yet this is the story they make up to avoid the truth and cling to even though there is no evidence for its legitimacy:
The evidence is that it is logically and obviously true that the ancient woman who sits at the apex of a mitochondrial family tree is herself not the
only woman who was alive at that time, and she must have inherited her mitochondria from her mother, and her from hers.
And, of course, the other piece of evidence is that you can trace
male lineage through Y chromosomes (which only men inherit from men) back to
another single individual "Y Adam", who lived almost
100,000 years after mitochondrial "Eve."
So, mitochondrial Eve had to mate with someone to have children, that someone was a man, that man must have had a mother. That mother would have been a woman necessarily older than mitochondrial Eve.
I mean, you can deny it, but you're simply denying the facts of life at that point - children are younger than their parents, men and women procreate.
even when secularists have the evidence rightin frontof them, they will not accept it.
How is mitochondrial "Eve" evidence for the Eve of the Bible, when the Bible says Eve lived 10,000 years ago and mitochondrial "Eve" lived over 200,000 years ago? There's just nothing to deny, here - you've become confused by the use of the name "Eve", but of course we have no idea what mitochondrial "Eve"'s name was, we just call her that.
it is up to you to make your choice to accept or rejectit but you cannot keep demanding more for it will not come.
If the Bible is true, why wouldn't more evidence come?