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

But what's so odd really, is that very noticeable changes occur within a few generations when you isolate a small number of a Species. Darwin demonstrated this with pigeons, getting extreme variations in a very short period of time just by breeding to enhance a chosen trait. They always reverted to type left to their own reproductive devices. All this demonstrates is the great variability that is built in to a Species, that develops through microevolution if the breeding pool is isolated. Isolation can occur either artificially by human manipulation, or by natural factors such as migration of a small number of a Species in the wild. Either method will produce a new type or breed or race or variety.Change is built into the genome, but it can only vary the traits of the particular Species that are programmed into its genome, it can never produce something that is not already genetically available to that Species. Oodles of time isn't going to make one Species into another if the genetic program for all the characteristics of a given Species is limited to what is already packed into its genome. This is macroevolution's ultimate downfall. If the Species is genetically equipped for fur it isn't going to grow feathers no matter how clever you are at breeding strategies. OR, if you get something in the direction of feathers by assiduous selection, you will sacrifice so much else to the effort you may not even have a viable living creature at all in the end. That is, if you try to breed from an anomaly you will most often get disease and deformation. That is, Species are capable of change but there are limits. Extreme change, even if produced by a series of small changes, is more likely to lead to extinction than further ability to change. Thus dies the Theory of Evolution.Fossils show what once lived, they do not necessarily show whether they were related to other fossil forms or not. The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is based only on some morphological similarities and position in the fossil record. We can tell if a fossil was related to a currently living thing by its morphology, but it's sheer speculation to claim descent from one Species to another.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've made the case many times that there is a very real barrier to macroevolution in the fact that genetic diversity decreases as microevolution proceeds. It decreases because only the genes/alleles that underlie the new phenotype are present, others for other phenotypes having been eliminated, left behind in the former or mother population. You can't get further evolution from an already evolved breed or race or variety that has little or no genetic diversity left.Mutation occurs at far too slow a rate to affect this. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was using statistics on mutation rate provided by some of the evolutionists here. Sorry I don't have them at hand.

Actually they don't. There are certainly many small sub-populations but they are genetically decreased by necessity in order to produce their peculiar characteristics. The only way you get "new species" from such genetically depleted populations is by labeling those as "new species" that are SO genetically depleted they can't interbreed with the other populations any more. Further evolution is impossible in those "new species" but evolution is basically word magic. Typical evolutionist flimflam.Evolution defeats evolution.

Selection certainly applies here as Darwin himself was doing the selecting, at times rather drastically isolating a trait of his choosing and breeding to enhance that trait until the bird was dominated by it to the exclusion of other characteristics. If there was some reason in nature for the development of the same trait you would see Natural Selection at work to the same end. However, your assertion that mutation was also at work is nothing but evolutionist fantasy and something for which you cannot produce evidence. In such domestic breeding you don't need mutation anyway. All the genetic material is available for all the traits possessed by the pigeon. When a trait is selected its genotype is also selected, and alleles for other expressions of the same trait are soon eliminated from the population of birds from which the trait is being bred. If the selection continues generation after generation a point may be reached where ONLY the alleles for the chosen trait are present, all others having been left behind in the original population. if this goes on long enough in nature it is easy enough to see how a subpopulation could develop inability to interbreed with other populations of the same Species, from sheer genetic mismatch. That point wasn't reached with Darwin's pigeons. As soon as they were allowed to revert to their natural reproductive patterns they "reverted to type" and resumed their former form as the common rock pigeon.
