It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Proof of Evolution and Problem for Creationism: Ring Species

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
No, I'm not talking about a species that is shaped like a ring. I'm talking about a phenomenon that occurs due to migration in a ring like pattern. What do I mean? Well, here's a very well done video explaining the phenomenon:



For those unable to see embedded video, here's a link.

Just a quick explanation for those unable, unwilling, or just not bothered to see the video:

Let's say there's a species of bird. It lives in a small area around a large lake. Eventually, members of the initial population (let's call it population 1) migrates to the south west. Things are slightly different there and the two populations don't interact much, so changes occur and the new population (population A) changes enough so that they are distinct, but they would still be able to interbreed.

Now, in the meantime, the same thing happened to the south east. We have population Z developing to the south east. They're distinct enough to be differentiated but they can still reproduce with population 1.

This keeps happening around the lake. On the western side you then get population B, C, and then D near the southern tip. Of course, on the eastern side you get populations Y, X, and then W near the southern tip.

They both have the same ancestral population, yet population W and population D are not able to reproduce. There are all sorts of instances of this sort of phenomenon happening in nature, which is where the term 'ring species' came from.

Didn't understand it? Well, here's a handy image I found that demonstrates it graphically.




There's even a wikipedia entry on it.

Now, this is perfectly explained via evolutionary population genetics, but creationism (or intelligent design, the fancier name for the same old ideas) cannot explain this phenomenon one bit.



Just to add. I've always sort of known about this phenomenon and I was sort of gobsmacked when I saw the video I embedded above and realized "Holy hell, I have yet to point this out to creationists!"


edit on 5/6/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Added another image.

edit on 5/6/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   


And that's exactly what happened to the Greenish Warbler which biologist think originated in the southern Himalayas.


These are our thoughts, mind you no actual hard proof. More philosophy I suppose.


So would a horse, donkey, mule be a ring species or is that a horse of another color?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


...when biologists think something, they tend to have evidence to support it. The use by scientists of language that is not absolute should not be considered as an admission of a lack of evidence, merely of an admission that they could be wrong if someone puts forth contradicting evidence.

And the warbler is not the only example. There are the pole-ringing Larus gulls (yep, around the damn pole, pretty damn cool).

Oh, and there are references to actual research papers in the description of the video provided.
edit on 5/6/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


All very fascinating but do not see how this disproves creationism.
If we can do it anybody can.


Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct human manipulation of an organism's genome using modern DNA technology. It involves the introduction of foreign DNA or synthetic genes into the organism of interest. The introduction of new DNA does not require the use of classical genetic methods, however traditional breeding methods are typically used for the propagation of recombinant organisms. An organism that is generated through the introduction of recombinant DNA is considered to be a genetically modified organism.en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
And the warbler is not the only example. There are the pole-ringing Larus gulls


...and salamanders in California. Still we have to ask, is this really evolution or just variation of form within a single species? And you didn't answer my first question. Are donkeys and horses a ring species?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Just speaking for myself here Madness. But as an ex-christian, I don't see how this negates creationism as a belief. I know the bible as well as most pastors, and better than some, and I don't remember reading anything that says this could or couldn't happen.

Help me out with where this specifically clashes with creationists.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Creationism and Evolution do not oppose each other. You are selecting certain segment of creationism and using evolution to discredit all of creationism.

Not a great idea, and not original.

Evolution means change, and everything changes, you leave your shoes in rain for a month and it will change color, that doesn't prove Atheism, rather it proves determinism.
edit on 5-6-2011 by confreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I had to chuckle a little when the narrator of the video said biologists "think" the Greenish Warbler originated on the Himalayan Plateau. There's no doubt that the fossil record has anything to say on the matter. Until it does, your claim of proof of evolution is exaggerated at best.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Um...that's an entirely different situation. Ring species are defined by the geographic characteristic of their migratory patterns. These species clearly differentiate between differently in two separate directions (both geographically and genetically) and this change becomes apparent when the ring closes.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


It specifically demolishes the idea of 'kinds' being unable to change. If you watch the video, there's a great bit where the maker of it goes about trying to figure out how they can all somehow be the same 'kind'. Creationists reject the idea of evolution beyond a 'variation in kind'...and typically a kind is somehow linked to reproduction...but there's a point where two populations that should be in the same 'kind' cannot reproduce.

