On The Observability of Speciation

Those who refute evolution point out that speciation has not been witnissed. Altough this can be a debate in and of its self, lets save it for another time.I seek to make this point on the subject:Given that the population of organisms consistantly under human inspection is significantly lower than that of organism populations at large, an observation of speciation is unlikely; furthermore, the recognition of an observed speciation as such is even more unlikely.If you were to take a trip to the San Diego zoo you would see many variety of animals like Tigers, snakes, spiders, and turtles; however, the variety and number of animals in the zoo is miniscule when compared to all of the creatures in the earthes jungles, deserts, plains, swamps, and oceans.Likewise, organisms in labs, like bacteria, represent a small portion of wild populations. With this said, to assume speciation is something which can be readily observed is ambitious and naive, to say the least.Chances are speciation is not going to occur in a zoo or lab; it will happen in the wild. Most newly discovered living organisms are assumed to have been simply hidden from view ant not newly evolved.I pose this question: How will we know speciation when we see it?Please feel free to answer my question or add your own comments or ideas.

I am aware of ring species.I'm not refuting speciation; I know it occurs. I'm more interested in how new species found in the wild can be recognized as such.For example:Some naturalist take a trip into Madigascar. There, they find a new species of monkey. How can they tell if the species is newly evolved or has just been "hiding" from view.New species are found frequently. Are they newly evolved or just newly found?

Very interesting. I'll have to look into the orcas for sure.

CosmicChimp,You bring up a good point. Let me explain what I mean by newly evolved.Lets say an extensive expidition was conducted in the amazon during the 1800s and every species of snake living in the the jungle was documented. Lets say there were only two species of python documented (Species A and B). Species A and B can interbreed with no problem. Then, a new study in 2008 uncovered a small population of a subspecies (Species C).After extensive research, the naturalist determined species A and B could breed, and B and C could breed; however, C can not breed with A.One of two conclusions can be made about this research:1. Species C always existed and simply alluded the naturalists in the 1800s.or2. Population C recently evolved from population B.My hypothothesis, if you will, is that new species may have evolved since human documentation and we have simply been assuming conclusion 1. Is this plausable? I think if scientists could present enough evidence that population C evolved from population B that would be enough proof to creationists. Hence my whole point in bringing it up.