Two people reproduced 7 billion people.

[John V]

How can you neglect the fact that these people would have been inbreeding with close, biological relatives for multiple generations? It didn't work for the European aristocracies, many developed genetic diseases such as hemophilia, it certainly would have been less successful 6,000 years ago when Christians believe all of this was going on.

1. I'm not neglecting it. My position is that A&E's genome had lots of variation built in to it and had far fewer defects than today, so inbreeding was at first not a problem. By the time we get to the patriarchs, we see Abraham married to a half sister. 400 years later in the law, that is not allowed. Errors are accumulating in the genome.

2. What's your answer to the problem? In the evolutionary paradigm life begain as asexual. There was necessarily some starting point to sexual reproduction. What's science's answer to the alleged inbreeding problem, and what is its evidence for that answer?

---

Well, I'm more talking about any form of verifiable proof at all, but if you can't prove it, then why believe in it?

We believe all sorts of things we can't prove. See my point to to festive above.

Or rather, look at it in the reverse: if it were true, shouldn't you be able to prove it?

Not necessarily, no. There's frequently not enough evidence to prove historical events.

If scientists can provide evolutionary chains going back millions of years,

Provide? Can they prove them? Is there absolute agreement on them?

should they not also be able to support this biblical claim? If it were true, there should be proof of it all over, well within our ability to find.

Again, I disagree that proof of historical events is necessarily well within our ability to find, and await your explanation of the evolutionary origin of sexual reproduction and proof of that explanation.