Art of Reasoning

Start by watching this about 4-minute video on YouTube (which displays in a new window/tab), and then return here for critique.

First, of significant note are the comments on the YouTube page. The arrogance and stridency exhibited in the comments are everywhere associated with such “evidences,” as lay-person evolutionists revel in “slamming” the “stupid creationist scum.” This antipathy demonstrates the truth of the statement that this is indeed a “war” of ideas. We must rise above the antipathy and fight the battles with a better spirit than such comments exhibit. That means being charitable and philosophical in our approach. So, let’s engage this video on a philosophical level.

Point by point….

If a dog didn’t give birth to a dog, the whole theory of evolution would fall to the ground — This point establishes the “tiny steps” that evolution requires. Thus, again, the stake is in the ground: We are looking for speciation events, not “large-scale” changes. Nature makes no leaps.

Most creationists preachers even agree that these small changes accumulate over time to produce different types of animals —  Careful here! As we have studied in some depth, exactly what these “small changes” actually are matters very much. Evolutionists traditionally gloss over this “small changes” line quickly, just as you find in this video. But the exact nature of the “small changes” is critical! The fact that Kent Hovind (creationists lecturer) is also cited as glossing over this point does not mean that creationists in general should gloss over this point, or that “creationists” are in agreement that “small changes accumulate over time to produce different types of animals.”

In fact, by smuggling in the “different types” phrase here, the producer of this video has already begged the question. What is at issue here is whether or not a wolf really is a “different type of animal” from a collie. And the fact that they can successful interbreed means that, according to the BSC, they are not “different types of animals.” Hovind has no business (supposedly “on our behalf”) giving away the farm by “agreeing” that wolves and domestic dogs might have had a common ancestor, particularly when we have no evidence of such a thing.

So, already, within the first 30-seconds of this video, the producer has already smuggled in as “fact” the most critical points that are under contention!

Can they “bring forth?” —  This is cast as a “creationist” definition of “kind,” as though this narrow definition slants the game the creationists’ direction. In fact, as we have seen, the BSC (which is a more rigorous way of talking about “bringing forth”) is the scientists’ best standard of “speciation” among animals to which it can appropriately apply.

Greenish Warbler, with, of course, slight genetic differences — Again, careful here! “Slight genetic differences” is another ambiguous phrase, and it is employed very intentionally to be ambiguous. The light-colored peppered moths have “slight genetic differences” from the dark-colored genetic moths–they have exactly that difference that makes one light-colored and the other dark-colored. However, this “distribution of trait” among the species that is peppered moth is not evidence of any speciation-relevant change of genetics “taking place” in the species! The species has not been observed to change, even regarding this trait, in the many decades it has been studied. And the “genetic differences” in the greenish warbler are of the same sort as those of the peppered moth. This is the same argument rehashed again and again.

Over generations, these differences accumulate — Now we detect how much weight is being placed on “these changes.” The ambiguous phrase is now writ large to mean “any change whatsoever,” without any rigorous regard for actual genome changes or the extent to which “these changes” really amount to nothing more than “trait distribution” within the same species. Different “breeds” within a species do not equate to different species or anything evolutionarily relevant!

If some warblers move into new territory —  Which ones? The ones with the “accumulated differences,” or the ones that have not “accumulated” the “differences?” This is a crucial question, because, just as with the peppered moth, we must watch closely to see when mere “trait distribution” is already being considered as equivalent to the “speciation event” that “is to come.” In actual fact, “some warblers” really means something like a “representative sample” of warblers, which, like the peppered moths, will have a representative “distribution of traits.”

Their descendants are eventually going to look very different — Whaaat??? This “very different” point is the very point under contention, and it is now simply being stated as fact. But the process by which you get from the preceding three points in this “argument” to this point in the argument is exactly the process that needs explanation! Instead of an explanation, we are simply being told: “This is what is going to happen.” Furthermore, even “looking very different” is not what scientists need to demonstrate a speciation event or even such an “event in process.” This is the Darwin’s Finches argument all over again. But repetition of the same speculations is not a demonstration or explanation.

