Again - got the same thing you started with - ain't speciation. No wonder nobody takes any of you seriously.
Did you read your own article by chance? The part that talks about only four possible instances being on file and why..
If even one verifiable change to something different were documented, they'd be hyping it till the cows came home because it has never been witnessed before. To this point, the article isn't credible. Moreover, the guy can't even define speciation and notes everyone has a different version of what it might mean. No biggie - right. I mean if you can define it so sloppily, then anything might be called "speciation". Pretty handy - especially in a situation where precision is expected. This largely amounts to a scientific community "bait and switch". *chortle*
If you can't define a species and can't therefore accurately define speciation, how do you expect anyone to take any of this seriously. The slop factor is obvious and purposeful IMO. There are some breeds of dog that cannot interbreed with other breeds of dog. They're still dogs.
The difficulty delineating species has been considered evidence for evolution since long before Darwin. The concept of species is man made. There is nothing in biology that requires drawing strict lines between populations.
First, that should be "it isn't speciation."
Second, it is speciation. Biologists don't tell you how much soda goes into a Big Gulp cup, and convenience store clerks don't get to define what speciation means.
Did you read your own article by chance? The part that talks about only four possible instances being on file and why.
The number of observed speciation events is greater than zero, therefore your argument that speciation does not occur is incorrect.