Creationism is NOT Biblical

[yeshuasavedme]

Were you actively taught the material, or did it just appear in some of your textbooks?
It was our "social science textbook", and it was that year that I was taught the propaganda of evolution.

How were you brainwashed?
I was indoctrinated to believe that God's word was a lie, by the lying contradictions to it which were presented by the material used in the government schools I had to attend.

Can I ask which textbooks you used to teach your children?

I used many books. Bob Jones and Abeka books were available to us when we first began homeschooling. They were not all the best, but the Biology by Bob Jones was excellent. By no means was that the limit of the education resources we used. We were creative and resourceful, esp in history and in Creation Science materials, which taught what evolution believed, but refuted evolution soundly.

My own love is world history, as it relates to the Bible. We also used tutors as needed, for Algebra, Biology, Chemistry, Geometry, Piano, and Voice. Plus the boys did sports in public school, but I would not recommend that for my grandchildren, for my own reasons.
We traveled lots [while hubby worked to support us] and we did visit a few museums, but which museums all teach the lies of evolution as if it is fact; but we had indoctrinated -brainwashed- our own kids' minds with the Truth of God's Word on that subject prior to the visits when they came up, and were able to discuss the lies in the displays and why they were lies and how they were inventions of men and not proven, and why God's Word is true from the beginning.
It has been a long time since. The baby is in her 28th year, the oldest son who was first homeschooled [but not til his tenth grade] is in his 42nd year, and I can't remember every resource. Since then I have been able to purchase many good books for my own library, which some of my grandchildren read when they are here. If they don't read them at least we discuss them.

I now question everything that is taught in public institutions outside of reading, writing, and arithmetic, chemistry -and so on; and outside of those technical things one must learn to function in a career -like medical professions and automachanics and so on and so forth. One son is a dentist.
I think every family needs within it, whether in their own immediate family or their siblings' families- a called/anointed preacher, a good lawyer [who loves God and His Word above all], a lover of history who can instruct in world and US history, a chiropractor, mechanics of many kinds, a contractor, a dentist, an orthodontist, a real gardener, many good cooks, clever inventors and good musicians who love beauty in voice and words -and all the other things we must have to function in society and be as well in body, soul, and mind as we can be, and to prosper and be in peace as much as is possible in this world. One does not need the lies and propaganda and social engineering of government schools to achieve any of those things; and I do not think any of those things is to be preferred over others.

 

[Mallon]

It was our "social science textbook", and it was that year that I was taught the propaganda of evolution.

Okay. So you are saying that you were actively taught evolution in your social sciences class, and not that evolution simply appeared in your textbook. That's what I was trying to figure out.

I was indoctrinated to believe that God's word was a lie, by the lying contradictions to it which were presented by the material used in the government schools I had to attend.

How, specifically, did they "brainwash" you, though? Did they deprive you of sleep? Did they dehumanize you? Did they subject you to partial sensory deprivation? Did they hypnotize you? Did they pressure you? Did they force you to repeat a mantra?
Did they also try to brainwash you into believing the earth revolves around the sun?
I'm curious.

Thanks for telling us about your homeschooling materials and experiences. I would love to read the official Bob Jones take on biology.

 

[busterdog]

Okay. So you are saying that you were actively taught evolution in your social sciences class, and not that evolution simply appeared in your textbook. That's what I was trying to figure out.


How, specifically, did they "brainwash" you, though? Did they deprive you of sleep? Did they dehumanize you? Did they subject you to partial sensory deprivation? Did they hypnotize you? Did they pressure you? Did they force you to repeat a mantra?
Did they also try to brainwash you into believing the earth revolves around the sun?
I'm curious.

Thanks for telling us about your homeschooling materials and experiences. I would love to read the official Bob Jones take on biology.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=10&v=21&t=KJV#21Looks like its time to wrap up the thread.

 

[marktheblake]

So no commentaries to quote then. The waw consecutive is basic Hebrew grammar, and I have supported it.

Your one man crusade has not swayed me. The likes of John Calvin, Martin Henry and Josephus do not agree with you, and I don't see anybody that does.

support your view rather than playing rhetorical games pretending I am the one who need to support my position. This is getting tedious. If you have nothing to back up your case why not simply drop it?

