Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?

Without getting into the papers you link, which at the moment are over my head or at least mystifying to me. and may remain so even if I spend more time on them -- we'll see--, I at least want to point out that the biblical time spans are quite sufficient to produce all the diversity we see on the basis of the simplest Mendelian genetics, which requires no mutations. I think I posted something to that effect here at one time, but if not I have posted on it at my blog:: I go on to discuss there, and I know I have also argued it here, that the bottleneck of the Flood is misconstrued in terms of what happens NOW when there is a bottleneck. But what we see now is the result of a great deal of genetic reduction in all genomes since the Flood so that with a bottleneck we often get extreme homozygosity such as is seen in the cheetah and the elephant seal, both products of severe bottleneck or founder effect. But 4300 years ago there should have been a lot more heterozygosity for all traits remaining in all genomes than we see now, so that although a bottleneck would severely reduce that heterozygosity and produce much more homozygosity it would not be anywhere near the extremes such a bottleneck can produce today, leaving a great deal of genetic diversity to play itself out.So, when it is argued that you don't SEE the signs of a bottleneck that would have occurred at the time of the Flood all you are saying is you don't see the signs that we see occurring NOW, but a bottleneck then would not have produced those same signs. There would have been a lot more genetic diversity left.Maybe I'll try to deal with the links eventually.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I did read the papers, sorry that wasn't clear, I simply find them incomprehensible, and at this point no light has arrived to make them any easier to follow, but I haven't yet got back to them anyway.I suppose their mystifying effect on me has something to do at least with their assumption of "mutations" as a source of normal variation while of course most creationists regard them as only deleterious accidents. It might help if such interpretive terminology could be translated into simple phenomenological descriptive terms, such as "changes in the sequence of the DNA" instead of "mutations" and if clear reminders were given of where such changes have been actually observed as opposed to where they are extrapolated mathematically etc. Something like that anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks for the attempt. Can't make sense of it right now. Question comes to mind "Too many differences" from what? Also creationists aren't very good at understanding each other so I may not be of any help to mindspawn nor he to me.

Deleted. I don't have the time or interest right now to get into the Y chromosome issues.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.