\ Yes, this was his insight but he didn't have the knowledge that would tell him that the changes that occur through selection, natural or artificial, are limited by the fact that selection eliminates alleles in the process of developing new phenotypes. Eventually the new breed or type may be quite strikingly different from others of its kind but it will of necessity have much less genetic ability for any further evolution. Evolution eats alleles, eliminates them, in order to produce those changes so optimistically considered to be the foundation for open-ended evolution. It's pure theory, for which there isn't the slightest evidence, and although I think evidence should be easy enough to come by to show that genetic decrease is in fact the result of evolution /selection / reproductive isolation, common sense really ought to be enough to make the case: You can't get or maintain a breed of Chihuahuas if that breed retains alleles for malamutes, or is not reproductively isolated from other breeds. No argument with the basic principle, but wherever such changes are possible it's because the genetic material for them is already available in the population. You will not get feathers in a creature that does not already possess feathers. You can get different kinds of feathers, feathers that enhance sexual selection or other capacities, but only in a creature that already has the genes for feathers. Sheer unprovable theory, RAZD. Article of faith. Mutations not only rarely occur in any form that could facilitate beneficial changes, they are often deleterious and usually of no apparent value at all -- except that even when neutral they destroy a perfectly good functioning allele that may not make an immediate change in the phenotype but is certainly not a good thing. You can indeed cause mutations by many artificial means but most of them are not desirable for the health of the Species, and above all, you don't NEED mutations for effective microevolution and the development of interesting variations and breeds. The genetic material is already there in any large breeding population. You say nothing about artificially induced mutations here, and there is absolutely no need for them. This change was possible because the genetic material for the chosen traits was already present in the fox genome and could be selected over several generations. This is how all breeds of animals were originally developed, by selection of the traits desired by the breeder, selection meaning basically reproductive isolation of the individuals with those traits.Sometimes interesting breeds develop from accidental selection factors such as must have been the case when privately owned herds of cattle were selected out of the wild population. Dozens of ranchers with their own herds that developed from an original accidental selection would end up in a few hundred years with very distinct cattle breeds which they would then work to preserve. This is simply because selecting and isolating individuals out of an original population also selects the genetic material for a particular collection of traits that distinguish the new population from both the original and from those of the other selected herds. Bacteria don't function genetically or reproductively the way sexually reproducing animals do and I refuse to accept such "evidence." But of course that's the best you can do to answer my obvious points, isn't it? Of course that isn't what I mean. I mean for starters develop a trait that isn't in the genome of the Species. As I already said, the supposed "new species" are just a fantasy. They are the genetically depleted products of overselection that have lost the ability to interbreed with other populations of the same species, in most cases likely due to genetic mismatch because of their genetic depletion. This is so far from a platform for further evolution it makes the ToE ridiculous. For selection to occur, you need genetic material for it to select from. At a certain point of microevolution, when you have a new population with new traits that can no longer interbreed with other populations, you don't have enough genetic material for further evolution to occur. You may have a very interesting subspecies but you also have reached a dead end in the processes that brought it about.Evolution defeats evolution.I have to stop here in your voluminous post.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No they don't "see" this at all. They assume it because they believe what the ToE currently teaches. They simply label the appearance of any new trait as the result of mutation.But new traits naturally occur with reproductive isolation alone, from the built-in genetic material alone. Phenotypic diversity naturally increases when populations are reproductively isolated, but this phenotypic diversity comes with a decrease in genetic diversity, because in a population with a particular trait picture, alleles for competing traits are eliminated from that group.