But they still interbreed, so, as the Bible would say, they are still the same kind —  No, not “as the Bible would say!” As the BSC would say. Again, watch for subtle efforts to associate certain speciation standards as “sectarian,” as though creationists are “loading the argument” their way. “Ability to successfully interbreed” is not a “Biblical standard” of “kind.” This is a scientific notion of “kind.”

Which biologists think originated in the Southern Himalayas — How convenient for the evolutionist argument. But of course biologists are going to think that the species “originated” somewhere. The ring species argument flatly depends upon “starting” with one “kind” of bird and then plotting its “evolutionary progress” across geography. If, however, there has been no “moving into new territory,” then the entire argument collapses. Watch for this collapse particularly in the example of Ensatina salamanders in Central California. The same salamander problem exists broadcast: There is no demonstrable evidence of “a species” migrating into previously unoccupied territory; this “moving into new territory” is a necessary fiction that “biologists think” simply because they must.

It progressively changed — Again and again we must ask the same pressing question: “In what way?” What is the exact nature of these purported “changes,” even granting (which we don’t) that the proposed “progression” ever occurred in the first place?

Micro-evolution; animals change, but they are still the same kind; they can still interbreed — Again, this is not a “creationist” standard of “kind.” This is the BSC standard, and it is the best that scientists themselves have to denote speciation.

Now, watch closely as the argument shifts to accept the BSC definition after all! And the producer will do so with an air of triumph, like: “You set the standard, and just look: we can demonstrate speciation even by your own standard!” As we’ll see, the “demonstration” does not actually occur. But, just rhetorically speaking, this video indicates why intelligent-design folks should not be so quick to grant even “micro-evolution” or “adaptation” across such cases!

It is indeed a “war” of ideas, so why grant your opponent the weapons of their warfare when they are not entitled to them? The examples vary wildly, and different ideas are applicable to the different examples. “Adaptation” does not properly get applied to the peppered moth example. So, why grant that your opponent gets to bring his machine gun to an agreed-upon knife fight? The rhetoric matters, and we must indeed be careful and hold our opponent to precision!

And that’s where the creationist theory comes unstuck — It’s not exactly clear what the supposed “creationist theory” is and exactly how it comes “unstuck.” Creationists, like evolutionists, accept the BSC as the best definition of “kind.” There is nothing particularly “creationist” about this standard of “speciation.” Perhaps the video’s producer wants to claim that the creationist is not accepting that “species change geographically until ‘sub-species’ can no longer interbreed.” Okay, but that argument is not made “unstuck” by this greenish warbler example (as we’ll further discover). That argument hinges primarily on whether the green warbler really did “migrate into new territory, changing as it went;” and that question is not settled by simply noting non-interbreeding among Northern warblers.

The neighboring species can’t “bring forth after their own kind” —  So now, the video’s producer is grabbing “speciation event” with both hands. Now there are two “species” that are “neighboring.” And why? Well, because of the BSC, which was supposedly just a “creationist standard” all along.

This is supposedly one of the two most classic examples of a “ring species,” with the “ring” being produced by a geographical feature (in this case the Tibetan Plateau). You start with “one species” at one point of geography. Over time, that species “migrates into new territory,” which splits the species geographically. On “one side of the ring,” the species “evolves” one set of traits. On the “other side of the ring,” the species “evolves” another set of traits. Eventually, the “migration” meets “again” on the other side of the geographical feature (in this case, North of the Himalayas in Siberia). And at the time and place of meeting, the “one species” has “become” really “two species” (that cannot interbreed). Voila! The BSC demonstrates a “speciation event!”

