From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 06:34:20 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> [snip for focus]   
   >>   
   >> I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do   
   >> want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being   
   >> misrepresented, intentionally or not.   
   >>   
   >>> And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so   
   >>> many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain   
   >>> shows.   
   >>   
   >> Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a   
   >> couple.   
   >   
   >But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but   
   >here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a   
   >single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and   
   >Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was   
   >confirmed, was that they were a couple.   
      
   I did *not* say or suggest that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal   
   Adam were that single couple. It would have been an entirely stupid   
   thing to say and you know that so why don't you just have the good   
   grace to admit that you read it wrong.   
      
   Your several attempts to move the goalposts below here aren't even   
   worth responding to.   
      
   >   
   >> We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents - they are a couple. We are   
   >> also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.   
   >> Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same   
   >> applies to Y-Adam.   
   >   
   >Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human,   
   >though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H.   
   >neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear   
   >that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who   
   >aren't in either of those lineages. There's   
   >little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife,   
   >left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.   
   >   
   >> There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why I   
   >> specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues that   
   >> they were the *only* common ancestor."   
   >Where does that say that   
   >And yet you did call them a couple. More importantly, how is this in any   
   >way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The   
   >only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps   
   >they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus   
   >confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is   
   >that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is   
   >a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)