From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 2/9/26 4:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 13:00:09 -0600, DB Cates    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2026-02-08 10:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> […]   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust   
   >>>>>>>>> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month   
   as   
   >>>>>>>>> it is every Ash Wednesday.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>> WOW.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with   
   >>>>>>> dirty marks on their forehead?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your   
   ass.   
   >>>>>> I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and   
   >>>>>> married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of   
   >>>>>> Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the   
   >>>>>> music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs,   
   >>>>> that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the double   
   >>>>> blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust …"?   
   >>>>> That is what I was responding to.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> […]   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden   
   >>>> jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust? mud?) as   
   >>>> the common ancestor.   
   >>>   
   >>> OK, my mistake.   
   >>>   
   >>> If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026   
   >>> 14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors   
   >>> gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs.   
   >>> Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly   
   >>> important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,   
   >>> initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one   
   >>> couple.   
   >>   
   >> I'm sorry but it seems to me that in all the earlier posts you were   
   >> aiming for a single common ancestor couple. Not Y-Adam and Mt-Eve but   
   >> some couple out of a myriad of possible choices.   
   >>   
   >> When Mt-Eve Y-Adam coalescence theory came out it intrigued me and I   
   >> worked pretty hard to understand it. I would probably need some coaching   
   >> to get through the math but I think I understand the principle fairly   
   >> well. I noticed that it was widely misunderstood in the popular press   
   >> and among laymen like me.   
   >>   
   >> What I think is a major misconception is because it predicts that every   
   >> generation will have common ancestors that if you back far enough there   
   >> will be a single common ancestor for everyone. This is what seemed to me   
   >> to be your initial belief. Coalescence theory does not support this   
   >> idea. I think you came to accept this and that is when you introduced   
   >> the 'true human' concept that is completely outside science and has its   
   >> own problems spread and inheritance and the claim that all extant humans   
   >> have souls.   
   >>   
   >> My only concern in this thread is to get you to accept that the idea   
   >> that coalescence science vindicates a biblical viewpointnot just a poor   
   >> one but a bad one.   
   >   
   > I think you are reading far too much into what I said and there is no   
   > idea that you need me to drop about science supporting Adam and Eve. I   
   > was just talking about one very specific aspect, that the Bible and   
   > the Catholic Church say that we all descended from one couple. Science   
   > agrees that if you take any defined population group, there will be an   
   > individual who will be an ancestor of everyone in that group; you can   
   > do that through DNA or through genealogical methods. That applies   
   > whether the defined group is all humans that lived at a particular   
   > point in time,  all the people that the Hebrews 3000 or so years ago   
   > regarded as God's chosen people, the group that the Catholic Church   
   > today labels as 'true' humans or any other defined population group.   
   > Science confirms just that principle and nothing else about the Adam   
   > and Eve story.   
      
   In other news, Science also confirms that camels exist and that a major   
   river flows through Egypt.   
      
   --   
   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)