Literal Genesis requires incest and would have created a threatened species

[Assyrian]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a breeding pair and then expanding the population by encouraging incest. Even ignoring the problem of birth defects, when a population's gene pool shrinks beyond a certain point and genetic diversity in the species is eliminated, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new diseases. Without genetic diversity in a population, a deadly disease is much more likely to kill 100% of that population.

You're assuming uniformitarianism in this post. You're assuming the the original couple was identical to couples of today.

The Bible doesn't create a statute against close relative relationships until Moses' time. In fact, Abram married his sister.

You see your problem is not biology or anything science related, your problem is trusting scripture, and trusting the wisdom of God. God created the scientific laws, and transcends and overrides them at will. He created Adam and Eve and designed them to be the mother and father of all humans. But that's not to say that two of their descendants (brother and sister) thousands of years later could accomplish the same thing. You're slipping into a very common philosophical trap.

It's also interesting that Noah was said to be pure in his generation, which may also mean that he was genetically pure in some way, and therefore, he and his wife were capable of multiplying humans on the earth as were Adam and Eve.

But again, this is not an issue of science but design. Do you trust the Bible that God created creatures that were designed to do what they do? Or do you trust uniformitarianism philosophy (epicureanism to the greeks) which precludes the possibility of design and is materialistic, naturalistic and uniformitarianism?

Fascinated presented a very different argument to the incest/birth defects one. He said "ignoring the problem of birth defects". You answered with the classic Creationist response to incest and birth defects, not to Fascinated's actual argument about population diversity and disease. Arguing for a genetically pure Adam might help with birth defects, it doesn't protect the mortal descendants of a fallen Adam from a bacterium or virus that has evolved the molecular key to get through the immune defences of that particular genome. A lethal infection that can get past the genetic defence of one person and kill them can kill everyone else with those genetics. The only defence for the species is genetic diversity while the disease may kill some, others with different molecular defences will be immune or get sick and recover.

 

[Jig]

It is only when a species splits to become two or more separate species that you classify it as a genus, so the genus existed as a single species before became a genus, you would have to look at when that species divided from its cousins, but that is also a gradual process. It is like looking at the spectrum, you can look at one point and say clearly that is green, at another and say quite confidently it is blue, but deciding on one point as the borderline between green and blue is going to be arbitrary.

Then let's look at this from the species level. Did the H. sapiens species start with a single creature?

 

[Assyrian]

Then let's look at this from the species level. Did the H. sapiens species start with a single creature?

You are looking at a single point in time for the start when it is a process over many generations and would have involved the whole population rather than a single creature.

 

[Fascinated With God]

Not these days due to mutations. God would not have filled Adam and
Eve with mutations to clash into each other. The kids would logically
have few if any DNA defects.

Good work! You have discovered the story only works if you
assume it's completely true.

You obviously didn't read anything past the first sentence of the OP. The second entence started, "Even ignoring the problem of birth defects". So what do you do, you focus exclusively on birth defects and completely ignore my actual assertion. Here it is again:

...when a population's gene pool shrinks beyond a certain point and genetic diversity in the species is eliminated, the species becomes extremely susceptible to new diseases. Without genetic diversity in a population, a deadly disease is much more likely to kill 100% of that population.

For example, cheetahs are consider a threatened species because of a population bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. This bottleneck is nowhere near as extreme as the one Creationists propose for humans just 6,000 years ago, and yet cheetahs are so closely related to one another that transplanted skin grafts do not provoke immune responses.







.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I think multiple people have observed that if Genesis is correct, and God Created just two people, then the problems caused by mutations or changes to the original human design, would not pose a problem for populating the earth from only two sources. Besides, "common origin" theory says all life came from one source. So what's the problem with two?

The problem you are having is that you don't seem to understand what lack of genetic diversity is or how it can arise. Having a common ancestor a billion years ago does not even remotely put any constraint on the amount of possible genetic diveristy of life today.

Starting from just a single breeding pair six thousand years ago, you could not possibly build up enough genetic diversity to account for the amount of genetic differences there are present in modern humans. By contrast cheetahs, who were reduced to approximately 6 individuals some 10,000 years ago, have so little genetic diversity that any cheetah today can be given a skin graft from any other cheetah without provoking an immune reaction.

If humans were derived from only two individuals just 6,000 years ago then organ donarship would be dramatically easier than it is in reality. We have much more genetic diversity than can possiblity be accounted for by such a huge recent population bottleneck.


=================

Now humans did suffer a population bottleneck about 80,000 years ago, where it is estimated that the population was reduced to just 2,000 or 3,000 individuals. But that of course doesn't take into account the neanderthal contribution to our gene pool. The neanderthals never experienced a population bottleneck until they disappeared, as far as we know.




.

 

[Jig]

You are looking at a single point in time for the start when it is a process over many generations and would have involved the whole population rather than a single creature.

What I'm alluding to is this: what is the difference between Adam and Eve (as created beings) and the first H. Sapiens in terms of genetic diversity?

 

[Assyrian]

There is much greater genetic diversity in a population than in two individuals.

