The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Zackgb on July 28, 2007, 08:36:19 PM

Title: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Zackgb on July 28, 2007, 08:36:19 PM
What about the small pieces of Russia that are seen extending around the to the Western hemisphere on most maps? If this theory were to hold true then how could this area be populated or discovered without sailing or flying completely around the globe to reach its destination. Also this would also disprove the Bering Strait bridge where early humans crossed and migrated to North America.

This may have been answered as well, Id just like to bring it up again if it has. Assuming this were true, this would mean in order for me to fly from Canada to Japan I would have to go all the way east correct? That would make the flight time in relation to the distance traveled nearly impossible.

Just looking to hear some answers/clarification
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: CommonCents on July 28, 2007, 08:39:49 PM
Read the FAQ please.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Gulliver on July 28, 2007, 08:43:07 PM
What about the small pieces of Russia that are seen extending around the to the Western hemisphere on most maps? If this theory were to hold true then how could this area be populated or discovered without sailing or flying completely around the globe to reach its destination. Also this would also disprove the Bering Strait bridge where early humans crossed and migrated to North America.

This may have been answered as well, Id just like to bring it up again if it has. Assuming this were true, this would mean in order for me to fly from Canada to Japan I would have to go all the way east correct? That would make the flight time in relation to the distance traveled nearly impossible.

Just looking to hear some answers/clarification
Zackgb,
Welcome.

First, you should know that the basic geography is explained in the FAQ and the RE Primer. You'll find that FE holds that the correct map is a polar projection with the North Pole at the center. The United Nations logo has one such rendition.

Second, you'll find that except for going over the South Pole, this map allows for most every conceivable route.

If I can do anything to help, don't hesitate to PM me.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Zackgb on July 28, 2007, 09:02:05 PM
Ah sorry about that, skimmed through it fast and missed the map

 I also noticed that you say the sun and the moon are both 32 miles in diameter.

The sun is roughly 1.4 million kilometers in diameter and the moon is around 1/4th of the earths according to numerous sites. When comparing those numbers it makes it inconcievable that you can have the sun reduced to that size and still cover sufficient amounts of the earth in order to provide the necessary heat for us to survive as the earth stays at a size of 24,900 miles in diameter.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 29, 2007, 09:43:46 AM
Or so the conspiracy would have you think.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Ulrichomega on July 29, 2007, 10:37:20 AM
Ah sorry about that, skimmed through it fast and missed the map

 I also noticed that you say the sun and the moon are both 32 miles in diameter.

The sun is roughly 1.4 million kilometers in diameter and the moon is around 1/4th of the earths according to numerous sites. When comparing those numbers it makes it inconcievable that you can have the sun reduced to that size and still cover sufficient amounts of the earth in order to provide the necessary heat for us to survive as the earth stays at a size of 24,900 miles in diameter.
These numbers were derived from the Round Earth numbers. IF you take the flatness into account, these numbers are legitimate.

FYI, Im RE'er.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Skeptical ATM on July 29, 2007, 10:56:47 AM
Please disregard Creature's unproven and highly improbable statement.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: James on July 29, 2007, 09:30:40 PM
The Sun, as you point out, is much smaller than REers claim, but it's also much closer. Current estimates are around 3000 miles above the Earth's surface.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Zackgb on July 30, 2007, 03:34:09 PM
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 30, 2007, 03:36:05 PM
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible

Get a clue.  According to FE Theory, the entire makeup of the galaxy is vastly different.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Fritz Zwicky on July 30, 2007, 04:06:53 PM
The Sun, as you point out, is much smaller than REers claim, but it's also much closer. Current estimates are around 3000 miles above the Earth's surface.
On June 8, 2004 I personally observed the planet Venus transiting the Sun from 7 AM till noon. At that time I was located in Metz (France) doing some research on an unrelated topic. This simple observation has caused some concern on my part when trying to calculate the distance from the earth to the sun using flat earth theory. I believe it is pertinent to this discussion.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 30, 2007, 04:10:32 PM
Easily explainable by the fact that Venus is also much smaller in FET than in RET.  Next question.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Gulliver on July 30, 2007, 08:10:40 PM
The Sun, as you point out, is much smaller than REers claim, but it's also much closer. Current estimates are around 3000 miles above the Earth's surface.
On June 8, 2004 I personally observed the planet Venus transiting the Sun from 7 AM till noon. At that time I was located in Metz (France) doing some research on an unrelated topic. This simple observation has caused some concern on my part when trying to calculate the distance from the earth to the sun using flat earth theory. I believe it is pertinent to this discussion.
I've included Venus's transit as an experiment in the RE Primer. The transit creates a challenge to FE in that the transit demonstrates that the planet moves across the sky, in front of the Sun, and behind the Sun. FE fails to predict when the transits will occur or how their appearance varies by the observer's location. RE does so elegantly.

