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

I am very sorry to find out that you don't understand my argument after all this time. The most basic error people make is to confuse phenotypic diversity with genetic diversity.

When you talk about all the diversity evidenced in such a huge array of dog breeds you show that you do NOT understand my argument. And no, I will not try again.

All your speculations about the wolves on the ark is ridiculous. I don't know what you can be thinking, supposing that diseases we see today were active then and that every gene had to have been expressed?

I hope I answered Dr. A sufficiently on this point, pointing out that genetic diseases would not have been present on the ark etc.

To say this shows you also don't understand my argument at all. If nothing else, it would be nice if you and Dr. A got at least that much out of this discussion. I deal with the existence of so many breeds in my argument all the time, it's basic. You are here falling into the usual problem of confusing phenotypic diversity with genetic diversity. There is enormous phenotypic diversity possible with dogs, but for EACH NEW BREED there is a necessary loss of genetic diversity.

Additive processes work against the development of a new subspecies.

I don't suppose that instead of giving disquisitions on what you imagine to be the faults of my argument you could favor us with some thoughts on the actual argument itself?

If these are normal traits, and not mutation-generated disease--producing alleles, they were most likely governed by quite a few different gene loci, that no longer exist in the wolf or dog genome, having joined the junk DNA cemetery since the ark.

You resally do need to try to understand my argument.

I don't know how a gene gets many alleles, it's something I think about.

You assume mutations are the source of diversity ...

The usual error, Dr. A. I haven't denied that there are ways genetic diversity increases. I'm talking about what happens when SELECTION from among the diverse options occurs in the formation of new subspecies, breeds etc.

See above. To get new breeds you have to cull the diversity.

It doesn't matter for this process whether the source of the genetic stuff was built in or mutations it still has to be culled to get new phenotypes, and that's when you have evolution ...

... and that's when evolution can be seen to eliminate the very grounds for evolution over enough time.

A geneticist isn't trying to account for how extra alleles got into one gene locus on the ark.

Sure, I agree, if you are willing to accept that those new "alleles" are all destructive ...

... and not the stuff of valid inheritance.

It's a very reasonable postulate, and what's funny is that mutation as the source of viable genetic material has NO evidence at all, is pure assumption

But this brings me to something I've wondered about which is sort of an aside: why is it that the emphasis among evolutionists seems to be so predominantly on NOVEL mutations, those that occur in individuals for instance, rather than the huge shared store of genes in the genome which are generally understood to have been the product of mutation anyway? It's that genetic store in the genome from which all those traits are developed by the processes I'm describing, that you zanily deny but is such a well known process I don't know how you can. Sexual recombination makes each of us different from our parents using their own genetic stuff. If a bunch of humans get isolated from the rest of the world, over generations the multiple recombinations of their own genetic stuff will eventually produce a characteristic type of human being. This is so ordinary a fact your denial takes the breath away. Beneficial mutations don't occur frequently enough to contribute to these scenarios, they come from the genetic material already in the genome. Whether that was put there by mutation or was built in isn't really important when focusing on these processes. The point is that the eventual appearance of our isolated clan after generations of inbreeding will be identifiably its own, and different from other clans. Surely you don't dispute that this simple process of isolation and inbreeding is how we have Mongolians and Navajos and Icelanders and Inuit and Pygmies and Italians and Bushmen and Samoans and Arabs and Indians and Filipinos and so on and so forth? These processes I'm talking about produce all the different types. Novel mutations probably contribute something or other here and there, but most often a disease.

Yes, I have to figure out how the many alleles per gene developed, as I already mentioned upthread. That the original genome had many more genes per trait than it does now seems clear enough, and more genes, period; but many alleles per gene is still a question. The best guess seems to be some kind of mutation but not the destructive stuff that we see going on now.

I can only think you've confounded new information with the vast variety of new traits possible from mixing the existing genetic possibilities. Simple sexual recombination alone of the extant genetic possibilities in the genome can produce a staggering number of new trait combinations. Consider the dog breeds we've been discussing for instance, all nothing but different combinations of the genetic possibilities in the dog genome

*yawn* New blood, old complaint

Did you even read my post to Denisova?

These contentless posts of yours are just hot air. How do you bring yourself to write so many of them?The more I write out this argument the more solid it becomes. I really wish you would try harder to get it.