| happydolphin said: Fair enough. My answer to my own question was a little bit different but this works too, in parallel. As I was asking this to you, from the creationist perspective, the way we see genetics and inbreeding is that the original parents of the species (since they were created individually) were of a rich gene set. Disclaimer for me I'm a creationist but I'm not entirely familiar with the creationist theory either. :) So I hear ya. But in asking you and myself that question, I thought that the original parents that evolved would have needed that rich gene set. How to explain this rich gene set concept. It's that for example when you breed two related individuals, it causes copying errors I guess and data gets smudged (or lost). So the more inbred, the more data is lost. I could be totally out of left field but that was my understanding of it. So from that perspective that's kind of how I answered my own question, but I think your answer is better. I still don't believe that's what happened but at least you've answered my questions. And you see, when you do that, it makes me feel better about you, about atheists in general and about evolution. Whether I believe it or not, it defo makes me less hostile. Exchanges like this are when I enjoy talking origins. So there's the flipside answer to OP. Kudos. And to the others, take notes. |
What I've read does not mention anything about inbreeding causing increased copying errors, those occur at the same rate regardless of who you're mating with. The issue with inbreeding is that any weaknesses your specific genes have (such as a recessive gene for some genetic defect) are amplified because your DNA is too similar and you both have the same problems. It's the same reason that Jewish couples have to worry about Tay-Sachs disease, but only if they date another Fewish person and not if they go outside that gene pool.
...
