I'll toss on the disclaimer again about this not being my field, but here we go.

Because evolution is a process of eventual and extremely slow changes I would assume that at some point where complexity was increasing from single celled organisms and breeding became an option where they organisms were able to do both and you could again move from the continuum of a species that propogated solely by asexual means to those that can only do so by breeding.  This would be similar to how single cells split to reproduce, but can tranfer genes in order to evolve their species, which is midway between totally asexual reproductive cloning and breeding.  Therefore I don't believe there was ever a point where inbreeding was a problem for any surviving species as a whole.  

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.

@bold. So let me get this straight. You're on a forum to state your opinion, but not to discuss about it.

That doesn't really make any sense. This isn't a soapbox you know, it's a forum, a place where people exchange ideas. That's what a forum is.

Close-mindedness exists in human nature, so to peg it in one camp is very one-sided.

It is not supposed to make sense. My whole post is a contridiciton.

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. 

The "..." are parts that I agree with. I agree with your criticism of dsgrue, I am so upset at that guy.

As for having an agenda. How? When I'm getting called a troll for asking questions, you bet I'm going to say that I was right to start with. Some people are on such high ground I feel like my only option is to fight with equal strength when I have the upper hand. This isn't about an agenda, it's about my ego being constantly bashed. You need to understand that. I may be taking the wrong approach to my problem, but you have to understand that the root of the problem was hostile behavior from dsgrue from the start. Runa also jumped in early on and jumped out quickly so as to avoid a ban but he was also quick to reject my ideas simply because they went against his viewpoint, without even considering them. And that's why I had to insist that I was right in the first place, because time and time again they will dismiss my concerns simply because I am not an atheist. It's to make a point, I don't have an agenda I'm just pretty frustrated with their attitudes tbh. I don't think that's such an unfair emotion imho.

As for people getting angry because others are arguing scientific viewpoints with religion. Where did I, the main player on the creationist camp, do that? All my points were based on logic and pragmatic issues I saw with a scientific theory (evolution). I was always working on the grounds of my understanding of genetics.

The attitudes of these people was ill-founded from the get-go.

I can appreciate that dsgrue tried to maintain self-control, but he still has a LOT more work to do. If people want to help the atheistic cause, they may want to be a little more respectful of people. People don't like to learn when they are treated as morons. Trust me, I really know.

Why are you so surprised ? dsgrue3 is about the same as 90% of atheists i've met on this forum and internet altogether. If you think this forum is bad, you should see reddit and 9gag where the slightest mention of religion (Christianity) will get your forum inbox spamfucked to oblivion. Internet warrior atheists are usually even more ignorant, dogmatic, and fanatical about their chosen spiritual path than they claim Muslims, Christians, Hindoos or Jews to be. They use science as their excuse for said dogmatism, and, unfortunately, some of them truly believe their own bullshit in this regard.

I was about to take your comment seriously and defend you wholeheartedly, but quickly realized you only have 7 posts... in the past 8 hours... your posts seem oddly trollish... like not very authentic. If I am wrong, then welcome to the forum, I obviously could be. However, I have to call to question your validity... halfgram too...

In the future, if you are really a troll, you might want to try putting on an avatar. It makes you look more authentic. And a signature might help too. Amusement aside...

Oh, I didn't mean to say you having an agenda was like a bad thing. Everyone has them in one way or another. Me included.

For me, I couldn't sit quietly (and morally it's wrong as well) to watch basically most everyone else with any common sense cower from pointing out the obvious, in front of what was obviously some atheist folk who decided they would choose you as their sacrificial lamb for their intellectual self-gratification.... in all seriousness, I don't mind the discussion. I read some of the links that were posted, it was interesting retouching on some stuff... however, I've done science class before. In fact, took Astronomy and Geology which covers a lot about the origin of some things... I still keep both textbooks because they are my favorite topics.

I don't think there is a high intelligence requirement for just having a basic discussion. However, reading this thread... you would think unless you were Jesus on a platter, nobody would take you seriously for anything you decided to ponder. It's OK to not be on the same wavelength as others and view the world differently... if you needed permission... if your ego feels compelled to stay here and put up with this sort of abuse, then you have bigger problems than whether or not people disagree with you. I say that in a mean-welling way, like I said with dsgrue... Personally, I think either share your point, ignore the rest and then walk away and let them have their intellectual banter-y... they seem to enjoy it. Or just stay and enjoy the discussion to the point... that it is no longer interesting or constructive anymore... because it just stays in circles. If I personally wanted to look up science information and be informed, I would look up journal articles and involve myself in every angle of the topic. It's not the same to argue with someone on the internet who has an agenda or thin skin... it's different if you are talking to someone who is just as passionate about information and possibilities as you. One of the other people I talked to in this thread shared a book with me, which I appreciated.

Atheists don't like being preached to. But apparently it's OK if they do it. Personally, I like being talked to like an equal... not talked to like some pile of crap on the floor who dares to dream to be upgraded from the tiolet bowl of ignorance to the holy tiolet talisman of wisdom and truth. Either way, you still remain dependent on those others for your view on life and self esteem... and obviously that's not what we've evolved to be, mindless slaves.

I think you are right. However, I think it's more a symptom of anti-social behavior being more or less prevalent on the internet. With anonymity, people don't have to acknowledge and grow past their past existance, they can live life here like they can avoid their errors and the things about their core they dislike the most.. except of course unless they make the same flaws and misjudgements obvious in front of a whole forum of people. It gives people a sense of self-empowerment that is false... so their scope of argument and discussion is obviously going to be much larger than what they can usually handle in real life.

In real life, people would not put up with what are obnoxiously obvious bully tactics and stealth slander aimed at bringing you to their level... they would just simply walk away. The ones that are willing to go through it are usually people with skin in the game... like some emotional vulnerability involved there. For me, I have peace with my values and beliefs, so I don't feel a need to question them... or force them... if someone asks me why I come to the beliefs I did (personally, not in some malignant discussion), I would gladly tell them where my viewpoints come from. However, having that type of honest discussion is not generally possible in a naturally dishonest environment...

Anyway, I am done here. I burn out on toxicity easily...