Ring species are an example of speciation, or macroevolution as creationists are fond of calling it.
Creationists believe that speciation is impossible, and that there are no transitionals (or intermediates). Ring species show that this religious belief is incorrect. Ring species also show that "macroevolution" is not only possible, but show the mechanism, with intermediate populations still living.
Ring species do not, as you point out, show "where the species came from beforehand or what will happen with it" -- but the example of ring species I provided was not intended to show that. It was intended only to show how incorrect are the religious beliefs that there are no transitionals and that speciation is impossible.
But I fully expect that no amount of evidence will convince creationists of this. They are fully committed, for religious reasons, to their beliefs and no amount of evidence will change those beliefs. I post mainly for the lurkers, who may still be willing to look at the evidence.
Creationists believe that speciation is impossible, and that there are no transitionals (or intermediates).
Only by a definition which is carefully constructed to support the theory of evolution is ring species an example of speciation. The two non-interbreeding end-of-ring species are still the same kind of animal. The only reason that they are a different species is because the word species is defined as "Non interbreeding."
So to say that the two ends of a ring species are different species really is a little shaky (although popular) because the animals are really all the same kind. Evidence of this is that they are all interbreedable around the long way of the ring.
Maybe Creationists are skeptical of transitional because the best transitional species in evidence just don't provide much to be desired?
Lets say the Creationist is right, and that God did create each kind of animal. In that case, we would still see genetic drift in ring species, which could cause the open ends of the ring to be noninterbreedable, and yet they would still be the same kind of animal.
So it sure looks to me like the idea that a ring species somehow proves evolution only works if evolution is already proven. This, Sir, is circular reasoning. No pun intended.
As to transitional species, I do wonder why we don't see the thousands of missing links in the fossil record. The fossil record plus the living evidence just don't provide much evidence without needing a lot of hope for things not seen (In other words, faith.)
Thanks,
-Jesse
[[Ring species do not, as you point out, show “where the species came from beforehand or what will happen with it” — but the example of ring species I provided was not intended to show that. It was intended only to show how incorrect are the religious beliefs that there are no transitionals and that speciation is impossible.]]
You clealy misunderstand biology- Ring species absolutely do show where they come from and where they will go biologically- They can ONLY go within the parameters of their own KINDS- somethign you fail to understand apparently- looking at htem biologically, it is easy to see where they can go within the parameters of species KINDS- You also fail to understand that ring species clealry are NOT transitions between dissimilar KINDS, but are ONLY transitions WITHIN their own KINDS- fully within the parameters of MICROEvolution, and it is NOT somethign ‘religious’ peopel reject as you falsely claim!
[[But I fully expect that no amount of evidence will convince creationists of this. They are fully committed, for religious reasons,]]
LOL- We’re fully committed to scientific reason- what we’re NOT committed to however is the silly religious dogma that species evolved from one another through common descent when htere is absolutely ZERO evidence to support that mistaken ASSUMPTION/(religious belief)
[[Ring species are an example of speciation, or macroevolution as creationists are fond of calling it.]]
Bzzzt! Get back to us when you understand the difference between MICROEvoltuion and MACROEvolution
While I do not know whether that statement is true for most creationists, I know it's not true for all. I certainly do believe the Genesis account as literal, but I not believe that speciation is impossible.
(Note that believing, even very strongly, is not knowing, and possible does not mean certain.)
I'm a computer programmer by trade and I know that DNA are, for all practical purposes, little (massive) programs, with built-in interpreters, so I know that it is possible to modify the DNA code to produce any sort of transitional or other strange species.
But, since my faith does not require me to believe in "Creation by speciation" I remain rather skeptical of the idea that a dog came from a fish, knowing that while speciation could happen, it seems mathematically very unlikely to me. And that, coupled with the fact that I haven't seen a dog come from a fish (or anything else similar), leaves me unconvinced that any dog ever did come from any fish.
And remember, just becomes something could be doesn't mean that it is be!
-Jesse