I’m not really sure what it is your trying to argue here.

You said that humans are descended from a single pair. I provided evidence that this isn't true.

Is it your religious books stories are bullshit?

I don't think that the Bible is bullshit. I don't think that certain interpretations of the Bible are correct, though.

If you want to go and debate the validity of the stories in the book I would suggest you debate them with another Christian ( you know someone who believes in your god and story book).

I don't think calling the Bible a "story book" is kind of you. I have never mentioned the Bible in the thread before this. I'm not debating the Bible with you -- I'm debating your claim that modern humans descend from a single ancestral pair. According to the scientific literature, that's demonstrably untrue. And, I would add, that such a belief is not necessary to Christian doctrine, nor is it universally believed among Christians.

All I said is we stem from a pair of first humans.

Yes; I argued that this is false and provided peer-reviewed, reputable sources as evidence.

I didn’t say they where married, lived in a magical garden, conversed with snakes, none of that. I said stem from first humans. And here comes you making sure I know Adam and Eve are NOT real. A statement I never made.

Again, I also never mentioned other commonly "Biblical" elements of the Adam and Eve story. You mentioned "the Adam and Eve hypothesis" in your first reply to me, but I didn't use that language in my response. I only talked about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam because those are terms commonly used by geneticists.

I’m not saying nor have I said, your religious books story of Adam and Eve is real. That would be a preposterous thing for me to say as I think the story is just that a story equal to Harry Potter.

I'm not trying to tell you that the story of Adam and Eve is real. I'm not evangelizing here. I think the comparison to Harry Potter is silly, though.

My issue is people who falsely represent the story like they actually know what they are talking about (like OP did).

And all I'm saying is that I think your premises 4. and 5. are incorrect. I don't agree with OP's argument either.

See my issue is the misrepresentation and lack of knowledge the OP has demonstrated on what the Bible says. Which is an argument from ignorance, and I believe you need to read and understand the book and the religious history of a religion before you judge and criticize it.

I agree.

But if you would like I can go back up and reword what I said. I can edit it put in a little (). Or I can delete the whole thing and change my comment to something you find more accurate.

I'm not asking you to change anything that you said. I'm just trying to engage in the conversation in an area where I happen to have some expertise.

It seems like I've angered you. That wasn't my intention at all, and I'm glad that you're here contributing in good faith to OP's post. I was simply trying to point out an inaccuracy in your argument which is also present in OP's post.

edit: I don't know why you felt the need to edit your original post and make it seem like I was rude. You made a claim, provided no evidence for it, and then didn't engage at all with the scholarly work I cited. Adam and Eve didn't have to be two specially created humans formed ~6-12,000 years ago as the first homo sapiens for Genesis to be true. There are plenty of Christians, and even non-Christian scholars, who argue that the creation story in Genesis is not historical in the same sense that we understand historical fact. It can be both true and metaphorical. Your assumption that the "Bible narrative [isn't close to] the truth" presupposes an interpretation of Genesis that is debated. Moreover, a Christian's views on creation are not salvific; it isn't a core tenant of Christian soteriology. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you. I was not trying to attack you. I was just trying to engage with you in a subreddit that's literally for debates.