Ring Species!!

-Sky-,You're getting into an argument of definition concerning the word "species." Even for the sake of helpful communication, you need to stick to a proper definition of the word species. This "muddies the water" and obfuscates the issue under examination. I'd almost say this shows your true purposes on this thread and other places. But for me that's a side issue. With that statement, the subsequent statement and then parts of your posts elsewhere, I can see that you accept the idea that individual organisms are different; they vary. They can even be made to vary by man (or other forces of nature). Why though, do you say "immutable" then later in your post? How can you justify your juxtaposing that members of a species are all different and then say that the species is immutable? Your group of varied individuals cannot monitor their own degree of variation. Nor can they themselves steer their own variation towards containment/non-differentiation. I assume you observe some other steering force at play where noone other than your own kind can see it.You also imply that all of the specie members of a ring of species, are part of the same species. Again this is a definition problem. You're also simply replacing the existing scientific limits placed upon the scenario (geographic barrier/ring, and definition for species etc.) for study and understanding; to be some other purposeless boundary of your creation. Although I would go so far as to claim that your motivations are not purposeless, but rather designed to stymie a meaningful inquiry into biology. Why should each type of animal be tagged immutable? Do you not believe that an ancestral group of animal types are the "starting point" for the variation that you see? What I see takes a further logical step; in that, each and every group is an "ancestral starting point." Some of these will not become the ancestors to very many others, but some will become the ancestral group of even further great ancestral groups.