Two people reproduced 7 billion people.

[Esquilax]

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

How so?

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

Actually, I skipped over the first thing you appended a question mark to, knowing ahead of time that it was rhetorical. I was answering the second thing, just calling it the first since it was the first real question.

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

See above. They can, and have proven them.

2. Scientific proof would logically lead to agreement.

And it has. Like I said later, the disagreement over evolution isn't a scientific one, it's a religious one. Because religion feels like it has something to lose there. But please note: religion disagreeing because reality disagrees with its holy book doesn't constitute a scientific challenge.

We're not talking about the human race, we're talking about the scientific community.

Yep, and the scientific community is largely in agreement on the issue. Those that disagree are doing so because the theory disagrees with their convictions, not because of any legitimate scientific reasoning.

If they can't agree on anything, then nothing has been proven.

That's not the way proof works. Reality isn't determined by popular opinion; evolution is true because the evidence bears it out, not because there's a consensus. Hell, the fact that there isn't a consensus is just more proof that evolution is true, because those that don't agree with it would have a great reason to try and prove it false; a scientist who can topple a foundational pillar of biological science would be a very famous scientist indeed. The fact that nobody has been able to so far only demonstrates the strength of the theory.

Why would you believe anything that hasn't been proven?

You tell me. My beliefs are contingent on the facts, and at the moment, the facts point to evolution being the method by which life gained its diversity. Of course, if you had some kind of counter claim to that, I'd be willing to hear it. Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

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?

Because there's a difference between humans and other animals. We know of animals that exist now that can sexually and asexually reproduce, but humans can't do that.

Not that it matters, because there's a bigger difference in the way the two of us are approaching this issue to begin with: I'm saying that I don't know, and am following the evidence in other areas to make my beliefs. You are providing a claim, and that claim happens to be testable. Only one of us can be proven wrong here because only one of us is making a claim, and brother, it's not me.

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

Peer reviewed studies on something nobody has studied because it's patently ridiculous? No, I'm good.

But we have technology enough to determine genetic lineages now. If all humans on earth shared a common heritage based around Adam and Eve, then we'd be able to see that in the DNA. We can do that with other species, you know: for example, did you know that whales are related to ungulates?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689531/

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

True. But why not believe things according to the facts? And if you're implying that you believe neither, why are we arguing?