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I recall, Dr. A gave the example of the American Curl cat, a cat with cute curled ears that WERE the result of a mutation. This is hardly the typical situation I'm talking about. And I don't recall other examples but there may have been some, again exceptions when I'm talking about the rule.The American Curl was also developed by entirely different principles from those normally used in breeding programs. The normal method was the simple selection of traits toward developing a breed with those traits, but it eventually became apparent that the phenomenon I'm talking about here made that method undesirable when pursued through too many generations, because the fact IS that developing and maintaining a breed that way necessitates reduction in genetic diversity, and that eventually starts producing genetic diseases in your breed.Nobody in their right mind would try to get an American Curl breed that way. They selected healthy animals that didn't have the trait to breed with the one that did, and then selected those with the curl trait from the offspring. They continued to mate those with the trait with healthy animals without it to avoid the problems caused by reduced genetic diversity, selecting those with the trait to continue the same process until they had many cats with the trait. I don't think they ever produced an actual breed with the trait, that is, a type of cat recognizable by other traits than the curled ear alone, but instead have many types of cats with that trait. It's a completely different process. Standard breeds are now often bred with others to build up their health in the same way, sacrificing some of the breed's characteristics.Anyway, mutations sometimes crop up and sometimes are chosen, but this is NOT the normal way breeds and varieties have developed either through domestic selection or natural selection. And sometimes a new interesting trait isn't the result of mutation anyway, since highly bred animals can come up with unique genetic combinations from their built-in genetic store. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry but this is not so. All you need is genetic variability in a population to produce new traits, none of which came from mutation. Under the handicap of a bogus theory keeping them from recognizing the truth. The fact that any small number of individuals out of a large population will form a new population in which new gene frequencies develop their own group traits as they breed among themselves in isolation from other populations. Transplant a few hundred people from your own neighborhood to an isolated island where you have no contact with the outside world for a few hundred years and you will see this principle in operation. If the number is small enough the new population may not even carry all the alleles from the former population, and this would certainly be the case in the scenario I justdescribed. But over time even if all the alleles were represented the less frequent ones will die out of the population anyway. This is reduction in genetic diversity accompanying phenotypic change.This reduction can be quite drastic if the method isn't simple isolation of a migrating population but actual natural selection where say a predator picks off those with certain traits. Snake eats nonpoisonous newts, leaving only the poisonous ones to proliferate. Natural selection is a great reducer of genetic diversity, which is of course counter to the notion that it's the fuel for evolution; it has quite the opposite effect on a creature's ability to evolve. A particular trait picture: a population of wildebeests with brown coloring, large antlers, short stocky bodies and an aggressive disposition would be a trait picture for a wildebeest population; but there may be another population of wildebeests that are black with smaller anglers, long legs and a mild disposition etc etc etc, because they have a different combination of genes from each other. (I know there are at least two "races" of wildebeests, the black and the blue and I didn't try to get their characteristics right, just the principle of variation). Same of course with human races where a subpopulation may be characterized by blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin while another separate population has black hair, dark eyes and tannish skin. Just to pick a few traits out of the many that characterize isolated populations.Just as an aside, human skin color is governed by many different genes and comes in a huge variety of shades. In an article on Pygmies for instance this is said: It's interesting that different numbers of genes are postulated, but whatever the actual genetic picture involved, each group has its own combination of traits or what I called its "trait picture" Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

duplicateEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, that was Darwin's interest though it's not particularly mine. I'm interested in the fact that the processes are similar, involving the selection of traits along with the elimination of others, which over many generations, or especially over many separate selection or isolation events, reduces genetic diversity. Yes, of course. However I would point out that you can't change one single trait without affecting many others by the normal methods of breeding by elimination, so in the end natural selection tends to produce new varieties or races overall anyway. The American Curl does demonstrate a completely different approach to breeding by which you add other traits to the trait you want to preserve. That way you'll never end up with an identifiable breed, though you will preserve the trait and increase its presence in a Species. Hm Interesting thought, but I wonder."Hey Herr Natur [well, the author of bloody tooth and claw can't be a lady] Herr Natur I say, Dr. A here. I thought you might be interested to know that we human beings have come up with an improvement on your Natural Selection methods. Not that we don't appreciate your fine work in directing the course of evolution, but we think it might be time to consider a nicer, kinder method. More, ah, politically correct you might say. You'll get your desired trait but without all the --- *yech* -- carnage. No more killing off the poor little white moths that happen to land on the blackened tree; no more killing off the sweet little white mice that through no fault of their own scamper onto the lava. No, we will work to build up their health instead of culling them so viciously to produce our desired aim. I suggest you might want to retrain your predator birds, perhaps redirect them to worms. Worms are quite tasty and they don't evolve anyway. Thank you for your careful consideration of the New Improved Kinder Natural Selection."