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

No. But feel free to expand on this. Not even in my wildest dreams have I seen anything that would patch up the holes in your argument.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

An assertion you have failed to support many times. Have you finally come up with an argument for it that makes sense ?

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.

Hi Denisova,First, I'd like to address the general thread and say that I've been meaning to catch up with this thread but have lacked the time, but I'm doing it now. Initially it looks like the current discussion is off-topic, but I'll wait until I finish reading before making a final determination. I'd like to make sure that your meaning is clear for everyone. Here you say that the genome of each new species will be a subset of the parent species, but your previous paragraph talks about genetic change (alleles and genes will be both created and lost in each subpopulation), so in the end each subpopulation's genome will actually be both a subset and a superset of the parent species. Is that what you meant?

An answer to this issue might be helpful to everyone: If you look in the left hand column of any message you'll see a link that says " Posts Ony". For instance, in the left hand column of your message I see the link Faith Posts Ony. If you click on that link then only your messages in that thread will be displayed with that message at the top of the webpage. This makes it possible to quickly browsing through your messages (or anyone's messages) to find what you want.Also, if you click on the mood icon of any message (e.g., ) you'll get an index to all the messages of the thread showing who's replied to which messages. I only find this occasionally useful.

So back to simple denial again, is it. You claim that new genetic traits in a population equals a loss of diversity in the population? That is of course impossible. Since only some of the population is affected, when new traits show up the population via mutation, the population becomes more genetically diverse. By any definition.This is why the principle of drift never appears or gets discussed in your posts. It is a deal breaker that utterly wrecks your position. Most genetic variation does not lead immediately to speciation because it is either neutral or deleterious. But the neutral mutations may later lead to speciation if those changes become beneficial in a new environment. At that point, however, the original species has grown in diversity beyond its beginnings. And even the sub species may well be more diverse than was the original species at its forming (a prior speciation eent) although it must be less diverse than the entire species at the time of the latest speciation event.Your position must be that drift does not happen.And of course since evolution happens to populations and not individuals, it is the population diversity that matters. It isn't that nobody understands your position or that they've been indoctrinated against your position. It is that your position does not make sense. Even you cannot even keep straight what you've said. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think you misread Faith's sentence. She said "inbreeding", not "interbreeding". Not sure what you mean here. Maybe, "In other words, in the sub-genomes there is *not* ANY reduction in genetic variance." If so then it isn't clear why this must be true. Clearly it is one possible outcome, but if it's actually the only possible outcome then it isn't clear why.

Such a thing is needed as a source of variation because without it, evolution would stall out at some point. Your question is irrelevant, really, because genetic change does occur regardless of whether it is needed.

You're a participant, I'm a moderator, let's keep the roles separate, okay?Speaking to everyone now, there are many long timers here who are by now very familiar with the Forum Guidelines and with moderation policies and habits. To those who now make an effort to insure their messages conform to these, thank you. To those who even after all these years are still committing the same infractions, well, what can be said?

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.

Many people don't realize the negative affect bad grammar has on their writing. They don't realize how much it effects understanding. Its a very big problem, and it's impact is huge. Their is only so much one can take when people don't realize how bad they're writing is when there composing messages. Its too bad when this happens, and it happens to often. Everyone should say to themselves, "Your going to have to do better and get you're act together."

Really? In a science thread? Again? I'll deal with the moderation issues, you deal with the evidence issues.

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).

If you're referring to this: It isn't math. It's a list of genes in a hypothetical genome. If it helps, think of it as a set of genes. So this would be saying that Genome A designated "Ga" consists of the list of genes in the set: If I've correctly identified the misunderstanding then it should be possible for you to reread Denisova's Message 163 and understand what he's saying this time.