[Conservativehomeschoolmama]

It's still a frog. It did not turn into a salamander or a snake. I would put this article under *adaptation* not evolution.

[BikerNYC]

So whether or not evolution occurs depends upon whether or not we describe an animal that can no longer mate with others with a new name? It can't mate with the other species. I thought that was part of what a new species was all about.

Would you think evolution had more viability if we called the new animal a nerfworker and not a frog? Or does evolution no occur until the new species is given a new name, but before the new name is bestowed upon the new creature, there is no evidence that evolution occurs?

[highball]

I would put this article under *adaptation* not evolution.

That's because you obviously don't understand what evolution is.

Please re-read the article. The frogs evolved from one species to another. The very essence of Darwin's work (which was entitled "The Origin of Species", after all). And, incidentally, creationists mistakenly claim this type of evolution doesn't happen.

There's a good list o'links where you can learn about it - I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Trimegistus]

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Picky female frogs drive evolution of new species in less than 8,000 years, Conservativehomeschoolmama wrote:

"It's still a frog. It did not turn into a salamander or a snake. I would put this article under *adaptation* not evolution."

"Frog" is not a species. It's a whole group of species, just like salamanders and snakes. Here we have direct evidence of one species of frog splitting into two. And, yes, it's an adaptation to environmental change. THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION IS ALL ABOUT!

Trying to dodge the issue via semantic games is dishonest. God will boil you in molten sulfur for a billion years for being dishonest.

[Alter Kaker]

It's still a frog. It did not turn into a salamander or a snake. I would put this article under *adaptation* not evolution.

Then you don't know what evolution means. Perhaps you should find out before you go expounding on the subject.

[Junior]

I would put this article under *adaptation* not evolution.

What, pray tell, do you consider "evolution?" Evolution simply means change within a population over generations. That is exactly what happened here.

[Lurking Libertarian]

It's still a frog. It did not turn into a salamander or a snake. I would put this article under *adaptation* not evolution.

It is a different species of frog. Evolution is all about The Origin of Species. If it turned into a salamander or a snake, that would disprove evolution.

[VadeRetro]

It's still a frog. It did not turn into a salamander or a snake.

It's still in the taxonomic order Salientia, yes. Now here are the taxonomic levels as they typically pertain to animals.

Domain (Older taxonomies may not show this one)
Kingdom
Phylum
Subphylum
Superclass
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Subspecies

I highlighted order for you. Frogs are a whole order.

Taxonomy, the effort to classify the kinds of life, goes back about a century before Darwin to Linnaeus in the 1750s. It's nothing but an effort to lump similar things into bins. It can be obvious at time, but it can be rather arbitrary, a beauty-contest decision at others.

What evolution says about making a whole new order is it's a branching divergence over time. It starts with a common ancestor. Two groups diverge into subspecies (what we would call "varieties" in the plant world). Later yet you have speciation. Eventually, the two groups not only are notably different from each other but have spawned species differences within themselves and you call them "genera." (Thought I was going to say "genuses," didn't you?)

Eventually, diverging genera would be seen as different families. And so forth.

The higher up the taxonomic level a difference goes, the more diverged it is. You saw a headline that says a new species formed in 8000 years. The point of the story is that this happened faster than we normally think it does. You waved the whole thing away as not being a change at the level of taxonomic order.

Depending on why I think you said that, your argument is either a deliberate strawman or seriously uninformed.