From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-02-03 2:31 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:16:22 -0600, DB Cates    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2026-02-02 11:11 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> --   
   >>>>>   
      
   [note this following paragraph which I will refer to below]   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   [end note]   
      
   >>>> 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  :)   
   >>>   
   >> ????   
   >   
   >   
   > What you ask above has been discussed above ad nauseum, particularly   
   > in then bit about the Catholic Church's concept of  'true' humans. I   
   > thought you were maybe having a bit of fun with me for Groundhog Day.   
   >   
   The paragraph noted above seems to indicate you think it answers the   
   problem of some humans from generations between the one for which a   
   common ancestor is chosen and that common ancestor (no matter how far   
   back you go) who are *not* descended from that common ancestor. This   
   problem only disappears if there exists a unique common ancestor, not   
   one of many.   
      
   --   
   --   
   Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)