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

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.

The only consequence of biblical creation is delusion. You give yourself way too much credit.You have been working on it for a long time?You really are a comedian, Faith. You have never been in a genetics lab, or ever prepared a sample for analysis. You have never conducted research in the field. You base your arguments on bronze age myths and you claim it keeps getting clearer?You rely on a winning combination of delusion and humor. My advice is take your show on the road.Like I said, I should have known better by now, so I'm done.

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.

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"?

And in all those years the only progress you've made is to ignore problems. I mean you've stopped claiming that increases in genetic diversity would destroy species in some way you could never explain (not least because the idea is obviously absurd) but you haven't replaced it with anything else that addresses the problem.If you believe obvious silly things - like your idea that species form by depleting genetic diversity then you are deluded. If these silly ideas are entailed by the Biblical framework then it is evidence that the Biblical framework is wrong.

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.

deleteEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Increases in genetic diversity are the opposite of the processes that produce species, such as natural selection, isolation of small populations etc. I haven't given up the idea at all.The Bible says nothing about this, but it's certainly compatible with the idea of originally created separate Kinds with their own array of traits governed by their own genome.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You forgot mutation.

Mutation is an additive process, it has to be subjected to selection or isolation to have any part in the formation of species. It's the processes that subtract alleles / reduce genetic diversity that lead to new breeds, races, varieties or species.

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.

Is this just your way of denying my argument at this point, or do you really have no idea what my argument has been for over ten years now?

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?"

quote:

---

Increases in genetic diversity are the opposite of the processes that produce species, such as natural selection, isolation of small populations etc.

---

That's incorrect. Mutation is one of the processes that contributes to the production of new species. Whereas isolation is not even a process. Isolation of a small population only allows the process of drift to proceed faster, and in a different direction than the main population - and drift involves mutation and chance loss of alleles in dynamic equilibrium.

quote:

---

I haven't given up the idea at all.

---

Then please give some reason for thinking that it could possibly be true. Now could adding diversity interfere with speciation, especially if it occurs after the speciation has already taken place ?