 

[Jig]

There is much greater genetic diversity in a population than in two individuals.

So, the species H. Sapien began as an entire population of creatures?

 

[ChetSinger]

...Starting from just a single breeding pair six thousand years ago, you could not possibly build up enough genetic diversity to account for the amount of genetic differences there are present in modern humans. By contrast cheetahs, who were reduced to approximately 6 individuals some 10,000 years ago, have so little genetic diversity that any cheetah today can be given a skin graft from any other cheetah without provoking an immune reaction.

If humans were derived from only two individuals just 6,000 years ago then organ donarship would be dramatically easier than it is in reality. We have much more genetic diversity than can possiblity be accounted for by such a huge recent population bottleneck...

Do we really know that?

For example, I believe that just recently it was learned that we accumulate between 50 and 100 mutations per generation. So then I myself may contain about 7,500 mutations that my ancestor of Abraham's generation didn't have. As do each of us. That seems like a lot of mutations, and one tool to help explain the human diversity we see.

Also, I believe that just recently a study determined that Europeans and Africans (!) may have descended from a single small population only 5,000 years ago. See here.

As for me, I wish they'd repeat that study with Asians included.

I don't understand why any Christian should oppose any discovery that helps uphold a plain reading of our scripture. Because when a seeker picks up our scripture and reads it, a plain reading is likely what they're going to take away.

 

[Assyrian]

So, the species H. Sapien began as an entire population of creatures?

Developed rather than began, but yes Homo sapiens developed as an entire population.

 

[Fascinated With God]

For example, I believe that just recently it was learned that we accumulate between 50 and 100 mutations per generation.

I read 40, but close enough.

So then I myself may contain about 7,500 mutations that my ancestor of Abraham's generation didn't have. As do each of us. That seems like a lot of mutations, and one tool to help explain the human diversity we see.

With more than 3 billion base pairs in the human genome a few thousand changes of base pairs is a very small amount.

Base pair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, I believe that just recently a study determined that Europeans and Africans (!) may have descended from a single small population only 5,000 years ago. See here.

These creationist web sights are hardly scientific. The references really bear this out:

Tomkins, J. 2012. Human DNA Variation Linked to Biblical Event Timeline. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org July 23, 2012, accessed December 31, 2012.
​

A reference to another article in the same creationists publication.

Tennessen, J. et al. 2012. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes. Science. 337 (6090): 64-69.
​

There is no reference to finding a bottleneck in this article, it only talks about the huge population explosion which everyone knows was brought about by the discovery of agriculture 13,000 years ago.

Fu, W, et al. Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants. Nature. Published online before print, July 13, 2012.
​

No reference to a bottle neck in this article either.

Keinan, A and A. Clark. 2012. Recent Explosive Human Population Growth Has Resulted in an Excess of Rare Genetic Variants. Science. 336 (6082): 740-743.
​

Ditto.

Sanford, J. C. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, 3rd ed. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.
​

This is not a journal article, it is a paperback. And he seems to be going on about the deterioration of gene pools as a result of low selection pressures (i.e. lack of culling) as if this were somehow rejected by scientists, which is completely false. Even farmers know that the vitality of the herd will deteriorate over time, which is why they will pay so much more for wild bulls and staggs to reinvograte the gene pool and overall health of the herd.

None of these references support your article's claim that there was a population bottleneck 5,000 years. The authors of your article are making a completely bogus reference to a nonexistent population bottleneck that never occured 5,000 years go.

 

[ChetSinger]

...None of these references support your article's claim that there was a population bottleneck 5,000 years. The authors of your article are making a completely bogus reference to a nonexistent population bottleneck that never occurred 5,000 years go.

In Genesis 10 is a genealogy describing Noah's immediate descendants, commonly called the "Table of Nations". Scholars have traced some of the names to subsequent populations in various nearby geographic areas.

In particular, there are descendants of Japheth traced to Europe, and descendants of Ham traced to Africa.

Now along comes a study that samples a population including both Europeans and Africans, looks at a particular portion of the human genome, and concludes that rapid diversification of that portion began about 5,000 years ago.

Isn't that interesting? Isn't that unexpected? Isn't that evidence in favor of the Bible's Table of Nations? And as Christians, shouldn't our hearts be warmed when evidence confirming God's word is found?

 

[KWCrazy]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a single breeding pair, yet here we are. Would that be, miracle number 1 or number 334?

I love how people try to use currently observed processes of biology and use that to claim that something in the Bible is impossible. Frankly, MOST things in the Bible are impossible. If they weren't, they wouldn't be worth noting. If God didn't routinely do the impossible then how would we ever know he was God? God is no servant of the laws of nature. He created those laws. The laws of nature serve Him and glorify His name by showing us even today His ability to do that which would otherwise be called impossible.

 

[Calminian]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a single breeding pair, yet here we are. Would that be, miracle number 1 or number 334?

