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

HI Faith, Yes, we both tend to get verbose. If you like we can break it up into multiple posts if length becomes a problem in covering the topics. Agreed, but I would also note that the result of natural selection are individuals within a species that are adapted to survive and breed in their ecology, while human selection is for traits that appeal to humans, whether they have any survival or reproductive value, and for that reason a lot of domesticated breeds of pigeon, horses, sows, pigs, dogs and cats have traits that would be disadvantageous in the wild or even lethal without human medical interference. Different purpose → different effect. You've been told and shown and shown and told that this is not true, this belief of yours that no new alleles are produced. There are some examples in other replies to you.Curiously I think Zatara had a good new example in Message 61: Their DNA came from the same original single celled zygote, but during fetal development the process of cell division and duplication and selection for which aspects of their DNA is expressed becomes different as different mutations are incorporated into the development of the individual fetuses -- where did those differences come from if not mutation Faith?

Greenish warblers again

Curiously we can actually examine this claim in more detail with the Asian greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides):: different traits in each subpopulation, traits that govern plumage variations and mating and call song variations:

quote:

---

Genetic data show a pattern very similar to the pattern of variation in plumage and songs. The two northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus are highly distinct genetically, but there is a gradient in genetic characteristics through the southern ring of populations. All of these patterns are consistent with the hypothesis, first proposed by Ticehurst (1938), that greenish warblers were once confined to the southern portion of their range and then expanded northward along two pathways, evolving differences as they moved north. When the two expanding fronts met in central Siberia, they were different enough that they do not interbreed.

---

Note that it is hypothesized that the original parent population that these varietals all descended from was "once confined to the southern portion of their range" ... SO: if your hypothesis were true (that varietals only arise by the loss of alleles in the descendant populations) that they would KNOW that one population was the source of the others as it would still have ALL the alleles of ALL the varietals.Sadly (for you), the genetic evidence tells us that no one population has more alleles than the others, to say nothing of combining all of them: there isn't one population that has all the alleles of all the variants.Further note that none of the populations are completely isolated from the others, that there are small overlapping zones between them: So there isn't complete genetic isolation and gene flow is possible from one end to the other. This gene flow is limited by the distance the individual birds will travel from where there were born to where they nest and mate and rear young during their lives, so gene flow from one end to the other could take several generations.Now I would expect a corollary of your hypothesis (that divergence from a parent population results in loss of alleles) to be that when the populations converge in an overlap zone and interbreed that the alleles would be recombined in the hybrid zones and tend to restore the number of alleles from the original parent population in the hybrid population.Your problem is that there are four such zones -- (1st) between viridanus and ludlowi, (2nd) between ludlowi and trochiloides, (3rd) between trochiloides and obscuratus and (4th) between obscuratus and plumbeitarsus. Which of these is your parent population with the more complete set of alleles?Additionally, with gene flow from each of these hybrid zones to each neighboring varietal zone, we would expect (from your hypothesis) that the intermediate varietals would be hybrids between each of their end (hybrid) zones, ie that ludlowi would be a hybrid between the 1st and 2nd zones, that trochiloides would be a hybrid between the 2nd and 3rd zones, and that obscuratus would be a hybrid between the 3rd and 4th zones, and continuing this reasoning we should see trochiloides as a hybrid between ludlowi and obscuratus, that even if trochiloides was not the original parent population posited in your hypothesis that it should, via convergence of the populations, have characteristics more like this posited parent population that the other varietals.That we do NOT see the hybridizing restoring the full allele distribution to one of these populations means one of two things:

1. that the posited parent population with a full mix of alleles available is not as robust and able to survive and breed as the daughter populations each with less alleles than this (which doesn't fit with your hypothesis)... or
2. that this posited parent population with a full mix of alleles never existed, and the varietals are due to mutations along the way as they spread out, variations that spread back and forth with gene flow without being combined into one master population that would have all the alleles.

Can you explain how this evidence does not invalidate your hypothesis?Evolution with mutations and natural selection explains these population variations without the problems your hypothesis has.

Pelycodus again

Now I want you to look at the bottom line in this graph, below where it says P.ralstoni: Under the "P" there is a thicker line, and this designates where more of the population is found, with the thinner lines to each side designating the variation in the population to each extreme right and left. You will note that these thicker lines stagger back and forth a fair bit as you go up in the diagram to younger populations.If I draw a vertical line from the right end of the bottom population (below "P.ralstoni) ...

1. as I ascend to younger populations where do the new traits to the right of this line come from?
2. when I get to P.trigonodus the whole population is to the right of P.ralstoni: where do the traits of that population come from?

Remember that the overlaps from level to level, showing more than 50% of these populations have identical traits, is an indication that they represent the same species/clade breeding population changing over time and adapting to the ecology.Next, If I draw a vertical line from the right end of P.trigonodus I can repeat my questions:

3. as I ascend to younger populations where do the new traits to the right of this new line come from?
4. when I get to the group just below "N.venticolis" that whole population is to the right of P.trigonodus: where do the traits of that population come from?

This latter group is now twice removed from the base population that we started with: how do you explain their traits with your hypothesis?Further, if I now draw a vertical line from the left end of P.jarrovii down, then according to your hypothesis that alleles are lost, then ALL the alleles expressed in the base population to the left of this line are now apparently lost in this descendant population, but extending that line up we see traits similar to the original traits returning to the point where N.nunienus seems to recapture most the original traits.Note that the traits involved here are size related traits (size of bones, teeth, body mass, etc), and other traits (coloration, vocalization, etc) are not included so that younger populations would still not appear like the base population even though they now share size related traits.How can you explain this with your hypothesis? Can you explain how this evidence does not invalidate your hypothesis?Note that if you posit that traits can become hidden and then re-expressed later when conditions suit (as you have posited hidden traits that become expressed, as I expect you to claim for traits to the right of my lines - and as you have claimed for the foxes - that this invalidates your claim that the traits are lost and thus results in a death spiral of lost traits).Evolution with mutations and natural selection easily explains these population variations without the multiple contradiction problems your hypothesis has.

Foxes again

Not quite correct Faith -- the ONLY trait selected was tameness, and this was done specifically to make the foxes easier to handle on the fox farms where they are raised for their desired black lush fur. That white spots developed is contrary to what the desired result was.The reason is that tameness is related to adrenalin levels and adrenalin is a hormone that affects fetal development paths, including fur color, ear and tail characteristics. This is about mutations that occur during fetal development because of the different hormonal environment for the fetus. Mutations that affect the timing of development.

and Bacteria again

Actually the point of bacteria is that cell division and multiplication during fetal development is the same process that bacteria use to reproduce. Thus bacteria developing new traits and fetal development changing to develop new traits (the fox fur, ears and tail traits) are the same process - adaptation to a different chemical environment with new mutations.

denial is not evidence

Curiously I think I (and others) have done more than answer your "obvious points" and raised (again) legitimate points that you have yet to answer. Sadly I expect your "answer" to be more denial rather than confronting the evidence.There is a lot more evidence that supports evolution, evidence of mutation providing new alleles, evidence of selection and drift causing an accumulation of new traits in species over time.There is no evidence that traits are only lost and never gained, but there is evidence of traits being gained.Enjoy