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

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.

Some traits, Faith. No one disagrees with this. Unfortunately for you, your claims your claims require that all traits must be determined in this way.ABE:You actually quoted this from a section called 'Exceptions to single inheritance'. Wow.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"Simple" not "single" although I don't know what your "wow" is all about.And I never said ALL traits are governed by multiple genes. Were, when the genome was complete. Could be, though, why not?

If you'd just read carefully IN CONTEXT, you might have noticed that I said it isn't important "for most of this discussion" meaning where the topic is the mechanics of recombination etc. Of course it's important in other contexts. Well go for it. But it isn't just an assumption, it's based on all kinds of references to thousands of genetic diseases, descriptions of mutations as predominantly neutral, otherwise producing thousands of diseases, plus an amazing scarcity of examples of true beneficial mutations.But go for it.As for minced meat, I did answer your cocky claim to have destroyed my argument that separate subpopulations do indeed require reduced genetic diversity.But go for it. Go for it.Any hope you could maybe tone down the attitude a notch? Makes for more willingness in the opponent to take you seriously.

What's with the snark? You asked for a description of what I meant about traits having more than one gene, I gave you the description, very straightforward description of what I meant. THAN, not "then." [THAN the current genomes of extant humans."] This is a HORRIBLE grammatical error people are making these days.OK, yes, that is what I meant. I think the original genome could have had more genes per trait, meaning five or six where now there are three or four. Yes I believe there has been a great loss of genes and genetic diversithy in human AND ANIMAL genomes since Adam and Eve, but more since the huge bottleneck of the Flood that wiped out most living creatures, which I suggest is most likely the source of junk DNA. And more genes per trait is one way the earlier genome was probably fuller than it is now. It's a reasoned guess that fits the biblical facts and also observations about both mutations and the loss of genetic diversity in evolutionary processes. The exact opposite wouldn't fit either the observed facts or the biblical facts. Since you are bound to get the dates wrong there's really little point in arguing as you suggest above. And forget mitochondrial DNA if that's part of your argument. I'm sorry, you are not my professor. May I recommend that you cut to the chase and present your argument for this now, because I can tell I'm going to have very little patience with your basic approach and especially your attitude and indeed probably your whole interpretive system. Try it and see but I don't hold out much hope for this discussion. I was happy that you stuck to the terms in your first post about subpopulations since that's what I focus on. Too bad it's all gone downhill since then. You've got all you're getting, my good reasoning. If you object then go argue with someone else.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I cannot quite parse out the meaning of the second of your three sentences quoted above. But, yes you did claim that all variety is caused by combinations of genes. That means no single gene dominance. It is also your method for denying the effect of mutations. So yeah, you are stuck with a position that the references you cite say is not correct.Aren't we done here? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The question can't possibly require more than a brief answer. If you just want to drive me off this thread with your attitude, say so and I'll go or just ignore your posts. Which you utterly failed to demonstrate in your last post although you declared victory. Your attitude alone is hard times enough. Get any harder and I just write you off. As I already pointed out, I said INBREEDING. Just to be clear, does "variance" mean "diversity?" Sorry, I just proved that it is.I predict that we are going to have lots of terminological difficulties. Oh I'm sure that even *I* could guarantee that much. Oh this is claimed all the time. Do you think you are informing me of something I didn't know? It absolutely cannot happen and I'm quite sure you will only use obfuscating terminology to make sure there's no way to understand your argument anyway. I hope I'm wrong. Sounds like some kind of word magic coming up. You can't get REAL speciation from reduced genetic variance/diversity. I see such a miserable mess of verbal flimflam on the horizon I can't even say "go for it" any more.
' Only by some kind of definitional word games could this possibly be true. Oy.I just read through the rest of your post which is something like having my brain removed piece by piece with scalpel and tweezers, so I'm going to try to answer that part separately.Oy.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well it is kind of important since it wrecks your entire argument. If there's a constant source of genetic diversity, then there is a constant supply of raw material for selection, evolution need never stop, and even if your fantasies about species formation were perfectly accurate, new species would not in the long run lose diversity. Or to put it another way, if there's a constant source of genetic diversity then we'd be living in the real world and would observe the things that we actually do observe.

WHAT? Both populations have an increase in genetic variance /diversity? And what brings this about? It would be amazing enough of one did but you are blandly saying bothdo? At the same time? What is genetic innovation and why would this occur at this point? Genetic drift does not increase genetic diversity. It’s like any subpopulation with random new gene frequencies even though this occurs within the larger population: If it acquires new traits it loses genetic diversity, which is the ONLY way new traits can be acquired.And you haven’t said one thing to this point about how such a genetic increase is possible, what could possibly bring it about, and it looks like you have no intention of explaining that: I assume you meant to say there ISN’T any.Well, I went through all of this and have no idea what you’re talking about. I expected some serious explanations at least, but all you did was say oh there was an increase in genetic diversity and both subpopulations had this increase.You seem to be implying that the environment brought it about but offer no explanation how that could be.As for the math, it's meaningless to me. You have to use English.This example of a supposed increase in genetic diversity is so devoid of reason or meaning I have to ask, are you joking?

