to fully quote what you missed, "Darwin had married his first cousin,
Emma Wedgwood. He later became concerned that inbreeding within his own family would adversely affect the health of his own children. The Darwins had ten children, but three died before the age of ten. Of the surviving children, three of the six who had long-term marriages did not have any children.
[4][5][6] As with animals, this phenomenon tends to occur in isolated, rural populations that are cut off to some degree from other areas of civilization."
With 2 people who are seperate, every one of their offspring will be related by their genes, they will be brothers and sisters, which are even less genetically diverse than Darwins offspring (born of first cousins, not brothers and sisters), and they had problems breeding even well outside of the family line. The reason this isn't well recorded in humans is that the humans that do it die off, and nobody cares because we have billions of others to carry on our species.
The fact is, if you stuck 2 humans on an island and told them they were stuck there until the end of time, even if they decided it was a good idea to bring kids in to whatever life that would be, they would eventually die off because they would all be related to one another so closely that there would be no genetic diversity. Inbreeding depression would most likely occur in this situation, which is practically the exact same situation Adam and Eve are described as having in the bible once kicked out of eden. Just the 2 of them, kicked out together.
and if you had actually read ANY of that page, you'd see that all of the portions you tried to cite specifically talked about small POPULATIONS of people, as in MULTIPLE FAMILIES of human beings, not just 2 human beings. When you have a sufficiently large gene pool, inbreeding depression won't happen but with 2 people? there is no gene pool to speak of.
