How in the world can evolutionists use the concept of inbreeding against creationists?

Question

I see many questions and answers claiming that inbreeding would cause too many deformed people from incest in the case of Adam and Eve.
Never mind the fact that they don't know if there were any genetic deformities (which there weren't according to the bible), they seem to overlook a very simple point...

Evolution would also need inbreeding to work. In the improbable scenario that a human did evolve from something, a male and female would have to evolve at the same time (doubling the odds by the way). Then they would have to evolve within the same proximity to find each other (significantly increasing the odds).

Then you have an "evolved Adam and Eve".
Not only that, you would have to apply this to every living species.

Either way, you have an inbreeding situation. So, please tell me how it is that evolutionists try to use this argument against creationists?
It seems like just another argument posed in which science doesn't apply to their theory.

Well Duck,
Instead of making a statement that says absolutely nothing, try answering the question.

Mac Momma,
You cut and pasted the wrong text. It doesn't address my question. And, it only provides a hypothetical situation with no observed experimentation regarding speciation.
In case you didn't read it, it only says, possibly, maybe, etc. In other words, they can't prove it.

Upallnight,
You are either delusional or don't understand the english language very well. You never got me to "question my religion" as you state. Yet another statement you make that is completely false and unsubstantiated. Your flurry of mislead statements and comprehension of my arguments is why I could not discuss things with you anymore. It had nothing to do with the information you provided which was very unconvincing.
You answer this question as others did with saying that not one, but many things evolved at the same time. Do you realize the mathmatical probability of one evolving is next to impossible? Now you are claiming that many evolved at the same time.
You provide only imaginatory examples of what could have happened, but no observed situations where it has happened in nature.
And if you do come up with an example, it's always microevolution like someone mentioned here about a virus and we have to imagine how it could be macro. Never an example, only theories.

Mac Momma,
I did read it, maybe you didn't. Here's the first sentence.
"Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species".
The word "could" means they haven't observed it. All they did was write papers about how they think it happened with no proof of observation.
Just admit that you have no observed proof of one species changing into another species. If anyone can provide the proof, I will give up Christianity.

By the way, for those of you who are saying that evolutionists don't use this argument...
Dr. Trivers, a biology professor at Rutgers University used this argument in a debate vs. Kent Hovind. He said that the Adam and Eve story is impossible because the inbreeding would cause too many deformities and the population would eventually die off.
When the same question I asked here was asked to him, he claimed he didn't understand the question and didn't answer it.
So, don't tell me that this argument isn't used.

Answer 1

it isn't just inbreeding which has real problems for Darwinists, but, of course, you're right.

This problem is very acute in any particular "stage" of evolution. There was a while back when they talked about a "hopeful monster". . where a huge leap is made in one generation, something like a bird stepping out of a dinosaur egg (that's actually a quote from the Darwinist literature of the time).

if that DID happen, where would this "bird" find a mate?. . Unless such an impossible chance change happened likewise to another (and yes, it would have to be of the opposite sex to the first one), at the same time.

Darwinian evolution can't work and could never happen because Darwinism is impossible.

It goes against all known [empirical] science. It has no support in any real hard science. It only exists (and works) in the minds of those who believe in it by blind faith.

for more info and excellent articles showing how Darwinism is not scientific, go here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org

It will open your eyes if you haven't seen this kind of evidence/article before.

Answer 2

The way you envision the evolutionary process, it is definitely stretching the bounds of probability. However, your understanding could use some improvements. Your main difficulty is that you're focused entirely on single individuals and not on populations.

Let's stick with basic Darwinian theory because that's sufficient to sort out your misunderstanding. According to this theory, mutations happen frequently. A few of them of lead to characteristics which improve an individual's fitness (success in staying alive and/or reproducing). **These will tend to carry over through the next generations in higher proportions than mutations which lead to deleterious characteristics (lower reproductive and/or staying alive success rates) or neutral characterisitics.**

So from a single mutation in a single individual, you eventually get several individuals with that particular mutation/gene, or even further variations of it, and different combinations of mutations/genes. There's your male and female with some of the same genes and well able to find each other. It's normal and can happen in just a generation or two. Add in a few more generations and it's well past inbreeding.

If the population is separated by migration, geological changes, human interference, or even intense weather events, then **the factors which make certain mutations more or less beneficial will change.** So the proportions of these genes will change through the next generation. New mutations will occur, but only in one of the populations and so on, and eventually the populations become different enough we start talking about them as different species. Again, you have male and female, in the same locale and not inbreeding.

