With regard to generating haps in short order, what's unacceptable about the following study and the conclusion to which it leads?<quoted text>
Actually they do. They force one to turn vague ideas into specifics, to really think through the nuts'n'bolts of a problem.
You can say, KAB, "Oh there just had to be enough mutation at the right time in the right circumstances, and you have these migrations containing only the newer level haptypes and all the old ones die off in the population left behind....etc.etc.etc...
But when you are forced to sit down and work through these scenarios using the data we know and reasonable assumptions... then you see WHY your scenarios do not work.
Correct. So when you put the formulas in, you are confronted with the need to make them realistic. Nuts n bolts.
Yes, but also note that where I have stretched assumptions, I have generally done it in a direction that would favour YOUR position, not mine. And it still did not work.
I did everything I could think of that would work for YOU. Such as doubling population every generation from the flood for as long as possible consistent with 7 bn people alive today. Such as assuming pure random mixing across the whole population which favours you not me (because it allows wider dispersal of new haptypes faster).
We are not talking about a "proportion of the mtDNA genome". We are talking about point mutations etc on that genome. That means a single base difference can amount to a new haplotype.
The difficulty you have is in explaining why all the older haptypes are gone. Some should remain if all but 3 ancestral haps have been generated since 4500 years ago. And remember its not only the oldest. Several generations of haptypes are no longer present but their existence is understood by the distribution of changes in the daughter types which do exist.
I cannot make your hypothesis work. Of course there is more to it than just my puny effort - all of modern genetics cannot make it work even when "creation scientists" try.
What saddens me is that while real science is building an ever deeper understanding of the true history and migration patterns of human populations over the real time scales (ditto physics, biology, geology, astronomy etc) involved, that you guys lock yourselves in the cage of biblical literalism when we have discovered so many more exciting and awesome things about the universe we live in.
None of that means you HAVE to abandon God, or even abandon the moral sense of the Bible. But taking the Bible literally? That is just silly.