This article is trying to support speciation by naturatl selection, not natural selection which is already well documneted and supported.
First, this is not "clear evidence". This is a mathematical/statistical model to take a "guess" at the difference in genetic diversity with the inablitiy to breed. I could have, and I'm sure many people could have, told anyone that with a larger gentic variety between 2 organisms, there will be less chance to breed.
Second, no matter the model, no scientist can eliminate time as a factor for anything that is time based. Natural Selection is completly based on time and differences between generations, and is well documented, and we have not seen any speciation occur in these documentations. Linking Natural Selection to speciation without time as a factor, is not science, it is religion, it requires faith.
Third, the scientist uses examples of size weight, and diet, among others, to dictate speciation. Why didn't they apply this to different breeds of dogs? This is artificial selection which moves at a much faster rate than natural selection. The chihuahua weighs on average 5 lbs while some of the bigger dogs weigh over 100 lbs. The difference there is well over 1000%. Yet the difference breeds of dogs can still breed.
All this study shows is that there is a difference in genetics correlates with a difference in species. As the scientist says, "The fact that the association is statistically significant despite the crudeness of our estimates suggests that the true biological association is very strong." It seems that is the same conclusion that I had said, but connecting this correlation with Natural Selection is bad science.
So, this is not evidence, nor is it science. It's a statistical model to fit the data into something that supports the conclusion. Taking this and making the claim that it supports speciation by Natural Selection takes a lot of faith, and seems more like a religion.
