This is just what one would expect to find if the last common ancestor of all living women, Eve, lived many generations before the last common ancestor of all males, Noah. Recall that all men to survive in the ark were directly related, while the four women in the Ark were not related. It would therefore not be suprising for males to have less diversity than females in gene regions unique to each sex.I was talking more about the completely bullet-proof generic "Goddidit" approach, not Biblical literalism. I'm surprised you're trying to make the Noahic Flood work. That takes you out of the realm of bad biology into execrable geology. And how many generations are there from Eve to Noah?PS- The Deluge of Noah would also explain the 'genetic bottleneck' you mentioned earlier.
To all, Vade does not seem to think the thread I linked to in my earlier post has much of value to say. I am afraid I must politely disagree. It was an excellent run down on the genetic evidence for the date of human origins. But don't take my word for it, click on the link yourselves and see who YOU think makes the best case.Let me know what you hear.
As far as your link goes, it seems to be a refutation of YECs' vesion of a global flood. The main points they make would not apply to the event I have in mind. Nor would it apply to the findings of Dr. Ross, who holds that the flood covered 'the whole Earth' as understood by the authors, IE- a regional rather than global flood. I don't hold to that myself. There is various evidence for world wide flooding at several points in the past, 12.5 K back, and 28 K back being the dates that I recall.
Perhaps someday I will get around to posting some of those sources. I am buried right now. The short answer is that the evidence for Noah's flood, while not overwhelming, is far greater than zilch.