From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-01-11 11:20 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:07:19 -0600, DB Cates    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2026-01-10 3:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >   
   > [...]   
   >   
   >>> "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'.   
   >   
   > Yes, I do realise that. Now, do *you* realise that Y-Adam and mt-Eve   
   > are moving targets and that if you go back in time, you come up with a   
   > different, earlier Y-Adam and mt-Eve relevant to the extant population   
   > at that time?   
   >   
   Of course. It is inevitable considering the definition of those entities.   
      
   > If we go back roughly 3500 years to when Genesis is believed to have   
   > been written, there would have been an Y-Adam and a  mt-Eve for that   
   > extant population. Or go back 10,000 years to cover the time when the   
   > stories in Genesis were likely handed down orally and the same thing   
   > applies.   
   >   
   Sure, but why do you think this leads to coalescence theory being an   
   example of 'science' being forced to agree with a biblical idea?   
   > [...]   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   --   
   Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)