No, I don't, I don't know and I don't feel a great need to know. And mabe genetics is based on "faulty interpretation"? (I actually don't believe that, but it wouldn't be the first time now would it?)

I think we can all agree that science is largely assemling facts and then using logic,common scence, derived knowledge and imagination in an attempt to make sense of those facts. I think we also can all agree that logic,common scence, derived knowledge and imagination are tools that are just as prone to error, misrepresentation and bare faced lies as they are to the discovery of truth.

No, i was merely attempting to highlight the double standard that evolution having a small gene pool is nothing to be concerned about, but the flood story could't possibly be true because the gene pool was too small.
Double standards like this are common in discussions such as this one (from both sides of the fence).

That the shape of a stone is obviously designed for a specific function and it is too intricately designed for it to have occurred from chance events. That is enough evidence to say the stones shape had a maker.

Yet if you use the same agument for God.
Proteins are obviously designed for a specific function as is the living cell and this design is too intricate to have occurred from chance events.
I get told that:-
I have turned my brain off.
The obvious design in the rocks shape IS evidence of a maker.
The obvious design in protein and cells IS NOT evidence of a maker.
It's perfectly feasable that the cell is the result of random events

Well, the cells design is astronomically superior to the rocks shape, so if the design in cells is not evidence then neither is the design in the rocks shape.
You can't have it both ways, either intricate design IS evidence of a maker OR it is not evidence of a maker
Notice, I say evidence here and not proof.

I would like to take the opportunity here to restate that I don't abdolutely dis-believe evolution. I am un-sure, I choose not to believe it, but I am un-sure. I do object when interpretation of facts is presented as though evolution has been prooven. It is all nothing more than interpretation and there are other interpretations even from other scientists.