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

I see you have a profound misunderstanding of evolution.Let's point out to your flaws. Here is how evolution *actually* is conceived: genetic mutations produce genetic change. When this change matches the environmental conditions, they will be reinforced and retained. When they are harmful, they will be weeded out due to their very disadvantageousness: they will bring lower survival and/or reproduction chances. And along with their carrier, they will die out and not be passed to the next generation.When the genetic variance is piling up, the subpopulations will experience genetic divergence. When this genetic divergence accumulates to the extent the two sub-genomes are genetically not compatible anymore, the subpopulations do not interbreed anymore (or interbreeding will not produce valid offspring) and genetic isolation occurred and by definition speciation took place.As soon as speciation happened, we will now have 2 species with different and separated genomes. And evidently each genome inevitably will be a *subset* of the original combined genome of the ancestral species.From this we conclude:
1. there is NO reduction in genetic diversity but DISPERSION. NOTHING of the original genetic diversity is lost, it's just PARCELLED OUT to split genomes
2. EVEN THEN, the reduced genetic diversity in any of the two distinct genomes is not "required" by evolution but a CONSEQUENCE. Consequences cannot be requirement, that would be just plain unsound logic.I think hereby the whole framework of your posts just collapsed.Edited by Denisova, : Only some improvements in style.

I think you have some severe genetic problems to solve here.For example, a particular gene locus in the human leukocyte antigen complex has 59 different alleles.Now let's be merciful to your claim and assume the 3 sons of Noah were adopted. Members of the same family EACH having a different allele of the same gene is impossible due to Mendelian genetics. Because an allele is inherited either from the father or from the mother. ANY of the sons can only have the allele from his father or from his mother. That would reduce the numbers of alleles to max. 10.But let's assume the 3 sons were adopted and had different alleles. That would yield 16 alleles at most. But, gee, I promised mercy so let's go on with 16 alleles.
Now, may I request you to explain where the 59 - 16 = 43 remaining ones came from?And with the animals on the Ark the problem aggravates. Because according Genesis 7:2-3 Noah was commanded to take of each clean animal 7 and of each unclean animal 2 on the Ark (God only seems to know why Genesis 7:8 though indicates that "pairs" of each animal entered the Ark, hence irrespective of them being clean or unclean - but just let's stick to the 7:2-3 version).Hence, for the clean animals max. 4 alleles for each gene were available. Yet, like in humans, in many extant animals genes involve many alleles (sometimes dozens).The problem even worsens when one takes into account the claim of YEC that 2 millennia before the Flood, the whole human population was confined to only 2 individuals, which implies a maximum of 2 alleles per gene.Creationists often claim that evolution cannot produce any new genetic information but their own claims imply a gigantic and astonishingly rapid emerging of new genetic information. At a rate of punctuated evolution even would cause Gould and Eldredge falling off their chairs due to sheer baffling astonishment.Edited by Denisova, : Language mistakes corrected.

That the original genome had many more genes per trait isn't quite clear enough. From a genetic point of view for many reasons it is even highly unlikely. I think it is your ASSUMPTION which needs evidence.When you think you already addressed this issue, I would appreciate when you would point me out to the particular posts because for obvious reason it is impossible to (re)read the whole thread.As a new debater not having read the complete thread here I need to be careful, though.
I may interpret your contention in two ways:
1. "More genes per trait" as a statistical rate: the number of traits divided by the number of genes, or:
2. "More genes per trait" meaning that for each trait more than 1 gene is working.Please explain your exact position otherwise I may jump to premature conclusions.

