News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Did Our Ancestors Become Bipedal So They Could Throw? by saalweachter on Sunday August 14, 2016 @02:44PM (#12286747)
Minor derailing: it's not necessarily accurate or useful to think about speciation as "one parent with two divergent children". It's usually more about populations with fuzzy boundaries.

Speciation events tend to look more like, imagine you take a town of two thousand people and send half of them to the moon for a million years. The moon men and the earth men would evolve into two different species; if you looked really hard, you could find a single common ancestor from whom everyone in that town descended, but it's not like one of his children went to the moon and one stayed on earth; some of his great-great-*-grandchildren went to the moon and some stayed on earth. The common ancestor was hundreds or thousands of years before the population split in two.

Moreover, breaks don't always happen cleanly. Imagine for the first ten or hundred thousand years someone from earth would occasionally migrate to the moon or a moon man would return to earth. The same thing would have happened with proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees: long after the two species had begun to diverge they would still be interfertile, and some mating (or "gene transfer", if you prefer) would still happen long past the point you'd begin calling them two different species. Eventually the two species would stop being mutually fertile or even attractive and the rift would be complete, but look at how many big cat and horse-like species can still occasionally pull it off.

Evolution is messy, and the bush of life is complicated.

Re:Did Our Ancestors Become Bipedal So They Could Throw? by wyager on Sunday August 14, 2016 @05:13PM (#12287366)
Yeah, but it's still interesting that there exists an "Eve" connecting any two entirely different organisms.
Re:Did Our Ancestors Become Bipedal So They Could Throw? by Dylan16807 on Sunday August 14, 2016 @07:41PM (#12287833)
Not really. There's a hundred of them. A whole bunch of candidates that are at the borderline and are ancestors of every member of the species.
Re:Did Our Ancestors Become Bipedal So They Could Throw? by nickparker on Sunday August 14, 2016 @09:25PM (#12288105)
As an extension of that fact, if there was a single true Eve the population would be at extremely high risk for genetic defects.

It's called a population bottleneck, where a near extinction event forces almost all individuals to share a large proportion of their genetic material, and the most recognizable example is in cheetahs.

http://cheetah.org/about-the-cheetah/genetic-diversity/

Re:Did Our Ancestors Become Bipedal So They Could Throw? by wyager on Sunday August 14, 2016 @09:41PM (#12288153)
Nope. Any two organisms have a unique MCRA of either gender. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Re:Did Our Ancestors Become Bipedal So They Could Throw? by Dylan16807 on Sunday August 14, 2016 @10:41PM (#12288340)
That is a very specific thing.

It only applies to mitochondria, not the genes in the nucleus or anything constructed from those genes.

It's only unique because the "MR" in MRCA stands for "most recent".

You could have a species that's a million years old with an MRCA that's only 500 years old. You could also have a species with no MRCA. (As in, the only way to find an MRCA is to trace back into ancestor species.) Picture two islands where only males travel between them.

Re:Did Our Ancestors Become Bipedal So They Could Throw? by saalweachter on Sunday August 14, 2016 @10:27PM (#12288294)
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor of our mitochondria. But that only tracks purely mother-to-mother descent; there could be a more recent female common ancestor.

Consider the hypothetical population consisting of two people, whose fathers were both first cousins and whose mothers are second cousins, on their mother's... side.

Their mitochondrial MRCA is their great-great-grandmother on their mother's side, but their MRCA's are their great-grandmother (and great-grandfather) on their father's side.

The entire human family tree is like that, but way, way more complicated.