So if one man had children with that many women... I assume most of these women were all living in a general area (i.e. near each other?) So we are all descendents of inbreds? Wouldn’t those children grow up and have children with each other?
Kinda like we do now. Sexual reproduction offers protection since we only get half of each chromosome pair from each parent (usually) and the possible combinations are 2 to 23rd, squared. Constant available food supply led to better nutrition, lower infant mortality, and larger family sizes.
Guess this proves we are all inbreds.
They seem to have evolved into democrats.
For the vast bulk of human history the only options for mates were reasonably closely related cousins. Most of human history as Hunter gatherers we traveled in family bands and all of the members of the band were related.
As recently as two or three hundred years ago, people ventured only several miles from their place of birth, and only met a hundred people in their entire lives.
You do the math. If people only marry those in their small village, and this repeats for many generations - how could they not all be cousins?
So, if marrying cousins counts as inbreeding, we are all descended from inbreds.
There wasn’t even a stigma against marrying first cousins for most of our history. It is only very recently that families spread out across the country.
We send our children out of state to college, they take the best paying job wherever. Meet someone at college or where they relocated for work… that’s all very recent in the scheme of things.
Also, I'm pretty sure God solved that problem in the first centuries after Adam, and again after Noah.
You’re forgetting about the wanderer, the warrior, the trader, et al.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but guys back then liked to dip their wicks as they traveled about. A lot still do.