From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net
On 1/15/26 12:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> 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.
The ancient Hebrews said that the human population went through a
bottleneck of two individuals (twice, no less). Science shows nothing of
the sort. Science has also been unable to find a tree whose fruit
confers knowledge of good and evil, a place where four major rivers
separate from, talking snakes, or guardians with flaming swords. And I
would say anyone who picks a single aspect of that story for
verification while ignoring the rest is intellectually lazy at best.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
