Obviously you didn't get what I was getting at.
You were appealing, in terms of a YEC scheme, to post-flood geographical isolation of members of a "kind" to explain the emergence of the various and diverse living species from the "kinds" preserved on the ark; precisely because small, isolated populations lose diversity (genetic information) and in such genetic losses the more finely characterized species could emerge within their "kind".
But how, I was pointing out, is any possible natural population ever smaller or more isolated than being the only pair of their kind (or, at most, only one of seven pairs) in the entire world!!! IOW, Noah's ark (had it been real, would have) represented the mother of all populational isolations!
You're arguing that species emerge from kinds when members of the kind lose genetic information, and that can happen when members of a kind become isolated. At the same time, you are attributing maximal genetic information to the pairs aboard Noah's ark, even though they represent the smallest and most isolated populations EVER. Do you not see how this is absolutely self-contradictory?
If an individual carried 100% useful DNA, no junk DNA and no mutations, why is that improbable?
It's still only two alleles per locus. I repeat, many human genes have dozens of alleles per locus, and some have hundreds. You can't even get the typical diversity of a single species into one (or several) individuals, let alone the diversity to generate dozens or hundreds of species, with different coloration, markings, sizes, mating rituals, food sources and feeding habits, other environmental adaptations, etc, etc, etc.
Just take the "horse kind," to again employ the most common example creationists themselves use. Those seven species of living horses I listed for you earlier, they all have different numbers of chromosomes (n numbers). How was THAT encoded into a single pair representing the "horse kind" on Noah's ark? In fact, there are ubiquitous and varied "chromosomal races" even within some single species, for instance the common house mouse.
So, major chromosomal mutations DO occur, even commonly in some species. You'd have to admit that, once aware of the facts. But you're going to strain at allowing comparatively simple point mutations to build genetic diversity?
I was told by another FReeper when discussing chromosome number differences between humans and apes, that that was not really significant, what was really important was that most of the DNA was the same, not how it was divided up into chromosomes.
Evolutionists claim a common ancestor for all the horse kinds, ultimately for ALL animals really. How is that much, or any different, than what creationists are saying?
Seems that the criticism against the common ancestor of kinds (family level basically), could equally apply to the common ancestor of ALL animals, the one at the phyla or class level.