[Mr Radical]

"This means that the rate of speciation of cichlid fishes has been extremely rapid: something on average of one new species every 40 years!"
Surely his math is wrong? You cannot simply divide 300 species into 12,400 years. If one believes in random mutation then two species have twice the probability of speciation of one; three have three times the rate, four have four times the rate, etc. A bit like the grains of wheat on the chessboard, you could go from one to 300 in just eight or nine moves. That is 12,000 divided by 8 or 9 ≈ 1400-1500 years on average per (individual) speciation.
The timing of the very first random speciation could make a big difference to the outcome after 12,400 years.
IF one believes in random mutation, of course...

[wbarmy]

There is also the need to standardize an exact definition of “species”. Do these Cichlid fish breed amongst each other? Can they interbreed? Is there an actual major genetic difference among the cichlids or are they actually sub-species.

It was even shown that although Darwin’s Finches did not like interbreeding with the other finch “species”, they were able to when reproductively isolated and produced variants mid way between the parent finches.

This is a very loose definition of species and can be used to prove almost anything in evolutionary terms.

[Elsie]

If Evolution EVER worked; then it is STILL working today.

So just WHERE are all of these ‘mutated changes’ that should be all about us?

We’ve been told that most of these changes do NOT advance a specie; so where are today’s bad ones?