Are ring species evidence of evolution?
Question:
I read an e-mail exchange where you were answering a question posed by an ex-Christian, where you stated:
Daily Evolution?
“If you have evidence of evolution taking place daily, I know a lot of scientist who would like to talk to you. What is usually touted as "evidence" is variation within a species. The existence of variation is not disputed. In fact, it is expected in a well-designed system because such variation gives flexibility to handle changes in situations. But what isn't seen are changes between species. Most people realize that you can't see this on a daily basis -- that is why evolutionary scientist want millions of years in their time lines. They know that if such alterations could exist it would take a long time for them to develop. So far there has been no evidence of such transformation between species, even when the fossil evidence has been scoured for over 150 years.”
I would be very interested in your answers regarding “Ring Species”.
“Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem, for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.” ["Ring Species," Wikipedia].
Answer:
A ring species is a set of closely related animals. Each can interbreed with its nearest cousins, but the animals at each extreme cannot interbreed.
An evolutionist assumes the species starts at one end or another and gradually changes to an extreme far enough that it can no longer breed with the starting species. For evolution to be true, it would have to be shown that new information was added to the species. But that evidence is lacking. We don't have a new creature, we have two variations of the same creature who are no longer able to cross-fertilize.
A creationist notes that is more logical that the species started in the center at the point of the richest blend of genetic potential. Information is lost in two different directions as the species varied within the bounds of the species. Eventually, enough information was lost on the two branches that the two are no longer able to interbreed. A loss of information does not constitute evolution.
Why a loss of information? Let's simplify this into three groups: A, B, and C. A can breed with B, B can breed with C, but A and C cannot breed. Therefore B has more information than either A or C because it can breed with both groups. Evolutionists suppose that we start with A, gain information with B, and then lose different information with C. Creationists assume we started with B and had two different losses of information to form A and C. Which is more likely?
Given the Laws of Thermodynamics, a gain of information randomly doesn't happen. It would take guidance to increase information. Evolutionists insist that it has to happen, but they can't prove it that it has ever happened; they can only assert that it must be so.
The creationist view is consistent with the Laws of Thermodynamics. By the way, if group B disappears, it can be recreated by artificially mixing the genes of A and C to rebuild the lost information, but note that the gain of information would come because of intelligence being applied to overcome the loss.
