WTF would "without mutations" even mean, in the bizarre nonsense phrase "Adam and Eve were created without mutations"?
Doesn't anyone in this thread know what a genetic mutation is? Or have the first inkling what the human genome looks like? Or how nucleic acid base sequences cause the formation of proteins?
A mutation (in molecular biology) isn't a flaw, or an error, or a defect. It's just a difference.
To say "Adam has no mutations" is as coherent as saying "there's no difference between this tree".
It's not clear to me at all, that it would be coherent to assert that a person is without any genetic flaws. But even if it were, it's certainly not coherent to assert that a single individual is without differences.
Whether a given mutation is harmful or beneficial is a situational and relative question. There are no harmful mutations, only mutations that are harmful for a particular species in a particular environment. Incest is problematic because it reduces genetic diversity at the level of the individual, and diversity at that level is beneficial because it provides multiple options when dealing with an environmental characteristic.
How beneficial diversity is, depends both on the other biochemical options within the organism, and on the environment in which it lives.
Before genetics was well understood, there were many attempts to achieve some kind of 'purity' amongst privileged classes of humans. The Ancient Egyptian royals, and the Medieval European ones, encouraged incest as a means of keeping the royal 'blood' pure. These attempts failed not because they didn't achieve that objective, but because the people doing it had no understanding that the objective itself is disastrous. They succeeded so well that the success crippled them.
If, by "without mutation", we are seeking to imply that every gene in every one of Adam's cells was identical to every other instance of that gene (including the complementary copy on the other member of each chromosome pair), then that implies two things: Adam (and any of his descendants) would have been hugely vulnerable to the slightest variation in his environment (for example, to any changes in the bacteria with which he coexisted - bearing in mind that a sizeable fraction of the living cells in a healthy human being are non-human cells), and as a result would have lived a short, disease wracked life; And perhaps even more problematic, Adam and all of his descendants would have been female.
The whole basis for this discussion is a counterfactual set of assumptions about purity and genetics that were very popular in the pre-enlightenment era, but are now known to be completely wrong.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works. You cannot breed a successful population of primates, or indeed of almost any mammals, from a population of a few dozen individuals or fewer, because there simply isn't sufficient diversity in such a population for it to handle the unavoidable variability of its environment. And decreasing diversity still further (which is what reducing the number of mutations means) would be making the problem worse, not better.
