drwtsn32,
OK, I looked at that page and read it. First, it attempts to redefine (or at least re-examine, raising doubts as to the generally accepted definition) the definition of "species", an academically dishonest approach. When you can't make the evidence fit the conclusion without gaping holes, then you attempt to change the definition. "Speciation", the article goes on to report, can be observed in two areas:
1)- Hybridization or polyploidism (I'm very familiar with this subject matter) of plants that results in a subspecies, not a new species.
2)- Adaptation of species into subspecies, not species, by the generally accepted definition.
A few excerpts from the article:
"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. "
"There has been considerable criticism of the theoretical validity and practical utility of the BSC (Biological Species Concept )."
"Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined. "
Fortunately for the writer, he did not come to any conclusion other than the above statement. Again, attempting to redefine "species" so that it will now fit a pre-conceived conclusion is academically dishonest. The writer clearly knows that, so stopped short of doing so.
Love_Truth- Comprehends what he reads.