Unbroken Mitochondrial line?

[SamWatson]

the Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all currently living humans, her age is between 99 and 148 thousand years ago (Wkipedia).
First monkey lived 29 million years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey
Why do we have in the genes no mitochondria of the first monkey?

[GrandizerII]

the Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all currently living humans, her age is between 99 and 148 thousand years ago (Wkipedia).
First monkey lived 29 million years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey
Why do we have in the genes no mitochondria of the first monkey?

I didn't know there are mitochondria in the genes. I'm no biologist or geneticist, but perhaps the question needs some rephrasing?

[Alex K]

the Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all currently living humans, her age is between 99 and 148 thousand years ago (Wkipedia).
First monkey lived 29 million years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey
Why do we have in the genes no mitochondria of the first monkey?

This question is a bit confused in several ways.
So yes, the mitochondria are not "in our genes", they are separate organelles in our cells carrying their own set of DNA, which is why they are preserved (up to mutations) from generation to generation along the female line of ancestors.
"The first monkey" is a bit of an arbitrary line drawn in the evolutionary tree. The first monkey in this sense is not necessarily the last common ancestor between humans and today's monkeys. But, that being said, the mitochondrial DNA of monkeys is more closely similar to ours than that of evolutionarily more distant animals, as one would expect. So there's no contradiction there. The fact that we have split away from them a sum total of over 60 million years of evolutionary history ago (counting both branches) of course means that modern monkey mitochondria have drifted away from ours way more due to mutiations than have the different human mitochondria which are around today amongst each other. That's precisely because the human mitochondrial eve has lived relatively recently.

[popeyespappy]

[Brian37]

the Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all currently living humans, her age is between 99 and 148 thousand years ago (Wkipedia).
First monkey lived 29 million years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey
Why do we have in the genes no mitochondria of the first monkey?

UGGGGGG, there was never a first couple of ANY species, there were first PLURAL ancestors because of periods of change over several families. Just like humans today can have several kids whom marry into several different families and the next generation can ALSO have several different kids who do the same thing.

There were first conditions not a first couple. First changes in gene shuffle, not a first couple. There were common ancestors, not a common first couple.

[SamWatson]

the Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all currently living humans, her age is between 99 and 148 thousand years ago (Wkipedia).
First monkey lived 29 million years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey
Why do we have in the genes no mitochondria of the first monkey?

This question is a bit confused in several ways.
So yes, the mitochondria are not "in our genes", they are separate organelles in our cells carrying their own set of DNA, which is why they are preserved (up to mutations) from generation to generation along the female line of ancestors.
"The first monkey" is a bit of an arbitrary line drawn in the evolutionary tree. The first monkey in this sense is not necessarily the last common ancestor between humans and today's monkeys. But, that being said, the mitochondrial DNA of monkeys is more closely similar to ours than that of evolutionarily more distant animals, as one would expect. So there's no contradiction there. The fact that we have split away from them  a sum total of over 60 million years of evolutionary history ago (counting both branches) of course means that modern monkey mitochondria have drifted away from ours way more due to mutiations than have the different human mitochondria which are around today amongst each other. That's precisely because the human mitochondrial eve has lived relatively recently.

Human population have been studied. Now forget the human population. Apply same algorithms and DNA testers to the Monkey population. How old would be monkey-Eve?

[chimp3]

This question is a bit confused in several ways.
So yes, the mitochondria are not "in our genes", they are separate organelles in our cells carrying their own set of DNA, which is why they are preserved (up to mutations) from generation to generation along the female line of ancestors.
"The first monkey" is a bit of an arbitrary line drawn in the evolutionary tree. The first monkey in this sense is not necessarily the last common ancestor between humans and today's monkeys. But, that being said, the mitochondrial DNA of monkeys is more closely similar to ours than that of evolutionarily more distant animals, as one would expect. So there's no contradiction there. The fact that we have split away from them  a sum total of over 60 million years of evolutionary history ago (counting both branches) of course means that modern monkey mitochondria have drifted away from ours way more due to mutiations than have the different human mitochondria which are around today amongst each other. That's precisely because the human mitochondrial eve has lived relatively recently.

Human population have been studied. Now forget the human population. Apply same algorithms and DNA testers to the Monkey population. How old would be monkey-Eve?

As far back in time as you can move the goal post.

[Alex K]

This question is a bit confused in several ways.
So yes, the mitochondria are not "in our genes", they are separate organelles in our cells carrying their own set of DNA, which is why they are preserved (up to mutations) from generation to generation along the female line of ancestors.
"The first monkey" is a bit of an arbitrary line drawn in the evolutionary tree. The first monkey in this sense is not necessarily the last common ancestor between humans and today's monkeys. But, that being said, the mitochondrial DNA of monkeys is more closely similar to ours than that of evolutionarily more distant animals, as one would expect. So there's no contradiction there. The fact that we have split away from them  a sum total of over 60 million years of evolutionary history ago (counting both branches) of course means that modern monkey mitochondria have drifted away from ours way more due to mutiations than have the different human mitochondria which are around today amongst each other. That's precisely because the human mitochondrial eve has lived relatively recently.

Human population have been studied. Now forget the human population. Apply same algorithms and DNA testers to the Monkey population. How old would be monkey-Eve?

I don't know any numbers. It depends on which group of monkeys you look at of course. If you only take any one subspecies, probably very recently. If you consider all extant monkey species combined, probably very long ago.

[popeyespappy]

Human population have been studied. Now forget the human population. Apply same algorithms and DNA testers to the Monkey population. How old would be monkey-Eve?

Depends on how you define monkey. If you limit it to old world and new world monkeys then applying our best guess at a mutation rate algorithm tells us their most recent common ancestor lived about 40 million years ago. The same algorithm tells us apes split from old world monkeys 25 to 30 million years ago, tarsiers split from old/new world monkeys and apes about 55 million years ago, and lemurs and lorises split about 60 million years ago.

[chimp3]

I recommend reading "The Link" by Colin Tudge.