From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-01-10 3:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John Harshman   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran   
   >>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree   
   that   
   >>>>>>>>> what you said encourages my interpretation.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Only if:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> a) I am really stupid about this stuff.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> b) You are convinced that I am  really stupid.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The   
   >>>>>> question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were   
   >>>>>> attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents   
   >>>>>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now   
   >>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate   
   >>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a   
   >>>>> total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone   
   >>>>> who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said   
   >>>>> and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your   
   >>>> heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said   
   >>>> was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is   
   >>>> no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still,   
   >>>> your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not   
   >>>> helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.   
   >>>   
   >>> QED   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> I could impugn your motives all   
   >>>>>> day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of   
   >>>>>> science being forced to agree with the bible?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> True, isn't it?   
   >>>   
   >> Now you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.   
   >   
   > Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable   
   > when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my   
   > point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various   
   > discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a   
   > response to you and Lawyer Daggett:   
   >   
   > "There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we   
   > are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.   
   > Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents   
   > 4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal   
   > Adam."   
   >   
   You do realize that the couples you are referring to are candidates for   
   the common ancestor of all extant humans , not for all humans throughout   
   time. There likely is no *human* couple who are a common ancestor for   
   *all* humans. So no biblical 'Adam and Eve'.   
      
   > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ   
   >   
   > Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person   
   > making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown   
   > even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that   
   > "apparently" it was not what I meant.   
   >   
   > *That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and   
   > move on. Rather badly played.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   --   
   Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)