Ring species are species that have a clear line of descent a clear line of "micro evolution" from one to another. Usually this line traces on 2 sides of a barrier and each species can interbreed with its neighboring species except where the 2 lines meat at the end of the barrier there the the 2 species at the end of each line can no longer interbred with each other
Like the greenish warbler
There is a clear descent pattern visible in all neighboring "versions" of the greenish warbler And all neighboring species can interbreed except where the 2 lines come together as the arrows show in the picture those 2 "versions" of the greenish warbler cannot interbreed.
What do ring species say about the creationist "Kind" theory?
Well technically this micro evolution has gone far enough to be a macro evolution the only difference between Ring species is that they still have living ancestors. They can mate with all their ancestors who can mate with the Cousin line up to the top where the 2 cousins cant mate. I believe there is a too large genetic difference. If it is not for this particular species i can find a ring species that has a to large genetic difference.
Something that is expected from the theory of evolution but brings up huge questions to creation?
What questions does it bring up for creation? Creationists often tend to think that all birds are of the same kind based on scripture, why would they worry about further sub-divisions arising within that kind?
Well because if all birds are the same kind so are all apes the same kind including human who is supposed to be special.
(of course that topic has been brought up many times here...)
Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramins" (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.
The wiki article about kinds does not shed any light on the matter either because every animal has an evolutionary relationship to one another. And by this definition we are the same Kind as all other Apes because it has been proven that we share an evolutionary relationship with all apes.
So for easier understanding and guessing that a creationist dint know what he was talking about when he mentioned evolutinary relationship in his statment we will leave that part out.
And thus come at a noter snag in his statement where ring species can interbreed with their neighbors up both lines but the 2 variations at the top of the line cannot interbreed with each other, so are they the same kind?
Well, one way is if they aren't capable of reproducing, then they cannot be the same kind.
But the birds in question cannot reproduce so how come they are the same kind?
And theoretically an a chimp/human hybrid is possible so are we the same kind?
Like I said, though, its going to depend on how much micro-evolution is possible. If it isn't possible for the two types to have evolved from a common ancestor, then they must be different kinds.
So we are all the same kind??
And by your definition it is impossible to produce a new kind because it would always have a common ancestor no matter how different it looks, or how large the genetic barrier it has to its cousins or ancestors that make it impossible for it to reproduce with them.
Well it was tried by one scientists 90 years ago but he failed before he could start and later got exiled from Russia. I said theoreticly possible even if i got funding and permission to do such experiments i doubt i would conduct them or any other scientist. There are too many ethical considerations.
Not to mention one would become the churches enemy nr 1 if one would try, probably Muslim enemy nr 1 too.
But so fare there is no reason why it should not work.