From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 20:45:49 -0600, DB Cates    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   [...]   
      
   The ancient Hebrews said that all humans were descended from a single   
   couple. Science now shows that they were indeed descended from a   
   single couple - the parents of mitochondrial Eve for the human   
   population at that time. That is not to suggest that those parents   
   were the specific couple that Genesis figuratively refers to or that   
   science in any way supports the message behind the Genesis story; it   
   does however confirm that the ancient Hebrews, at least 3500 years   
   before we knew anything about evolution, were correct in what they   
   said in purely *biological* terms.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)