Continuing the discussion from Adam, Eve and Population Genetics: A Reply to Dr. Richard Buggs (Part 1):
Entertaining position offered on another thread raises an important question.
Is there, however, a biological definition of “Mankind”?
Turns out there is not. Or at least, there is no agreed upon definition. So how could one be committed to the biological definition of mankind when one does not exist?
We can actually define a first couple genetically (by which I mean with a specific sequence). The only caveat, then, however is that that genetics will not transmit reliably to all their offspring. Genetics does not transmit reliably.
Also, H. sapiens is not defined genetically. It is defined by a cluster of anatomical and behavioral traits, and the precise definition is disputed. For this reason, especially if behavior is a critical part of the definition, it is plausible it starts with a single couple. And if behavior is a critical trait, then its possible it is reliably transmitted to all offspring too.
Regardless, is Homo sapien’s “Mankind” in a biological sense? Nope.
“Human” and “mankind” are unscientific terms with no precision or clarity. There is no “biological” definitino of mankind.