Why is there no historical evidence of the first man and woman

>>2265395
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

>>2265395

Women are a myth

>>2265395

I recall the first man was some scribe who wrote down his name, Sumerian I believe.

>>2265401
anon, that's not the same thing

>>2265401
honestly scientism is a cancerous religion and the adherents dont even realize it.

The answer is that God told us all we needed to know. Asking more questions than whatever genesis contains be it literal truth or metaphor is a complete waste of time.

>>2265644
The worst thing about this board is that I can honestly no longer tell whether posts like this are serious or not. You get better discussions about these topics on /pol/ for fuck's sake.

>>2265553
Got a source for that? Honest question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

>>2265660

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/19/whos-the-first-person-in-history-whose-name-we-know/

>“The most probable reading of this sentence,” Harari writes, “is: ‘A total of 29,086 measures of barley were received over the course of 37 months. Signed, Kushim.’ ”

>>2265395
They lived in prehistory

>>2265395
The first member of a particular species is always a bit arbitrary, you'd have to carefully define what it means to be Homo Sapiens, and then find the first individual generated by the closest ancestral species that reunited the characteristics to be not an Homo Whateveriensis like his parents but an Homo Sapiens
It's a semantic nightmare

Also talking of semantics, that point wouldn't even be part of history.

>>2265395
>Why is there no historical evidence of the first man and woman to exist in history?
subtle, infallible, unassailable, at least 2 layers of irony, angers everyone especially Reddit History "Buffs".
This is beyond Beige-posting.