Summations Only

Sure evolutionists make honest assumptions, but when it comes down to actual evidence for your position, actual studies that preclude all possibility of bottlenecks, then you are sorely lacking. For example, all marsupials in Australia have a common genetic signature with a species of South American marsupial, talk about a genetic bottleneck.

Wisent, also called European bison (Bison bonasus), faced extinction in the early 20th century. The animals living today are all descended from 12 individuals and they have extremely low genetic variation, which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls.[9] The population of American bison (Bison bison) fell due to overhunting, nearly leading to extinction around the year 1890, though it has since begun to recover (see table).Overhunting pushed the northern elephant seal to the brink of extinction by the late 19th century. Though they have made a comeback, the genetic variation within the population remains very low.
A classic example of a population bottleneck is that of the northern elephant seal, whose population fell to about 30 in the 1890s. Although it now numbers in the hundreds of thousands, the potential for bottlenecks within colonies remains. Dominant bulls are able to mate with the largest number of females sometimes as many as 100. With so much of a colony's offspring descended from just one dominant male, genetic diversity is limited, making the species more vulnerable to diseases and genetic mutations.The golden hamster is a similarly bottlenecked species, with the vast majority descended from a single litter found in the Syrian desert around 1930.Cheetahs are sufficiently closely related to one another that transplanted skin grafts do not provoke immune responses,[10] thus suggesting an extreme population bottleneck in the past.The genome of the giant panda shows evidence of a severe bottleneck that took place about 43,000 years ago.[11] There is also evidence of at least one primate species, the golden snub-nosed monkey, that also suffered from a bottleneck around this time.Further deductions can sometimes be inferred from an observed population bottleneck. Among the Galpagos Islands giant tortoises themselves a prime example of a bottleneck the comparatively large population on the slopes of Alcedo volcano is significantly less diverse than four other tortoise populations on the same island. DNA analyses date the bottleneck to around 88,000 years before present (YBP).[12] About 100,000 YBP the volcano erupted violently, burying much of the tortoise habitat deep in pumice and ash.Bottlenecks also exist among pure-bred animals (e.g., dogs and cats: pugs, Persian) because breeders limit their gene pools by breeding with close relatives for their looks and behaviors. The extensive use of desirable individual animals at the exclusion of others can result in a popular sire effect.Before Europeans arrived in North America, prairies served as habitats to greater prairie chickens. In Illinois alone their numbers plummeted from over 100 million in 1900 to about 50 in 1990. These declines in population were the result of hunting and habitat destruction, but the random consequences have been a great loss in species diversity. DNA analysis comparing the birds from 1990 and mid-century shows a steep genetic decline in recent decades. The greater prairie chicken is currently experiencing low reproductive success.During the Toba eruption, bottlenecks had existed amongst humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, cheetahs, rhesus macaques, orangutans and tigers.

mindspawn writes:... both evolutionary assumptions and creationist assumptions would predict many more such scenarios across many species.

mindspawn writes:Detailed SNP analysis across thousands of specimens in each species would be required to create a profile of the originators within each population. So far its only humans that have been analysed to this degree and it has been confirmed that all humans do come from only a few individuals.

(unless anyone could provide proof that these processes that I describe are impossible)

From the abstract of the article you cited:The Australasian and South American marsupial mammals, such as kangaroos and opossums, are the closest living relatives to placental mammals, having shared a common ancestor around 130 million years ago.
That common ancestor would have lived roughly 130 million years before the "flood."

Just for info, here's a chunk of the wiki for population bottlenecks.
It shows studies of actual bottlenecks in various species. They occur at differing times and for differing reasons. None are at 4,500 years. As these species have been studied specifically for bottlenecks, any incidence of it happening at 4,500 years would have been easily spotted.

First, assumptions are not just wild guesses that somebody made up. The assumptions in one train of thought are the conclusions from another train of thought. Good assumptions have already been tested and found to be correct.
Second, any goober with a keyboard can "predict scenarios". Science isn't about making up assumptions and making up scenarios about what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened. It's about using tested assumptions to predict scenarios that can be tested.The keyword, in case you missed it, is "tested". The target can be tested for holes and lack of holes is evidence that you missed the target. You can predict until the cows come home to eat their beans that you woulda/coulda/shoulda hit the target but there are no holes in the target. The test "proves", if you like, that your scenario doesn't work.

I mean, the process is NOT: prove these things that I have just made up as wrong, or I get to assume that they might have happened.

We have seen that creationists abhor the evidence because it doesn't confirm their beliefs, and as a result they have to misrepresent, obfuscate, ignore, quote mine, or deny major fields of study. Additionally, some creationist rebuttals are based on abysmal ignorance of science and/or the scientific method. And when those methods don't suffice, they just make things up!

Mindspawn writes:Obviously I believe in compressed timeframes.

I'm not trying to have a discussion with you. I'm trying to direct you to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread if you have complaints, and I was trying to encourage you to explain to Jar what form you think evidence against genetic bottlenecks would take.