Ring species -- the abridged version

Several people asked me to make a video on ring species alone, suitable for viewing by their creationist friends. So here it is.

I've used the example of the greenish warbler, after someone pointed out that the ensatina is not the best example of a ring species. Hybrids of the two end-species in the ensatina ring exist in two locations, whereas there are no hybrids from the two end-species descended from the greenish warbler.

The gap you will see in the orange-colored area covering the obscuratus on the map of Asia (at around 3:00 mins) is caused by human habitation which has eliminated the obscuratus from that particular area.

SOURCES:

"Speciation in the round"
David B. Wake, Nature, 18 Jan 2001

"Phylogeographic breaks without geographic barriers to gene flow"
Darren E. Irwin, Evolution, 2002

"Ring species as bridges between microevolution and speciation"
D .Irwin et al, Genetica, 2001

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• evolution
• creation
• intelligent
• design
• speciation
• ring
• species
• potholer54
• darwin

[utubedetective72]

found it bro. watch?v=2qztZF9K_tw

This one is from his 'college' class. He 'admits' the horse and donkey probably had a common relative even though the offspring are normally infertile. Do you want 4 more?

[potholer54]

@utubedetective72 =[Hovind] 'admits' the horse and donkey probably had a common relative even though the offspring are normally infertile= That's right. He also says the same of a coyote, wolf and dog. His definition is that "if they bring forth, they're the same kind." I have several videos of him using the same argument. But where's his contrary argument that even if they don't bring forth they can be the same kind? I've only found this in one video.

[kives1985]

@bestvalue I am pretty sure "we" could build the pyramids if we wanted to. The problem is that we don't want to. And those people back then used to think some cray cray stuff that we know is not the truth. (See the flat earth etc.)

Evolution is fact. Creationism is bogus. The bible is not the word of god. It is the word of patriarchal jerkwads from a long time ago.

[666Sanshou]

teams of oxen or manpower were used to drag the stones on a prepared slipway that was lubricated with oil. a scene from a 19th century B.C. tomb in Middle Egypt depicts "an alabaster statue 20 feet high pulled by 173 men on four ropes with a man lubricating the slipway as the pulling went on.", if the conditions are right and the ingrediants are there it happens, try creating a flame

[daemonowner]

Poe's Law, I'm not convinced Kent actually believes in God. He seems just too good at discriminating between truths and untruths, and accepting purely those that are false.

[potholer54]

@utubedetective72 =I commented on this page several times = Commenting on one of my many videos doesn't bring anything to my attention. If you messaged me then I missed it, because I get dozens of videos a day saying "watch this" or "here's evidence of X." I try to watch as many as I can and respond to them. Sorry if I missed yours. Please send again after Feb 3, and explain what it is about.

[utubedetective72]

@potholer54 bro that is going to be a headache and a half, but I'll do it for Kent. If I find him saying this in his seminar (not a debate) then will you be convinced this is what he believes?

It goes deeper than that. Creationists, Hovind included, believe in a concept called 'the shallow end of the gene pool' where animals from within the same kind are no longer able to interbreed because they do not share enough similar DNA. This is not what is happening with RS but it does occur

[potholer54]

@utubedetective72 =I can probably find him saying this 5 more times.= Then do. I've watched hours of Hovind tapes, and the wolf-coyote-banana speech is a standard one in which he says if the bring forth they're the same kind. He never follows it by saying "even if they can't bring forth, they're also the same kind," for obvious reasons. The only time I've seen him say this is when cornered during a debate at a university. But if you think he's said it 5 times, cite the videos.

[utubedetective72]

@potholer54 no splicing is obviously not the same as bringing forth. In anycase it doesn't matter whether or not they can bring forth or not, many animals that are the same kind cannot bring forth. Find me the exact word in scripture that exclude this?

[utubedetective72]

@potholer54 no he always claims this I've seen all of his bedates and I can probably find him saying this 5 more times.

This sentence you cut out of this Hovind lecture is not a good representation of his position, or the position of creationists for that matter

[potholer54]

@utubedetective72 =splicing and IVF are not analogous= Of course not, but the key phrase is 'bring forth.' You can bring forth anything in a laboratory, which is why your argument that this can be done in a lab therefore they are the same kind is a dodgy argument.

[potholer54]

@utubedetective72 Were you the one who sent me the video of Hovind admitting that animals can still be the same kind even if they no longer interbreed? If it was, thanks so much for that. I have it on file and have strated writing a script based on it. You're right, he clearly says it. But equally clearly, he says that if they don't interbreed they are not the same kind. Hovind completely contradicts himself.