North German Realm wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Dude, our entire world is based on incest. The best secularist genelogists, mathematicians, and other people who work in related fields all agree that every single person on the planet who has as little as a drop of European blood is decendant from Charlemagne. And the vast, vast majority of people would have at least a tiny bit of European blood in 'em. Considering that the vast majority of us are decendant from a man who lived 1000 years ago, and yet we're far enough apart from eachother for incest to not be a problem, then why would incest be a problem when you multiply the time period by 7? I mean, if a common ancestor dating back 1000 creates enough genetic distinction to avoid incest, then why would a common ansestor from 7000 years be an issue?
And that's if you take the story of Adam and Eve litterarly. Many Christians don't
Even if this were true (Because the same thing is commonly said about Genghis too), there were other people around the time Charlemagne lived who weren't related to him. If you take Adam and Eve literally, Adam and Eve were possibly the only humans around for a while, which means generations after generations of inbreeding among first cousins, siblings, etc. The two aren't even remotely similar.
Actually, only 5% of the world's population is decendant from Ghengis Khan. Meanwhile, Europe, alone has 12% of the world's population. And that excludes decendants of Europeans living in the new world. Your point Adam and Eve is fair, but don't foget how much inbreeding there was amongst the European monarchs of the time