I don't think I will go to explain the whole of biology and genetics to you. I don't think this suits the purpose of this forum here.Moreover, this point is irrelevant in the ongoing discussion.
The only relevant point I made here was your ERROR about reduced genetic variance. There is no reduced genetic variance.Unfortunately, now it seems, you ALSO have no idea about OTHER parts of it as well but as I said we can't summarize 101 of all biology and genetics here. SURE ENOUGH I will come back to these points though.
Because the empirical evidence on all the separate mechanisms of evolution is abundant. I promise you hard times.So, if you don't mind, for the same reason I skip the next two elaborations as well and I will immediately jump to the relevant part, the reduced variance. First the PRINCIPLES right. Interbreeding between populations in reproductive isolation is an oxymoron. Glad you recognize that there is no loss in genetic variation but dispersion and parcelling out in two isolated genomes. I should also have said: and every genome is now also specialized.Because of this specialization, each distinct genome has less genetic variance. And that is no problem NOR A REQUIREMENT for evolution. It is a CONSEQUENCE. And I guarantee you that you will find not a single paper on evolution where this was claimed or even implied. Evolution theory predicts a gain in genetic variance and so it happens. the fact that this variance is parcelled out in different isolated genomes is exactly the central point of evolution: speciation. The GAIN in genetic variance HAS occurred. See above.
Let's assume the ancestral species lived in lush, wet environments but that the habitat of one of its subpopulations is living in an region where the climate becomes very dry and arid. Basically these animals have 3 "options": 1. adaptation to the new conditions, or: 2. migrate to lush regions so they can resume their old lifestyle, or: 3. get extinct. Actually, all happen and are observed in an abundance on field observations and even experiments.Now let's assume that migration is not possible (predators there, overcrowding, some geographic barrier etc.) and the species manages to adapt.So, first the genetic variance in the species' TOTAL genome (including the ones still living in the original lush habitat AND the ones living in the area that is getting more arid) INCREASES, mostly by genetic innovation in the "arid" subpopulation - the ones living in the original, lush area don't need to change (other than through genetic drift) because they don't experience new environmental change.AFTER this increase, the genomes may split up.
But each subpopulation picks up only a part of this INCREASED genetic variance.I HARDLY doubt ANY of the two subpopulations having a genome with less genetic variance than the original ancestral genome though. Not in the subpopulation living in the original, lush environment because there was no much need to change. But NEITHER in the "arid" subpopulation because in those animals the traits that relate to living in lush environment will be discarded (genes disabled by mutations or just by plain gene deletions) and new genes will be formed (by gene duplications or altering old ones).A little calculation already proves this. Let's depict the original. ancestral genome in this, simplified way, where each Xi represents a single, distinct gene:Ga = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X6-X7-X8-X9-X10-X11-X12-X13-X14-X15-X16After one subpopulation experiencing arid conditions:
G1 = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X6-X7-X8-X9-X10-X11-X17-X13-X14-X15-X16
(the subpopulation still living in unchanged, lush conditions, hence, genome only changed a little bit due to genetic drift, represented by the gene X17, retrieved from the original gene X12)PLUS:G2 = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X17-X7-Z1-X9-Z2-X11-X12-Z3-X14-X15-X16-Z4 (the subpopulation experiencing an more arid environment, adaptation through the new genes Z1, Z2 en Z3, replacing old genes X8, X10 and X13, which are disabled, mutation of old gene X6 into X17 and the new gene Z4 - added without replacement of former genes).So, as a matter of fact, I should redrawn the picture for G2 as follows:G2 = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X17-X7-(X8)-Z1-X9-Z2-(X10)-X11-X12-Z3-(X13)-X14-X15-X16-Z4where (X8), (X10) and (X13) represent the disables genes whose sequences still are there but "degraded" to junk DNA (to pseudogenes).IN OTHER WORDS, in the sub-genomes there is ANY reduction in genetic variance.

1. the source of the genetic diversification is CRUCIAL for the ongoing debate because it was your contention that genetic mutations cannot account for that.2. your ASSUMPTION that genetic mutations only result in deteriorations like genetic disease will very soon be made minced meat by me because it is blatant denial of a abundant series of genetic studies.But, as I said, the principles first so we speak of the SAME evolution theory as it is conceived last 150 years.