Once again, Dr. A, you prove you do not have Clue One about the argument I'm making.Evolution doesn't come to an end for lack of genetic material, it comes to an end because the processes that bring it about require the reduction of genetic material. You can have all the genetic diversity you want and still wherever evolution is actively occurring, wherever new traits are developing in new subpopulations, you are getting reduced genetic diversity as a necessary consequence and for that evolving line you are running out of the fuel for evolution. You can have lots of fuel in the mother population but if it's not forming new subspecies then you don't have evolution.I know it's hard for you to consider you could be getting this wrong, but you are. Please rethink it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your statement is wrong on several fronts.Once a subspecies forms from a mother population, added mutations can increase diversity in the new subspecies. You've tried to argue that this destroys the subspecies but you are wrong. Sub species can, and in the wild do have diverse members. In this way, species differ completely from breeds which are artificially maintained to be homogeneous even after they are created. Left to themselves, there'd be no such thing as collies and poodles in a few decades. We'd have a bunch of mutts.In the wild though, without some culling we'd get mutation and drift of new traits in a population. Eventually some change in the environment might act on some of that diversity. But at that point the new species might well be more diverse than the population it came from. And that first population itself might be more diverse. I note here that you seldom mention genetic drift as a process even though it is vital to the theory of evolution. Why is that?The second front on which you are wrong is that evolution is the change in genetic makeup in a population over time. Evolution occurs even when speciation is not happening.Your case is pure nonsense, and everybody here including the posters who arrived five minutes ago can see the problems with it at a glance. Nature does not of necessity act to reduce diversity although such a thing can result. Nature instead promotes survival strategies. Lots of them. That's why evolution can explain the process of common descent from simple beginning. On the other hand reducing diversity is absolutely the goal of what breeders do. What breeders do cannot explain earth's diversity.FWIW you've already admitted to enough so that your statements are a concession of the entire argument. At a minimum, you've admitted that you don't have proof, but belief. And secondly, you've admitted enough about mutations to allow evolution as described by the theory of evolution to work. I'm curious to see how you attempt to deny your admissions so that you can pretend to have won this argument six months from now. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : More stuff.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are still wrong for just the reason I explained: if you have a constant supply of fuel, you do not run out of fuel.

This can of course be true, but to the degree they retain genetic diversity it's to that degree that they are not evolving in the sense I'm talking about, toward speciation, because despite your inability to get the point that DOES require the reduction of genetic diversity. Eh? What "single gene?" What "new diversity?" I'm sorry, not getting what you mean. Yes, and if new traits are forming slowly within a population over time that's evolution too, and that too requires the loss of genetic diversity. It's just easier to grasp what's happening where subspecies are actively being formed, to see how the reduction of genetic diversity is required to bring about new traits. I'm not at all surprised if people can't get it and think they see problems in it, because everybody has been indoctrinated in the completely opposite point of view. None of the admissions affects the basic form of the argument.

Well, fuel is not a very apt analogy for what is really going on. This is a dynamic thing that REQUIRES the loss of fuel to occur at all. Adding fuel will just keep it from occurring.Oh well. Maybe it will come to you in a dream.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Once again, Dr. A, you prove you do not have Clue One about the argument I'm making.

---

Faith, claiming that people do not understand your argument when they obviously do is not helping your position.

quote:

---

Evolution doesn't come to an end for lack of genetic material, it comes to an end because the processes that bring it about require the reduction of genetic material.

---

Because said - assumed - reduction results in a lack of genetic diversity, just as Doctor Adequate said.

quote:

---

You can have all the genetic diversity you want and still wherever evolution is actively occurring, wherever new traits are developing in new subpopulations, you are getting reduced genetic diversity as a necessary consequence and for that evolving line you are running out of the fuel for evolution. You can have lots of fuel in the mother population but if it's not forming new subspecies then you don't have evolution.

---

All of which ignores Dr Adequate's point. Assuming any amount of starting diversity is not the same as assuming additional variations entering the populations over time. Since this is the same objection you've spent years failing to answer you really ought to have a better response than trying to ignore it or pretending that it shows a lack of understanding of the argument.

quote:

---

I know it's hard for you to consider you could be getting this wrong, but you are. Please rethink it.

---

Dr Adequate is obviously right as proven by your response.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.