Y.E.C. Model: Was there rapid evolution and speciation post flood?

The main problem with this very narrow argument is that you are extrapolating from one gene to all genes. Just because skin color may or may not be determined by two genes with two alleles each does not mean that other physical characteristics are governed the same way.

Probably? Why? I meant "narrow" as in focused on just one species. Also, biology isn't simple.

Is there evidence FOR this idea? From all indications you seem to accept natural selection, so we can proceed from there.If these alleles were detrimental or less beneficial than other alleles then we wouldn't find them in about the same abundance. This is because less beneficial or detrimental alleles would be selected against.

We already know that Parker's model is not correct. The Wiki page lists at least 7 genes involved in skin color:Human skin color - Wikipedia

Again, you can't extrapolate from one gene to the entire genome.

Ran across this paper:A Three–Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Haplotype in Intron 1 of OCA2 Explains Most Human Eye-Color Variation - PMCIt lists multiple alleles for the OCA2 gene, and those alleles are not equal in function. Different combinations of alleles produces different eye colors. This is an example of more than 2 alleles for the same gene.

It isn't an assertion. It is the conclusion of the paper as backed by the facts presented in the article. Sorry, but a handwave won't make this evidence go away. Alleles are defined as different gene sequences at the same locus, so yes, at the same locus. There is more than two allele for the OCA2 gene, and those multiple alleles have different functions meaning that there is more than 2 functions for that gene. This runs counter to your model.

Counting the number of individuals in a population with a specific DNA sequence has nothing to do with function.

Ignorance is not a valid basis for an argument, especially when it is followed by stubborn reiteration of the now debunked argument.

I already gave you that proof, and you turn a blind eye (pun intended).Stubbornly refusing to accept the evidence casts a poor light on your argument.

They are OBSERVED to be alleles since we can sequence them. Alleles are defined by their DNA sequence which can be easily determined, allowing scientists to determine which individuals have which alleles.As shown in the previous papers, multiple alleles (i.e. more than two) result in a wide range of eye colors. Two alleles can't do it. It requires more than two alleles to produce the variety of eye color in humans. They do do something different. They produce different eye colors. That is irrelevant to the discussion. Whether the new function increased in frequency due to positive selection or neutral drift does nothing to change the fact that they have different functions.

To stress this point again, whether the allele increased in frequency due to positive or neutral selection has nothing to do with the fact that there are more than two alleles with more than two functions.

Sticking your head in the sand does not make the facts go away. I have already linked to the peer reviewed paper that contains the very facts you claim don't exist, and you still refuse to address it. In reality, there are more than two alleles for some genes as defined by function. Your model doesn't match up to reality, so it is rejected. It is possible to build a model of our Solar System with just one planet. That doesn't mean there is just one planet in our Solar System.You seem to have a serious problem understanding the difference between reality and models. If I showed you a map of Kansas that had a 10,000 foot mountain range going down the middle of Kansas, which would be wrong, the map or the actual state of Kansas? You seem to be saying that the actual state of Kansas would be wrong because the map shows a mountain range going down the middle of it. Do you see the problem?

Why aren't they alleles? A Google search for "neutral selection" finds 78.3 million hits. Have you heard of Google? You are deluding yourself. Whether these alleles are being selected for or not has nothing to do with the OBSERVATION that they have different functions.

That doesn't change the fact that it contains the very observations you claim don't exist. The very fact that you can't even do a simple Google search for "neutral selection" shows how you are suffering from self imposed ignorance. It isn't that you can't understand it. It's that you don't want to understand it.