From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 12:52:37 +0000, Martin Harran   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 19:29:10 -0800, Mark Isaak   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >And there you go, aping RonO.   
   >   
   >Mainstream Christianity   
      
      
   Based on Harran's posts, "Mainstream Christianity" means those who   
   agree with his exegesis, which is principally and substantially, if   
   not exclusively, Roman Catholic, to the degree he treats protestant   
   groups as insignificant splitters.   
      
      
   > has rejected the literal [1] story in Genesis   
   >from its earliest days with Origen going as far as to suggest that   
   >anyone who takes it literally is somewhat lacking in intelligence.   
   >Neither I nor anybody else [2] is this discussion takes that story   
   >literally yet you use it as a literal story to try to attack my   
   >argument. Is that really the best you can do? If so, you need to go   
   >back to the drawing board.   
   >   
   >[1] 'Literal' in the sense that it is commonly used i.e. taking it as   
   >a true story. Theologians and bible exegetists use it in a different   
   >sense, meaning the message that the authors intended to convey.    
   >   
   >[2] I don't know whether or not MarkE takes it as a true story but   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)