When you combine this with the observed phases of Venus, FE is left with a lot to explain while RE predicts reality.

I'll lift your post for the RE Primer for that experiment. Thanks.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 11:26:17 AM
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible

The model we argue for is understandably different from the gravity-based RE one. The claim that planets (and the Earth) orbit the Sun is impossible (since the very idea of an orbit is a physical impossibility in FE models). There are different FE cosmos models, I argue for one which places the planets in similar situation to the Earth (flat, and resting on the Universal Accelerator). Other FEers argue that the planets are vastly different from the Earth.

Quote
I've included Venus's transit as an experiment in the RE Primer. The transit creates a challenge to FE in that the transit demonstrates that the planet moves across the sky, in front of the Sun, and behind the Sun. FE fails to predict when the transits will occur or how their appearance varies by the observer's location. RE does so elegantly.

Venus's transit does create some huge problems for FE models which would place Venus and other planets on the Universal Accelerator - Venus would have to actually leap off the UA and fly over the Earth, which is fanciful. It's more likely that Venus and Mercury are subject to the same forces as the Sun and Moon, while Mars etc. are Earth-style planets.

It's worth a mention that CKJ's universe model stands up robustly to the problem of plantary transits - Johnson (and many others) argued for a universe in which the Earth was unique and all celestial bodies flew freely above the atmolayer. Of course, the strengths of one model cannot be legitimately brought to the defense of another.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: sokarul on August 01, 2007, 12:28:24 PM
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible

The model we argue for is understandably different from the gravity-based RE one. The claim that planets (and the Earth) orbit the Sun is impossible (since the very idea of an orbit is a physical impossibility in FE models). There are different FE cosmos models, I argue for one which places the planets in similar situation to the Earth (flat, and resting on the Universal Accelerator). Other FEers argue that the planets are vastly different from the Earth.

Quote
I've included Venus's transit as an experiment in the RE Primer. The transit creates a challenge to FE in that the transit demonstrates that the planet moves across the sky, in front of the Sun, and behind the Sun. FE fails to predict when the transits will occur or how their appearance varies by the observer's location. RE does so elegantly.

Venus's transit does create some huge problems for FE models which would place Venus and other planets on the Universal Accelerator - Venus would have to actually leap off the UA and fly over the Earth, which is fanciful. It's more likely that Venus and Mercury are subject to the same forces as the Sun and Moon, while Mars etc. are Earth-style planets.

It's worth a mention that CKJ's universe model stands up robustly to the problem of plantary transits - Johnson (and many others) argued for a universe in which the Earth was unique and all celestial bodies flew freely above the atmolayer. Of course, the strengths of one model cannot be legitimately brought to the defense of another.

You know, its quite pussy to post in a thread and then close it. 
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Bibleistrue on August 01, 2007, 01:34:40 PM
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible

The Bible makes no mention of other planets or space even existing. Please prove to me they are real.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: James on August 01, 2007, 01:39:22 PM

You know, its quite pussy to post in a thread and then close it. 

I'm not closing it. Either another moderator or the thread starter has closed it twice so far, and I have re-opened it on both occasions.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 01, 2007, 01:45:41 PM
Please go ahead and read Genisis, observing the mention of the creation of the heavens, ie the night sky.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 01, 2007, 07:17:26 PM
Please go ahead and read Genisis, observing the mention of the creation of the heavens, ie the night sky.
You do know that Danny is back? Right?
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Zackgb on August 02, 2007, 05:13:04 PM
Then what about all the other planets?

If its closer to earth and smaller than this would vastly change the entire makeup of the galaxy which seems very impossible

The Bible makes no mention of other planets or space even existing. Please prove to me they are real.

You sir are an idiot.

So then I suppose we're all inbred from adam eve and cain then right? or an ark that size was creatable.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: divito the truthist on August 02, 2007, 05:19:20 PM
You sir are an idiot.

So then I suppose we're all inbred from adam eve and cain then right? or an ark that size was creatable.

