From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:   
   >>   
   >> [...]   
   >>   
   >>>   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.   
   >>   
   >> There are two points.   
   >>   
   >> The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was   
   >> claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was   
   >> not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down   
   >> to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out   
   >> of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,   
   >> the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.   
   >   
   >The context of this particular sub-thread was your claim that the   
   >statistical existence of a 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam'   
   >is an example of science being forced to agree with a Biblical claim.   
      
   I never said science was *forced* to do anything. Here is exactly what   
   I said:   
      
   "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single   
   couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal   
   Adam."   
      
   It was Harshman who introduced "forced" as part of his silly game   
   playing.   
      
      
   >You used the term 'couple' in your argument and the Biblical Eve and   
   >Adam are unquestionably a 'couple, so one might think it was you who had   
   >a 'memory lapse'.   
   >   
   >Science never had a problem with there being innumerable common ancestor   
   >couples for any extant population but never thought that there was a   
   >unique couple; that would be the biblical view.   
   >>   
   >> The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the   
   >> past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended   
   >> from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.   
   >>   
   >> Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the   
   >> Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.   
   >>   
   >Is there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far   
   >enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would not be   
   >Homo sapiens sapiens?   
   >   
   >   
   >--   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)