If we bred dogs with pug snouts in many generations, would they be a new species of dog? Oh wait, we already have, and last time I checked, they were still the same old dogs.
Darwin pointed out that the doves in his days were all classified as one species, becauses everyone knew that they were bred from Rock Pigeons. If they hadn't been bred by humans, he said, taxonomists would put them in at least 3 genera and 8 species.
Yes, they're still the "same old dogs," but I'm pretty confident that in the wild, not bred by men, most breeds of dogs--if they were isolated and breeding only among themselves--would be regarded as separate species. Maybe one of the scientists here could correct me if that's not true, but the whole point being made about finches suggests to me it is true.
The point being made to you, Tamara, is that species are not so easily defined, anyway. Would chihuahua's and St. Bernard's really be considered the same species in the wild? (Of course, we all know that chihuahua's would never survive in the wild and barely survive domesticated
, but you understand my point.)
Darwin said the doves in his day differed even in the amount of vertebrae they had? How much difference do we really need before we grant that speciation has occurred?
Is it reasonable to trust the speciation claim? Given the evidence of a grossly exagerated species list, I say the trustworthiness of the claim is seriously undermined.
I don't see where you've established this in any way, since even your sources don't say this. Only you say this. "Grossly" exaggerated? I don't think you've established grossly, since the number of species remains a subjective interpretation, which taxonomists are trying to objectify as much as possible, knowing that full objectivity is not possible. This means the next person could legitimately come along, examine the matter further, and assign more species based not just on their further research, but even on their possibly different definition of species.