This may not fit with the Biblical idea of “kinds,” but it is perfectly consistent with evolution —  Wait! Evolutionists are the ones that need to demonstrate that some notion of “kind divergence” actually does occur! The greenish warbler appears to be a perfect example. But, if anything, this is not a problem for the “Biblical” notion of “kind.” Indeed, the example only works for evolutionists if something like the “Biblical notion,” which really just is the BSC, actually does work as a definition of “species” or “kinds.” The video keeps bashing on the “Biblical notion,” as though the example has demonstrated that “ring speciation” shows that the “Biblical notion” is fundamentally incorrect. But, ironically, without something like the “Biblical notion,” the example doesn’t even work! It is the claim that the two Northern greenish warblers “can’t interbreed” that establishes this as an example of “ring speciation” at all. But that just is both the “Biblical notion” and the BSC.

Evolution is a gradation, a slow change from one type of organism into another —  Well, okay, but here the producer says “type,” and that implies “neat little boxes” of some sort! Clearly the video is talking about at least three “types” of organisms: 1) the Southern warblers, 2) the Northeastern warblers, and 3) the Northwestern warblers. Of note is that (2) and (3) “cannot interbreed,” so clearly the video is asserting that (2) and (3) have become new “species,” which is just another word for “kind,” which is just another word for “type,” which is what the video triumphantly proclaims as it also states that there are no “neat little boxes” in the “Biblical sense.”

But this is all just clever word salad! In point of fact, evolutionists need to demonstrate divergence of “type” or “kind” or something… however it is labeled. And so-called “ring speciation” is the classic sort of example of “one thing” becoming two very “different things.”

Different in what way? Well, flatly, in the sense that they cannot “bring forth according to their kind,” namely the BSC standard of speciation. And to even recognize that “evolution” has taken place presumes the ability to differentiate among “types” by some means.

If the video is arguing against the “creationist” notion of “kind,” it is a dismal failure, despite the word salad. Something like “kind” is employed by evolutionists in this very example, and, ironically, employed using the very standard of interbreeding!

The video (and the underlying example) would be damaging to the creationist position if it in fact demonstrated the sort of “kind divergence” that evolutionists claim it does. But that damage would not be over the notion of a “Biblical kind” but because of it!

If this (and other) particular example of “ring speciation” really was an example of “one species” (i.e.: kind) migrating, adapting, and thus “evolving” into “two other species,” that would indeed be compelling evidence of small-scale speciation that could in principle explain the large-scale divergence we do see between humans and elephants. If the process does work to produce new “Biblical kinds” on a small scale, then creationists are hung on their own petard to claim that “kind” means something more than the ability to “bring forth” on the larger scale!

No, both parties need to agree on what a “type” or “kind” or “species” signifies and then hold such a definition constant. Both the “Biblical notion” and the BSC are consistent with each other. They are two ways of saying the same thing. And both hold the notion of a “speciation event” to the same standard. So, let’s not dicker over word salad! Let’s see if the greenish warbler really is an example of “ring speciation,” in which “one kind” actually does evolve into “two different kinds.”

Is It Speciation?

Notice that the argument starts by referring to “look very different,” which is a morphological assessment and that also does not necessarily reflect any persistent genetic change in the species. “Looking very different” is not evidence of even “adaptation,” which implies persistent genetic change.

The video finally finds and gets onto the right track and agrees that the BSC is what denotes that an actual speciation event has occurred. But let’s look closely at the specific points this example (and all ring species examples) needs to demonstrate an actual speciation event.

1) There must be a “starting species” that is geographically static. It has not “yet” migrated into “new territory,” which would constitute territory it did not yet occupy. So, in this example, at some point in time you “start” with Southern greenish warblers, and North of them there are exactly zero greenish warblers.

2) That “one species” must then start to “migrate into new territory” that it did not previously occupy. The population of greenish warblers (at a later point in time from the “start” in point (1) above) grows and expands to occupy territory not previously occupied.

3) The migration must have a particular direction. It won’t do to claim that there are simply greenish warblers all over the Earth, as that would make establishing the critical “starting point” impossible! In the case of the greenish warbler, that direction is supposedly North (coupled with both East and West around the Tibetan Plateau).

