If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?

Sounds exactly the way someone who has rejected evolution and is looking for confirmation would think. But why is it that things must happen only in the way that makes evolution fail? If the squirrel in question dies, would that end the opportunity for evolution of flight? All that is needed is an opportunity for successful paths to work.Flying things evolved from gliding things which evolved from things that could fall with style. What if instead the squirrel simply fell from a height that would have killed his brother squirrels and the flaps caught air and allowed survival. What might that squirrel learn during its lifetime about the use of those flaps? I don't think very much of the method you used to form your opinion. Perhaps more reflection and more study before reaching your conclusion?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Actually I don't need a theory or evidence to address your post which itself contained neither. You posted an argument that evolution could not produced wing flight based on showing that there was no path between non-winged animals and winged fliers.All that is necessary to refute your argument is to outline a possible path. I believe I did that.And you could have done that too. If you were incapable of coming up with a possible path yourself you could have searched for one on the internet.And I did not call you a numbskull. If I were prone to using insults I would instead use words like lazy and its close synonyms. Slack seems like the best fit. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Thanks Mike, but I didn't do the linking. My post was pure mouthing off.I agree that in a discussion about whether evolution actually happened we should present evidence. But in a discussion that concludes based on nothing that evolution could not possibly have happened, far less is required in response.

You did not have a point.

Your post saddens me.You make the same tired argument about probability that has been debunked many times, and I'm sure that it will be rebutted in the same way here.At some point one would hope that the dialog would evolve to attacking the actual arguments that proponents make in response, but that seemingly never happens. Instead the creationist deals out the same old tired lecture about probabilities. Sigh.

\
Actually, you've tried and failed many times to doi this. Right. A conclusion you managed to demonstrate without a single calculation, without any measurement of mutation rate and without a complete misunderstanding of genetics. All using the ridiculous fiction that evolution is just like breeding dogs and all despite being pointed to evidence of dogs and cats with mutations that you could not explain.What is the rate at which mutation occurs in humans? How large would it have to be before you would accept that evolution is a possible explanation?

Again, during our last discussion of this topic, Dr. Adequate pointed out several examples of new traits traceable to new alleles in dogs and cats and you had no answer for even one of his examples. In each case the new traits were dominant meaning that they were not simply 'hiding out' in the genome. So yeah, geneticists have seen exactly what you deny.

I did. Haven't had much sleep lately. Between hobbies, free lancing, and going back to working a regular gig last week. Sorry for the error. The more amusing thing is that she appears to be claiming to have proven such.

You have not demonstrated that there is any such rule. It is only the exceptions to the rule that have any support at all. The rest of the rule is something you made up and that has no support.We know that in breeding dogs over a few generations that only the current traits of the dog matter. That's predictable from the known rate of mutations. Your silly rule is simply not needed to explain anything that is observed. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Actually you did not use of any statistics. You don't know enough mathematics to do that. In a typical debate in which statistics are used, you claim not to believe in statistics. I'd be happy to cite some examples of you doing just that.You don't recall the details of your arguments, and as you have demonstrated in this thread, you don't recall the rebuttals of others to your arguments. You simply remember winning the debate? Is that right?You don't recall, for example, storming off in frustration in the middle of rebuttals and staying away from EvC for several days?

Perhaps the inherited disease angle has a work around since Faith is willing to allow diseases to come from mutations. It is only the beneficial kind changing mutations, like gills or wings, that are apparently impossible. Except for bacteria I suppose.I think a big problem for Faith is that the sheer existence of all of those breeds is an in your face obvious demonstration that speciation does not end possibilities for diversity. Every single one of the dogs is of the same species by any and every reasonable definition. Many of those dogs have dominant variations that wolves have never had. Those things must be new traits.And yes, the argument applies equally well to cats and human beings for that matter.

Your rant about not being understood is predictable, but in this case it is clear that you don't get it. Two points.1. When mutation adds diversity, nothing prevents a sub species from accepting that diversity. In the wild, there is no one to kick out a new puppy from the population just because his eye spots are in the wrong place or his ears twist too much.2. You've entirely missed the point. All of those breeds dogs are a single species that can interbreed an mix together. The only thing preventing those dogs from forming a bunch of diverse mutts is human beings playing 'wet blanket' and spoiling the fun.A collie and poodle are not sub species. They are the same species and sub species. Every dog on that chart Dr Adequate provides is of the same subspecies Canis lupus familiaris. So your argument is factually incorrect. Breeds are formed by artificial man made accumulations of traits that would never form in nature.Yes, human beings can take a bunch of dogs and produce a collection of homogeneous, non diverse poodles. So what? That is not what happens in nature.The question becomes are dogs more diverse than a couple of wolves? Feel free to talk about seven pair of wolves if necessary, but the answer is clearly, yes dogs are more varied than their ancestor species and are a clear counter example to your argument. As are cats and human beings.

Your argument requires this type of interaction as a substitute for having genes formed by mutation. What evidence do you have that your assumption is even true? Why should we entertain an argument with an assumption that you cannot verify and that has been shown to be incorrect for at least some cases? That is, in some case we know that the alleles for a trait do not exist in the parent population.And further, how does your idea rule out the operation of other mechanisms such as those proposed by evolution? Isn't it simply denial that those other mechanisms exist?

duplicateEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is no point in repeating this point without providing evidence. This is a key assertion on your part for which not only is there no evidence, but for which contrary evidence has been provided. It's mere assertion that turns out to be wrong.In short, dominant genes do not work as you suggest here. When they are present, they are expressed. Further, in the examples given here already, and I'll throw in the example of the mutation that generates dachshund legs, we sometimes know that the gene does not exist in the rest of the population. We can identify exactly the chemistry responsible for the mutation and demonstrate that it is not present in the parents.In essence what you are arguing is that you know genetics better than biologists but in turn you provide no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe you. And it is not as though you've actually looked at any chemistry or electron microscope pictures. You have no real defense for your argument. That's why you say things like 'mutations are not needed' when discussing dob breeding. I agree that we mostly don't need them to breed dogs. But somehow there end up being breeds that depend on mutations anyway. Why is the only defense we can get from you simple repetition?Mutations are needed in order to support the theory of evolution. Even if you could prove that breeding worked without them, you really haven't established anything with regard to evolution. You admit that beneficial mutations show up only rarely. But you cannot show that rarely is insufficient for a process that takes thousands to millions of years. You never bother to quantify your argument.Isn't a decade of pretending that such an argument with a Saint Bernard sized hole in constitutes proof ridiculously long? Your argument cannot work until you address those holes which are pointed out every time we have this discussion. No I'm not. Dogs on the whole are more diverse sub species than wolves both genetically and phenotypically. That could not happen without some mechanism to add genetic diversity. What you are trying to do is invent some mechanism for encoding dominant gene diversity into a single animal. Well what mechanism is that?