@gbrooks9 was referring you to the phenomenon of ring species. Not “ringed species” and certainly not “ringed animals.” I believe he cited ring species because you wrote “why we only saw inter- species disconnect and not actual examples of continuous connection.” Ring species are just one response to that error.
Would you consider reading sources other than the anti-evolution voices you seem to favor? You have been misled badly. You could start by looking up ring species and asking how they contradict what you wrote.
The earliest vertebrate fossils go back to the Cambrian. Everything from fish to salamanders to bears to humans are still vertebrates. Does that mean the vertebrate lineage is in stasis simply because we can call them by the same name? I don’t see how calling two species by the same name indicates that there is stasis, or even that stasis is a problem for the theory of evolution. From a quick google search, there are over 700 species of newts and salamanders so it seems to be foolish to treat them all as a single species.
As mentioned by others, we are talking about ring species which doesn’t refer to the physical appearance of a species. An example of a ring species you might be familiar with is domestic dogs. Chihuahuas can’t mate with Great Danes, but there are a lot of different size dogs in the middle that can interbreed. At the extreme ends of the species there is a genetic barrier, but there are pathways for genetic flow through intermediaries in the species. This is what we would call incipient speciation (i.e. the start of speciation). Since speciation is macroevolution, we tend to use ring species as an example of macroevolution in progress. In the case of salamanders we have a ring species that is based on geography:
There are populations that can interbreed with each other in that group, and those that can’t. You can read more about them here:
While this fellow delights in debunking the existence of a “perfect example” of Ring Species, the ones that we do have certainly contribute to understand how speciation occurs… whether we have a perfect example or not.
“Based on these results, everyone has now concluded that the formation of this “ring” involved sporadic and important episodes of geographic isolation between populations, so it’s not the classic “continuous gene flow” scenario involved in making a ring species. As Wake himself said in his 1997 paper (reference below), “The history of this complex has probably featured substantial [geographic] isolation, differentiation, and multiple recontacts.” (You can read about the Ensatina story in greater detail at “Understanding evolution,” a great site produced by U.C. Berkeley.)”
“Well, that’s a bummer, but it still shows how geographic isolation by distance can promote reproductive isolation and speciation. Other putative cases of ring species, including gulls in the genus Larus encircling the Arctic, also fell victim to genetic studies, showing that it was very unlikely that they were ever a continuous ring that was geographically uninterrupted.”
Gene flow x Distance as factors are still demonstrated by imperfect Ring Species…
Nothing is “perfect” in biology anyway, so it is a fool’s errand to expect a pristine and perfect example of a ring species. Biology is a pretty messy process, and that is true of evolution as well. What we do see is a pattern of gene flow and barriers to gene flow which is really all we need to evidence the process of macroevolution.
[I can only guess what it is you are responding to.] What you wrote about “the salamander” was some stuff about old fossils. Ring species are one example of the kind of thing you thought was impossible. I already described in a previous post.
Ensatina was the “West Coast” example I was referring to. And the article you reference was one of the ones I read on the same. So help me out… is Ensatina a good example of “Ring Species”? If not, OK. One article discussed how a “sub-species” was formed with trait variation and finally when the two sides of the “chain” met, the article writer asserted there was a new species. True or false?
And also I must apologize for getting us off subject. I really wanted direction on ERVs. I think, unless memory is wrong, that was where the discussion started. I’m wanting … and T_aquaticus is so good at genetics, some good source for laying out the basic argument. Maybe a good article on BioLogos? Or on line? Thanks for any resource recommendation.
Jerry Coyne has a great article on point and not only does he assert there are no such thing as Ring Species, he attacks the notion that new species are created; certainly never references the speciation at work “macro evolution”… The article on line is “There are no ring species.”
Coyne does not attack speciation, he fully supports speciation. Instead, he asserts that the classical definition of ring species is not applicable to the examples that were once considered examples of ring speciation. The reason he disputes the concept of ring species is that evidence suggests some geographical breaks in the “ring”, rather than a gradual, geographically-uninterrupted ring.
