No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood

That is the only thing I've been using the term for. So if the term for that is not "neutral mutation" give me a term for it.I've understood that this sort of change that does not change the protein is the MOST COMMON kind of mutation too.If that is also not correct, then please give me the correct information.

But I am not addressing the level of fitness, I'm interested in what the mutation actually does to the allele, and that's the only thing I've been discussing. So I'm not missing the point though I may have the terminology wrong. Again, I'd like to know what term I could use for the mutation in an allele that does not change the protein it codes for, and I'd also appreciate very much knowing if I'm correct that this is the most common kind of mutation.

There is an observed change in the phenotype but no change in fitness, is that what you are saying? Which is exactly how I was using the term which caused all this brouhaha for no purpose apparently.There was another brouhaha not long ago about some other supposed misuse of terminology I was guilty of, I hope it will come back to me, because while reading through some threads I discovered one of your very own using that term in the very same sense I was using it. I meant to post on that, got distracted I guess. I hope I remember it eventually. Neutral mutations with respect to fitness then is what you are talking about. But obviously if there is no change in phenotype you are looking at the DNA and calling mutations at that level "neutral" but how can they be "neutral with respect to fitness" if you see no change in the phenotype anyway? So you see mutations at the DNA level and call them "neutral" although you see no change whatever in the phenotype. I'm sorry, I know I'm not getting this question asked clearly, but there's something odd about your statement, like it implies switching back and forth from DNA level observation to phenotypic observation but not making a change in the terminology with respect to fitness. Sorry, I'm tired. If you can make sense of this please answer it but I have to get some sleep.

But if you're talking only about the smaller animals there wouldn't be any reason for them to be left off the ark as there would be plenty of room for them. And I think the bottleneck applies even to the sea creatures that were left in the ocean. Not all died but likely most of them. Me, I'd look for the percentage of junk DNA in a creature's genome as a clue to whether it went through the Flood bottleneck or not, thinking of junk DNA as a record of death in a species: the more junk DNA the less the creature was affected by the bottleneck.

Really the Bible doesn't say all "living" creatures but those on "the face of the land," leaving the sea creatures in the ocean, which were killed in great numbers (I judge by the fossil record) but not totally wiped out. And then, as you point out, the list of creatures also leaves out sea creatures and plants.Also, the scenario you are describing as that of YECs is pretty much my own. I don't know if it reflects other YECs or not, or to what extent. It's simply a way to explain where the sediments came from that formed the strata, and it makes sense, based on the idea of forty days and nights of rain, that pretty much everything that could be dissolved or turned into mud would have been. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.