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Guess what: As you all love to say to me: There is NO evidence for this. It's all assumption, all merely an artifact of the ToE. The actual evidence of mutations shows very little in the way of anything that could further the wellbeing of a creature and therefore be desirable for its evolution. Well, it's not made up at all, it's the logical consequence of the Biblical Creation and the fact IS that the processes that bring about evolution DO bring about reduced genetic diversity as both breeders and conservationists know very very well. And that IS evidence for my argument. Until Darwin it was also the accepted understanding that a Species or Kind has its own characteristics to itself alone. Darwin then made an illogical logical leap you could say and pronounced them all related, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. Then of course eventually you had to have something genetic to make that possible so mutations were the next invention or assumption. That's all you have, you do not have evidence. This is simply not the case. You see some mutations and make a huge logical leap into thin air with the claim that they are the basis for normal genetics. The actual evidence is that for every slightly beneficial or interesting change they may produce, they produce thousands of disease processes along with thousands of "neutral" changes that do nothing more than kill off a perfectly good allele although not producing a negative effect at that point. But it isn't me, it's Creationism, which I'm simply pursuing in my own peculiar ways. And there is a reason the scientists won't come up with it and that is that their paradigm is inclusive enough with a little nudging here and there to accommodate their observations. And any scientist who found himself entertaining an interpretation that seemed to favor a creationist idea would be so incredulous and probably embarrassed he'd just rethink his work in more evolutionistically correct terms. Since it's an interpretive science this is quite possible. I do, however, think there are tests that could be done involving DNA sampling of a series of populations isolated from one another which should show the reduction in genetic diversity I'm talking about. Could possibly be done by creating the populations in a laboratory or by testing individuals of ring species in the wild. It is claimed this has been done and no loss of genetic diversity is seen, but that simply can't be so as the experience of both breeders and conservationists suggest. But they aren't looking for what a creationist sees. There is no accusation of ethical failure in anything I'm saying. Scientists quite naturally think within the parameters of the accepted paradigm, which is evolution. Any paradigm is a collection of interpretations that condition all the other interpretations. And any scientist who found himself entertaining a creationist interpretation of some finding couldn't live with himself if he didn't rethink it within the accepted interpretive system. The consequences of such an interpretation would indeed be humiliating. I'm often mistaken about a particular approach to something specific, but in this case I've been working on it a long time and it keeps getting clearer, so yes you aren't going to talk me out of it with the usual evolutionist objections. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps I didn't see your other examples because I don't remember them. And I'm using the term Breed in the usual sense of an animal that looks like all the others in the breed, not a variety of different breeds that all happen to have curled ears or long noses. If you are going to purloin the term for such cases then give me another one for the standard definition of a breed.Sorry my little excursion on natural selection didn't amuse you. The point is that the American Curl CAN'T be a model for natural selection.ABE: The American Curl was developed by ADDING traits to the selected trait, which is why there is no such thing as an identifiable American Curl Breed in the usual sense of the term. The method of addition is NOT Selection and therefore can't be used as a model for Natural Selection. The usual method of breeding, which is essentially by subtraction of the unwanted traits, by which you do get identifiable breeds that share all the same basic traits, IS selection and that's why it worked as Darwin's model.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've been working on it via information on the sciences I cull from the internet and various posters here. Not the Bible because all that gives is the framework. And that framework is no delusion because it was given by God.

A Siamese looks like other Siamese and if it's True Bred, which is apparently a term that is meaningless if we're now calling something a breed that has only one trait to make it a breed, it doesn't have any of the the genetic wherewithal for long haired Persians.Similarly a truebred long hair Persian doesn't have the genes for Siamese.Similarly a truebred Pekinese doesn't have the genes for a Great Dane or a Black Lab or a Chihuahua etc etc etc.THESE are traditional breeds. The inclusion of One Trait Wonders just destroys the English language and the possibility of communication.

deleteEdited by Faith, : No reason given.