Replies

I don't think this sort of thing has ever been observed. But it makes for a great "just-so story."

You can see it happening, BB:
Ring Species. We can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them.
Ensatina eschscholtzi: Speciation in Progress. A Classic Example of Darwinian Evolution.

The concept of species is an artifact of our desire to put everything into neat boxes. Darwin, 140 years ago, said species should be regarded as strong varieties.

One of the little mentioned predictions of evolution (following from the assumption that all living things are related by common descent) is that species can be difficult to classify. In a Darwinian world, one would expect to find speciatiation in progress at all times. One need not look to the fossil record to find intermediates. We have found them and they are us.

Did you actually READ what they said in your link about RING species?

These conclusions were based on broad patterns in the distribution and relationships of many species. But determining how speciation occurs in any particular case can be difficult, (NO SHIT?) because we are usually only presented with the outcome (all ToE ever gives us is the outcome, and speculation of that outcome!)

of the process (two species) and we often have no (NEVER is rendered OFTEN by dishonest evolutionists)

record of their common ancestor or (NO SHIT!) the intermediate forms that occurred during speciation. Ring species acquire new traits as they move away from the ancestral home.

Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species: A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat. At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, (remember this folks!) and hence are different species. Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.

California salamanders exhibit ring species traits. Ensatina salamanders One well-studied ring species consists of salamanders in the Ensatina eschscholtzii group, distributed in mountains along the west coast of North America. In 1949, Robert Stebbins5 described a fascinating pattern of geographical variation in these salamanders: Two distinct forms of Ensatina salamanders, differing dramatically in color, coexist in southern California and interbreed there only rarely. (This must mean they are humping continuously!)

These two forms are connected by a chain of populations to the north that encircles the Central Valley of California, and through this ring of populations the color patterns of the salamanders change gradually.

DNA analysis supports a common ancestor for these salamanders. Stebbins thought that this situation arose when an ancestral population of salamanders, in northern California, expanded southward along two fronts, one down the Sierra Nevada mountains, and the other down the coastal mountains. The two groups gradually became different as they moved south. When they met again in southern California, the two expanding fronts were so different that they rarely interbred, and were therefore different species.

So we see that they are TWO different species that RARELY interbred...you know like Saint Bernard's and Cocker Spaniels are TWO different species. LOL! And notice how evolutionists are short on facts, mathematical descriptions, but love to tell these grand stories of life and what MUST have happened...EXCEPT it Didn't Not even in their own story, the two species they depict are still interbreeding! Incredible! Probably these Salamanders are producing turtles or something...that will be the next article! And they never even observe that the Salamander populations may exhibit different color changes cause the rocks may be of different hues? Even human beings have different shades of skin based on geographical location. Lame! This is always used in evolutionary tautologies. Variation (well established and observed) in species, is suddenly NEW species!

Ring Species illustration:

[1] In Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warblers coexist, one in the west and one in the east, their distributions narrowly overlapping in central Siberia, where they do not interbreed. These forms differ in color patterns, the songs that males sing to attract mates, and genetic characteristics. Also, males of each form usually do not recognize the song of the other form, but respond strongly to their own.

[2] The traits that differ between the two Siberian forms change gradually through the chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south.

[3] Thus two distinct species are connected by gradual variation in morphological, behavioral, and genetic traits.

Just a couple quick comments on this example. First, we find ourselves mise en scene WRT the "two distinct forms of greenish warblers." It's like coming into the middle of a movie; you missed the "set-up" in the beginning -- the initial conditions -- and now you have to figure out what the hail is going on. But even coming in late, if you notice you have two "forms" on the cinema screen that do not interbreed, and that do not share behavioral, morphological, or genetic traits then it seems to me the probability is very high that what you have are two different species.

If this were so, then what is happening at [2] is a non sequitur. And by [3] we are suddenly, magically equating what was formerly described as a "form" with what we mean by a "species."

There seem to be a number of semantic tricks involved in this "demonstration."

As already noted, there is a great deal of arbitrariness in the assignment of taxonomic categories. But this example seems to be "flexible," not on empirical grounds, but on quite subjective ones. Or so it seems to me. FWIW

of course, i could always be wrong. :^)

Merry Christmas, Patrick!