Even if the bible isn't true, we are technically still inbred somewhat.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 02, 2007, 05:54:34 PM
Prove it.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: divito the truthist on August 02, 2007, 06:12:20 PM
Prove it.

Er...do you think humans just spawned on Earth? Inbreeding would of had to have occurred at some point.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 02, 2007, 08:21:27 PM
Not neccesarilly.

Humans evolved in Africa, but that does not mean that they all stayed there. There were people that left and went over the land bridge into America at one point. How could they have been bred into the European mix? Are you saying that I am related to every single Native American if all of my ancestors (I can trace them back to the 1500s, so I know that they are not related to any Indians) have not married or had kids with Native Americans? I am not saying that the great majority of the world is not related, but there are at least a few people that are not related to any extent (the population of the Earth would have to have at least a few of these people, due to the sheer amount).

Also, "inbred" involves at least a mildly close relation. You can only really say that someone is "inbred" if their parents have "at least a couple cousins over" relationship. Beyond that, the genes that are passed on are barely, if at all, similar (unless by chance). The mere fact that all humans may have come from the same continent, and have all married eachother at one point or another does not mean that they are all inbred.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: divito the truthist on August 02, 2007, 08:56:40 PM
Not neccesarilly.

Humans evolved in Africa, but that does not mean that they all stayed there. There were people that left and went over the land bridge into America at one point. How could they have been bred into the European mix? Are you saying that I am related to every single Native American if all of my ancestors (I can trace them back to the 1500s, so I know that they are not related to any Indians) have not married or had kids with Native Americans? I am not saying that the great majority of the world is not related, but there are at least a few people that are not related to any extent (the population of the Earth would have to have at least a few of these people, due to the sheer amount).

Also, "inbred" involves at least a mildly close relation. You can only really say that someone is "inbred" if their parents have "at least a couple cousins over" relationship. Beyond that, the genes that are passed on are barely, if at all, similar (unless by chance). The mere fact that all humans may have come from the same continent, and have all married eachother at one point or another does not mean that they are all inbred.

What do you mean not necessarily? Inbreeding would of had to occur at some point. Where humans evolved doesn't really matter, other than to say that inbreeding would have ceased among certain sects of humans that moved. It still occurred, and we are all still related to one another in some way.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: sokarul on August 02, 2007, 10:03:32 PM
Walking with man anyone?  The history channel.  
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: divito the truthist on August 02, 2007, 10:39:01 PM
Walking with man anyone?  The history channel. 

Besides the History Channel not always being accurate, can you give us a brief synopsis of what was shown? I can't seem to find any good information about the show online.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Bibleistrue on August 03, 2007, 07:39:47 AM
So then I suppose we're all inbred from adam eve and cain then right? or an ark that size was creatable.

Yes, and yes. The Ark was actually very small, Noah just fit about 998,000 animals per square foot.

Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Mr. Ireland on August 03, 2007, 08:27:29 AM
Yes, and yes. The Ark was actually very small, Noah just fit about 998,000 animals per square foot.

Is that sarcasm or stupidity?  I can't tell.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on August 03, 2007, 08:30:27 AM
Its fecking funny whatever it is
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: CommonCents on August 03, 2007, 08:35:52 AM
Obviously God instructed Noah in how to create Bags of Holding.  He stored the animals in 'hammerspace' by using these.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on August 03, 2007, 08:37:44 AM
Noah was way ahead of his time...
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: CommonCents on August 03, 2007, 08:46:53 AM
Noah was way ahead of his time...

1,000,000d20 years ahead of his time!
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 03, 2007, 08:48:42 AM
Not neccesarilly.

Humans evolved in Africa, but that does not mean that they all stayed there. There were people that left and went over the land bridge into America at one point. How could they have been bred into the European mix? Are you saying that I am related to every single Native American if all of my ancestors (I can trace them back to the 1500s, so I know that they are not related to any Indians) have not married or had kids with Native Americans? I am not saying that the great majority of the world is not related, but there are at least a few people that are not related to any extent (the population of the Earth would have to have at least a few of these people, due to the sheer amount).

Also, "inbred" involves at least a mildly close relation. You can only really say that someone is "inbred" if their parents have "at least a couple cousins over" relationship. Beyond that, the genes that are passed on are barely, if at all, similar (unless by chance). The mere fact that all humans may have come from the same continent, and have all married eachother at one point or another does not mean that they are all inbred.

What do you mean not necessarily? Inbreeding would have had to occur at some point. Where humans evolved doesn't really matter, other than to say that inbreeding would have ceased among certain sects of humans that moved. It still occurred, and we are all still related to one another in some way.

