Do ring species exist? PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Melbourne, Australia

#1 Apr 27, 2013
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 existance 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, ios fine. as long as they are not genetically modified)
I am not fighting for or against evolution. i just want the truth.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#2 Apr 27, 2013
The existence of ring species is not wide spread, but at least four examples have been found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Potholer54 has an excellent video discussing two of these:



And though very good evidence for evolution these are weak compared to the idea of endogenous retroviruses.

Google is you friend.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Melbourne, Australia

#3 Apr 28, 2013
I have seen this video. i am well aware of the phenomena. what i fail to find tho, is the physical proof. what i mean by this is:
reports, research papers, etc etc that show for a fact that strong efforts have been taken to breed the end species together.
and that each step in the ring is definitely interbreed-able with the last.

Even back in the 80s, it was known it was physically possible that the end species, of the herring gull, and black back gull COULD breed together, they just didnt very often
http://www.surfbirds.com/ID%20Articles/adriae...

What i want is some honest proof, that this phenomena exists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#4 Apr 28, 2013
sovint wrote:
I have seen this video. i am well aware of the phenomena. what i fail to find tho, is the physical proof. what i mean by this is:
reports, research papers, etc etc that show for a fact that strong efforts have been taken to breed the end species together.
and that each step in the ring is definitely interbreed-able with the last.
Even back in the 80s, it was known it was physically possible that the end species, of the herring gull, and black back gull COULD breed together, they just didnt very often
http://www.surfbirds.com/ID%20Articles/adriae...
What i want is some honest proof, that this phenomena exists.
Did you check out the Wiki article that I linked? Wiki is an excellent starting point if you want to do some research. There are almost always links to appropriate articles included as references. And yes, the Wiki article acknowledged that the herring gull and black back gull could still interbreed, it said that they usually don't hybridize. They are a weaker example of ring species, yet an important one. The species have not completely formed a ring yet.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Melbourne, Australia

#5 Apr 29, 2013
Yes i searched thoroughly through Wikipedia (its how i learned about this phenomena) and i checked out all the references.
My problem is that not one single reference indicates that the ends of any ring species mentioned, cannot breed together. All they talk about is morphology, and how much the species changes over distance.
I am intersted only in whether a species can diverge enough, so as to not be able to breed with distant ancestors.

I know the ends of ring species DONT breed together. but i cannot find proof that biologically they can not breed together (the sperm wont be able to fertilize the egg)

Can you help me find this evidence. thanks
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#6 Apr 29, 2013
sovint wrote:
Yes i searched thoroughly through Wikipedia (its how i learned about this phenomena) and i checked out all the references.
My problem is that not one single reference indicates that the ends of any ring species mentioned, cannot breed together. All they talk about is morphology, and how much the species changes over distance.
I am intersted only in whether a species can diverge enough, so as to not be able to breed with distant ancestors.
I know the ends of ring species DONT breed together. but i cannot find proof that biologically they can not breed together (the sperm wont be able to fertilize the egg)
Can you help me find this evidence. thanks
Then if you're not interested in the evidence you can find on the net, just pick any one purported ring species, get a net, and go catch some of each "end" of the ring. Then bring them back all together in one place and make them shag. Of course make sure you have labelled them or slapped some brightly coloured paint on the little beggers so can still tell the difference. Then if they have viable offspring you'll know it works.

Of course none of this makes one bit of difference whatsoever. For billions of years, evolution has occurred, is occurring and will occur no matter what your objections are. Your lack of understanding of a subject doth not invalidate it. Ultimately nothing you say here matters.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#7 Apr 29, 2013
sovint wrote:
creation evolution debate
BONG!
sovint wrote:
whether species can macro evolve or not.
BONG!
sovint wrote:
then even tho the chances are stupidly low.
BONG!
sovint wrote:
species to have all originated by chance
BONG!
sovint wrote:
Of all the evidence in the world. There seems to be just one piece of evidence that strongly supports macro evolution.
BONG!!!
sovint wrote:
however i cannot find any.
BONG!
sovint wrote:
i am hoping you can help me track down it.
sovint wrote:
The existance of hybrids
BONG!
sovint wrote:
I am not fighting for or against evolution. i just want the truth.
BONG!