4) A substantial, “impassible,” geographical boundary must divide the migration into two “branches,” where what is still “the same species” begins to occupy geographically isolated ranges, isolated by the boundary. The geographical isolation must genuinely separate the two “branches” of “the species.” This is the role played by the Tibetan Plateau. And there must be no geographic isolation within the “branches” (this ensures gene flow and “adaptation” in each branch.

5) The boundary must have an “end” at some distance from the starting point, so that the “diverging species” can be kept geographically isolated from each other but then ultimately “brought together” again at the “end” of the migration around the boundary. Only by comparing the species at both ends of the boundary can it be determined what the genetic result of the “migration” actually was (whether it was “enough” to produce a speciation event).

6) The geographic isolation during “migration” must produce genuine and persistent genetic isolation during the “adaptation” that supposedly occurred during the “migration.” In this case, as the video states, the two “end species” cannot interbreed.

Let’s see if any of these points can be sustained. From the well-known biology site: actionbioscience, we read:

Claude Ticehurst, who during the 1930s studied variation in museum specimens of greenish warblers, hypothesized that the present pattern of variation arose when an ancestral species in the south, perhaps in the Himalayas, expanded northward along two pathways, one on the west side of Tibet and the other on the east. The two expanding fronts gradually became different, resulting in two distinct Siberian forms. More recently, studies of genetic variation and song variation have strongly supported this view.

First, let’s notice that Ticehurst “hypothesized” this “starting” and “migration” of “the species.” We’ll look at the “strong support” for this view momentarily. Without the establishment of a starting species (and corresponding geographical starting point), you don’t have an example of either speciation or of classic “ring speciation.”

Second, notice talk of “two distinct Siberian forms.” We emphasize “forms” because the question is: Forms of what? Well, obviously, forms of the greenish warbler. The question, of course, is how much a “form” must diverge from another “form” in order to be an example of speciation. In the case of the greenish warbler, is it notable that there is one species: Phylloscopus trochiloides, and the Northeastern and Northwestern “forms” are denoted as sub-species: plumbeitarsus and viridanus respectively.

Finally, the video implies that the two Northern forms “cannot interbreed,” but the fact of the matter is far, far more subtle than point (5) above requires. Also from actionbioscience, we read:

The pattern of song variation is particularly interesting:

• * Songs are short and simple in the south, but to the north songs become gradually longer and more complex along both pathways into Siberia.
• * However, songs have also become different in structure, resulting in distinct differences in songs between the Siberian forms.

The birds distinguish between these differences; males respond aggressively to tape recordings of their own songs, thinking that another male has invaded their territory, but they do not respond to songs of the other form. In most species of songbirds, songs play an important role in mate choice; usually, only males sing, and females listen to songs when deciding which male to choose as a mate. Speciation is essentially the evolution of reproductive isolation between two populations, and song differences can cause reproductive isolation. Hence, the geographical variation in songs of greenish warblers provides a rare illustration of how gradual change in a trait can cause speciation.

 

Notice that the entire argument depends not upon true genetic isolation (cannot interbreed) but instead upon inferences about breeding behavior and preferences. Even in Irwin’s original scholarly article on the subject, Irwin uses phrases like “suggests” to talk about gene flow and reproductive isolation. He says “do not interbreed” rather than “cannot interbreed.” It might well be the case that some Northern warblers do not prefer to breed with members of the “other forms;” it might even be the case that they do not actually interbreed. But such facts do not establish that the “forms” cannot interbreed! (Remember Boxhorn’s article from last week!)

But the actionbioscience argument also does say, “Studies of genetic variation….” So, let’s see what studies this refers to and if the supposed genetic variation is sufficient to establish true genetic isolation.

