No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood

After seeing a result like this, the obvious question to ask is, How certain are we that the Australian rabbits actually descended from only 13 original ancestors? This article from CSIRO (the Australian federal science agency) states that rabbits were brought to Australia on the First Fleet in 1788, more than 70 years before they were supposed to have been introduced into the wild, and that rabbits had been kept in captivity continuously from then until now.Furthermore, the Europeans seem to have commonly kept rabbits on their ships while sailing across the globe, and they seem to have been planted in many places this way. And, a lot of those ships went to Australia (some of my ancestors actually came through Australia). So, I find it hard to believe that there was never any other influx of rabbits, aside from one original handful.Not only that, but this article by an Australian pest control service asserts that different populations of rabbits in Australia show differences in coat patterns. I can't verify that information, so it could be wrong. But, perhaps there have been too many assumptions made in this discussion.

Hi, Faith. The epitome of irony is requesting clarity without specifying what it is you want clarified.I was actually making two points:

1. Australia's rabbits may not have descended from a tiny founder population, after all. This might explain why they don't seem to have experienced a genetic bottleneck.
2. Your original question here was regarding the phenotypic makeup of the Australian rabbit population, to which you never actually got an answer. We don't know the phenotypic makeup of the rabbit population, but there is some indication that there is some phenotypic diversity there.