That argument cuts both ways. I admit you may be on to something but If you want to change my view you are going to have to show much better evidence than YOUR opinion. I accept you showed me one web page on the subject of the waw consecutive, however If your view was correct there should be plenty more relating to Genesis 5. Therefore I can only conclude that nobody else supports it.

My argument doe not depend on the relationship between birthright and blessings.

I dont even know why you are talking about birthright and blessings.

Not that it matters, but what do you think Jacob got in his birthright that was not conferred in the blessing?

All I know is that Esau complained that he lost both to Jacob on seperate occasions. Until I came across that verse because you bought up Esau, I had never realised there was a distinction between the two before.

You don't think being the appointed seed was the birthright or blessing? Eve tells us Abel was the appointed seed.

Yes you are right. she didnt mention anything about blessing or birthright.

Can you point out any in the relevant Genesis 5 Genealogy with the waw consecutives?

No it is clear that the Gen 5 Geneolgy doesnt make any distinction.

Seth was third born. Are the second borns we do see in the later genealogies the norm, or are they an exception to the normal procedure

.
In Hebrew culture one is considered first born or second born, there are no third borns, all subsequent younger males are simply referred to as second born.

exception or norm? dont beleive me about being all second borns leading up to Christ in the latter geneologies? Check it out, its not hard.

Why say 'the older will serve the younger', if that was normal practice?

The eldest son is the priest and leader of the family, seems consistent with what JC said.

The only reason to read to text any differently is to make it fit what you think it should say.

That is a useless argument as it cuts both ways.

If you think the birthright automatically went to the second born then why didn't it go to one of older brothers you think Seth had?

You are the one making claims about Birthrights to Cain, Abel and Seth not me. There is no mention of this in Genesis.

According to your argument Cain missed out because he was oldest and Abel as second born got the blessing.

No idea where you get this idea from at all. You are the one making claims Abel had something.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Okay. So you are saying that you were actively taught evolution in your social sciences class, and not that evolution simply appeared in your textbook. That's what I was trying to figure out.


How, specifically, did they "brainwash" you, though? Did they deprive you of sleep? Did they dehumanize you? Did they subject you to partial sensory deprivation? Did they hypnotize you? Did they pressure you? Did they force you to repeat a mantra?
Did they also try to brainwash you into believing the earth revolves around the sun?

I'm curious.

Thanks for telling us about your homeschooling materials and experiences. I would love to read the official Bob Jones take on biology.

Yes. This was 7th grade social science, not biology. We were taught we came from apes.
The Bob Jones Biology Book was excellent. The author of it was an excellent teacher. I had our copy around until recently and cannot remember his name, but if I remember correctly he was awarded as a national "Teacher of the Year" before that book was published.

Brainwashing in the sense of indoctrination into their world view errors. I brainwashed my own children with my own world views. I just used superior water to wash their brains. The government "water" was polluted sewage.
At that age I was not a Bible scholar and had no understanding that God's Word taught only Geocentrism.
But now I am an unashamed convert to Geocentrism as God's revealed Truth.

 

[Mallon]

But now I am an unashamed convert to Geocentrism as God's revealed Truth.

Awesome. Do you belong to the Association for Biblical Astronomy?

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Awesome. Do you belong to the Association for Biblical Astronomy?

No.
After I searched this out for myself in the Scriptures, I ordered the book on C.D., "Galileo was wrong" which I have not yet read but I have looked at the neat graphics.

The stars were made for signs for this creation and have some connection to angels. Angels are called stars and stars are called angels. One third of the stars will be cast down to earth in the Great Tribulation. In 1 Enoch, the glory of those who get blotted out of the book of Life will be cast down from heaven.
In Judges, it is written that the stars in their courses fought from heaven, for Joshua against Sisera.
I have said for years that there is no possible way we can see and understand creation from inside the fishbowl, so to speak, that we are dwelling in.
Is is futile and silly for men to claim to have proved God wrong, when the span of their lives is so short, their knowledge is so limited, and the things they believe and have faith in keep on being proven wrong.

God's Word never changes, and is true from the beginning.

 

[marktheblake]

The stars were made for signs for this creation and have some connection to angels.

This might be a little off topic but you reminded me of another purpose for the creation of stars (of course there are possibly multiple reasons), and I thought you might be interested.

