles that I surround myself with, we don't subscribe to that position... as a matter of fact, I don't know of any. (Of course, you would have to trust me in my statement)
No, that is clearly an error. One can find a few creationists with a higher level of scientific knowledge, but then honesty becomes a major problem.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Then the proper statement would be "In the circles that I surround myself with, most creationists...."

We would, of course, have to trust you in your statement.

In the circles that I surround myself with, we don't subscribe to that position... as a matter of fact, I don't know of any. (Of course, you would have to trust me in my statement)
Thanks for your concern, but nah...

No comment on the "eve gene" nonsense?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Thanks for your concern, but nah...

No comment on the "eve gene" nonsense?
Not at all... as i said, in our circles, we don't subscribe to that position. Makes me wonder what circles you hang around with. ;)
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Of note, returns not to mitochondrial Eve or 'even skipped' in Drosophila appeared to be are to religious sites or sites like Quora, where, disturbingly, there seems to be a cultish-understanding that "Eve gene" refers to black people:

The Eve Gene is only found in African women and essentially has all the variations possible for the entire human mitrochondrial genome. This means that when an African women posseses a mutation in this gene, mitochondrial DNA of all other skin types come about (caucasian, albino, middle eastern, etc.).


From this special gene, we can trace ourselves back to one woman, the first woman, who lived in Africa.


You really do learn something every day.

Sounds like they just misunderstand mtDNA Eve is referring to the earliest known common female ancestor of all humans alive today. Since 'Eve' lived in Africa, I think they assume she was black and that her original mtDNA remains unmutated in black women alive today.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Caveat - even when the phrase "Eve gene" is put in quotation marks, returns with just the two words anywhere in their search space show up, such as this return to a Discovery blog post titled:

"Y, mtDNA, Adam, & Eve - Gene Expression - Discover Magazine Blogs"

In fact, nearly all of the returns on the first 5 pages (didn't bother going beyond that) were to either actual scientific papers that merely mentioned 'Mitochondrial Eve', or to papers that were about the 'even skipped' or 'eve' gene in Drosophila (not on their mitochondrial genome).
If they really wanted to go with the Biblical analogy, they should have used "Y-chromosomal Noah" instead of "Y-chromosomal Adam."

(Since In the Bible story, Noah is the male MRCA: the people on the Ark were Noah, his wife, Noah's sons, and their wives)
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
A claim that I have only heard from creationists. Clearly not all creationists believe this, but at least quite a few used to.
We finally agree on something Subduction. A true statement actually coming from you! I believe in miracles! :D
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I wrote "most creationists", and in my experience, this is the case.

Mine, too. Who else writes things like, "evolution is just a theory" or thinks that observation in science refers to observing the past? Who else writes things such as the universe or the Bible are evidence of God?

In fact, I have no encounters with scientifically literate creationists on message boards, and am only aware of a handful in the ID movement,
 
Top