Ring species as evidence for speciation

I would like to suggest the topic of ring species to be discussed. I did a search here, and only found two posts from back in 2002.Ring species are species that start at one area, with some individuals then migrating and adapting to new environments continuously, until they come full circle (around the globe, or around a mountain range or similar), and then have become a new species.In essense, it is the example of two species with all the transitional stages still living. It is a facinating issue and quite strong evidence for speciation, including the stages necessary for speciation to occur (mutations and natural selection as is the case with general evolution, and then also a form of separation while this occurs).There are several well-documented examples of this, notably a couple of Salamandar species in the US, who circled a mountain range, and also the European Herring Gull and Lesser Black-Backed Gull.

The RS paper seems to show some confusion, especially as an objection to speciation. The paper, essentially, are arguing that the variance is due more to radiating speciation than circumpolar speciation, based on mitochondrial DNA (One of the things that creationists truly hate).It states that there wasn't a steady progression accross the globe, but that there rather is variation at the fringes.And it seems to make the argument that the Herring Gull complex originated in Europe as some ancestral species that then stayed in Eurasia as Herring Gull, and also in America as Lesser Black-Backed Gull. They then claim that the LBBG has migrated West to Eurasia, but haven't quite made it accross the Atlantic to come 'home' to the US, and that the HG has migrated East to Western North America and is still a bit away from Europe again.At least that I how I read the rather cumbersome and confusing abstract. Now, I think we really need to see the article details for specifics of the Mitochondrial DNA analysis.So it seems to makes the claim that the split happened in the migration to the US, and that the variation on the fringes is where we see the speciation difference, rather than in the entire population. Seems like they are saying that the typical HG from Central Eurasia arctic is not really that different from the typical LBBG from central US Arctic, but that instead, the speciation difference occurs at the fringes.Essentially, they are saying that the ring MOSTLY made it around in either direction, and that the overlap with speciation difference is from migration in both directions, rather than from migration in only one direction, making two "mostly" ring-species rather than one complete ring species.Certainly, it goes against the classic classification of the Herring Gull complex, so we'll have to wait and see what the peer review does with this. Certainly, I have not before seen claims thet the LBBG arose simultaneously with the HG.But it still shows speciation quite nicely, though.I did look at the raw data on the cytochrome differentiation in the mitochondrial DNA by Leibers and Helbig, two of the authors, and it seems that he bvase this on regression analysis that shows both contiguous range expansion, allopatric fragmentation and long distance colonication, so I am not sure that the paper's claim is that ironclad. We'll wait and see what the statiticians say about this.
http://www.stanford.edu/...anuscripts/Leibers_and_Helbig.pdf

Now, get a creationist to acknowledge any of that

But then try to make them explain the difference between micro- and macro-evolution as they use it, and you'll get a bunch of vague "its when the difference is big" or something like that.Or they will talk about a new "kind," but then not be able to define what that is either.

Since that would sacrifice their salvation, they wouldn't dare What happened to JonF?This message has been edited by Steen, 06-07-2004 10:09 PM

They are so afraid of not being "saved" that really that is what their life revolves around. If Satan is tempting them every step of the way, then it is also easy to presume that Evolution is just a devilishly large ploy to lead them astray, and thus lose out on salvation.Now, we are many other Christians who know that this is nonsense, and that we have our brain and senses so we can use them. The others are pretty much a lost cause, as far as I see them.

You are the one who provided the most in-depth comment to the issue of the ring species. I would love more comments.

That is what is so pathetic about creationists, this insecurity. Faith simply isn't enough for them, they need this concrete "evidence" so desperately that then have to "create" it themselves. That is no different than the Israeliets needing to build a Golden Calf while Moses reportedly was getting the 10C.Creationists are our modern-day weak-at-faith followers who are not secure in themselves and who must remake reality because their fixed and absolutions idea doesn't fit reality. It is all rather pathetic and sad.

I didn't have anybody specific in mind, more a long experience with creationists.As for Faith and proof, that truly is nothing but a new version of the Golden Calf. God doesn't tell us to have evidence of God's existence, but rather to have Faith in God's existence. That doesn't preclude Evolution and other factual events that we can witness with our eyes and evaluate with our brain.

Well, it is nice to stay on focus, but no creationists seem interested in having their arguments founder on the solid evidence of ring-species.

Oh, you make it difficult to be on topic.

I thought the extinct one was the Quagga?Anyway, in the example regarding the gulls, we are talking about well-established populations that are well-entrenched in their niches. The Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-Backed Gull are two distinct species. And we can trace all the "transitional" species involved as well, because they are all still alive in different places.As such, that really is an unassailable example of speciation, and I have yet to see a creationist managing to continue supporting the idea of "macro-evolution" as speciation with that example.This message has been edited by Steen, 06-29-2004 08:21 PM

Ah, I have not read about that one before. Thanks a lot.