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

Why do you assume that this hasn't happened? At least when I call creationists wrong, this is indeed the terminus of extensive research into the evidence and of an unnecessarily long and painful study of what creationists think. Now I get to call them wrong.

If I say that that's only the third dumbest thing I've seen all week, that's only because you have some very talented competition.

You mean 3 instead of 2. No, what's dumb is the assumption that what you're talking about is the equivalent of 100 heads in a row.Let's think about your simplified model of evolution. You assume getting vision is a lottery with a 1 in 2 chance of winning, heads they see, tails they don't. We'll let that pass for now. But you also tacitly assume that the winners were the only ones to enter the lottery! That's the only context in which your math makes sense. If there are also an equal number of losers who didn't get vision, whose coin came down tails, then there is nothing particularly remarkable about the result; on the contrary, it's what you'd expect.Well, there are plenty of groups that don't have eyes. These would be the losers in your hypothetical vision lottery.

Ooh, I know! What if they're related!(It just came to me in a flash.)

Real genetics is more interesting than genetics you made up.

I gave several examples. You have given none. So which is the rule, and which is the exception? You seem to have forgotten why we're talking about artificial selection at all. Surely it is for the light it sheds on natural selection. Now natural selection, when it favors a new phenotype, favors the genes that make that phenotype adaptive. It doesn't also try to standardize fur color and tail length and disposition and all the other things that breeders fuss about. It does not (metaphorically) try to produce a type which is uniform in every respect, and it could not try to do that at the cost of reducing the actual fitness of the population.So, yes, there are differences between the way that people bred the American Curl and how they bred the Siamese. But these differences are all such as to make the production of the American Curl a better model for natural selection than the production of the Siamese.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So no, but yes. But you remember how this is something you made up? [citation needed]The American Curl is an identifiable breed. As are the the Scottish Fold, the American Wirehair, the LaPerm, the Selkirk Rex and the Munchkin, which (you seem to have forgotten) were the other examples of cat breeds I gave. I can attach no meaning to this.

As I pointed out to you --- almost exactly a year ago, as it happens --- the Cat Fanciers Association calls the American Curl a breed. The International Cat Association calls it a breed. How do you think I found all these examples in the first place? I looked at lists of cat breeds.If you wish to redefine the term "breed" to mean "a group of animals which has intentionally had as much genetic diversity bred out of it as possible" then:(1) That would be you purloining the term, since that is not what animal breeders mean by the term "breed". It's their term of art, you can't redefine it just for the sake of your argument.(2) Your idea of what a "breed" is would hardly be relevant to any question about what happens in nature, since natural selection does not and cannot try to produce anything like a "breed"-as-redefined-by-Faith. The trait that defines the American Curl has been selected for. In this case, the trait of not-having-curly-ears. The other traits weren't unwanted.

A: I am a butterfly.B: Prove it.A: Well, for starters, I have six legs.B: You made that up.A: It's not made up at all, it's the logical consequence of me being a butterfly.

And a truebred American Curl doesn't have genes for not being an American Curl. And yet chihuahuas, to take just one example, are not in fact homogeneous. They come in different colors, different coat lengths, etc. You are trying to change the definition of "breed" so that it means something other than what breeders mean by it, and you are complaining about "destroying the English language and the possibility of communication"?

You seem to have forgotten all the information supplied to you by posters here, which is why we're having to point it out to you for the second, or third, or fourth time.

You forgot mutation.

Yes. How could that possibly be true?---By the way, you really should re-read the threads on this subject. If you search for the ones where I'm talking about cat breeds, that would be a good start. I may also copy-and-paste some of it.

Well, you've been low on detail. Talk us through an example. Here are two wolves (the same number that were on Noah's floating zoo). Here are dog breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club: There are of course more, but that's a start.Now, I am curious to know how you suppose we got from the first picture to the second, if all that took place was a reduction in diversity. Because I don't look at the bottom picture and say "damn, where has all the diversity gone?"

Let us consider the two Noachian ur-wolves from which all dogs are descended. Between them, as we know from the Faith Theory of Evolution, they must have had all the genetic diversity of modern dogs. Indeed, they need to have exhibited more genetic diversity than there was room for in their loci: they need to have had five transferin alleles, for example, and five alleles in the E series, controlling the distribution of eumelanin, five in the A series, which also controls coat color, at least six alleles for the D4
dopamine receptor, and so on.Passing over that for the moment, let's think about what they would have been like phenotypically. If they carried examples of every modern allele between them, then they would actually have exhibited every autosomal dominant trait. For example, at least one of them must have been a ridgeback.Alas, not all autosomal dominant traits are this harmless. Between them the two ancestral wolves would have exhibited (among other traits) hairlessness, missing or abnormally shaped teeth, chondrodysplasia, hyperparathyroidism, three different ways to go blind (progressive retinal atrophy, ocular melanosis and hereditary cataract), at least four separate kidney diseases (cystinuria type IIa, cystinuria type IIb, nephritis, and polycystic kidney disease), anemia, progressive spinal atrophy, Alport syndrome, von Willebrand's disease, Ehlers Danlos syndrome, and an inherited tendency to kidney cancer and bone cancer.Now if the genetics of wolves as created In The Beginning was such that any two wolves picked 2,000 years later would exhibit this array of symptoms, then wolves would not in fact have lasted for 2,000 years. That can't be it. Instead it must be the case that Noah was the unluckiest guy in the world, who just happened to pick two really awful wolves. (He had similarly bad luck with cats, but that's another story).These wolves are, depending on how you look at it, either the unluckiest or the luckiest wolves in the world. On the one hand, they are obviously not going to have long happy lives. On the other hand, they must be descended from four wolves that shared those diseases between them, and all four lived long enough to breed. What are the odds?One thing is clear: the two most defective wolves of all time are not going to survive the 375 days of Noah's flood. We know this because they wouldn't survive five minutes on an inflatable lounger in the shallow end of a swimming pool.You might think Noah and his family might have held their paws and nursed them through, but bear in mind that Noah and his family between them were suffering from Marfan syndrome, Waardenburg syndrome, von Hippel Lindau syndrome, Peutz Jeghers syndrome, Ehlor's Danlos syndrome, von Willebrand disease, Huntington's disease, tuberous sclerosis, neurofibromatosis, retinoblastoma, myotonic dystrophy, hypercholestrolemia, polycystic kidney disease, familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary spherocytosis, achondroplasia, acute intermittent porphyria, hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy, hereditary hemorrhagic telengiactasia, osteopetrosis type II, hypokalemic periodic paralysis, and seven different types of brittle bone disease. So what with being blind, mad, dwarfish, crippled, and in excruciating pain, they probably had enough on their plates.