Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[I_am_not_mafia]

why are you so sure that a low gene pool many years ago would affect a population the same as it does currently?

That would seem to agree with the point I was making does it not?

It's now clear that you're deliberately ignoring answers. Twice I have told you why your hypothesis is based on flawed understanding and twice you have ignored it. There is no clearer evidence that you are losing an argument when you deliberately ignore a point and continue repeating the same argument. It's not debating but spamming.

Let's make it three times shall we.

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.