I was listening to Chuck Missler the other day and he was talking about the Zodiac/Astrology. I have never paid any attention to this 'pagan rubbish', however Chuck is teaching that this all began in the days of ancient biblical times- its only later that pagans etc adapted them somewhat. Honestly I had never heard of this before.

Chuck describes the ancient astrology as mnemonics that Adam (or descendants) would have used to teach his generations the prophecies of the coming messiah, which would have been originally given by God

If you take the example of Saggitarius, the shape of the stars do not look like an archer - thats ridiculous.

So the zodiac picture is derived from the story described by the meanings of the Hebrew names of the stars in the order of their brightness (key point)

I cant remember all the details, but it was fascinating stuff.

I have considerable faith in Misslers teachings however there is no basis that I know of in scripture, so I wouldnt advise anyone to be dogmatic about it. Of course there will be likely those that will mock such an idea altogether. In any case I think it makes for an interesting and fun research topic into both the stars and hebrew.

 

[Assyrian]

Your one man crusade has not swayed me. The likes of John Calvin, Martin Henry and Josephus do not agree with you, and I don't see anybody that does.

Some quotations would be nice. When did Calvin, Henry or Josephus ever discuss the use of the waw consecutive in genealogies? Incidentally, Josephus thought the story of Adam and Eve was allegorical.

support your view rather than playing rhetorical games pretending I am the one who need to support my position. This is getting tedious. If you have nothing to back up your case why not simply drop it?

That argument cuts both ways. I admit you may be on to something but If you want to change my view you are going to have to show much better evidence than YOUR opinion. I accept you showed me one web page on the subject of the waw consecutive, however If your view was correct there should be plenty more relating to Genesis 5. Therefore I can only conclude that nobody else supports it.

So you have no support for your argument and claim that the lack of evidence supports your argument? Amazing. I don't whether anybody considered the implications of the grammar of Genesis 5:4 on their interpretation of Gen 4:17. You obviously think large number of Hebrew scholars have considered the argument, rejected it, and as a result written nothing about it. To counter your complete lack of evidence you try to dismiss Gensius' Hebrew Grammar as simply a web page, but it is a standard Hebrew reference. This is getting boring Mark come up with some evidence or leave it alone.

I dont even know why you are talking about birthright and blessings.
...

Lets not bother then.

No it is clear that the Gen 5 Geneolgy doesnt make any distinction.

So the waw consecutive stands then, the other sons and daughters in the Genesis 5 genealogy were born after the son named.

.
In Hebrew culture one is considered first born or second born, there are no third borns, all subsequent younger males are simply referred to as second born.

exception or norm? dont beleive me about being all second borns leading up to Christ in the latter geneologies? Check it out, its not hard.

Yet you can't find any in the relevant Genesis 5 genealogies with the waw consecutives.

The eldest son is the priest and leader of the family, seems consistent with what JC said.

A quotation would be nice. You think Cain Ishmael Esau and Reuben were priests?

The only reason to read to text any differently is to make it fit what you think it should say.

That is a useless argument as it cuts both ways.

Yeah sure, you have come up with loads of evidence showing how the story describes other brothers and sisters running about at the time Cain murdered Abel, and how Cain incestuously married his own sister.

You are the one making claims about Birthrights to Cain, Abel and Seth not me. There is no mention of this in Genesis.

No, not making claims just looking at the issue because you questioned the Genealogy in Gen 5 as all being first born. It seems plausible that the birth right went to the first born son unless he was disqualified by fratricide, sleeping with his father's concubine, or buying lentil soup. You haven't come up with any evidence to the contrary, but even so it is just speculation. It is the genealogy that tells us the other brothers and sisters were born after the sons mentioned in the genealogy, asking why was an interesting diversion, but not very relevant and long past its sell by date now.

No idea where you get this idea from at all. You are the one making claims Abel had something.

Eve was the one who said it. You never got around to dealing with that.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

This might be a little off topic but you reminded me of another purpose for the creation of stars (of course there are possibly multiple reasons), and I thought you might be interested.

I was listening to Chuck Missler the other day and he was talking about the Zodiac/Astrology. I have never paid any attention to this 'pagan rubbish', however Chuck is teaching that this all began in the days of ancient biblical times- its only later that pagans etc adapted them somewhat. Honestly I had never heard of this before.