@gbrooks9 posted this earlier in big bold letters:
Well, that’s a bummer, but it still shows how geographic isolation by distance can promote reproductive isolation and speciation. Other putative cases of ring species, including gulls in the genus Larus encircling the Arctic, also fell victim to genetic studies, showing that it was very unlikely that they were ever a continuous ring that was geographically uninterrupted.
Read it… maybe 2-3 times… Coyne is definitely not saying what you think he is saying.
And so your explanation is that between Solomon’s reign and the Assyrian conquest the Ten Tribes of the northern Kingdom was inaccurately labeled… and that it was really the Eight Tribes of Israel?
And so the Ten captive wives of King David were also in error?
Your implied insistence that the Bible text is plain and articulate falls on deaf ears. While, conversely, it is plain that your answer does not resolve the unavoidable impasse of what is the correct interpretation of the Ten Tribes of Israel.
To Mr Henderson and Brooks;
I did not assert Jerry did not hold to speciation. Of course he does. I believe speciation is true. There are new traits and adaptations we know take place. But rather now, we know that Ring Species Speciation does not work for proving the creation of a new species. I’m just reading his article. You two don’t think that is what he said? I’ll go back to his article and pull out some quotes when I get some time and get you guys to comment. By the way, the 70 or so comments under that article (Coyne’s Web Site) are interesting, don’t you think?
George, the “ten tribes” is the term normally used to describe Israel. I don’t know if that is a Biblical term. Are you citing the Bible somewhere. Please let me know reference in Scripture to ten tribes so I can relate it in time. And somehow you are relating it to David’s ten wives? Really, not trying to be difficult with you, but I don’t get the connect. But originally, you raised an interesting question; I answered as best as I have time to read a few histories, which seem reasonable explanations. Are you disturbed at the geography location of Simeon and how the migration and or assimilation might have happened?
Hey, if you are this interested in Bible archaeology, I’m really considering a trip to Israel to participate in a dig with Associates for Biblical Research. Wana come? Shiloh. And then after a two week stint maybe hook up with Joel Kramer for a study tour of 15 other “tell” dig sites. Now spending three weeks like THAT…to me…is a REAL vacation.
My apologies, I seem to have misunderstood your argument. It seems I am having a little bit of difficulty following the progress of your argument here. Let me try to summarize what I understand of your position, and you can correct me where I am in error.
You accept microevolution.
You accept that microevolution can lead to speciation.
You believe that speciation is limited to “kinds”.
What you term “macroevolution” would be evolution along the scope of taxanomic family.
You believe that if the theory of evolution were true, there should be evident examples of families developing into new families
You believe that if the theory of evolution were true, there should not be any species that have remained largely unchanged for millions of years.
I may have missed another point or two, so feel free to add, as well as correct.
Also, I’m not understanding what your argument regarding ring species fits into the overall “theme”. If you accept speciation, why does it matter whether or not it occurs in smooth, geographical rings?
"… is Ensatina a good example of “Ring Species”? If not, OK. "
The earlier posts were dealing with the technically perfect definition of Ring Species… which would be a species where the two terminal ends of the extended range of a species population has not been affected by any breeding barrier other than distance.
Based on Coyne it appears that even the best cases of Ring Species have indications that - - in addition to distance - - geographical barriers have contributed to the present condition of the entire species population.
Paradoxically, while some focus on the lack of perfect compliance with the criteria of the technical definition… “Almost Ring Species” are still very impressive for showing how decreased exchanges of genetic factors between sub-groups contribute to decreased sexual compatibility of the terminal populations of a Ring Species.
There may be no perfect Ring Species. But there are several Almosts that are quite important points of discussion!
If @cwhenderson has correctly paraphrased your position, the best example of this would be the singular branch of the dinosaur family (with 2 legs, insulating feathers and air filled bones) that evolved into the Bird family of creatures!
