Two people reproduced 7 billion people.

[John V]

Well, okay: let's look at the facts, then.

The fact is that the Earth is not six thousand years old. This is clear in the simple fact that we can find cultural artifacts of humanity that are older than this, and that we can see light from the rest of the universe that predates this by... ooh, a very long time indeed. So the claim that six thousand years ago- or ten, I know there's some disagreement over the precise timing- there were two people who propagated the entire species is manifestly false.

The age of the earth and universe is a red herring. There have been two issues in the thread:

- What’s the minimum reasonable time for two people to multiply to 7 billion or so, and
- Would genetic problems from inbreeding prevent such multiplication

The fact is that we know how genetics and sexual reproduction works, and because of this we know that two people could not have been responsible for the genetic diversity of the entire human race. When this fact is pointed out, you essentially fall back on "they had magic genes," which is a non-argument.

1. This alleged fact has not been supported.
2. I’ve pointed out that in the evolutionary paradigm, there was necessarily a beginning to sexual reproduction, and asked for an explanation as to why that beginning was not prevented by inbreeding problems, and asked for proof of the explanation. I’m still waiting.

The fact is, we can look back through the fossil strata, and when we do, we don't find perfectly formed modern day humans, which is what we would expect if the Genesis account were true.

We’ve never found modern human fossils? Can you support that?

Instead, what we find are humanity's transitional ancestors, by the bucket full. We can map out an evolutionary lineage for our species, and at no point does it go back to a single man and woman.

We find fossils which people classify as human ancestors without proof of such.

So once again, saying I don't know with regards to the initial sexual reproduction of the species doesn't mean I need to throw away my belief in the evolutionary theory, because just from looking at the facts, I can come to two conclusions: One, it's happening.

That’s an inference from the facts.

And two, the Genesis account and any reliance on Adam and Eve as the progenitors of my entire species is patently false, by a number of measures.

So far that hasn’t shown to be false by population growth rates or inbreeding, the topics of this thread.

You talk of proof, yet you can't find any for your position,

Holy crap, talk about turning things around. I admitted I didn’t have proof. I’m now showing that you don’t either.

and when I mention that mine has plenty of documented and peer reviewed evidence to back it up,

I ask to see it, and don’t get it.

you move the goalposts back

To the beginning, before you introduced red herrings.

and say we're only talking about sexual reproduction. Why on earth would I allow that criteria? Why would I build my entire position around that, when there's a whole scientific continuum of research and study that backs me to the hilt and screams with deafening clarity that I am correct in my thinking? Why does not knowing one aspect of a thing mean I have no proof at all?

Because that thing is what we happen to be discussing.