DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

Wrong again! The article you cited only called into question SOME examples of ring species. There have been plenty of confirmed examples of ring species, to wit:

Evolutionary Relationships Within the Ensatina Eschscholtzii Complex Confirm the Ring Species Interpretation

Craig Moritz
1University of QueenslandQueensland 4072, Australia
Search for other works by this author on:
Oxford Academic
PubMed
[url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:"Moritz C"]Google Scholar[/url]
Craig Moritz
Christopher J. Schneider
2University of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Oxford Academic
PubMed
[url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:"Schneider C"]Google Scholar[/url]
Christopher J. Schneider
David B. Wake
3University of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Oxford Academic
PubMed
[url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:"Wake D"]Google Scholar[/url]
David B. Wake
Systematic Biology, Volume 41, Issue 3, 1 September 1992, Pages 273–291, https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/41.3.273

Abstract

Sequences (644-681 bp) from the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene were obtained for 24 individuals representing the geographic range and morphological diversity of the polytypic salamander ring species Ensatina eschscholtzii. These data were used to estimate the phylogeny of components of the ring to test the biogeographic scenario underlying current interpretations of speciation in this complex. The analysis revealed high levels of nucleotide variation among subspecies. Strong subdivision was evident within the subspecies platensis and oregonensis. The phylogenetic hypothesis of minimum length that is best supported by the data contains one monophyletic group that includes populations from the southern Sierra Nevada and mountains of southern California (croceater, klauberi, and southern platensis) and another that includes populations of the southern and central coastal regions (xanthoptica and eschscholtzii) Samples of oregonensis were typically basal, but their precise branching order was unstable. Both oregonensis and platensis were paraphyletic, with several disparate lineages in oregonensis and a strong northsouth dichotomy in platensis. The data were incompatible with a biogeographic model that required all subspecies to be monophyletic but were compatible with slightly modified predictions of a model assuming stepwise colonizations from north to south down the Sierra Nevada and independently down the coastal ranges. These features provide strong support for the biogeographic scenario central to the interpretation of Ensatina eschscholtzii as a ring species. Division of this complex into separate species on the basis of the observed patterns of monophyly for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is unwarranted because further sampling could reveal additional instances of paraphyly across subspecies and, more generally, because mtDNA alone should not be used to infer species boundaries.

-----------

I can find plenty more peer reviewed findings from legitimate scientific journals. You can find them too if you have the intellectual integrity for an honest pursuit of the truth.

Nope, the paper clearly states that there are NO true ring series after all. Sorry Charlie, Why don't you read the whole thing? It even explains why they thought so and why they were wrong. According to the Evol Biologist who wrote it, it doesn't really matter because they have so much other evidence for evolution.

---

Good answer!  And for my follow up, do you have any recollection of having been there?

No, but when I watch this, I get this weird felling-- like the whole world watched this happen. I know that sounds strange, but watch it and tell me what you think and if you get that same feeling. It's of the Big Bang--  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Om5TNJVmE

Cool video.

---

DNA basically operates like machine code.  Regardless of what you think of the definitions of three particular words there is no way the code wrote itself.

So, in other words you're backtracking from your claim that the information in DNA is specified and complex and essentially asking me to accept an ipse dixit argument because you can't substantiate those claims.  

I'm impressed.  Okay, I'm not really impressed.

No, I provided the definitions and you don't like them.  Not my problem.  The definitions are what they are, like any other word is defined.