Yes. this well known 101 genetics indeed.However, the original questions though were:1. That the ORIGINAL genome had many more genes per trait isn't quite clear enough. From a genetic point of view for many reasons it is even highly unlikely. I think it is your ASSUMPTION which needs evidence.When you think you already addressed this issue, I would appreciate when you would point me out to the particular posts because for obvious reason it is impossible to (re)read the whole thread.As a new debater not having read the complete thread here I need to be careful, though.
I may interpret your contention in two ways:
2. "More genes per trait" as a statistical rate: the number of traits divided by the number of genes, or:
3. "More genes per trait" meaning that for each trait more than 1 gene is working.None of these are answered by your response above. When you refer to the "original" genome having MORE genes per trait, i assume you mean "then the current genomes of extant humans". In other words, you imply a loss of genes and genetic diversity in the human genome since Adam and Eve.This is an ASSUMPTION without any evidence.
Without any evidence, you might as well contend the exact opposite.
Now, WHERE can I find the evidence for that?And you will not find this answer by explaining how skin colour in extant humans (of whom we know the genome) is related to 4 genes.We do not have the gene sequence of Adam and Eve.
But we DO have the gene sequence of Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Denisovia and Homo Heidelbergensis. And the genome sequence of many specimens of archaic Homo sapiens as well.Or we may retrieve information from DNA of old human remains and compare them to modern human DNA. Or just look for genetic evidence in the extant human genome by smart comparison.It's all there.The only thing I ask is to provide empirical evidence for your claim.
In science we say "A lack of evidence does not need firther evidence".
It speaks for itself.So do your homework.SOON I will explain that AS FAR AS loss in the genetic diversity is observed in the human genome, it is very well understood (near extinction events, migration patterns).But FIRST the evidence for your claim please.

This post has been moved to the thread " Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity".Edited by Denisova, : Due to being off topic here.

Sorry, misread it for "interbreeding".
My bad, I apologize.I am not rude, nowhere in my posts.
Straightforward, yes, sure, but not rude.

This post has been moved to the thread "Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity".Edited by Denisova, : Corrected editing codes.Edited by Denisova, : And another one...Edited by Denisova, : Typo corrected. Pfffff!!!Edited by Denisova, : For being off topic here.

Point taken!
Indeed a misreading.
Already acknowledged to Faith. Well.... I happen to write and communicate in 3 languages on a regular basis, sometimes even on the very same day, Dutch, German and English, which happen to be sister-languages as well.It's often very funny translating a word between sister-languages. You think "English is so similar to Dutch", hence "this must be the proper translation". The most famous was by the Dutch foreign minister, Mr. Joseph Luns, meeting Kennedy. Kennedy asked politely for his hobbies, Luns answering "I fuck horses" - the Dutch "Ik fok" means "I breed" and "Ik fok" is indeed the linguistic cognate for English "I fuck" - only in a slight different meaning. It is also said that Kennedy stood surprised and asked "Pardon?". Luns reposted "Yes, paarden!!" ("paarden" = "horses").Well, the correct rendition of my sayings would be:
"IN OTHER WORDS, in the sub-genomes there MIGHT BE reduction in genetic variance" (according to and ensuing Faith's argumentation).

Thanks for lending me your sharp eyes!I already tried to clarify this point in my post #163, especially by the example in the second part of it.The creation or loss of alleles and genes, responsible for the genetic isolation of the subpopulations and therefore the cause of the split or the ancestral genome, happened BEFORE the split.At the very moment of the split, two specialised species emerged.
"Specialisation" means by definition that NONE of the newly emerged species has "taken away" ALL of the genes and alleles which were present in the combined ancestral genome at the moment of the split.Species A most likely resembles the initial genetic diversity of the original ancestral species before even any divergence occurred (part from the usual "portion" of genetic drift) - because it continued to live in the old environment and didn't have much or any reason to change. But the genome of species A DIFFERS from the combined ancestral genome at the moment of split. So genome A is a subset of the combined, ancestral genome at the moment of the split.Species B "takes away" (most of the) the genetic change since the start of the divergence. Because this species consist of the original subpopulation of the ancestral species that actually underwent the environmental changes which gave rise to the genetic change. Species B also has a genome that differs from the combined ancestral genome at the moment of the split. This implies that the genome of species B is a subset of the combined ancestral genome at the moment of split.

OK, point taken.
As I said, it's often a little bit difficult for me to set the correct tone when translating from Dutch to English. Guess I learned a bit of English here....

I fully agree!
But I still was following Faith's argumentations - for sake of not complicating the discussion too much.I'm afraid that reduction in genetic diversity with no associated prior increase being a possible path to speciation indeed is not serving Faith's claims well!

Indeed I also now notice it's off topic.
Actually, i started this line of debate in the "Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity" thread but for some strange reason we end up here. Maybe it was my fault or maybe I followed a lead by Faith.So I suggest we just continue where it belongs: in the "Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity" thread. I don't think we have to start a new thread.Edited by Admin, : Fix quoted portion.

Take you time!
Your health is more important than the evcforum!Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.