Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:10 am
The idea that the human race descended from just one mating pair whose children had to commit incest with one another to propagate the species doesn't make sense to me.
And yet, it's inevitable.
Let's forget Genesis. Instead, let's consider the Evoluntionary Hypothesis, particularly as it applies to human beings.
How does mutation work?
Suppose we have two creatures that mate. One has the gene for...let's say Tay Sachs Syndrome, a genetic disease. The two creatures that mate both have the gene. To nobody's surprise, the gene also manifests in their children...sometimes...maybe even usually. But not always.
But now, let's not suppose that. Let's suppose one partner has the Tay Sachs gene, and the other does not. What happens to the mutation, in that case? Is it now more or less likely to be passed on to subsequent generations? We know the answer: it is very likely the partner's genetic makeup will cause the non-mainfestation of Tay Sachs Disease. Genetic inheritance requires a tight gene pool, or any mutation is more likely to be eliminated than if two creatures, both with a similar genetic pattern, mate.
So let's take the case of an early specimen of pre-homosapiens. It has a mutation that makes it the first actualy human. With what must it mate? It must mate with an entity that shares the genetic markers in question, or reversion to type is far more likely than perpetuation of the gene. Moreover, it must continue to mate with specimens that also have the gene, or the chances of reversion to type are increased drastically.
So evolution suggests that an original mating pair, both possessing either the gene or one at least lacking the reversion genes for the mutation, must have mated. And this pattern must have been repeated. Close consanguinity would have been necessary for this to happen, since this is the first time the mutation has ever been present.
It's not a very good story, of course. But it's the only story Evolutionism has. The alternative is to say that, for some reason none of us knows, a single mutation "burst out" spontaneously in multiple specimens of pre-homosapiens, and all of them mated in order to reproduce the mutation. That's a much harder explanation to fill out: how do multiple specimens suddenly "burst out" with a single mutation that is capable of survival advantage for all of them at the same time, and no gene reversion destroy that mutation? What would the mechanism be, there? Darwin himself insisted that any mutation that does not immediately entail a survival advantage could not be selected-for by evolution itself -- so even Darwin said that theory would not work.
So take Evolutionism, or take Creationism: and you end up with the same conclusion. An original mating pair would have been necessary, followed by a period of close genetic relationship, perpetuating the type.
In any case, what you've got is not "incest" but consanguinity. There's no "incest" where there has never been a prohibition against it. So that should be the least of your worries...little more than a squeamishness, really. What should really worry you is that whether you take Evolutionism to heart or Creationism, it's inevitable that consanguine individuals had to mate.
Though why you care, at this point in history / evolution, I have a hard time imagining. I would think one has enough to worry about it one's own world. If a couple of pre-human cave persons were a little close in their original mating, it doesn't worry me as much as it worries you.
Next: I don't see why there would be the bunch of different human races with substantially different genetic/phenotypic traits that there are if we all descend from just two people (of some given race; I'm not sure that's specified in the Bible), presumably only a few thousand years ago on the literalist account to which you presumably subscribe - such that even if you did (do?) believe in micro-evolution, there's not enough time for it to take place.
Well, "micro-evolution" is a term of convenience, not an informative one. "(Macro)-evolution posits a change of species, not merely of feature. So it's not genuinely "evolution" unless the entity in question crosses the boundaries of species. So, for example, a "tall cat" is not an "evolved cat," just a "selectively bred" one that stays within its species.
Nobody doubts that physiological alterations happen as a result of things like diet, light, gene pool, and so on. Given enough time, things like height, eye shape, skin colour and so forth can change. We know that from breeding dogs and cats and millions of generations of fruit flies in labs, justs as we see it in humans. That's not even a question, and presents no problem for Creationism and no actual support for Evolutionism.
Instead, one of the things that defines a species is interfertility: that is, can an animal reproduce with another animal and produce fertile offspring? If the answer is "Yes," then we're talking about two animals of the
same species. If it's "No," as in the case of dogs and cats, or horses and donkeys, then it's two
different species. That's a scientific criterion of "species."
All human being groups, regardless of physiological characteristics, are potentially fertile and capable of producing fertile offspring. Blacks are not a different "species" from whites, or Asians from Mexicans. They're just different types within the same species.
Which, oddly enough, the Bible itself told us was true, long ago. We could have listened, and maybe avoided the madness of eugenics and racism if we had done so.
Finally, according to the story, God is clearly capable of creating humans, so it doesn't make sense to me that He'd create only two of 'em,
I see no reason to think that. Why not? Why is the latter arrangment of popping, say, thousands of creatures into existence at the same time, less superficially plausible than God choosing to create an original mating pair? I see no reason to prefer the latter to the former; do you?