First, before we delve into that point, it must be noted that the argument starts with Ticehurst’s speculation about points (1) through (5) above. And the “hypothesis” concerning these points is what is supposedly “strengthened” by “studies of genetic variation.” But actually, all of the studies have nothing to do with points (1) through (5) above. The studies are designed to provide evidence of point (6) above: that genuine genetic isolation “has occurred” (i.e.: an event). In all of the studies, points (1) through (5) are presumed! So, even the way the actionbioscience article is worded is not accurate in a very fundamental (and quite misleading) way!

Notice that points (1) through (5) remain pure speculation from the 30’s! It is a speculation that is convenient for biologists to accept, so they do. And all studies until most recently have taken points (1) through (5) as established, when they have never been established. These points started as speculation in the 30’s and they remain as speculative today as they were in the 30’s.

There is exactly as much evidence in the case itself to suggest that the starting point was North, with two or more separate species, and these two species migrated down South becoming more and more alike during their travels, ultimately meeting in the middle at the bottom and finding themselves to be one species. Neither the genetics nor the songs indicate that there ever was a “starting point” or “migration” from one place to another. This sort of mistake is clearly demonstrated in the case of the California salamanders. It is a mistake biologists make because they so much want “ring speciation” to be true, just like Mayr himself (from the actionbioscience article):

Ernst Mayr called ring species “the perfect demonstration of speciation” because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time.

But wanting it, even really, really badly, doesn’t make it demonstrably true. Actionbioscience refers to the greenish warbler and the California salamander as the two best example of “ring speciation,” and we see the same problems with both of these examples.

Now, back to the point about what the genetic research actually indicates regarding the greenish warbler.

What it does not demonstrate is points (1) through (6) above. Does it even indicate that the two Northern “forms” and the Southern “form” are in fact distinct species (in the BSC sense)? Can the various “forms” interbreed, or are they actually genetically isolated? Well, let’s find out by looking at what research there is….

Genuine Genetic Isolation?

The research that all summary websites, including actionbioscience, cite is best summarized here, replete with quotes from the original researchers and papers: UC San Diego. The original paper can be found here.

From that summary, which contains the most impressive parts of the scientists’ conclusions, we read such things as these (watch closely):

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have demonstrated, in a study of the songs and genetics of a series of interbreeding populations of warblers in central Asia, how one species can diverge into two.

Okay, they have done it! Or so it is proclaimed. So, exactly what have they demonstrated regarding points (1) through (6) above?

Their description of the intermediate forms of two reproductively isolated populations of songbirds that no longer interbreed is the “missing evidence” that Darwin had hoped to use to support his theory of natural selection, but was never able to find.

Oh, this is BIG! The UC San Diego researchers have found the holy grail of evolutionary science! Except… notice that the particular phrase is “no longer interbreed.” The phrase is not “cannot interbreed.” Follow closely….

“One of the largest mysteries remaining in evolutionary biology is exactly how one species can gradually diverge into two,” says Darren E. Irwin, a biologist at UCSD who headed the study, detailed in the January 18 issue of the journal Nature. “This process, known as speciation, is very difficult to study because it can take a great deal of time to occur.”

Yes, the question of “how one species can gradually diverge into two” is indeed a gigantic question indeed! In fact, it is far more gigantic than just a “mystery remaining in evolutionary biology.” It is the gigantic point of contention in the war of ideas: Whether or not “one species can gradually diverge into two.” Notice that it is presumed that it does happen, with the only “question” being how! This is classic scientific arrogance.

Also, in this quote from the leading researcher, notice the appeal to “speciation” as being the process that evolutionists recognize they must demonstrate and explain. This is what Darwin did not actually demonstrate, and this is what scientists acknowledge they must do more than merely infer (as Darwin did).

Referring to their study of the “forms” of the greenish warbler (which, by the way, all of which continue to be denoted as the same genus/species (Phylloscopus trochiloides, with the two additional sub-species: plumbeitarsus and viridanus), one researcher states:

“This creates a paradox in which the two co-existing forms can be considered as two species and as a single species at the same time,” says Irwin. “Such ring species are extremely rare, but they are valuable because they can show all of the intermediate steps that occurred during the divergence of one species into two.”

