Ring Species!!

Members of the Brassica genus show some very odd patterns of interbreeding potential.They don't, so far as I know, form a geographical ring, but they're still of some interest.See the SkepticWiki article on species for further information.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The short answer is that ring species don't demonstrate that potential, the laws of genetics do. Oh, and the fact that we know that it's happened. Ring species demonstrate incipient speciation. No, that is not what it seems to indicate.Which does it take more information to describe, one species or two species?A little common sense here, please?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Based on what you know and have observed, possibly. But without wishing to be rude, may I point out that biologists, who know and have observed more biology than you have, have come to quite the opposite conclusion. But the laws of genetics show us that there is no such boundary. The "assumption" that you believe to be reasonable is known, for certain, to be false.What you personally think is "reasonable" is not evidence for anything one way or the other. The facts of genetics, by contrast, are.

No, all of them.You will find that genetics has moved on somewhat since the nineteenth century. You asked what proved that such changes have the potential to occur. The fact that they have occurred is surely very good evidence that they have the potential to do so.By analogy, to show that acorns have the potential to grow into oaks it is sufficient to show that acorns have grown into oaks. It is then not necessary to go into the nitty-gritty of the biological details to prove this same proposition. Then you have a strange idea of the meaning of the word "sum". What on earth could one mean by the "sum" of the information other than what you get if you add it up? That's what "sum" means.If you wish to discuss whether one of the two species so produced has less "information" than the original species, then feel free to provide some actual evidence. You could start by saying how you're quantifying information, but as you're a creationist I predict that you will never do so. This is next to meaningless. If you are going to count speciation as a step "backwards", what are you going to count as a step forwards --- extinction? If you exterminated one of the species in a ring, would you count this as an increase in whatever you mean by "information"?