Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[I_am_not_mafia]

So what makes you so sure that cells don't degrade after reproduction (In all other cases a copy of a copy of a copy would be inferior to the original), so while we may currently see ill effects caused by a low gene pool, maybe ancient species didn't due to stronger genetics.

So to SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, if current cells are different than early ones, then why are you so sure that a low gene pool many years ago would affect a population the same as it does currently? Are we just going to assume that remained the same?

Already answered but conveniently ignored by you:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-51134-p...pid1644141

There is a difference between a digital and an analogue copy. Copying an analogue tape or photograph means that noise builds upon noise as the signal degrades. Your computer on the other hand will make perfect copies each time no matter how many times it happens if no errors occur. But any errors that occur will be localised. Genetic reproduction is more akin to the latter than the former with errors being mutations. The theory of evolution accounts for the role of mutations over time. This is how new information enters a population. Most mutations are deleterious and die off. Some mutations are neutral and open up a new area of search space, while other mutations are beneficial and are more likely to be passed onto off-spring.