Since you're such a big TO fan, here's a critique of Boxhorn's 'Observed Instances of Speciation' you might be interested in: No speciation
Why did you think that we "might be interested in" a severely flawed critique by a guy who admits that he's "not even a scientist, merely a journalist"?
And is it too much to ask that once in a while you post something from a *science* journal, instead of stuff like this from a crank who runs an "Alternative Science" [sic] website defending "psychics" like the fraud Uri Gellar?
And while we're at it, why do so many of the creationist "sources" turn out to be really fringe folks like this?