Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!fred
From: fred@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.roots,net.women,net.flame,net.misc,net.religion
Subject: Re: A Common Female Ancestor for Everyone
Message-ID: <3741@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Nov-83 19:56:08 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3741
Posted: Fri Nov 11 19:56:08 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Nov-83 08:59:37 EST
References: <115@astrovax.UUCP  <118@astrovax.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 34


	From: wls@astrovax.UUCP

	> All living people (or at least ~99% of them) have a single
	> common female ancestor on their purely maternal line. . . .

	> This result is based on comparisons of human mitochondrial
	> DNA taken from very diverse populations all over the
	> world. . . .

	Could this trick be used on the Y chromosome to estimate
	the time back a single common ancestor on the purely paternal
	line?  Any biologists or geneticists out there?

	Bill Sebok      Princeton Univ. Astrophysics

I'm neither, but based on my understanding of the original article,
mitochondrial DNA has NOTHING to do with the DNA in the X and Y
chromosomes, so the answer is: no.

As a matter of fact: I recall reading a magazine article within
the last year, which stated that the genetic code used in mitochondrial
DNA is quite different than that used in all the other DNA in your
body. That is: the mapping from the triples of the four chemicals
which make up the code, to amino acids, is not the same. This has
led some people to speculate that the mitochondria originally
evolved as a separate life form, later forming a symbiotic relationship
with other cells.

Since I've taken this about as far from genealogy as it can go, I
will now shut up.

					Fred Blonder
					harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!fred