From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 17:49:50 -0600, DB Cates    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2026-02-04 10:55 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:38:15 -0600, DB Cates    
   >> wrote:   
      
   [...]   
      
   >>>> Essentially in that previous exchange, in response to a question about   
   >>>> other humans co-existent with Adam and Eve, I asked you if you agreed   
   >>>> that a mutation in one person could become fixed throughout a   
   >>>> descendant population and why it would not be acceptable for the   
   >>>> ability to recognise God start in one person or couple and also become   
   >>>> fixed in a descendant population. You responded that we had a   
   >>>> biological mechanism for the inheritance of mutations. I agreed that   
   >>>> there is no mechanism on offer for inheriting recognition of God but   
   >>>> pointed out that that is no different from the position Darwin was in   
   >>>> when he first identified NS.   
   >>>   
   >>> Completely different. Although Darwin did not have a working mechanism   
   >>> for inheritance, it had been clear for many generations already that   
   >>> inheritance was taking place. Much of Darwin's work was documenting this   
   >>> in detail.   
   >>> Not only is there no agreed definition of 'ensoulment', there is no   
   >>> indication that it is inherited at all.   
   >>> Without inheritance, the scientific coalescence theory offers no support   
   >>> for the biblical position.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That was about as far as we got with it - you queriedt the Church's   
   >>>> teaching on ensoulment vs inheritance but I had no appetite for   
   >>>> getting into theology that I had never taken any interest in.   
   >>>>   
   >>> Thus avoiding providing crucial data to support your position.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> --   
   >>   
   >> Not particularly looking to *support* my position, just clarifying   
   >> what it is and, as far as I am able, trying to correct   
   >> misunderstanding people may have regarding the Catholic Church and its   
   >> teachings.   
   >>   
   >My interest in this sub-thread is restricted to the idea put forward, I   
   >assumed from the book under discussion but possibly your own   
   >interjection, that coalescence theory somehow provided confirmation of   
   >the biblical idea of a single source couple for all humans.   
   >If you can provide a convincing argument for this I am quite happy to   
   >accept it, but it looks dead in the water to me for now.   
      
   The 'single couple' point is only touched on in the book, covered in   
   only 182 words. The authors simply use it as one of a number of "Facts   
   only recently discovered by modern science were revealed to the   
   Hebrews three thousand years ago and transmitted from generation to   
   generation through the Bible."   
      
   Looking back at it, I'm a little bit surprised that they focused on   
   the MT-Eve and Y-Adam, probably because they wanted to highlight   
   'hard' science but they are both only a specific genetic method of   
   working back to a MRCA and they do not exclude a more recent one. In   
   their references, they include the following paper that I find even   
   more interesting:   
      
   https://web.archive.org/web/20181230184319/http://tedlab.mit.edu   
   ~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf   
      
   In that paper, the author uses computer modelling to estimate the MRCA   
   and concludes that   
      
   "This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of   
   recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of   
   everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years   
   ago. Furthermore, the model indicates that nearly everyone living a   
   few thousand years prior to that time is either the ancestor of no one   
   or of all living humans."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)