Summations Only

If you read Genesis 6 combined with Numbers 13:33 it appears that these giants were there before and after the flood.

That's your opinion. It's not, as you claimed "confirmed". Nor is your opinion particularly meaningful in a scientific forum.I see you are giving up claiming that there's a been a bottleneck any any but a very few species in which we would see a bottleneck if there had been a fludde. Case closed. Again.

So the lack of a genetic bottleneck in humans is due to the sons of god impregnating humans, yes?
Did the same sons of god impregnate all the animals which also do not have a genetic bottleneck?(And what did the cheetahs do wrong?)

So its the large terrestrial animals that would have significant allelic This would be expected in 6500 years. Looks like a bottleneck to me. As usual the information confirms a flood.

Well if I'm claiming a biblical flood it would be wrong to claim a bottleneck in fish, they continued to swim. It would be wrong to claim it for insects and lizards and mice, there's an extremely high likelihood they would have been on the ark in large numbers, it was a massive ship. It would be wrong to claim a bottleneck for humans because of subsequent breeding possibilities.

As usual the information confirms a flood.

Do we see more than 14 of these significantly unique alleles in any large terrestrial animal. Everyone seems to want to point to the HLA region or the equivalent in animals, but this region is known for its high mutation rate, so there would be more point mutations.

You have no evidence other than your interpretation of the Bible. Believe whatever you want to believe for whatever reasons make sense to you, but if you want to convince anyone that your views have some relationship with reality you'll need evidence. Your interpretation of a vague reference to some unspecified time period is not meaningful evidence.I see you are ducking questions like mad. You claimed that "... the bible confirms further DNA injections after the flood". The appropriate definition of "confirm" is:quote:
to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fac{emphasis added}
For confirmation you need at least two sources, one confirming the other. You have only one source. Therefore your claim of confirmation is wrong.Plus the Bible does not explicitly say any such thing, it requires a particularly strained and question-raising interpretation to get to "DNA injections after the flood".Your opinion of what the Bible says is not evidence. The scientific consensus is that a Noachic fludde would require bottlenecks in all animal including humans, and we know there was no human bottleneck, and we have no evidence of bottlenecks in any but a very few animal species. If you want to claim there's some way that humans avoided a bottleneck, in a scientific forum, you need real evidence. Not your personal satisfaction with your interpretation of a very vague phrase.

As I've pointed out before, any change in a base pair is an allele. Alleles always, not often, differ if only one base pair differs. Plus it's not particularly easy to "analyze the entire allele and see if there are significant differences".

12.8 (2.0) 10-9 per site per generation

mindspawn writes:This is about 35-40 mutations per generation. That's a few base pairs per generation as I said.

Gee you like to labor points

I'll tell you. Three. Therefore, since you claim that "14 and 18 alleles is a bottleneck" certainly you are claiming that three alleles is a bottleneck and therefore humans experienced a bottleneck. But this contradicts your claim that humans did not experience a bottleneck. The obvious reason for this contradiction is that you haven't a clue how to diagnose a bottleneck. You cannot diagnose a bottleneck on the basis of one gene, two genes, or a few genes. You need to analyze lots and lots of genes. In lots and lots of individuals from the bottlenecked and related species.

He is preaching to me that my bible interpretation is in his opinion incorrect.

Ok I see, I saw minor point mutations as just variations of the same allele.

I'm not sure if you looked into this. This mutation rate confirms what I'm saying. To say that each base pair mutates once every 78 million generations, is the same as saying that there is one mutation every 78 million base pairs per generation. there's about 3 billion base pairs in for example, a human.This is about 35-40 mutations per generation. That's a few base pairs per generation as I said.