Two people reproduced 7 billion people.

[Esquilax]

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

Those are definitely two issues. However, I now find myself in the position of having to defend myself from this contention that I believe things while lacking proof. Consider it a divergence if you must, but it's still on point; you're contending that two people, represented biblically, were the basis for the entire human species. If these two people really were Adam and Eve, is it not sensible to expect them to conform to the standards of the only book that has anything to say about them?

1. This alleged fact has not been supported.

Yeah, I must be wrong. That's why you always see paternity tests coming back with more than two parent DNA matches.

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.

And I've already told you: I don't know. But that doesn't mean, as you went on to say, that I believe in my position despite a lack of evidence. My whole post here was written to illustrate that, while I don't have direct proof on this singular issue, the weight of the rest of the context is enough to convince me.

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

Support it? I didn't even say it.

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

Really? And you know this because of your lengthy training and study in genetics and biology? You've got a degree, to be making those claims?

Does the mass of genetic proof, and the fossil record not count? Any reason for that, or do you just not like it?

That’s an inference from the facts.

Just so long as you're admitting that I'm basing my inference on facts, which is more than what you're doing.

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

Why on earth should I be required to prove your claim false only by your metric? Isn't being proven wrong at all enough?

By this logic, I can prove you wrong on every conceivable scale but the two you've selected, and because of that you'd still consider yourself correct?

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

Only you're wrong.

I ask to see it, and don’t get it.

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/8/4/339.short

Nice start, no?

Because that thing is what we happen to be discussing.

Well, it was before you started accusing me of believing without proof. Can not a topic of discussion expand?