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

quote:

---

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.

---

This argument completely ignores the role of natural selection - and the fact that there are genuine changes to the genome. By culling harmful changes, and encouraging the spread of beneficial changes natural selection acts against any such tendency.

quote:

---

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.

---

Isn't it funny that a theoretical argument based on ignoring a major part of evolutionary theory is claimed as proof, while arguments based on sound evidence and reasoning are dismissed as "sheer speculation"Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

You've failed to make a case many times.The assumption that genetic diversity only decreases rather than fluctuating about an average remains an assumption, unsupported by the evidence.

quote:

---

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

---

Even if you did - and I doubt it - you need much more than that.The evidence does not show a long term overall decline in diversity, as your view requires.And I'll take that fact over your opinions.

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.

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 ?

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.

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 ?