Stop Jacking me around with your smoke and mirror act.I don't know what your definition of 'Kin' is but mine is 'of the same nature, or of the same kind'.
Dude, leave out the unfounded accusations.
I would have said, for example, that scottish wild cats and domestic cats were 'kin'. Using kin in the same sort of way it is used to describe related family member in human geneaolgy. You are correct with your definition of 'kin', I am correct with mine - no smoke and mirrors, just a difference of terminology.
And your also wrong about saying no redarding one woman when by your own admission you practivcally said the same exact thing but used the term female rather than woman. Why you had to throw that she wasn't the only woman is beyond me as if it even had any baering on the argument.
No, I didn't. Your statement implied there was only one couple that all humans descended from (I assume where you said 'woman and woman' you meant 'woman an man'?). This is false. All humans do indeed share one (most recent) common female ancestor and one (most recent) common male ancestor.
But these two were not a couple; indeed they were seperated by some (IIRC) 70,000 years! There was not one female ancestor at the time of the common ancestor, although those other ancestors' mitochondrial DNA was not passed on this is absolutely not to say that all their DNA was lost (only that it passed through all male lines on the way).
I'm concentrating, incidently, on the female side because I'm not sure how the common male ancestor is determined.