[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a topic that always sticks in my craw. People make it out to be that there's no way to separate these groups into any legitimate categories and that just isn't true with the overwhelming majority of animals (ring-species aside).

Of course species breaks are impossible to locate if you go over the entire time. You're right that the point is that with all the die-off there are reproductively isolated groups in existence that have different selection pressures and evolutionary histories because of that isolation.
Without considering these groups different species we wouldn't have near the understanding of evolution we do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I have had this discussion several times, and I get the impression you think I'm saying something I'm not, or asserting something stronger or more controversial than what I'm really trying to say. Basically, exactly what you've said here, thats my main point. If I can get you to admit that, over the span of time, we are all ring species (and in fact, ring life-on-Earth is probably better) then I have just completely demolished the microevolution/macroevolution argument. Of course, you don't subscribe to this argument, but pretend you are an average creationist. If, over time or geography or ANY barrier, we are in fact all just ring species, then there cannot be any mechanism that divides microevolution from macroevolution, and thus, although these terms might have some practical use, they don't represent any true boundary. Maybe a temporal boundary, but thats irrelevant to creationism.

Its an incredibly difficult and counterintuitive point, in my experience, to try to get people to see the beauty and wonder of ring species. Its really just about the coolest concept in evolution, IMO. And this is exactly the reason why.

I use inflammatory and potentially misleading phrases like "speciation doesn't really exist" or "there are no such things as species" and I think that raises red flags for you. I should probably stop doing it, but I have a specific audience in mind when I say things like that. My goal is to try to shake up peoples preconceptions and shock them a little bit, and get them interested in showing me how stupid and wrong I obviously am. Of course, when I say something like that to someone, such as yourself, who fully understands the concept of ring species and how that applies to all living organisms, it really just becomes an exercise in me backpeddling. But thats just because you don't labor under the misconceptions that I'm trying to confront, so the argument doesn't go as I've planned it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fantastic post vhawk.
And I think you're absolutely right, same as in this thread, this kind of stuff

[ QUOTE ]
I use inflammatory and potentially misleading phrases like "speciation doesn't really exist" or "there are no such things as species" and I think that raises red flags for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

is what I'm responding to. I think that that kind of hyperbole can be dangerous and misleading though.

[ QUOTE ]
over the span of time, we are all ring species (and in fact, ring life-on-Earth is probably better)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.