1. I didn't ignore it and I acknowledged it was greater than zero, however it is unlikely to make up the deficit required.
But as it is non-zero, it must make up some of it, and so you are not entitled to ignore it.
So far you have not shown otherwise.
I have shown that it is non-zero, which means I can disregard any calculation that treats it as zero.
I can especially disregard such a calculation when its purpose has to be to set an
upper limit on the genetic distance that could have been produced by non-magical processes.
2. There WAS was a bottleneck about 4500 year ago when the human population was reduced to 3 breeding pairs.
Not according to the evidence.
I did acknowledge the effect on variations in population size, however from the literature you can pick and choose the extent and duration of the bottleneck.
And yet although you "acknowledge" them, you totally fail to take them into account.
3. Your Sandwalk reference makes interesting reading. He acknowledges that MEASURED rates are well below 100 but argues for the higher figure so that the evolutionary story will work.
The higher figure is in fact also the product of measurement, and your speculations about his motives does nothing to cast doubt on the figure that was measured.
4. Indeed, and I said as much. "... but I don't think even that will salvage the situation. Now I could be wrong, but you'll have to do much better than so far to convince me."
Do you actually deny that more time will produce greater genetic distance?
I have already responded to your 2nd argument which I have said supports the idea of genetic entropy better than common ancestry.
I have no idea what you could possibly mean by this.
Do you agree that my second argument shows that the genetic distance between me and a chimp should be of the order of 2μG?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.