Science Frontiers ONLINE No. 130: JUL-AUG 2000 | |
|
These two innocent-appearing, widely publicized numbers have far-reaching implications:
|
These data and their implications stimulate several observations and comments; only one of which is mentioned in the references given below.
F.H. Smith, an anthropologist from Northern Illinois University and a supporter of the multiregional theory, opines that 30,000-40,000 years ago the mtDNA of the early humans, who were mixing it up with the Neanderthals, was certainly very different from what it is today. Since mtDNA mutates rapidly, way back then human mtDNA might have been much more like that of the Neanderthals.
(Ovchinnikov, Igor V., et al; "Molecular Analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus," Nature, 404:490, 2000. Bower, B.; "Salvaged DNA adds to Neandertals' Mystique," Science News, 157:213, 2000. Donn, Jeff; "Neanderthal DNA Has Little Human Link," Austin American-Statesman, March 29, 2000. Cr. D. Phelps.)
Comment. From among many possible comments, we settle for just one: It is relevant that mtDNA is not the nDNA (nuclear DNA) that is the primary determinant of an animal's morphology and other attributes. Scientific consensus now holds that mtDNA comes from bacteria that invaded complex cells (eukaryotes) and set up housekeeping in them eons ago. The mitochondria are called "endosymbionts," but we must wonder how symbiotic they really are. Not only does mtDNA mutate much faster than nDNA ("our" DNA), but the mitochondria the mtDNA serves must have different evolutionary goals from us; that is, mitochondria might really be parasites and we are their hosts! See next item.
Other Sites of Interest
|