From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 1/10/26 9:07 AM, DB Cates wrote:   
   >> 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'.   
   >   
   > I would suggest that there are thousands of human couples who are a   
   > common ancestor for all living humans. But I guess you mean all humans   
   > ever, i.e. a created, founding pair.   
      
   Correct.   
      
     But I really have no idea what   
   > point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam   
   > and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to   
   > do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?   
   >   
   Beats me.   
      
   >>> 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)