From: {$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk   
      
   On 12/01/2026 17:16, 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:   
   >   
   > "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single   
   > couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal   
   > Adam."   
      
   You wrote that in response to   
      
   "I would be interested to know what these many other biblical and   
   religious explanations are that science ended up having to agree with.   
   Nothing immediately comes to mind."   
      
   In that (and the wider)n context what you wrote appears is naturally   
   interpreted as an endorsement of their position.   
   >   
   > 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?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> --   
   >   
      
   --   
   alias Ernest Major   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)