> You are trying to force the definition of evolution to be "speciation-by-random-mutation" How did you infer that? I specifically said in another comment that

> You are trying to force the definition of evolution to be "speciation-by-random-mutation" How did you infer that? I specifically said in another comment that I'm not negating evolution, just the part about speciation-by-random-mutation. > Why does the lack of gene flow from end to end disqualify them This has to do with the technicalities of ring species. I recommend this article by an evolutionist himself, which explains it extremely well: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-species/ https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-... In short, the hypothesized ring species don't solve the issue I raised because, let me quote that article: > The authors [...] found, contrary to previous information, that there are indeed some hybrids (fertile ones, since they backcross) produced where the ring closes at the top, so they aren’t really acting like full biological species. So we cannot be certain that where the ring closes, inter-breeding is impossible, because it has been shown to occur. Further: > In the end, the authors conclude [...]: there are no good examples of ring species in nature It was an interesting point about ring species that you raised however, and I learned something myself. So thanks.