@ANef_is_Enuf – I’ve been keeping up a little with this thread, your last question is actually very telling. My earlier comment about ‘begetting’ is not entirely facetious, constant reproduction does create diversity. I am no expert on Genesis, nor on gene theory, but any given human partnership will produce divergent individuals. In my family (I am one of 5 direct siblings) three of us have blue eyes, I have green, one other has brown. There are two blondes, one redhead (well, she calls it auburn…), mine is ‘mouse’ and another is brunette. This variation is simply because of the way chromosomes get divided up as sperm and egg collide, then cell division occurs.
Then there are ‘recessive’ genes… As said, I’m not an expert, but given that we all evolved from a very small group of ancestors anyway, it is not so strange to assume that if there were only a single couple at the head of our ‘tree’ they would contain all of human variety. The human genome is huge, complex and contains every possible variation we see. Maybe (only my opinion, but this is a social question!) it is actually quite possible to explain the Creationist view, simply by backtracking on current gene theory? That actually makes my brain hurt slightly!
Respectfully, I suggest that the metaphorical and poetic language of the Bible and it’s testaments are actually early attempts to explain exactly what we are finding out. That the ‘act’ of creation is in fact, only ever, the union of opposites. The joining of two that are not alike, but have the capacity to conjoin and to make more. Begetting… ?