Two people reproduced 7 billion people.

[Esquilax]

Not necessarily, no. There's frequently not enough evidence to prove historical events.

I'm thinking genetically.

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

First question, yes. Second question, why does there need to be absolute agreement? The human race can't absolutely agree on anything. 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.

Again, I disagree that proof of historical events is necessarily well within our ability to find, and await your explanation of the evolutionary origin of sexual reproduction and proof of that explanation.

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

I don't have a problem with believing something without proof. That was Esquilax IIRC.

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. I have a reasonable expectation that the theory will bear out because it has time and time again, and the evidence that proves it points to a world that is very different from the garden of eden origin that you're espousing.

[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.

[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?

[Justtristo]

Male and female created he them... Adm, humans (them = 2 or more)
(hermaphrodites or transexuals or whatever PC term you want to use)

God took out the tesla (angular organ, possibly "womb") , not a rib...
(1st genetic mutation of single-sex human "creating" the first female - wom(b)man?)

Adm (human) couples with Eve (1st female-only human) and creates offspring males that carry Eve's genetic traits.
(offspring males procreate with other hermaphrodite humans passing on Eve's genes) (could this be where Cane got his wife?)



If we all have a common ancestor (species, genetic trait, whatever), then I can't in good conscience say that there wasn't inbreeding. There had to be...
.

I heard Robert M Price saying that in some Jewish traditions, Adam or the first man is portrayed in being a hermaphrodite. Only afterwards after the first man was spilt there was male and female.

[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.

[Esquilax]

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

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 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

You talk of proof, yet you can't find any for your position, and when I mention that mine has plenty of documented and peer reviewed evidence to back it up, you move the goalposts back 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?

I have plenty, sir. More than enough.

[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.

[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?

[ThomM]

/quote]

I agree with you and I don't support the Genesis story one tiny bit. While only two people bringing about all of earth's humans is a serious stretch for me (story wise) - two people having a few kids and those kids having kids and those kids having even more kids and so on..... pretty much happens all the time. Peek at China or India (any/all religion aside).


--------

Actually - that is how the human population evolved - from the first humans that evolved from other animals = over a least 2 million years - no god need be involved.

We know that the great flood never happened - without question. There may have been many LOCAL floods in various areas around the world - but we have proof of the continuation of the Egyptian civilization and language completely through the 6000 year history of the jewish earth - which is nonsense.

[EGross]

Actually, if you beleive the story, we also got that big flood, and so while you had a bit of a setback, all of these people were obviously really fruitful. Maybe they had sextuples every 15 months (which is how some jewish sages explain how 69 hebrews went down to Egypt and 600,000 males of fighting age and all of their women and kids and the elderly [a couple of million in total?], came out 210 years later.