Genetic problems with genesis, the great flood, etc

One question i had always wondered about was how the creationism was to account for a sustainable gene pool. it's been proven that if too little genitic diversity is repeatedly reproduced, (i.e. one related family reproducing over and over and over, mother with father, son with daughter, so on and so on) that inbreeding and physical/health problems result. for example. if adam and eve were the ancestors of all humans, our survival rate would be crippled and we'd all be inbred. the same goes for the flood story, if there were only 2 of each animal, how could a sustainable population result? espcially with larger mammals (humans included) in breeding can result in as few as 2 generations.inbreeding creates situations where organisms actually become LESS fit for survival, thus in dischord with what all modern research shows us. most animals avoid breeding with kin to the extreems, sometimes even with hostility to relatives. so if this is true, how is it possible to have genitically sustainable populations today if genisis/flood theory is true? {Change "Genitic" to "Genetic", "genisis" to "genesis" in topic title. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-15-2006 06:14 AM

i think youre taking the term "common ancestry" a bit too literally. i feel like youre perciving it as "everything began with one organism, and everything derrived from that" where in reality, it was a collective of organisms with similarities allowing interaction.inbreeding (especially to a degree to which would exist if the great flood stories were accurage) would create infertile conditions almost immediately. Inbreeding in nature is most commonly avoided, this is why captive breeding is so difficult, especially in small populations. There are a few small cases of organisms that have adapted to reproduce effectively with a primary set of genitic material, most of these species are micro organisms that are not dioecious (theyre hermaphroditic).you are correct in stating that evolution includes detail about common ancestry, but in youre incorrect by using that to support your arguement. Common ancestry just shows progression and differentiation of species which stem from a common ancestor species, (i.e. when 2 present day species origionated from an earlier common species) but does not assume that all life came from one single common organism.Factors such as mutation, and genitic drift do allow for variation on a grandeur scale, but have very little application when the sample size is decresed (especially to a number as low as 2 animals). A small event could completely eliminate a species, say if one member of the pair of the species died on the ark.Essentially, according to genitics, its impossible for 2 animals to result in a viable, fertile, and growing population. There simply isnt enough genitic diversity. This especially holds true to animals that would be of interest, i.e. macro vertebrates such as mammals, reptiles, avians, etc. In nature, as stated before, animals go to great lengths to avoid reproduction with close family members.

wrong, i do have plenty of evidence that inbreeding produces infavorable conditions, as is shown in the fossil record. not to mention modern day science experiments concerning breeding. again, it is your right to accept or reject this evidence. i'm not seeing how you can discount an entire planet's worth of animals that cannot inbreed well because of an isolated species that has adapted to get along with it. Concerning me stubbornly "clining to ideas" i make my assumptions based on concrete provable evidence that has been laid out before my own two eyes. if you read a book, and ASSUME that it must be truth based solely on word of mouth and no repeatable physical evidence, that sounds far more stubborn than i do.

so its stubborn to agree with repeatable evidence, but not stubborn to just say "well the rules of nature must have changed at some point, because its impossible for me to be wrong". fine. have it your way. if the rules did change, what reason were they changed for? at what point did go just decide that inbreeding should all of a sudden become hazardous. you can argue isolated cases of tolearble inbreeding all day long, but we're talking about millions of species here that cannot tolerage inbreeding. Many species reproduce asexually, some even just divide, and no sexual exchange of gametes takes place. Method of reproduction can vary on what works best given the environmental situation of the animal, some fish even change sex to allow diversification. if the flood story were true, the only species here today would be the lizards in the middle of the desert, and those that reproduce asexually.at this point in the arguement, we must make certain assumtions, based on probable evidence. these assumptions are as follows:1. Inbreeding is hazardous to most species. we arrive on this assumption based on repeated evidence in the fossil record and in modern experiments. to say that inbreeding is not hazardous to most species is ignorant.2. The above statement is true now, and has always been true. we assume this because we have no evidence or even inkling of a reason that it would be differnt in any other situation. it makes no mention of the "rules changing" in the bible, and is consistent with the fossil record.so back to my point, take two random animals from the ark story, we'll say elephants. It's impossible to generate a sustainable population, comparable to that of today, from 2 initial animals. this is based on current evidence, and the above assumptions. until provable evidence is provided that would allow 2 animals to produce a large population is provided, we must assume it to be true. "because god said so" doesnt cut it in this type of arguement. thats like being convicted of murder in court and expecting the judge to let you off because you told him "well god told me to do it." he'd say.... "prove it." and since you couldnt, unless you had a cool signed letter from god saying "hi, i'd really like you to kill john doe. if you dont i'll be really pissed. best regards, god"

you keep claiming there is no evidence that the rules of physics and the laws of nature have not changed, yet find one account in the history of man where a proven physical law just flip flopped. thats like saying at one point the world REALLY was flat, then since we belived it to be round, it magically turned into a sphere. the evidence i'm talking about is everysingle experiment ever performed in the history of mankind. each experiment has been conducted in the same set of rules. Given my LACK of evidence as you claim, whats your evidence that the rules DID change, except your word. at this point in the arguement, your point can be no better than the ramblings of a manaic, because its based solely on you saying so.

all you have stated is that the biblical text "implies" that maybe there was a change in what god thought was right vs. wrong. This is a moral issue, which has nothing to do with genitics unless you can make ANY BIBLICAL reference to where sexuality is indicative of genetics and vice versa. an implication thats not even concrete in the bible has nothing to do with reproduction of animals. does god's moral code doesnt even apply to animals? as they are considered below man, and man has authority over them, why would there be a reason to change genetic issues concerning incest with animals? and if its so wrong, then why are there examples of it being a sucessful reproduciton tactic today? There is no implication that incestuous behavior of animals is any of god's concern when in relation to man.This message has been edited by be LIE ve, 11-12-2005 02:55 PM

i think you've got a big problem when it comes to deciding something is "evidence". look at it like a pile of grenades.say you find a book thats says "grednades will not blow up if you pull the pin out and shove them down your pants". lots of other people read this book, say its all good, and true, and form a religion over it. so one day you come up to a pile of grenades, and figure, hey why not, that book said its all good. so you throw a couple live grenades in your pants. so you wake up in the hospital a week later with no legs and or genitals.say instead, you sat around and blew up 1000 grenades, about 950 of which blew up, the other 50 were duds. you come up to a pile of grenades and say "hey, the last time i saw something like this, it blew up all crazy 95% of the time, maybe i wont throw those grenades in my pants.what would you consider better evidence? and look where it got you.evidence is a strong word. becareful how you use it. what something IS and what you BELIEVE something is can be very different. believing a grenade will not blow up because you read it somewhere doesnt get you very far. especailly if you dont have any legs or genitals.This message has been edited by be LIE ve, 11-12-2005 03:26 PMThis message has been edited by be LIE ve, 11-12-2005 03:28 PM