Chuck describes the ancient astrology as mnemonics that Adam (or descendants) would have used to teach his generations the prophecies of the coming messiah, which would have been originally given by God

If you take the example of Saggitarius, the shape of the stars do not look like an archer - thats ridiculous.

So the zodiac picture is derived from the story described by the meanings of the Hebrew names of the stars in the order of their brightness (key point)

I cant remember all the details, but it was fascinating stuff.

I have considerable faith in Misslers teachings however there is no basis that I know of in scripture, so I wouldnt advise anyone to be dogmatic about it. Of course there will be likely those that will mock such an idea altogether. In any case I think it makes for an interesting and fun research topic into both the stars and hebrew.

I haven't heard that from Missler, but there was a book written on the subject in the late 1800's -or early 1900's by someone in maybe the Reformed movement???-
Yes, the stars themselves have something to do with God's plan for this creation.
Even Abraham's seed from his loins through Isaac were shown him in the "stars"; Thus are you seed", is one way to translate the Hebrew there, not "so shall your seed be", in Genesis 15 when God took Abraham out to consider the stars[or constellations]. The word for stars is actually also from the same for constellations.
In the Book of Jasher, when Joseph fed his brothers when they came for grain the second time, and had Benjamin sit by him, he asked Benjamin if he understood the star signs, and Ben said his father had taught him. He asked if he could read where his brother Joseph was, on a star map which Joseph put before him, and Benjamin did read it, and mapped Joseph's place to right there , b eside him. -H-M-M!

Jasher 53: 16-21
And Joseph swore unto them, and he pressed them hard, and they drank plentifully with him on that day, and Joseph afterward turned to his brother Benjamin to speak with him, and Benjamin was still sitting upon the throne before Joseph.
And Joseph said unto him, Hast thou begotten any children? and he said, Thy servant has ten sons, and these are their names, Bela, Becher, Ashbal, Gera, Naaman, Achi, Rosh, Mupim, Chupim, and Ord, and I called their names after my brother whom I have not seen.
And he ordered them to bring before him his map of the stars, whereby Joseph knew all the times, and Joseph said unto Benjamin, I have heard that the Hebrews are acquainted with all wisdom, dost thou know anything of this?
And Benjamin said, Thy servant is knowing also in all the wisdom which my father taught me, and Joseph said unto Benjamin, Look now at this instrument and understand where thy brother Joseph is in Egypt, who you said went down to Egypt.
And Benjamin beheld that instrument with the map of the stars of heaven, and he was wise and looked therein to know where his brother was, and Benjamin divided the whole land of Egypt into four divisions, and he found that he who was sitting upon the throne before him was his brother Joseph, and Benjamin wondered greatly, and when Joseph saw that his brother Benjamin was so much astonished, he said unto Benjamin, What hast thou seen, and why art thou astonished?
And Benjamin said unto Joseph, I can see by this that Joseph my brother sitteth here with me upon the throne, and Joseph said unto him, I am Joseph thy brother, reveal not this thing unto thy brethren; behold I will send thee with them when they go away, and I will command them to be brought back again into the city, and I will take thee away from them.

This is not astrology as is practiced today.
Even the wise men who were of the Medes and whom Daniel was set over in his day, understood by the stars that Jesus Christ was born King of the Jews.
Star signs figured prominently in the Bible and in Jasher -even in Josephus' record at the fall of Jerusalem and the temple.
Consider the star sign of the 12th chapter of Rev, and Jesus promised "signs in the heavens" in the great tribulation.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

A quotation would be nice. You think Cain Ishmael Esau and Reuben were priests?

Actually the "firstborn" through the history of Adam's race is the "father/priest/king". The first of the race, first of the tribes, first/heads of the families were the "father/priest/king of the race, the tribe and the family down through history, and even into today, still, in much of the world.

Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of the second race of human beings [second Man, Firstborn of the Father as to His humanity; YHWH in flesh as to His diety -Isaiah 59], and is the "Everlasting Father", the "God of the whole earth" who is the "Intercessor" for the race of human beings, before the Glory on high. We had no intercessor for earth until YHWH prepared a body in the womb of the virgin and dressed Himself in that body of second Man flesh creation [Isaiah 59] to be the Kinsman to Adam and the Redeemer and intercessor for this earth, and for all it's lost seed, adn whosoever will may be joined to His New Man name and be made a co-heir to the kingdom He ramsomed back, for the glory.

