Summations Only

When you shrink a population down to 2 to 14 individuals it produces a genetic bottleneck. Based on what evidence?

Evidence please.Also, are you saying that genomes used to be 10 times larger?

Evidence please. Evidence please. My mind is very open to evidence. Do you have any? Do you really expect me to just accept bare assertions as true just because you say they are true? Surely, asking for evidence is the sign of an open mind. If my mind was closed then I wouldn't be asking for evidence. I would just say it is untrue and ignore it. Genetic bottlenecks occur anytime a population is limited to just a few individuals. It reduces the number of alleles. Unless you are claiming that species used to have genomes 10x the size of current genomes, then genetic bottlenecks should have occurred universally if the Noah myth is true, and those bottlenecks should be detectable in modern species. They are not.

So you want to play the part of Rosa Parks without actually getting on the bus. IOW, it's not evidence because it isn't evidence. Sorry, but you don't get to redefine beliefs as evidence. Actually, it is presented as "this supports this conclusion" and I challenge you to show otherwise. So says the person who feels the need to redefine the word evidence. Bias much? I am fully aware that I am committed to testable theories that are supported by empirical evidence. That is kind of the whole point. I am asking for evidence so that I can rationally analyze your claims. Do you have any or not? Are you just making this up as you go? What evidence led you to the conclusion that life once had "super genomes"? What were these super genomes like? How would they mask a massive decrease in population sizes? Why do you avoid these questions?

The assumption is that animals were diploid (i.e. two copies of each chromosome) and therefore carry two alleles per gene. Can you tell us why we should not be making this assumption? It seems like a pretty solid one to me. So says the person who claims that animals used to have super genomes without offering any evidence whatsoever.

#1: Are you saying that mutations did not occur in any animals in the past, and only do so now in all animals by some fluke of luck?#2: No one is claiming that a lack of allelic diversity is detrimental. All we are saying is that massive decreases in population size drastically reduce allelic diversity. The only assumption is that animals in the past were diploid so that they carried two alleles per gene. Can you please tell us why we should not be making this assumption? Have you heard of this little thing called "burden of proof"? The person making the claim needs to support their own claims. You have now claimed that 200,000 years is enough time to produce the genetic diversity we see today. Now it is up to you to marshal the evidence to support this claim. It is not my job to support your claims. That is your job. That is not how genetic diversity is measured. Genetic diversity is measured by the differences in DNA sequence which are not affected by gene regulation. When a gene is turned on it does not change the DNA sequence of the gene. Your reasoning is way off. I think we all agree with this. What we are saying is that there is not enough time for mutations to build up in order to produce the genetic diversity we see today.