What?! Is it a biblical term?
Well, yes, it is. I’ll get you some specific references today.
If I may ask, in what faith or denomination were you raised?
He says that there are no perfect ring species.
Nevertheless, the results do show a “ring species” of a sort: isolation of two “end” populations of a ring that makes them look like two species, even though all through the ring you don’t see reproductive isolation of adjacent areas. And it shows that speciation can occur despite there having been some gene flow at some times. In nature, populations that form new species must often sometimes exchange genes if they’re not completely isolated by geography (i.e. the finch species that colonized the Galápago), so the dichotomy between “no gene flow” and “pervasive gene flow” may be artificial.
That’s strange since Dr. Coyne is a co-author on a book about speciation:
In one of his review papers in Nature entitled “Genetics and Speciation” he writes:
Despite persistent controversy, evidence still favours the neo-Darwinian view that species usually arise as the byproducts of evolution in geographically isolated populations.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v355/n6360/pdf/355511a0.pdf
2 Likes
Of course it does. It shows that geographic isolation produces genetic barriers that reduce gene flow which is the mechanism by which speciation occurs. As Coyne discusses, it is probably human bias that requires a genetic barrier to be 100% impermeable.
3 Likes
And so it goes…
… This is exactly what I have been trying to get ahead of … ever since I discovered Coyne’s article. Coyne’s eagerness to develop a little drama now requires me and others to spending our remaining few years explaining to the ignorant why we don’t need Perfect Ring Species to see Speciation in the here and now!
The imperfect part is well in the past, not in the current incompatibilities of the terminal sub-populations.
Coyne writes in that very article:
“Well, that’s a bummer, but it still shows how geographic isolation by distance can promote reproductive isolation and speciation.”
When he says there are no Ring Species - - he doesn’t mean the terminal populations do mate freely. He means, that the process of speciation demonstrated did include some physical barriers at some point in the historical arc of the speciation process.
Please let us know when you are finished reading the article.
Then you can retrack your egregiously erroneous conclusion:
"…now, we know that Ring Species Speciation does not work for proving the creation of a new species. "
What his article is disputing is the perfection of the “Ring” … not the perfection of the Species. The “Ring” is a figure of speech denoting the lack of any physical barriers (other than distance itself) affecting the ability of individuals anywhere in the range of the population.
Frankly, that’s the least important feature of Ring Species.
The most important feature of a Ring Species is that it is clear to any modern researcher that the terminal sub-groups of the extended population belong to the same species … even though the sub-groups are demonstrating reduced reproductive compatibility -
- either at the behavioral level, or even at the embryonic level!
As promised, here are some texts that refer to “Ten Tribes” , or other “Tens” that are making an obvious reference to the tribes of the northern Kingdom of Israel:
Jos 22:14
And with him ten princes, of each chief house a prince throughout all the tribes of Israel; and each one was an head of the house of their fathers among the thousands of Israel.
2 Sam 19:43
And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah, and said, We have ten parts in the king, and we have also more right in David than ye: why then did ye despise us, that our advice should not be first had in bringing back our king?
2 Sam 20:3
And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.
1Ki 11:31, 35
"And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee… I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes."
I think I’m not liking Coyne nearly as much any more (i had to edit one of my earlier posts) … have you ever had the courage to watch this video?
I thought I detected an oppositional tone to this fellow… and bingo, I was right !!!
Hey GB. Sorry to take so long…tied up all weekend. First, thank you for your great question on the tribes. Any question I take as an opportunity to learn…gets me going on more study. Let me make sure again I’m following your question.
I thought the issue you raised was one over the location of Simeon and since the “ten tribes” are in the north (Israel)…how can this be since the “ten” were located in the northern part of the land … north of Judah and Benjamin and at least one Biblical cite has Simeon “within” the bounds of the tribe of Judah. And as a follow up, i didn’t get the relationship to your “Simeon” question and the ten wives (concubines) question.
So you kindly gave me cites to better follow time frames because I assumed the simple answer was a migration from a more desolated area where Simeon was first located and intermingling with the better climate and terrain in the north.
In fact to add to the interplay of the tribes, we find in Revelation 7, Ephraim …(.half tribe with Manasseh) is omitted…yet Jacob blessed the younger Ephraim before Manasseh…Gen. 48:5. And “Israel is often referred to as” Ephraim"…so what do we make of that listing. And more…
Simeon was included in that list in Revelation. along with Joseph!!! and Manasses. But really Ephraim was not left out because anything included under Joseph must include Ephraim. And Levi was included which was not located geographically in the Land at all…but spread out within each tribe.
My point is; Simeon is assimilated but has a role as evidenced by Revelation 7 inclusion. If your question is geographic, is migration not the obvious answer? Maybe I’m wrong. Please let me know of any information you have other than the cites you list. Seems obvious Simeon has not “disappeared” as a tribe; question is … is it like Levi in how we must see it.
But I had a lot of observations on my “Ring Species” issue … again that was something that got me studying… so thank you to whoever (can’t recall which poster challenged me there) but as I say, I appreciated any help/observation/critical question at all. I’m just trying to learn and thank anyone who takes time with me. So as fast as I can…must be gone till evening… I want to follow up.
To Sfm…re: your remaining few years explaining to the ignorant…I do ( being one of the “ignorant” ) so appreciate your life of condescension. God will reward you for that! That is your calling, so I’d only remind you of your obligation to continue on the road of Humility you have chosen and not a life of complaint, or your reward might just be modified. Imagine such an afterlife …God giving you the eternal "reward’ of answering MY questions…for ten or twelve million years. And explaining over and over and over “Ring Species”…but not to worry…I think Mr. Coyne will be elsewhere.
You are being most cooperative! Let me explain: You are saying that because the logic of the Northern Kingdom having 10 tribes is so apriori, so compelling, you are forced to conclude that the Bible simply never comment on the migration of the Tribe of Simeon.
As Emril the Chef would say: “Bam!”
As the Reform Rabbi once said to me, “If they could do that centuries ago, can I do less?”
I would use your example in defense of my position on Evolution vs. Creation: The logic of Evolution and the evidence of an Old Earth are so clear and present, I cannot hold the Bible hostage to odd fact that it didn’t mention Evolutionary principles as tools used by God to create his creatures.
You have implied that we simply can’t turn the Old Testament as a foolish story written by confused Elders … simply because there is a logical impossibility in the plain recital of the texts on Simeon.
And so we accept the reality for what it must have been, despite the absence of its mention in the Genesis treatment of the Patriarchs, and in the post-Solomon narratives.
And so we here at BioLogos, in a most similar way, “accept the reality for what it must have been, in an obviously Old Earth, despite the absence of its mention in the Creation story of Geneis.”
See? Nice consistency! Same book - different chapter!
Your posting #130 seems to have me as your correspondent “upper right hand corner of your post”… but you seem to address someone else:
“To Sfm…”
Could you clarify?
George: How about a simple count and leave Simeon out. Using Manasseh and Ephraim as tribes … you have those two plus. R, L, I, Z, G, A, D N. Equals 10.
Yes. I agree.
1 Like
Sure… then we can spend the time admiring our flexibility for ignoring the Patriarchal narrative and Exodus.
So when it comes to the Genesis Creation story … let’s just leave “6 days” out of it?