Each of these in particular stand out that there's something wrong with this picture. And I don't mean evolution.
LowellGuy

Stamford, CT

#8 Apr 29, 2013
sovint wrote:
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 existance 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, ios fine. as long as they are not genetically modified)
I am not fighting for or against evolution. i just want the truth.
Does God exist? PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#9 Apr 29, 2013
sovint wrote:
i just want the truth.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, and provide a simple illustration:

Consider the Genus Equidae (of which Horses, Zebra, Donkeys and others are members).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae

Assuming you acknowledge the family line connecting Horses, Zebras, Donkeys, and Mules constitute genetic/evolutionary "cousins", consider the Mule:

Again, per Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule

"A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.[1] Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. Of the two F1 hybrids between these two species, a mule is easier to obtain than a hinny (the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey). While there is no known instance of a male mule siring offspring, female mules have on very rare occasion given birth to viable offspring."

<<end cut/paste>>

So donkeys and horses CAN mate to produce mules -- but ONLY female mules can on "very rare occasions" themselves bear young themselves. MALE mules cannot reproduce at all.

This is "ALMOST" a ring species.

Perhaps in a few thousand years, the ring will complete, and donkeys and horses will not be able to reproduce mules at all.

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#10 Apr 29, 2013
sovint wrote:
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 existance 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, ios fine. as long as they are not genetically modified)
I am not fighting for or against evolution. i just want the truth.
Micro evolution is evolution. But if you are interested in macroevolution, you might consider looking into the evolution of the cichlids of Africa's Lake Victoria. There are some 500 species of cichlid in this lake (some species have gone extinct in modern times) that evolved from a single species over the last 15,000 years. Prior to 15,000 years ago the lake was a grassland that was eventually covered by water to form the lake as it is today. The 500 species are endemic and related to each other. Not only is this an example of macroevolution, but also of how rapidly evolution of new species can occur.

Or you may consider the fossil record and the numerous lineages that are detailed therein. Again, there is no paucity of evidence for macroevolution. Perhaps cryptic species complexes is more to you liking. Complexes of related but distinct species that are morphologically so similar they are difficult to separate. The have evolved in different geographies or niches that did not require marked morphological changes in order for the species to adapt to the selection pressure of their individual environments. Maybe you might find something interesting in modern domesticated crops and livestock. These have been altered over time by human selection and examples exist where a wild progenitor closely related to some no longer exists in nature.

Evolution does not hinge on one single solitary piece of evidence or type of evidence. You don't need to win every game to win the World Series.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Melbourne, Australia

#11 May 4, 2013
can all those chinchlids breed with each other?
AND fyi, i am definetley not religious.
i said i want the truth. i ment that.

Though a poor definition. i consider macroevolution a species which diverges so far, that it can no longer breed with distant members of its own species.
ring speices would be one of only evidences of this. becuase there would be intermediate steps which prove that they are the same species. but then as ring ends come together, they cannot breed. i consider this to be abolsute proof of macro evolution(to my definiton) which is why i am so eager to find the reports detailing how this has been proven.
The dude is right, i should catch them and try to make them breed. but for obvious reasons i cant do that.
so i want to know the results of what other people have tried. This ensures that people are just making up what they believe to be the truth. but have no backing to the claims of the existance of ring species.
when they did that, we ended up belive that the herring gull, black back gull could NOT breed. when in fact they could.(tho they didnt often)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#12 May 4, 2013
I don't think that anyone has ever bothered to try to do this nor are they too likely to try.

If an animal was born odds are that it would have troubles due to the genetic differences in their parents. For example tigers and lions can breed, but just barely. There offspring have a fairly high level of birth defects. The same would probably occur if you could get the ends of a ring species to breed. It would be a cruel experiment.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#13 May 4, 2013
sovint wrote:
can all those chinchlids breed with each other?
AND fyi, i am definetley not religious.
i said i want the truth. i ment that.
No you didn't.
sovint wrote:
Though a poor definition. i consider macroevolution a species which diverges so far, that it can no longer breed with distant members of its own species.
ring speices would be one of only evidences of this. becuase there would be intermediate steps which prove that they are the same species. but then as ring ends come together, they cannot breed. i consider this to be abolsute proof of macro evolution(to my definiton) which is why i am so eager to find the reports detailing how this has been proven.
Your definitions are irrelevant. You aren't even educated on the subject in order to evaluate its validity. So evidence becomes utterly superfluous because you wouldn't even be able to recognise whether or not it would satisfy your demands.
sovint wrote:
The dude is right, i should catch them and try to make them breed. but for obvious reasons i cant do that.
so i want to know the results of what other people have tried. This ensures that people are just making up what they believe to be the truth. but have no backing to the claims of the existance of ring species.
when they did that, we ended up belive that the herring gull, black back gull could NOT breed. when in fact they could.(tho they didnt often)
So then what you're saying is that the last 150 years of biological research involving many hundreds of scientific organisations world-wide, thousands and thousands of scientists and literally hundreds of thousands of research papers all written on the subject of evolution are all part of a great big giant world-wide conspiracy to convince the public of evolution. For... some reason.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#14 May 5, 2013
sovint wrote:
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 existance 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, ios fine. as long as they are not genetically modified)
I am not fighting for or against evolution. i just want the truth.
Its not really a question of whether two ends of a ring species "could" interbreed. They just don't.