The fossil record indicates that there will be genetic stability for vast periods of time, followed by sudden and rapid change. That's because most mutations are deleterious -- this is why inbreeding can cause problems -- or neutral and produce little if any overall change in the population. Big changes in the environment however, radically change which genes give the greatest 'fitness' and so the processes we call 'natural selection' lead to a different subset of individuals (and their genes) surviving most and/or reproducing most.

Think of Adam and Eve as archetypes standing in for hundreds of individuals and your problem goes away.

Answer 3

Who is to say that Adam and Eve even existed? Your argument is invalid when you are trying to use fairy tales to match up with a scientific theory. A group of creatures, or animals can evolve or adapt to their new environments in order to survive. Most likely, the ones that did not evolve, would have died. And that is the main reason why we only see one kind of a certain species.

Science does apply to their argument because evolution is an on-going thing that is working until his day. Humans still evolve, but not something that you can catch easily. Humans can become immune to certain viruses after a long periods of time. Just like how a virus can become immune to an anti-biotic. That is evolution my friend, read my science before you come out with this bullshit.

Answer 4

Exactly!!!! That is what I have been saying it would still eventually lead up to two people that start it off but if you really think about there would have probably been a time when there was a human and there were still nothing else but Apes so there would have been a human mating with an ape. So technically we would be the descends of an ape and a human and then later two original humans.
Oh yeah and a human shouldn't be able to be impregnated across species lines.

Answer 5

Inbreeding has without a doubt occurred in evolutionary development.

Evolutionists have only mocked the ridiculousness of the mythical Adam and Eve story with those postings.

Science has shown evolution to be true, that debate is over for us. I think those postings were just poking fun at your expense.

Creationism (Adam & Eve version) is absolutely rediculouse and the bible is clearly false.

Answer 6

come on man, are you serious. Have you ever had a science class that you listened to while you were in it. Evolution, in your mind go back and really think how it could have worked if you haven't done so already? It is not as implausible as you might think. All things came from one thing, but it was when things were so simple that interbreeding would not be so dangerous. Simple not perfect, look at it like a car. You cant fix a car now a days with what you have. It's life and no one gets out alive.

Answer 7

SAL, again you have proved your ignorance of evolution. This leaves me to the conclusion that you still have not read the links I gave you in our debate. I will try to answer your questions here but you did avoid me after I began to lead you into questioning your religion.

1. Modern Sisthesis(MS) takes thousands of years for even just a few traits to be phased in or out. This gives the time to establish a community of compatable breeders.
2. MS uses natural selection. With this the location of the compatable breeders is guaranteed.

But to be honest, insest would have most likely happened. Heck, we still have hillbillies doing it today. But, MS gives suffcient genetic material and time to produce the abundance of human life we see today. Adam and Eve myth does not.

Please actually read my post instead of sticking your head in the sand again. I have debunked all of your arguments in the past and will do it again if I have to.

Response to your edit:
What about the speciation of fish and blue roses I gave you verified evidence of? More than one of the links I gave you answer your questions. You either do not comprehend or refuse to read. If this sounds agervated then you are right about my current attitude. I have led you to the water but cannot make you drink. I hope you don't spend the rest of your life trying to be ignorant of reality.

Answer 8

Evolutionists are not claiming perfect knowledge.. christians are. Inbreeding is harmfull sure, not always though. christians say its a sin, and god sends people to an eternal torture chamber for sins.

The truth concerning the evolution of the species will be found out as time goes on, just not by christians who are always in Bible mode.

Answer 9

The genetic differences that separate all humans are very small. The negative perceptions that inter-family breeding leads to genetic defects is largely false. Probably an exaggerated old wives tail to keep everyone from humping their sister.

Answer 10

Did'nt you notice Dr. Jeykll, Mr. Hyde with self lack of knowledge got themselves into troubles with our creator in breaking our creator's universal constituition and universal laws in the creation of living human kind into self extinction with the rise of the new lost civilisation on planet earth.
Look out the window you will see the landmark of the past Hanging garden of Babylon and the Colosseum of Rome as the grim reminders of the past blunders and slip-ups and human errors on planet earth.
Little children and grand-children of all tribes of different community born and raised after independence is flashing shock flashes with distress signals "Atlantis calling S.O.S ....for love.
Try and decode the the lyrics.