Thus, this discredits one of the ideas of creationism, that variation only occurs within 'kinds'.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 


Straw man much?


Originally posted by confreak
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Creationism and Evolution do not oppose each other. You are selecting certain segment of creationism and using evolution to discredit all of creationism.


...yes, I know that there is a gradation of creationism, but the majority of the spectrum of creationist thought does clash with evolution. Any creationist idea that deals with the origins of species, that deals with anything beyond 'magicking' life into being...that does clash with evolution.




Evolution means change, and everything changes,


...no, evolution means a change in allele frequency within a population over successive generations.



you leave your shoes in rain for a month and it will change color, that doesn't prove Atheism, rather it proves determinism.


And here is the ten-story tall straw man. What does anything I say have to do with atheism? I happen to be an atheist, but I clearly made no points concerning any deity or anything related to the belief in a deity. This has to do with biology and nothing more. You can believe in any deity you want for all I care in this discussion.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Thats not proof of evolution, its proof of natural selection, which no-one denies.
Natural selection is exactly that, it selects from information already there, not adding additional information, which is what evolution cannot explain. A bird evolving into a bird is not evolution, just as e.coli evolving into e.coli is not evolution



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I think naturalists often forget there are many species of creationists as well


Sure there are literal 7000 year / fixed species believers, but they are the minority imo. There are so many of us in the grey area, where "absolute proof" such as this ring species theory means nothing to the balance of our belief.

I for one am keenly aware of the power of Charles Darwin's theories; I absolutely believe that all life on our planet, humans included, are subject to the law of natural selection. We are here on earth and subject to all the natural challenges any other species face. If we can't adapt to a new condition we die, and those who could live.

As for humanity...I haven't formed a solid opinion yet. The evidence we see points to the evolution of species. Could I believe in our own evolution? God breathing "life" into Adam and Eve at some point on that evolutionary ladder? I think I could, perhaps. I lean more towards the concept that we were placed here at some point. Much further back that 7000 years ago, but that whole idea is for another thread.

We are very similar to primates...excuse me, we are primates. I feel in my gut that life on other planets doesn't fall too far from the evolutionary tree we see here on earth. DNA is DNA, and the combinations and successful lines wouldn't be too wildly different from what we have experienced. So as a creationist, why would my concept of God's DNA (or humans) be some markedly different strain from that of the natural world? If I believe that we are created in the image of an advanced primate, why wouldn't our blueprint look strikingly similar to other primates?

I can (and do) believe in a God that didn't "POOF!" everything into existence. I believe in a God that orchestrated a very complex, beautiful and intricately balanced universe. A universe built upon physics and math and chemistry. A genuine, real system, not a false backdrop painted in a day. Those who try to define exactly how God created something so vast and amazing and intricate based upon a few verses that have been translated ad nauseum are only fooling themselves. We don't truly understand time ourselves, let alone the mastery that God may have over it. The days of creation as quoted in Genesis were IMO a way to help humanity wrap their brain around the magnitude of the creation. Explain 4.5B years ago Moses. Heck, try to explain that number to a primitive tribesman from the Amazon.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Here we go again bowling for creationist pin heads.
Setting them up with current theory and knocking them down with facts.
Ah well, makes for good entertainment.
Star and flag.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


When a machine is said to be "irreducibly complex", the meaning is that all of the parts need to be functioning and in place, or it cannot function. This is true for man made machines, your body, even bacterium. Common sense points to a creator in this case, not an orchestrator.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by blamethegreys
 



Originally posted by blamethegreys
I think naturalists often forget there are many species of creationists as well



Which is why I said in a post "...yes, I know that there is a gradation of creationism, but the majority of the spectrum of creationist thought does clash with evolution. Any creationist idea that deals with the origins of species, that deals with anything beyond 'magicking' life into being...that does clash with evolution."



Sure there are literal 7000 year / fixed species believers, but they are the minority imo.


Citation needed.



There are so many of us in the grey area, where "absolute proof" such as this ring species theory means nothing to the balance of our belief.


And what exactly is that belief?



I for one am keenly aware of the power of Charles Darwin's theories; I absolutely believe that all life on our planet, humans included, are subject to the law of natural selection. We are here on earth and subject to all the natural challenges any other species face. If we can't adapt to a new condition we die, and those who could live.