We have examples where interbreeding is possible but produce infertile offspring, such as horse/donkey and lion/tiger. Even without ring species, this is good evidence for macroevolution.

If you want to know the evidence for evolution, you have to look at what it actually predicts and whether the physical evidence supports those predictions. The fossil record, for example, is explained by evolution and many times was predicted by it. e.g. There were no ape/hominid intermediate fossils known when Darwin predicted them. Now we have a whole continuum from very apelike to human, and everything in between. Evolution both predicted and explains them. Nothing else (so far) does.

The nested hierarchy of variation in the genome (pseudogenes, ERV's, ubiquitous proteins) was another specific prediction of evolution that has been confirmed by physical evidence.

Ring species are merely a bit of good luck in terms of evolution evidence. They may only exist very briefly. They were never a core prediction of evolution and therefore their existence is not a valid test of evolution's veracity. However, like so many things in nature, they are a phenomenon that evolution happens to explain well. In other words, we did not found or develop evolution on the basis of ring species. But if we happen to find them, well, it's just "OK, look at these, we can see how this could happen in the framework of evolution. Fine!". Thus they become a sort of supplementary piece of evidence, that's all.

For all the so called "controversy" you should understand that in terms of the science, it does not exist. 99.9% of biologists accept evolution on the basis of the supporting evidence which only grows more compelling the more you understand the details. The so called "controversy" is entirely generated by fundamentalist religionists who cannot accept that the physical evidence for evolution falsifies their opinion that the Bible (or the Quran, or the Book of Mormon, whatever) is inerrant in every detail. So they try everything they can to trash the evidence for evolution, and the funniest part is that after 150 years of dedicated effort, they have failed every time.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Melbourne, Australia

#15 May 10, 2013
@ The dude. my demands are very simple.
i want to be presented with evidence NOT OF EVOLUTION. but of the existence of ring species.
or of the existence of a species (A) that can breed with species (B) But cannot breed with species (C) But Species (B), and species (C) can breed together.

And @ the chimney
i NEVER asked about the validity of evolution. my only question was as regards ring species. please stop telling how real evolution is. And show me some evidence of ring species.
this topic is called "DO RING SPECIES EXIST, please provide evidence"

its not called " DOES EVOLUTION EXIST"
the purpose of this thread is to help find evidence of ring species.

please show me papers, or reports, or scientific documents, or web articles, or anything else that would indicates the methods and experiments done to prove the existence of ring species.(or of speciation to the point of not being able to breed with same species)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#16 May 10, 2013
sovint wrote:
@ The dude. my demands are very simple.
i want to be presented with evidence NOT OF EVOLUTION. but of the existence of ring species.
Oh? And why is that?

Perhaps I can remind you of the very REASON you wanted evidence of ring species. Here are the 86 words of your initial post before you even mentioned (barring the thread title) ring species, of which you CLEARLY ask for evidence of BECAUSE you have issues with evolution:
sovint wrote:
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
Since then you've ignored evidence in favour of your own personal incredulity and conspiracy theories. Ring species are merely a byproduct of evolution via common ancestry, but if we were to present you with unquestionable evidence of "macro" evolution ring species are not really the thing we'd think of to bring up first. Instead we'd show you something like this:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

And then throw ERV's into the mix. And then point out that evolution is accepted by every major science organisation in the world and disputed ONLY by the religiously ignorant and the occasional crank. And so far not one person has ever come up with anything close to resembling a scientific alternative. In short, the chances of life NOT being able to "macro"-evolve are stupidly low. So low in fact that it's not considered a credible possibility at this point as evolution has been quite firmly established now since the discovery of DNA at the VERY latest.

That was over six decades ago.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Melbourne, Australia

#17 May 11, 2013
i have asked now 4 times for proof... i really dont understand why you argue about evolution. i told you i would be very satisfied with proof of ring species. If you were to direct me to peer reviewed documents, that must exist in order to make a claim like ring species. then i would be perfectly happy.