And my point is that even if we do share that same Greatx20000 grandfather, it doesn't mean inbred in the least.

Quote
1. to breed (individuals of a closely related group) repeatedly. 

Quote
American Heritage Dictionary(ĭn'brē'dĭng) n.   
The breeding of related individuals within an isolated or a closed group of organisms or people. 


And you're saying that by sharing ancestors we're inbred? No. That is not stretching a definition, that is taking it completely out of context.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on August 03, 2007, 08:50:53 AM
Noah was way ahead of his time...

1,000,000d20 years ahead of his time!

You know what the world needs? More Noahs
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: CommonCents on August 03, 2007, 08:54:41 AM
Noah was way ahead of his time...

1,000,000d20 years ahead of his time!

You know what the world needs? More Noahs

Damn right!  Just imagine where we'd be now if we still had one Noah.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on August 03, 2007, 08:56:59 AM
We'd all be learning how to swim, and thats an important life skill so we'd be very thankful to our modern day Noah
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 03, 2007, 02:51:25 PM
You can't prove we're all inbred, but you can show that it must be true. For one thing, originally there would not have been enough human around to not inbreed when we first evolved.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: narcberry on August 03, 2007, 03:27:22 PM
Obviously God instructed Noah in how to create Bags of Holding.  He stored the animals in 'hammerspace' by using these.

Noah was way ahead of his time...

1,000,000d20 years ahead of his time!

How did I miss these?
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Durdan on August 04, 2007, 09:57:06 AM

The sun is roughly 1.4 million kilometers in diameter and the moon is around 1/4th of the earths according to numerous sites.

and according to numerous sites, osama bin laden blew up new york, dianetics is a way of life and the rapture is coming on September 13th.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: divito the truthist on August 04, 2007, 02:56:09 PM
And you're saying that by sharing ancestors we're inbred? No. That is not stretching a definition, that is taking it completely out of context.

inbred

"resulting from or involved in inbreeding."

Completely out of context.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: sokarul on August 04, 2007, 07:32:10 PM

The sun is roughly 1.4 million kilometers in diameter and the moon is around 1/4th of the earths according to numerous sites.

and according to numerous sites, osama bin laden blew up new york, dianetics is a way of life and the rapture is coming on September 13th.

Ok I will play along, who blew up new york then? 
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Gulliver on August 04, 2007, 07:55:27 PM
And you're saying that by sharing ancestors we're inbred? No. That is not stretching a definition, that is taking it completely out of context.

inbred

"resulting from or involved in inbreeding."

Completely out of context.
Let's try again.
Notation: Individual: Lineage + Unique ID + Generation Number, X = paired)
A1 X B1, C1 X D1 ==> (Two couples produce two offspring each)
ABE2 x CDF2, ABG2 X CDH2 ABI2 x CDJ2, ABK2 X CDL2==> (Four couples produce four offspring)
ABECDHM3, ABGCDKN3 (Two first cousins, no inbreeding); ABIABKO3, CDJCDLP4 (Both inbred, receiving genes twice from one or more ancestor)   

If an individual shares ancestors his or her mate, then the offspring produced are inbreed. Though the legal definition is usually limited to only two generations of ancestors.
A population of four unique individuals can create as large as desired population without inbreeding.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: divito the truthist on August 04, 2007, 08:19:12 PM
I wasn't talking about the math regarding it. The definition is clear, as I posted.

My original statement still stands: "inbreeding would have had to occur at some point."
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Gulliver on August 04, 2007, 09:04:12 PM
I wasn't talking about the math regarding it. The definition is clear, as I posted.

My original statement still stands: "inbreeding would have had to occur at some point."
Your assertion remains unsupported.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: divito the truthist on August 04, 2007, 09:08:56 PM
I wasn't talking about the math regarding it. The definition is clear, as I posted.

My original statement still stands: "inbreeding would have had to occur at some point."
Your assertion remains unsupported.

So you believe that nobody has ever been inbred before?
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Gulliver on August 04, 2007, 09:13:05 PM
I wasn't talking about the math regarding it. The definition is clear, as I posted.

My original statement still stands: "inbreeding would have had to occur at some point."
Your assertion remains unsupported.

So you believe that nobody has ever been inbred before?
I believe you made an assertion that you've failed to support.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: divito the truthist on August 04, 2007, 09:28:23 PM
I believe you made an assertion that you've failed to support.

