What proof do you have we didn't evolve from 2 humans?

[Dr_Toad]

And he could have carefully laid down successive layers of fossils so that it would look like a progression over time. But that would mean he intended to deliberately deceive us into thinking there was no creation event as described in the Bible. And then why did he add evidence of a common ancestor beyond the similarity between DNA? I mean we can even calculate when the common ancestor lived due to genetic drift. It defies credulity to think God is such a faker.

So. The Abrahamic God is a liar, a killer, a thief and a rapist. Why shouldn't he manufacture evidence?

 

[river]

Is it possible to tell from the DNA of a snake, that God made it crawl on its belly as a punishment?
And is the digestive system of the snake adapted to eat dust?
Both of these things would be proof that Genisis is scientifically accurate.

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

Cap , now that got a chuckle out of me , big time !!!!!

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Thanks!

 

[Yazata]

What proof do you have that we didn't evolve from 2 humans?

Proof is something that we find in logic and mathematics. I don't think that the word typically applies in biology. What we find there are plausible arguments.

My own impression is that human and pre-human hominid populations were always that, interbreeding populations. In other words, there were almost certainly more than one male and female at each point in our species' history. (Geoff has already discussed that.)

I'm more inclined to think that life in general (on earth anyway) had a single origin. That's because all life presently observed on earth displays a great deal of molecular biological similarity. It's hard for me to imagine that had chemical replicators originated more than once, they would have turned out so similar each time.

(The possibility certainly exists that less efficient chemical replicators were driven into oblivion early in life's history by competition with our form of life. In fact, it might be the case that our highly complex nucleic-acid-based life itself evolved from earlier, simpler and less efficient chemical replicators that no longer exist.)

So when I look out my window at the tree outside, I'm inclined to perceive it as family, as a very distant relative. In other words, it's likely that we both have common ancestors if we go back far enough.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I'm more inclined to think that life in general (on earth anyway) had a single origin. That's because all life presently observed on earth displays a great deal of molecular biological similarity. It's hard for me to imagine that had chemical replicators originated more than once, they would have turned out so similar each time.

I'm more inclined to suspect that if life could develop once, it could develop thrice or 7 times or 33. It's difficult for me to imagine that chemical replicators originated only once, regardless of how similar they seem.