Note the “paradox” mentioned here. And in the context of this stated “paradox,” the video we have just watched appears all the more disingenuous, as it employs word salad to bash on creationists for supposed confusion regarding what a “kind” is, when scientists that actually study this very “event” call the product of the “event” a paradox!

So, what exactly did the UCSD scientists discover in this groundbreaking, NSF and NGS funded, study?

In their paper, the scientists show how they discovered a gradual variation in the song patterns, morphology and genetic markers of 15 populations of the greenish warbler. At each end of the ring of interbreeding populations, which extend around each side of the Tibetan plateau and through the Himalayas, the scientists found that the two distinct, non-interbreeding forms of the bird do not recognize each other’s songs, which are critical in the selection of their mates. They determined this from experiments in which they played recordings of male greenish warbler songs and judged the response of other birds in the trees.

Hmmm…. There is no mention (including in the papers) of the supposed genetic differences precluding the warblers from interbreeding. Hands are waved in that general direction, but the strongest evidence of genetic isolation is that some warblers don’t like the songs of other warblers and so don’t tend to interbreed with the ones they don’t like. They thus “do not generally prefer to interbreed,” which is absolutely not the same thing as “cannot interbreed.”

Great Danes do not generally prefer to interbreed with Chihuahuas (in a natural setting it is practically impossible), but nobody takes this as evidence of two “reproductively isolated species!”

As in the case of the peppered moth, we are looking for examples of persistent genetic change that in-principle reproductively isolates the two species, and this we do not find. We find “variation of distribution of a trait” (in this case, song type), and from this it is inferred that a BSC speciation event has occurred. But that inference is extremely tenuous, because:

1) Perhaps these populations have always existed as non-interbreeding “forms,” and that no “migration” with “adaptation” ever occurred.

And/or….

2) Perhaps these populations may actually at times interbreed or even eventually morph together in their breeding preferences. We don’t know “at what stage” in whatever “process” may be occurring we are observing breeding preferences. And we must emphasize preferences!

So, the song-based breeding-preference trait, as non-evolutionists would expect, actually does not mean that the two “species” cannot interbreed! It simply means that they do not generally prefer to interbreed. And the reason why no genetic studies have demonstrated that the two “species” are genetically reproductively isolated (true BSC species) is that they are not!

Nevertheless, Irwin continues to claim (2005 article here):

Greenish warblers provide the only known example of a smooth genetic gradient between two genetically differentiated and reproductively isolated forms, providing rare insight into how speciation can occur.

But “genetically differentiated” is a very slippery concept indeed, and the only sort of it that matters is when it has occurred to the extent that (like humans and elephants) the two “forms” cannot successful interbreed an produce viable offspring. The genetic differences Irwin himself notes are tiny and seem to affect song-traits. Thus, point (5) above, has not been demonstrated in the case of the greenish warbler.

Furthermore, without a demonstration of points (1) through (5) above, there is no “evidence” beyond mere convenient speculation that any “starting species” or “migration into new territory” ever existed. Without points (1) through (5), there is no reason to think that we are observing any “process” at all! Without observation of a process, there is no reason to think that anything (including evolution) is occurring. Thus, without (1) through (5) above, there is no evidence that a Southern “form” has “become” either of the two major Northern “forms.”

All of the research papers reference the UCSD research project, which does not demonstrate actual genetic isolation, nor does it demonstrate anything other than 30’s-era conjecture about any “migration” ever having taken place. Irwin himself notes that there are alternative models to explain the “gene flow” observed in his studies. What we actually have is a variety of songbirds that have different songs across their range. We have breeding preferences based upon song types. And we have a distribution of breeding preferences by song type (as a trait), just as we have a distribution of coloration traits in the peppered moth species.

