[connectthedots]

There article never claimed that speciation had been directly observed.

Didn't say it did. My comment was directed at the poster who linked the article and poated:

The link below, (although long, sorry!) is a reprint. There is ample evidence to support the common ancestor theory...

I was merely pointing out that the article did not support a "common ancestor theory'. Nothing more; nothing less.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Didn't say it did. My comment was directed at the poster who linked the article and poated:"

But your post was a reply to one of my posts, and I wasn't talking about common ancestry. You said you saw no evidence of macroevolution, and I correctly pointed out that the article never claimed speciation happened. In fact, there has never been the claim that speciation happened in the finches example nor in the peppered moth example. They were both simply an example of how natural selection can affect physical characteristics of populations.

[2nsdammit]

Actually the (broken) link from post #55 DOES talk about common ancestry.

"Darwin's finches are a prime example of an adaptive radiation. Fourteen or perhaps 15 species, all derived from a common ancestor, occupy individual ecological niches to which they are adapted, principally because of the size and shape of their beaks in relation to the food they eat."

The gaps in understanding talked about are gaps in the specific early relationships; there is no misunderstanding that the species all derived from a common finch species.
It uses a tree diagram to show the species branching off from the