Login

Join for Free!
117140 members


The smoking gun of the debate: ring species. do they exist?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

The smoking gun of the debate: ring species. do they exist?

Postby curiouseeker » Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:34 am

Hello there, i have researched the creation evolution debate extensively. After sifting through it all. i think the truth comes down to whether species can macro evolve or not.
simply if a species can macro evolve. then even tho the chances are stupidly low. it would be theoretically possible for species to have all originated by chance from a primitive lifeform.

Of all the evidence in the world. There seems to be just one piece of evidence that strongly supports macro evolution. and that evidence is "ring species"

I have tried for a while to find the source of evidence that support ring species. however i cannot find any. i have found all the species purported to be "ring species" but i cannot find the physical proof of this. i am hoping you can help me track down it. and prove the truth either way.

i would call proof the existence of the following:
The full documentation, of the existence of hybrids between all stages of the ring (except the ends, that purportedly cant breed)
Proof that extensive effort has been undertaken in order to breed the ends of the ring species together. (of course man made methods of breeding them, are fine. as long as they as the species are not genetically modified)
artificial insemination/surrogate etc are all fair game tho
curiouseeker
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:30 am

Postby Cat » Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:47 pm

How ring species proof of macro-evolution?

My argument is you can go from single organism with "full genome" (say wolf) to a range of diverse "mutants" (over 300 dog breeds that lost various genes) in relatively short time. Going in the opposite direction (gene acquisition) is a theory that explains macro-evolution, and has not a single shred of proof (as far as I know).
Cat
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: The smoking gun of the debate: ring species. do they exist?

Postby curiouseeker » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:43 am

Im sory, your answer does not make sense at all to me.

i want the proof that reaserch has been done, confirming that the ends of any "ring" cannot breed together.
But i cannot find any evidence. all the references i can find are how the morphology changes within a species as it diverges. i want to know if the members at the end can breed together. Wikipedia definition says no.
but i can find NO RESEARCH at all, that says they have tried with the species currently called ring species.

Thanks
curiouseeker
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 3:30 am


Re: The smoking gun of the debate: ring species. do they exist?

Postby Cat » Sat May 04, 2013 8:02 pm

curiouseeker wrote:Im sory, your answer does not make sense at all to me.

i want the proof that reaserch has been done, confirming that the ends of any "ring" cannot breed together.
But i cannot find any evidence. all the references i can find are how the morphology changes within a species as it diverges. i want to know if the members at the end can breed together. Wikipedia definition says no.
but i can find NO RESEARCH at all, that says they have tried with the species currently called ring species.

Thanks


I don't think there is any proof to that. However, my question to you is:

How ring species (if exist) proof of macro-evolution?
Cat
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: The smoking gun of the debate: ring species. do they exist?

Postby RabbitPhilosopher » Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:53 pm

_at_ curiouseeker

You wrote "i have researched the creation evolution debate extensively.".

You claim extensive research yet you call it "creation evolution debate" - perhaps you mean the debate among the lay people but not among professional biologist who publish in peer review journals? Are you aware there is no debate/controversy regarding creation (non-scientific) and biological evolution (scientific theory) within peer reviewed science journals?

"After sifting through it all. i think the truth comes down to whether species can macro evolve or not."

Really? You sifted through it all and now your frame an imagined debate between creation (non-scientific) and biological evolution (scientific theory) to one of whether, in your own words, "species can macro evolve or not." Do you even know the definition of biological evolution?
RabbitPhilosopher
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:00 pm


Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron