If the evolution story were literal, wouldn't the world be horribly inbred?

[Saxwsylvania]

This is one of the many holes in the so-called "theory" of evolution I've never received a satisfactory answer to.  Think about it.  You have a couple of monocellular organisms spewing out of this primordial ooze.  How many genes can these things possibly have?  Not many.  Therefore, I think we should take a less literal view of the evolution story and just accept it as a nice story that contains a moral: "If you are stupid, you will be eaten."

[k-onmmunist]

Um, no. You don't think a few million people evolved? That wouldn't really be inbreeding.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The world is inbred either way.

[Jacobtm]

When you talk about primordial organisms from 3.7 billion years ago, the significance of "inbreeding" is lost. The only problem with "inbreeding" is that you're more likely to develop negative traits which are recessive in nature, but specific to your immediate relatives. Whether or not that was an issue with the organisms that existed 3.7 billion years ago, the level of genetic diversity we have now is more than sufficient to let us persist, even given all the problems that any random person has.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

You guys do know he's mocking a BRTD thread, right?

[titaniumtux]

Well, creationism has its mysteries regarding that too...Adam and Eve had two sons, and one murdered the other...how did Cain pro-create? Or did he? Where did the others come from and why would they inherit the Original Sin of Adam (if they are not his descendants)? What about Noah? God started from scratch with basically one family...what about those countless tribes that pretty much consisted of a single (large) family per tribe.

I'm curious about what any creationist (or devil's advocate evilutionist) would answer.