Adam was made to be "god" of the earth of the human being kind, and lost the dominion.
Jesus is Christ come in flesh to be the second Man, the Firstborn/Head of the race, and the Everlasting Father of the second Man creation -Isaiah 9, and who will never leave us "orphans" =as our first father and all subsequent fathers did -Jhn 14:18 I will not leave you orphans/orphanos: I will come to you.
-but we must be adopted into His New Man name by His Living Spirit of regeneration =born from above, of His Spirit, which is the "adoption" spoken of, in the Word of God

 

[busterdog]

Actually the "firstborn" through the history of Adam's race is the "father/priest/king". The first of the race, first of the tribes, first/heads of the families were the "father/priest/king of the race, the tribe and the family down through history, and even into today, still, in much of the world.

Jesus Christ is the Firstborn of the second race of human beings [second Man, Firstborn of the Father as to His humanity; YHWH in flesh as to His diety -Isaiah 59], and is the "Everlasting Father", the "God of the whole earth" who is the "Intercessor" for the race of human beings, before the Glory on high. We had no intercessor for earth until YHWH prepared a body in the womb of the virgin and dressed Himself in that body of second Man flesh creation [Isaiah 59] to be the Kinsman to Adam and the Redeemer and intercessor for this earth, and for all it's lost seed, adn whosoever will may be joined to His New Man name and be made a co-heir to the kingdom He ramsomed back, for the glory.

Adam was made to be "god" of the earth of the human being kind, and lost the dominion.
Jesus is Christ come in flesh to be the second Man, the Firstborn/Head of the race, and the Everlasting Father of the second Man creation -Isaiah 9, and who will never leave us "orphans" =as our first father and all subsequent fathers did -Jhn 14:18 I will not leave you orphans/orphanos: I will come to you.
-but we must be adopted into His New Man name by His Living Spirit of regeneration =born from above, of His Spirit, which is the "adoption" spoken of, in the Word of God

I think the semantics of "priest" or "king" are a little distracting. Dominion seems to be at the root of the issue, but that concept is broad enough that there probably isnt a great argument against your position.

The first explicit reference to a King/Priest was Melchizidech, the model for the priesthood of Jesus. And of course in John's Benediction from Revelation:

Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

I did a study guide on "dominion" for Sunday school.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=49602334#post49602334

It will be interesting to see what the TE take on "dominion" is. The YEC view is that the essence of the recovery of dominion is what is happening in the following:

Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

The YEC take is typically that this is a tangible bondage on physical and spiritual lives, not just a spiritual principle or metaphor for people's spiritual mood or inclination.

You are also touching on a dark area -- both grim and murky. Why was Isaac offered? There is support of the idea that those are the rules after the fall or in some areas because dominion has been surrendered on some level to the enemy. That is not offered as doctrine, but there is something going on there and something about the offering of the first born that is not a mere whim or literary flourish.

Also, consider:

Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

That is not necessarily the granting of license. It would appear to be a statement of fact, existing fact. Satan has a dominion because of something gone wrong.

 

[warrior of sacrifice]

Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally, while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.

Looking at the title, I can see its also vice versa Every belief has evidence behind it, however it is left to the opinion of the individual to decide which is correct.

 

[busterdog]

Looking at the title, I can see its also vice versa Every belief has evidence behind it, however it is left to the opinion of the individual to decide which is correct.

Except there is a big difference between accepting the plain text as true and having your view line up with an inference. The OP says that if you draw an inference to push the text, you come up with a view quite at odds with the plain text. The OP is about either 1. a very limited issue of other families having been created, ostensibly, on which the text is arguably silent; or 2. proving that the law of the jungle lead to the creation of Adam and the human species, which is at odds with the surface text. Arguably the evolutionary "ascent" of man would be the likely force to lead to these many unrelated families.

Of course, evolution also requires incest once you have genetic speciation (nor morphological), unless you have the miracle of simultaneous speciation in several instances. Apparently the evolutionary God is ok with that, but He would forbid technical incest in the large family of Adam. Illogical.

