From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:55:38 -0600, DB Cates    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2026-02-02 3:12 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak   
   >>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> [snip]   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God   
   >>>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly   
   >>>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with   
   >>>>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than   
   >>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant   
   >>>>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only   
   >>>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book   
   >>>>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor   
   >>>>>>>> item,   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Do you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of   
   >>>>>>> science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous   
   >>>>>>> scientific position?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that   
   >>>>> something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific   
   >>>> position?   
   >>>>   
   >>> Although not directly stated,   
   >>   
   >> So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have challenged me   
   >> on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that   
   >> carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better from you.   
   >   
   >I'm sorry for that, I was also relying on a, perhaps flawed, impression   
   >that that was the position of the author of the book from which this   
   >example was taken.   
   >   
   >Can you answer my question with the "while disconfirming ..." bit left off?   
   >>   
   >>> I think it was implied when you stated   
   >>> that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with   
   >>> were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity.   
   >>   
   >> Do you seriously think whilst I have the highest regard for the   
   >> *scientific* qualifications and knowledge of Harshman and the others   
   >> who engaged in that discussion, that I would regard their opinions on   
   >> something like Adam and Eve as an established position of science   
   >> generally?   
   >>   
   >> Not to nitpick but in fairness to them, they didn't dismiss the idea   
   >> of a common ancestor, they tried to dismiss the idea of humans all   
   >> being descended from a single couple. I pointed out the contradiction   
   >> in that argument.   
   >>   
   >What contradiction? Common ancestor for extant humans? Yes. Common   
   >ancestor for all humans? No.   
   >>>   
   >>> Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans.   
   >>> no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be   
   >>> dead humans who were *not* descended from them.   
   >>>   
   >>> --   
   >>   
   >> That was raised earlier (not sure, possibly by yourself) and I pointed   
   >> out that the extant population at the time the Bible was written would   
   >> have had an MT-Eve and a Y-Adam from whom that population was all   
   >> descended. I wrongly suggested that the MT-Eve and Y-Adam would have   
   >> been much closer in time to that population that doesn't change the   
   >> fact that they were numerous specific couples from whom that entire   
   >> population were all descended.   
   >>   
   >That does not change the conclusion that no matter which common ancestor   
   >(of extant humans at the time) you chose, there are humans from previous   
   >generations who were not descended from them.   
   >   
   >--   
      
      
   Ah … I forgot the significance of 2nd Feb but then again, it's not a   
   big thing this side of the Atlantic  :)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)