I love how people try to use currently observed processes of biology and use that to claim that something in the Bible is impossible. Frankly, MOST things in the Bible are impossible. If they weren't, they wouldn't be worth noting. If God didn't routinely do the impossible then how would we ever know he was God? God is no servant of the laws of nature. He created those laws. The laws of nature serve Him and glorify His name by showing us even today His ability to do that which would otherwise be called impossible.

Beautifully put.

 

[SkyWriting]

edit

 

[SkyWriting]

It is not possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a single breeding pair, yet here we are. Would that be, miracle number 1 or number 334?

I love how people try to use currently observed processes of biology and use that to claim that something in the Bible is impossible. Frankly, MOST things in the Bible are impossible. If they weren't, they wouldn't be worth noting. If God didn't routinely do the impossible then how would we ever know he was God? God is no servant of the laws of nature. He created those laws. The laws of nature serve Him and glorify His name by showing us even today His ability to do that which would otherwise be called impossible.

I could possibly imagine the first mutation of any of the billion steps needed for humans to evolve from another species. But then I imagine some meet market where the mutant curses evolution for it's latest change that made it completely unique in the world.

Or this lonely mutated DNA strand going..."Hello? Anybody out there for me?"


It's important to note that the history of DNA study is at the stage of development similar to a fertilized egg.
And the field of evolution is all caught up with a comic book written by Darwin and is still waiting for word from an Einstein on how things actually work.

 

[Jig]

Developed rather than began, but yes Homo sapiens developed as an entire population.

So there was never a time where a non-H. Sapien gave birth to a H. Sapien?

 

[Assyrian]

So there was never a time where a non-H. Sapien gave birth to a H. Sapien?

No.

 

[Fascinated With God]

In Genesis 10 is a genealogy describing Noah's immediate descendants, commonly called the "Table of Nations". Scholars have traced some of the names to subsequent populations in various nearby geographic areas.

In particular, there are descendants of Japheth traced to Europe, and descendants of Ham traced to Africa.

Now along comes a study that samples a population including both Europeans and Africans, looks at a particular portion of the human genome, and concludes that rapid diversification of that portion began about 5,000 years ago.

Isn't that interesting? Isn't that unexpected? Isn't that evidence in favor of the Bible's Table of Nations? And as Christians, shouldn't our hearts be warmed when evidence confirming God's word is found?

There are two primary sources of evidence about the population explosion associated with the discovery of agriculture in the Middle East 10,000 years ago (and then again 8,000 years ago in Mezo-America). The genetic evidence from comparing ancient European DNA to modern European DNA is that the expansion of agriculture from the Middle East to Europe did not involve a displacement of the native hunter-gatherer population (just as the spread of early homo sapiens into Europe, from 35,000 years ago to 25,000 years ago, did not involve a displacement of the Neanderthal, but rather the Neanderthal dissolved by intermarriage into a larger population, leavings us with 4% Neanderthal DNA as modern Europeans).

The new linguistic evidence comes from taking all the phonetically similar words from all know Indo-European languages present and past and grouping them into “phonems”. Each language can be plotted as a very long sequence of ones and zeros, with each bit in the sequence corresponding to whether or not a particular phonem exists in that language. These long sequences of ones and zeros can be treated like DNA. The new mathematical techniques pioneered by DNA research on determining the time of divergence between different genomes also work with these phonem sequences.

There were two competing theories on where the Indo-European languages originated from: Turkey 10,000 years ago (the domestication of wheat) or the Steppes of Asia 5,000 years ago (the domestication of the horse). The phonem evidence points overwhelmingly to Turkey 10,000 years ago.



So all of the strongest scientific evidence on the subject clearly contradicts the notion that Europe's population exploded from a half dozen individuals in the Middle East 5,000 years ago.




.

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

It is possible to create a viable population of any animal by starting with a genetically perfect breeding pair with a large potential for variation & a long life span. Birth defects occur when both the male parent & female parent have a mutation or genetic mistake in the same loci/allele & it is expressed in the offspring. In genetically pure parents like Adam & Eve, who live several centuries & had many children, mutations would accumulate very slowly & so the likelihood of any of these "mistakes" being expressed in the genome of their offspring is lower. One parent's gene is likely to mask the other. Genetic diversity in the species is not eliminated unless natural selection occurs. For instance, the pygmy tribes in Africa have only very small people because they were isolated. But if 1 of their members were to mate with say, a tall European, the offspring have a great potential for diversity. Also, in Adam & Eve's time, disease was not a problem. Weather conditions were better with more moisture & less UV light penetrating the ozone, longer life spans, different living conditions & healthier diets.

A population bottleneck in cheetahs is an absolutely different issue. A bottleneck does not speak about the origin of cheetahs in the 1st place. And the cheetahs that were left to repopulate may have had very little genetic diversity due to genetic entropy over time & the forces of natural selection. Cheetahs cannot be used to measure the diversity in humans. Human beings are also extremely closely related. We differ by no more than 0.02% of our DNA. NB: Creationists do not propose a genetic bottleneck 6000 years ago. They propose the creation of Adam & Eve. A bottleneck is what occured at the time of Noah's flood with 3 couples to repopulate (Noah's sons).