Does the evidence of ring species exist or not?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#18 May 11, 2013
sovint wrote:
And @ the chimney
i NEVER asked about the validity of evolution. my only question was as regards ring species. please stop telling how real evolution is. And show me some evidence of ring species.
this topic is called "DO RING SPECIES EXIST, please provide evidence"
its not called " DOES EVOLUTION EXIST"
the purpose of this thread is to help find evidence of ring species.
Its clear from your earlier posts that you are using ring species as a proxy for evidence of macroevolution etc. Why pretend otherwise?

As for providing you with sources,

^ Dawkins, R. The Ancestor's Tale, 2004:303
^ Brown, Rob. ""Same Species" vs. "Interfertile": concise wording can avoid confusion when discussing evolution""
^ Liebers, D.; De Knijff, P.; Helbig, A. J.(2004). "The herring gull complex is not a ring species". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271 (1542): 893. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2679.
^ The greenish warbler ring species, by Darren Irwin
^ A closer look at a classic ring species: The work of Tom Devitt
^ Liebers, Dorit; de Knijff, Peter; Helbig, Andreas J.(2004). "The herring gull complex is not a ring species" (PDF). Proc. Roy. Soc. B 271 (1542): 893–901. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2679. Electronic Appendix
^ Alström, Per (2006). "Species concepts and their application: insights from the genera Seicercus and Phylloscopus" (PDF). Acta Zoologica Sinica 52 (Suppl): 429–434.
^ Patten and Pruett, Per (2009). "The Song Sparrow, Melospiza melodia, as a ring species: patterns of geographic variation, a revision of subspecies, and implications for speciation" (PDF). Systematics and Biodiversity 7 (1): 33–62.
^ This species ring forms the subject of "The Salamander's tale" in Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale, 2004.
^ Cacho & Baum (2012) "The Caribbean slipper spurge Euphorbia tithymaloides: the first example of a ring species in plants", Procedings of the Royal Society B
Irwin DE, Irwin JH, Price TD (2001). "Ring species as bridges between microevolution and speciation" (PDF). Genetica. 112-113: 223–43. doi:10.1023/A:1013319217703. PMID 11838767.
Futuyma, D.(1998). Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 0-87893-188-0.
Moritz, C., Schneider, C.J., et al.(1992). "Evolutionary relationships within the Ensatina eschscholtzii complex confirm the ring species interpretation". Systematic Biology 41: 273–291.
Nova Scotia Museum of Natural History: Birds of Nova Scotia
Adriaens, P. Hybrid Gulls Breeding in Belgium

A simple cut and paste from Wiki, a mixture of original paper and books etc referring to ring species.

Want to check them, go look them up for yourself.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#19 May 11, 2013
sovint wrote:
i have asked now 4 times for proof... i really dont understand why you argue about evolution. i told you i would be very satisfied with proof of ring species. If you were to direct me to peer reviewed documents, that must exist in order to make a claim like ring species. then i would be perfectly happy.
Does the evidence of ring species exist or not?
We have evidence of species that change dramatically, step by step, across a geographoc range, and that where those ranges meet at the far ends, two populations can exist without mixing or behaving as though they are members of the same species. An observer who could only see those two populations without knowing the connection would see them as two distinct species or at least sub-species.

That is a ring species. They exist. Whether the two populations are really "one species" or "two species" largely depends on your definition of a species. If they could be forced to interbreed and yield viable offspring, some might say that is one species. If they would never ever do that in the wild, others would say they are effectively now two species. I am not sure if every ring species has been tested to see if viable offspring can be forced out of them.

As speciation is a gradual process, do not expect magical red lines to make delineation easy in these extreme cases. You might as well be asking exactly what date Latin turned into French in Paris.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#20 May 11, 2013
sovint wrote:
i have asked now 4 times for proof... i really dont understand why you argue about evolution. i told you i would be very satisfied with proof of ring species. If you were to direct me to peer reviewed documents, that must exist in order to make a claim like ring species. then i would be perfectly happy.
And if they didn't exist you'd likely have never heard of ring species in the first place.
sovint wrote:
Does the evidence of ring species exist or not?
This is merely one, took me less than 5 seconds to find.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479635

Cue inevitable apologetics based on ignorance. So again may I ask, why are you asking for something which you have no interest in in the first place?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 32 min Agents of Corruption 121,039
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr ChromiuMan 138,193
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 5 hr Dogen 380
Darwin on the rocks 6 hr TurkanaBoy 363
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 10 hr The Dude 718
Monkey VS Man Oct 19 Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE