The Death of Darwinism

Originally posted by RJHinds
But Darwinism has never shown the evidence for the origin of species as it is supposed to do. 😏

Why don't you give us the scientific definition of 'species'?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why don't you give us the scientific definition of 'species'?

a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

Originally posted by RJHinds
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

So if similar species cannot reproduce, they are not the same species?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So if similar species cannot reproduce, they are not the same species?

Read the definition again and put on your thinking cap, as Judge Judy says. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

Sounds about right. By that definition speciation has been directly observed in ring species. Look it up.

YEC again, you fail.

Originally posted by C Hess
Sounds about right. By that definition speciation has been directly observed in ring species. Look it up.

YEC again, you fail.

There is still no origin of species there.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/sorry_ring_spec058261.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
Read the definition again and put on your thinking cap, as Judge Judy says. 😏

I just want to see if you know what it is. Go on, you can say it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I just want to see if you know what it is. Go on, you can say it.

You know I have no idea what it means because I got the definition on Google. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is still no origin of species there.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/sorry_ring_spec058261.html

😲

Thank you. I think this is the very first time I've seen you link to something honest. It is true that all the examples of ring species (with the possible exception of a plant*), have been proven wrong through genetic analysis. Good catch.

So, it is wrong of me to keep referring to these as ring species. Recently, the last bastion held by the green warblers in asia were proven to not fit the classical example of a ring species, as well.

However, they are still good examples of observed speciation. It's just that they haven't speciated through a steady gene flow, but exhibit evidence of reproductive isolation in the past. That is, there are leaps (if you will) in genetic material between some of the groups, that tells us they were isolated for larger periods of time in the past than the classical model of ring species would predict, disqualifying them for the title of ring species.

But this was your best attempt at arguing your case yet. You used actual scientific discoveries to make your case (or the author of that article did). I almost got knocked out of my chair here.

I have hopes for you again.

🙂

* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/486442c.html

Originally posted by C Hess
😲

Thank you. I think this is the very first time I've seen you link to something honest. It is true that all the examples of ring species (with the possible exception of a plant*), have been proven wrong through genetic analysis. Good catch.

So, it is wrong of me to keep referring to these as ring species. Recently, the last bastion held by the ...[text shortened]... opes for you again.

🙂

* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/486442c.html

It should tell us that God made them to be able to reproduce that way. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
It should tell us that God made them to be able to reproduce that way. 😏

You don't even understand what I'm talking about, do you?

Originally posted by C Hess
You don't even understand what I'm talking about, do you?

Maybe not. Can you explain what you are talking about in simple terms?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe not. Can you explain what you are talking about in simple terms?

Very simple terms so even RJ can figure out a way to rationalize it all away.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Very simple terms so even RJ can figure out a way to rationalize it all away.

That's right, I need it very simple due to my Dementia problem. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
That's right, I need it very simple due to my Dementia problem. 😏

Imagine a chain, where every link is slightly different from every other. Now the first and last link in the chain don't match at all, but every other link in the chain still matches the links it's connected to.

Now, think of each link as a population of a given species (like the famous salamander in california). Every population can interbreed with the neighbouring population, and thereby exchange genetic material (gene flow). But the first and last population in the "chain" can't or won't reproduce with each other.

That's the classical definition of a ring species, where you have a continuous gene flow between neighbouring populations, but where the end populations doesn't interbreed - essentially behaving like two different species.

We used to think we had four or five examples of observed ring species, but genetic analysis has revealed that "links" in the chain are broken, i.e. there are such genetic differences between more than just two populations to call it a "chain".