You have been exposed. Time for you to log in with your other aliases, you know, anyone who supports non ID, to begin to reinforce your personal attacks...
Everyone who is posting in support of non ID is you. How do we know? Because I claim it, and you have to prove me wrong. Oy vey... Oh, and you have to prove the other claims wrong too, you know, sleeping with your mother, beating your kids...
That's right. That's basically a repeat of what you have already stated. In response, I will paste in a paragraph from what I just posted earlier: What has never been shown, and what you don't seem able to describe, is a process whereby an internally fertile group A "evolves" into an internally fertile group B that is not fertile with group A. The propagation of alleles is an insufficient explanation, as would be chromosomal doubling. That is, you still haven't shown how group B could become infertile with group A while SIMULTANEOUSLY maintaining fertility within itself. There is no ring species that satisfies those conditions.
So, let me get this straight: you are claiming that I'm sleeping with my mother and beating my kids -- and therefore it's up to me to prove it false? Also, you still haven't explained why you constantly whine like a babe about intelligent design being true, but never offer any proof to support your claim. That seems quite inconsistent with your insistence that I prove all my claims true. Why can't I use your approach? Do you have some special authority to which others are not also entitled?
I see no proof of non ID, I see guesswork with lots of holes, followed with dogmatic belief being practiced here by the supporters of non ID. The non ID types here are downright evangelical in their comments. I am not saying ID is true, not saying no ID is true, I am saying that neither one can withstand scrutiny and reasonable evaluation logically, and scientifically to conclude the origin of biological life is chance over design, or vice versa... Consequently, I think neither should be taught in school systems, or used to indoctrinate youth into either belief system...teach agnosticism and real scientific approaches, and remove dogmatism.
Just because you declare as true that "the propagation of alleles is an insufficient explanation, as would be chromosomal doubling," your declaration is merely your unsupported conclusion. I don't need to describe the process which you request, because your requested process is unnecessary for evolution to proceed via ring speciation. Which is what the referenced article demonstrates.
Well, if you say that "neither can withstand scrutiny and reasonable evaluation logically and scientifically to conclude that the origin of biological life is chance over design, or vice versa...", then per your position that people should prove their claims true, it is now up to you to prove what you have just claimed with scientific evidence. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite according to your own asserted requirements. Not that I necessarily agree with any of your declarations, but as you apparently do, let's see you prove your claim. Prove that neither the origin of biological life by chance or design can withstand scientific scrutiny. This should be a riot...
I get the feeling you're preparing to declare victory and flee the field. Your repeated returns to ring species fail to address the logical flaw in your position. The fertility or infertility between daughter "species" is not a point in contention. I am not disputing that at all, and I don't rely on it either way. All it looks to be is an attempt on your part at changing the conversation. Again: What has never been shown, and what you don't seem able to describe, is a process whereby an internally fertile group A "evolves" into an internally fertile group B that is not fertile with group A. That is, you still haven't shown how group B could become infertile with group A while SIMULTANEOUSLY maintaining fertility within itself. So far, your arguments have been rather lacking.
Changes in alleles do not necessarily carry with them a certificate of infertility. So, if a change in an allele in group AA is propagated to group AA offspring and does not affect intra-group fertility, then the change is preserved. Similarly, for group BB. Only the change to group BB is almost certainly likely to be to a different allele. At this point we have two groups, AA and BB, with two different genetic differences, likely appearing in two different loci in their respective genomes. Now repeat this process, and keep repeating it until eventually, you will reach a point where the two genomes of AA and BB are sufficiently different so that the group members can no longer successfully mate inter-group. Thus, they are speciated. Which is what the cited article demonstrates.