Two people reproduced 7 billion people.

[John V]

See above. They can, and have proven them.

Let's see the proof.

And it has.

Let's see it. When I research the evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction, I find multiple hypotheses, not agreement.

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.

You keep trying to swithc the focus to evolution as a whole, rather than the specific topics of sexual reproduction and inbreeding.

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?

What are the facts regarding the origins of sexual reproduction and inbreeding?

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.

I'm not asking about those creatures. I'm asking about creatures which only reproduce sexually.

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.

Why would you believe without proof?

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.

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

So, my position hasn't been refuted.

But we have technology enough to determine genetic lineages now.

No, we have technology enough to determine present genomes. We then infer genetic lineages, and those inferences are based in part on a priori positions.

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

We're arguing at this point because you believe things without proof, but earlier suggested that I should not do so.