What we do not have is (non-question-begging and non-speculative) evidence of any actual “process” occurring. And we do not have (non-question-begging and non-speculative) evidence that a genuine BSC speciation event has occurred in the greenish warbler. We have no genetic evidence to suggest that the various “forms” cannot successfully interbreed. Instead, that is inferred by the supposed fact that (as far as we have observed), the different “forms” prefer not to interbreed.

The researchers themselves are typically quite a bit more muted in tone than the videos and web pages based on their research have been. Note the first word in the following quote from one of the UCSD researchers:

Apparently, as the birds moved north along two pathways into the forests of Siberia, their songs became longer and more complex, perhaps because females in the north rely more strongly on song when choosing a mate. But the forms of complexity differed between west and east Siberia, because there are more ways to be complex than simple.

“Apparently” is as good as “perhaps,” which is as good as “maybe,” which is as good as “possibly,” which is as good as “it’s logically possible, and we’d like it to be so.”

Keep in mind that Irwin has made a career out of researching the greenish warbler and casting it as the best example of ring speciation (and even of allopatric speciation) in existence. The problem is, very recently he has found with other researchers that the greenish warbler is not a demonstration of genuine speciation at all. In an article co-authored with three others, in July of 2014, Irwin makes a number of devastating points:

Previous genetic evidence has proven inconclusive, however, regarding whether species divergence took place in the face of continuous gene flow and whether hybridization between the terminal forms of the ring ever occurred. Here we use genome-wide analyses to show that, although spatial patterns of genetic variation are currently mostly as expected of a ring species, historical breaks in gene flow have existed at more than one location around the ring, and the two Siberian forms have occasionally interbred.

Did he really just say, “The two Siberian forms have occasionally interbred”? But earlier and for many, many years, Irwin (the greenish warbler expert) consistently asserted that the two Siberian forms “do not interbreed.” As we noted above, “do not” does not even imply cannot, much less demonstrate it! And, as we would expect, finally even Irwin recognizes the breeding habits of the “two” Siberian “forms” as the mere preferences that they are. No speciation event has occurred, even if you grant the researchers every bit of evidence and interpretation about the “starting point” and the supposed “migration” that they wish for! The two “forms” are not “reproductively isolated” at all. They just don’t “tend” to interbreed. But Great Danes and Chihuahuas don’t “tend” to interbreed either.

Worse (if that is possible), Irwin admits that there might not even be a classic “ring” in this case at all:

Substantial periods of geographical isolation occurred not only in the north but also in the western Himalayas, where there is now an extensive hybrid zone between genetically divergent forms. Limited asymmetric introgression has occurred directly between the Siberian forms, although it has not caused a blending of those forms, suggesting selection against introgressed genes in the novel genetic background. Levels of reproductive isolation and genetic introgression are consistent with levels of phenotypic divergence around the ring, with phenotypic similarity and extensive interbreeding across the southwestern contact zone and strong phenotypic divergence and nearly complete reproductive isolation across the northern contact zone. These results cast doubt on the hypothesis that the greenish warbler should be viewed as a rare example of speciation by distance, but demonstrate that the greenish warbler displays a continuum from slightly divergent neighbouring populations to almost fully reproductively isolated species.

That’s a lot to parse out, but really it can be rendered down into lay-English pretty easily. So, here is Jensen’s synopsis:

There were long periods in the north and west of the Himalayas in which the warbler population was geographically isolated, yet (somehow) there has been a lot of interbreeding between the “genetically divergent forms” that were at times geographically isolated. There has been some “back breeding” between the otherwise genetically divergent Siberian forms, but that interbreeding (that we thought was not happening at all) has not produced any (as yet) observable hybridization between those forms. There is the type of genetic drift we would expect, given our model, producing “nearly complete” reproductive isolation between the two Siberian “forms.” However, in honesty, there is neither the reproductive isolation nor genetic divergence we initially predicted, so we really can no longer count the greenish warbler as a classic example of allopatric speciation (as there is really no speciation there at all). But on the upside, we do observe genetic drift around the “ring” (that was really not such an geographically isolated ring as we once thought).

