Summations Only

But, you have been given evidence of the lack of bottlenecks in certain species 4500 years ago. In fact, someone already gave you a link to the wiki that deals with Population Bottlenecks. Just in case you need it again: Population BottleneckThe aspect that you are missing is that this bottleneck must be shown in Every species. I have seen people say constantly that a single species not having this genetic bottleneck disproves the flood, because the God character has made the claim to have destroyed every creature, with the exception of those on the Ark. Every creature. Your defense is that not every creatures genome has been studied, which would be a valid defense if it did not simply require only one species that did not suffer this bottleneck to disprove the flood...and that we have studied in depth....such as, perhaps, humans?According to the Wikipedia article, Humans last suffered a genetic bottleneck 75,000 years ago after the Eruption of the Toba volcano. So, there it is. One species, that does not show a genetic bottleneck at the time you expect. Of course, you could claim that the maths is wrong and we should find this same genetic bottleneck in other creatures at 75,000 years ago, then you can place the flood there. Well, crap, that doesn't work either because the bottleneck for the Galapagos Island's Tortoise is 88,000 years ago. Or a difference of 13,000 years.Now, you also claim that the animals would be fine with grazing on sea beans, but what you are forgetting is growth time. Percy was stating that Cows could probably survive on 10lbs of forage a day....not healthy, but survive. So, how long would your sea beans take to actually grow, which is an important step you are missing. Seeds don't hit ground (wet or dry) and instantly sprout into full size edible plants. So, what is the growth time for a Sea Bean plant to its edible stage? Well, according to Seabean.com, just to get the initial sprout requires first a soaking in fresh water after getting a hole through the protective covering, then you have to plant the seed, and in 1-2 weeks, you will have a tiny sprout, which then must be planted in good soil to ensure continued growth. This means your grazers would have had to wait 2 weeks just for sprouts, then continue to wait longer for the plant to actually grow....how do they survive when they need 10lbs of food each for 14 of them (clean animals?), when all that is available for the first two weeks are tiny shoots that must be dug up? SourceOh and ABE - What animals would we see if the Ark were real would be completely different from what we do see. The grazers would all die out waiting for food to grow and the predators would decimate the herbivore populations, especially considering they will be weakened by the lack of food around. Rotting flesh can be eaten, so I would expect large populations of the predators that are able to consume this type of meat, such as carrion eaters, many reptiles...animals such as that. Carnivores like these would be in large supply, while the herbivore population and the predators that rely on them would be decimated.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

While I have many issues with a lot of your conclusions, there is one in your response to Dr. Adequate that I have a question about: I know that you believe that the Earth was more flat, but there were mountains, correct? At least, actual geology tells us there were mountains in the Permian....Maybe not quite as tall, just to go along with your reasoning for a bit?Well, let's see, first we have the statement in the Bible of: SourceSo, now you are using the Ice caps as the source of all the flood waters, correct? Trying to remain logical. Well, what would be the effect of the ice caps melting. First, the northern Ice Caps would not cause a rise in sea level because they are already displacing water by being partially submerged. Next, there is Greenland, which would raise sea levels approximately 20 feet. Not exactly mountain covering yet. Finally, if the entire Antarctic Ice Cap were to melt, it would raise ocean levels by about 200 feet. So, all in all the melting of the Ice Caps would raise the level of the oceans 220 ft. SourceIs it enough, well...let's look at the definition of a mountain, which according to the Bible must be completely covered, with an extra 15 cubits of water to spare. How tall must a mountain be to be called a mountain.....at least 1000 feet, or 780 feet taller than the amount of water that can be released by the ice caps..soooooo, no it is not a logical source for the water unless you make the Earth nearly flat everywhere. SourceI have been hiking in mountainous, flat, hilly, pretty much all terrains you can think of. There is an enormous difference between hiking in hilly/flat terrain and hiking in the mountains. The Bible specifically states mountains, which removes the possibility of the Ice Caps being your source, because there is not enough water.Also, I noticed in your response to me you had nothing to say to the growing times I posted for sea beans and other plants. What were the grazing animals eating while they waited the well over two weeks for these plants to grow? This is why the predators would have killed off the grazers, they would have been slow from the slow starvation they suffered through waiting for plants to regrow after the flood.As per your comment on the population bottlenecks, I will have to choose to trust the scientists who publish their research and show their calculations, rather than on an armchair scientist with a bias toward proving the Bible right. After all, they have studied the actual material in depth and could actually give an explanation if asked for it, not simply what if scenarios.Let me ask you this, if you are sick, do you go to a doctor or a mechanic? If you want to purchase a house, do you go to a realtor or a baker? If you want a football player, do you sign Joe Namath or Jim Abbott? What I am trying to get across is that there is specialization across every field now. Should you try and understand it, sure! But when those in the field are telling you something, understand that they do have far better knowledge of the topic at hand than you or I do and use that knowledge to increase your own...after all, it comes from the most trained in the field source.

By reading the literature that you search for...Here we have a paper that discusses a method for researching where bottlenecks have occurred within a species. Note that in the conclusion they state that: So, in other words, the easiest bottleneck signature for scientists to locate would be when a population of animals suffers an extreme population bottleneck, which would have been the case for all animals, should a worldwide flood have occurred. This would have caused an Extreme Bottleneck in all species, which according to the paper, are the easiest types to spot with using the markers evolving under the infinite allele model (IAM). And yet, we do no see this signature of the easy to find bottleneck in all species at the same time. SourceLikewise, one of the major bottlenecks in human evolution occurred after the eruption of the Toba volcano around 70,000 years ago, which would have caused widespread devastation to the world and decimated a large proportion of the human population. Huge reduction in population, means we should see a signature of a bottleneck at this time using markers evolving under IAM, and guess what.... We do! So, we know how to read these markers and place bottlenecks in time, especially extreme bottlenecks. This leaves you having to explain how your God managed to wipeout nearly every species to near extinction and yet not leave a signature mark on their genetics. A mark which is left on and easily readable in species who suffer enormous losses to their population counts. SourceAdded by Edit: Fixed the error I was speaking of in this message. Thank you Dr. A for the help! Subscript is now where it should be.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.