Interesting - I often hear now-a-days that Creationists do accept speciation, and thus giving examples of speciation is arguing against a “straw-man”.
http://creationwiki.org/Speciation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/e-mail/archive/answersweekly/2007/0721.asp
and
http://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/
“This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended. This might appear as evolution, but it is not.”
So most species got here via speciation, but it still not evolution - talk about moving goal posts.
Of course, the objection is that speciation can occur, but new “kinds” can’t form... “kinds” are sometimes described as being genera, or families, or even entire orders, depending on who’s asked and when... I’ve noticed over the years that “kinds” is becoming more analogous to larger and larger taxonomic groups. More moving goal posts - or perhaps faint lines in sand.
Most Creationists consider dogs and wolves and being the same kind, yet is there any definition of “species” out there(and there are plenty to pick from) by which wolves and Chihuahuas would NOT be separate species? They are extremely morphologically different (much more so than, say, chimps and humans are) and cannot interbreed (I doubt, even with fancy lab work; I’d love to see pics of such a creature if anyone has them.)
By the species definition of Darwinists different groups of humans today would be different species.
Wolves, dogs (including chihuahuas), coyotes and jackals all have 78 chromosomes in 39 pairs and interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Any lab work required for a wolf-chihuahua bybrid would be no 'fancier' than artificial insemination. As for appearance, a blend of both parents, as always.
While science may claim that morphological/behavioral differences do a species make, it is the ability to produce fertile offspring that really tells the story. That's what the article is talking about.