"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:anv10e$7g7$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <2d75qu880dgl6eh8abc8eifvl4qtcoos0b at 4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab at lojban.org> writes:
> <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> <><Just because biologists are able to combine species and create a "new"
> <><form [often misnamed "species"]
> <>Whatever in the world are you babbling about here?
> <The nincompoop persists (despite years of explanations) in believing
> <that speciation comes from interbreeding between other species to make
>> He thinks we're all ligers, eh?
>>> Amazing. Flat stark staring amazing.
>>>> -- cary
Here's Webster's New World Dictionary definition of "speciation":
"the process of developing new species through evolution".
Note the word "evolution":
"the theory ... that all plants and animals developed from earlier forms by
hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations".
This DICTIONARY definition REQUIRES that one species TRANSITION into
***another*** species "by hereditary transmission of slight variations in
successive generations". There's no getting around that FACT (unless you're
a "liberal" for whom dictionary definitions are mere intellectual challenges
to get around).
Unless you claim that "evolution" caused EACH species to "evolve" into
precisely the same form originally that EACH species is in now, then you
MUST claim that one species "evolved" into another species. The first
option is called "creation", which leaves you with only ONE other option,
which is "speciation".
There is nothing else.