 

[marktheblake]

Some quotations would be nice. When did Calvin, Henry or Josephus ever discuss the use of the waw consecutive in genealogies?

I never said they did discuss it, why do you like to read into things that are not there. Nevertheless now you also seem to be suggesting you understand scripture better then they did? Here is a solid quote for you, anyone can find Josephus and Henry's writings online and both are linked to Scripture verses, and Calvin I forgot, do I have to provide links for all the other Theologians too, even the ones I havent heard of yet?

So you have no support for your argument and claim that the lack of evidence supports your argument?

I dont have an argument - you do, and there is no scholarly support for your interpretation of Gen 5:4. I am happy to rest on everyone else's, thanks very much.

You obviously think large number of Hebrew scholars have considered the argument, rejected it, and as a result written nothing about it.

No, and its quite silly to assume what I think (on top of twist what I wrote). Rather I think that no Hebrew scholars have considered your argument because there isn't one. Not all waw consecutives mean a logical sequence of events, even that web page you sent me says that. If only I didnt see jumbled weird fonts everywhere I might make some sense of it some more.

To counter your complete lack of evidence you try to dismiss Gensius' Hebrew Grammar as simply a web page, but it is a standard Hebrew reference.

No I dont. Rather I dismiss your understanding of Hebrew grammar.

Yet you can't find any in the relevant Genesis 5 genealogies with the waw consecutives.

You clearly think there is something special about being firstborn and the appointed seed (to Christ), well later genealogies prove there is not.

A quotation would be nice. You think Cain Ishmael Esau and Reuben were priests?

Nice word twisting, i said 'priest of the family' which carries quite a distinct meaning to just 'priest'. In any case why dont you just pull out your Concordance and look up firstborn and be happy.

Eve was the one who said it. You never got around to dealing with that.

You like demanding quotes, but you fail to do so yourself. Show me where Eve said anybody was firstborn? In fact you cant even make up your own mind what Eve said.

At first she thought Cain was the promised seed.

Eve tells us Abel was the appointed seed

Murdering his brother showed he was not and neither could Abel be the seed.

 

[marktheblake]

Apparently the evolutionary God is ok with that, but He would forbid technical incest in the large family of Adam. Illogical.

Will their excuse be that monkeys wouldnt know what incest is so that must be acceptable?

 

[warrior of sacrifice]

Except there is a big difference between accepting the plain text as true and having your view line up with an inference. The OP says that if you draw an inference to push the text, you come up with a view quite at odds with the plain text. The OP is about either 1. a very limited issue of other families having been created, ostensibly, on which the text is arguably silent; or 2. proving that the law of the jungle lead to the creation of Adam and the human species, which is at odds with the surface text. Arguably the evolutionary "ascent" of man would be the likely force to lead to these many unrelated families.

Of course, evolution also requires incest once you have genetic speciation (nor morphological), unless you have the miracle of simultaneous speciation in several instances. Apparently the evolutionary God is ok with that, but He would forbid technical incest in the large family of Adam. Illogical.

Would you like to prove speciation? As of right now it is only a theory, therefore cannot be fully proven, remaining a theory/opinion of what happened. And the question that could be asked of that theory is endless.

I really do not care for Darwin, I will side with the father of biology in genetics.

 

[Assyrian]

Of course, evolution also requires incest once you have genetic speciation (nor morphological), unless you have the miracle of simultaneous speciation in several instances. Apparently the evolutionary God is ok with that, but He would forbid technical incest in the large family of Adam. Illogical.

A couple of slight flaws in your argument.

You assume moral laws apply to animals, so we need to make sure pets in our care are married before they have sex.



But more seriously, you don't seem to understand speciation. It is populations that evolve not individuals. You don't get a single individual making an evolution leap and hoping desperately that another has evolved too so they can mate. Evolution occurs as new genes spread through a population. No incest is required.

 

[AV1611VET]

But more seriously, you don't seem to understand speciation. It is populations that evolve not individuals. You don't get a single individual making an evolution leap and hoping desperately that another has evolved too so they can mate. Evolution occurs as new genes spread through a population. No incest is required.

This is what I noticed as well --- evolution either requires whole populations to occur at once --- in which case it is incest --- or it's beastiality.

One or the other - (or both).

 

[Assyrian]

Why are whole populations either incest or beastiality?