Two people reproduced 7 billion people.

[John V]

I'm thinking genetically.

Then you're thinking inference based on a priori assumptions, not proof.

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

First question, yes.

NSS, that was rhetorical, noting your switch from prove to provide.

Second question, why does there need to be absolute agreement?

1. No, the second question was, "Can they prove them?" I take it they can't.

2. Scientific proof would logically lead to agreement.

The human race can't absolutely agree on anything.

We're not talking about the human race, we're talking about the scientific community. If they can't agree on anything, then nothing has been proven. Why would you believe anything that hasn't been proven?

But there are mountains of evidence that have been tested again and again and come out verified, there's a general scientific consensus, and we only ever keep finding more proof of evolution. The disagreement here isn't a scientific one, it's a religious one.

Is there a mountina of evidence that the first sexually reproducing creatures weren't hindered by inbreeding? If so, why would that be a problem for Christians?

It need not be historical: if all of life sprouted from just two people there would be ample genetic evidence to show this.

What would that evidence look like? Please cite peer reviewed studies.

Except that I still have plenty of other proofs of the evolutionary process, like genetic evidence, and the fossil record. We may not have the answer to this single question of sexual reproduction yet, but missing one or two puzzle pieces doesn't suddenly make the puzzle a picture of god because every other piece shows that it's a picture of the evolutionary process.

False dichotomy. You can simply choose not to believe either.