From: cates_db@hotmail.com
On 2026-01-12 11:16 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> 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:
Sorry, I shouldn't have used the term 'forced'. Replace 'forced' with
'confirmed' in my comments. That doesn't change my opinion of its import.
>
> "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
> couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
> Adam."
Wow, I had forgotten that you used the term 'single couple' (Biblical).
That is hard to square with the 'one of a multitude of couples that
varies with the base time.' (science). Really not nearly the same thing.
Science: Any given population has multiple members in earlier
populations that are *direct* ancestors of every member of its
population and some that aren't. If you trace ancestorship (word?)
strictly though mitochondria you would find the most recent common
ancestor guaranteed to be female; similarly tracing ancestorship though
the Y-chromosome guarantees a male most recent common ancestor. They are
almost certainly NOT the most recent male and female ancestors. Those
would be somewhere among the common ancestors whose females had all male
offspring and males who had all female offspring.
I don't see how that possibly confirms the Biblical view.
>
> 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?
>>
>>
>> --
>
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