If that’s still too dense (and it might well be!), let’s get right at the crucial points:

1) The two Siberian “forms” are not reproductively isolated. Period. The purported “sub-species” do occasionally interbreed, although not frequently enough to cause “hybridization.” Nevertheless, the greenish warbler is not, repeat not, an example of speciation at all (“ring” or otherwise). So, for all the creationist-bashing associated with the video we watched, in point of fact, the researcher who has owned this research project for fifteen years has now admitted that this research simply does not show what it was purported to show. Either by the Biblical notion of “kinds that bring forth,” or by the BSC that all relevant scientists employ in this case, the greenish warbler is one species throughout its range.

2) It is now open to question even among the researchers themselves what the nature of the “ring” even is or ever has been. The fact of how speculative the whole model has always been, since its inception in the 30’s, is now coming clear in the literature.

3) This is an example of how scientists “discover” exactly what they are looking for. It is also an example of the fact that science is “self-correcting” insofar as eventually previous perspectives get “refined” and even overturned on the basis of additional evidence. This is a classic example of “normal science” operating under a paradigm, and it is a classic example of your tax dollars at work in the form of research projects funded by the government.

Creationist Sloppiness on This Subject!

Now, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, it is critical to note that there is much creationist misinformation and bad argumentation out there, and you must not accept such things just because they fit your “model.” Here is a classic example of a credible-appearing site that makes a claim that is flatly untrue. Creationwiki states:

Hypothetically, while they all interbreed with neighboring groups, where the two lines meet they are different enough that they can’t interbreed. In reality, the two end species, P.t. plumbeitarsus and P.t. viridanus, have been found to hybridize in the wild resulting in fertile offspring.

Now, that would be a dramatic finding, that the two sub-species have actually be observed to interbreed any “hybridize,” which Irwin until very recently has said they “do not” do. But that is not itself the sloppiness.

The footnote to that claim is “1” and links to an article citation, an article by Irwin himself from 2005 (cited and quoted-from earlier in this present ArtOfReasoning article). However, you have to search to find that actual article (supplied here again for your convenience).

Upon finding and reading Irwin’s article for yourself, you would expect to find Irwin admitting that the two “end species” of the ring have been observed interbreeding, which is what the Creationwiki article states (citing Irwin, 2005), and which would be deliciously ironic, since Irwin has been the lead researcher on the UCSD research project and has repeatedly written the the “end species” do not interbreed. Instead, you will find in the cited article that Irwin notes the “end species” of any number of purported ring species (Irwin cites a total of 23 putative ring species) being observed interbreeding… but not the “end species” of the greenish warbler!

Nowhere in the article that Creationwiki cites does Irwin state or suggest hybridization between the “end species” of the greenish warbler.

Was this utterly incorrect Creationwiki statement the result of sloppy reading? Was it the result of repeating some misinformation from some other sloppy-reading creationist? Was it the result of seeing what you expect to see?

One thing is certain: Scholarly sloppiness is unacceptable, and creationists display far more than their share of it! So, I here rebuke Creationwiki for such sloppiness, and I urge my readers to “prove all things” and “hold fast to that which is true” and that can be demonstrated as such!

There are big problems with the greenish warbler example as a true “ring species.” But mis-citing a lead researcher into saying the opposite of what he actually does say is bad scholarship at its worst.

Ultimately, Irwin does say part of what the Creationwiki article claims. But Irwin does not say it in the article Creationwiki cites, and he does not say it until years after the Creationwiki article was posted. And, even then, Irwin flatly denies “hybridization,” which is a technical term referring to observable genetic flow between two sub-species; and the two Siberian sub-species do not interbreed frequently enough to have produced this observable genetic flow. So, in citation and significantly in substance, the Creationwiki article is sloppy and inaccurate. We must do better!