Alright, then I don't see why you label yourself a creationist.



As for humanity...I haven't formed a solid opinion yet. The evidence we see points to the evolution of species.


...and to our own common descent. We have as much, nay, more evidence of human descent than any other species. Why? Well, it's easy to get funding for it. Genetics, we sequenced our genome ahead of all the others, and it showed common descent.



Could I believe in our own evolution? God breathing "life" into Adam and Eve at some point on that evolutionary ladder? I think I could, perhaps.


...that's a really silly idea, as there is no evidence of an 'Adam and Eve' nor is there any need to invoke your deity into our evolutionary history.



I lean more towards the concept that we were placed here at some point. Much further back that 7000 years ago, but that whole idea is for another thread.


No, that idea is for about two hundred years ago. We have more than enough evidence that the concept you lean towards is preposterous and based in nothing but either ignorance or self-deceit.



We are very similar to primates...excuse me, we are primates.


...yep. We are. Good catch there.



I feel in my gut that life on other planets doesn't fall too far from the evolutionary tree we see here on earth.


What? That's silly. The environments would be entirely different. I mean, just look at the differences between plants and animals, and that's just the difference in a diversity of life on the same planet. We may not even be able to classify life on other planets into the same kingdoms, let alone into lower levels of classification.



DNA is DNA, and the combinations and successful lines wouldn't be too wildly different from what we have experienced.


Yes, it really would. Why? There are so many damn possibilities and there far greater numbers of possible differences than similarities. Especially environmental ones. Who is to say that life on other planets lives under a sun the same color as ours? Right away, that would toss in a whole host of different adaptations. Plants would be colored differently, eyes would have to develop differently, etc.



So as a creationist, why would my concept of God's DNA (or humans) be some markedly different strain from that of the natural world? If I believe that we are created in the image of an advanced primate, why wouldn't our blueprint look strikingly similar to other primates?


Why would a deity be a primate?



I can (and do) believe in a God that didn't "POOF!" everything into existence. I believe in a God that orchestrated a very complex, beautiful and intricately balanced universe. A universe built upon physics and math and chemistry. A genuine, real system, not a false backdrop painted in a day.


...so you believe in a deity whose non-existence would not markedly change the universe? I'm sorry, but you're arguing for a deity that doesn't..really...well..have any utility. It's a redundant concept.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by painterdude
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


When a machine is said to be "irreducibly complex", the meaning is that all of the parts need to be functioning and in place, or it cannot function.


And not a single example of an 'irreducibly complex' item has been found.



This is true for man made machines, your body, even bacterium.


To say that the human body is irreducibly complex is to ignore the existence of the rest of the animal kingdom. We know that humanity is a process of changes over a great period of time resulting in an increase of complexity in some areas and a decreasing of complexity in others leading to the appearance of an irreducibly complex system, if not actually one.



Common sense points to a creator in this case, not an orchestrator.


Dear sweet Flying Spaghetti Monster in a meat sauce!

Common sense has no place in science. What's common sense about there being an invisible attractive force between all objects?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



--Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--
edit on Sun Jun 5 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by painterdude
 


This idea is easily debunked here is a simple layman explanation that proves this phrase fails.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by painterdude
post removed by staff


What are you supposed to be arguing with a blog entry? Irreducible complexity?

Kenneth Miller destroys the IC concept

Here is an actual scientific article showing why the flagellum motor is not "irreducibly complex" by Kenneth Miller. Do you have any data to show Mr. Miller wrong? Do you know that William Dembski is a philosopher and not a biologist? A philosophers blog on his thoughts on the subject is merely an argument from incredulity and not evidence of anything.

Dembski was called as a witness in the Kitzmiller trial to provide evidence for his views, but being a philosopher and knowing his assertions are logical fallacies, he did not show. The only ID proponent that did was Micheal Behe and he was obliterated on the stand . . . the judge found that the ID camp could produce NO evidence for their claims.

Why do proponents keep bringing the same tired, refuted claims . . . ? I philosophize that it is because they know they are false and intellectually dishonest; however, if you keep repeating it enough times . . . people will believe it. Goebbels would be proud.
edit on 6/5/11 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/5/11 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Jun 5 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join