I made an assertion based on probabilities. That inbreeding would have had to occur at some point in history. That you'd even challenge that is strange.

I guess I'll go ahead and get support for my crazy assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200404/ai_n9363157

"Inbreeding has also been seen to occur frequently in many royal families' histories.  Royal incest was commonly found in Ancient Egyptian, Incan, Hawaiian, and many European royal families.  Brother-sister unions become more frequent when royalty is the major factor concerning the incidence of inbreeding.  There are several factors that can explain why royalty leads to high levels of inbreeding.  One factor is that the king has limitless power in many cultures, and he can do what he wants and marry who he wants.  Also, in many cases inbreeding is practiced in royal families to preserve royal blood lines.  Another explanation is that a royal family can keep land, material possessions and resources within the family.  Moreover, brother-sister royal incest allows succession of the throne to both a male and female blood line.  There are also cases in which royal incest is part of a culture and is sometimes linked to legends or myths.  One of the best documented cases of this was seen in the Incan culture in the 16th century.  The Incan king was to marry his full sister.  This was done to emulate the king's mythical ancestor, the Sun, who married his sister, the Moon, and this was thought to preserve the purity of the divine royal blood line (Van Den Berghe 1980). "
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Gulliver on August 04, 2007, 09:39:48 PM
I believe you made an assertion that you've failed to support.

I made an assertion based on probabilities. That inbreeding would have had to occur at some point in history. That you'd even challenge that is strange.

I guess I'll go ahead and get support for my crazy assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200404/ai_n9363157

"Inbreeding has also been seen to occur frequently in many royal families' histories.  Royal incest was commonly found in Ancient Egyptian, Incan, Hawaiian, and many European royal families.  Brother-sister unions become more frequent when royalty is the major factor concerning the incidence of inbreeding.  There are several factors that can explain why royalty leads to high levels of inbreeding.  One factor is that the king has limitless power in many cultures, and he can do what he wants and marry who he wants.  Also, in many cases inbreeding is practiced in royal families to preserve royal blood lines.  Another explanation is that a royal family can keep land, material possessions and resources within the family.  Moreover, brother-sister royal incest allows succession of the throne to both a male and female blood line.  There are also cases in which royal incest is part of a culture and is sometimes linked to legends or myths.  One of the best documented cases of this was seen in the Incan culture in the 16th century.  The Incan king was to marry his full sister.  This was done to emulate the king's mythical ancestor, the Sun, who married his sister, the Moon, and this was thought to preserve the purity of the divine royal blood line (Van Den Berghe 1980). "

That's 99.9% correct. You just need to realize that stating that inbreeding must have occurred is much more than stating the inbreeding has, or in all reasonable probability has, occurred. You're correct with the latter and on shaky grounds on the former.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: divito the truthist on August 04, 2007, 09:47:19 PM
That's 99.9% correct. You just need to realize that stating that inbreeding must have occurred is much more than stating the inbreeding has, or in all reasonable probability has, occurred. You're correct with the latter and on shaky grounds on the former.

Well, I will say that the tense that I was originally arguing with Ulrich was a little misleading, as it kind of changed. Just developed in a strange way I guess.

I live by probabilities, and make assertions through them as well. Statistically, as you pointed out, if there were four unique humans, it's possible that they could have avoided any inbreeding, but I see that as unlikely. Of course I have no direct evidence to support my claim in that regard, I could certainly justify my position.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 05, 2007, 01:52:38 AM
Ok I will play along, who blew up new york then? 

When did New York blow up?!?  Has CNN been alerted?  :o
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 05, 2007, 04:26:39 AM
Logically we are all inbred at some far away point in our ancestery. But inbreeding doesn't become a problem unless you repeatedly do it, through the generations. Which is why the pecies survived it.
Title: Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
Post by: Fokakya on August 08, 2007, 02:24:47 AM
You can't prove we're all inbred, but you can show that it must be true. For one thing, originally there would not have been enough human around to not inbreed when we first evolved.

Do you understand evolution at all? It's not like at some point a few animals suddenly evolved into humans and then those humans had to interbreed in order to increase their numbers.

Humanity evolved as a species, an entire species. Throughout the evolution process there would always be significant numbers of the animals that eventually became us and therefore a significant amount of genetic variance.

There is no reason, whatsoever, to believe that homo sapiens came from a single genetic stock that inbred itself to 6 billion strong. If that were somehow the case then we would be even stupider and more disease-ridden than we already are.