Really, such a weak argument. The Drosophila experiment proves nothing that we did not already know. Animals can be crossed and produce offspring, but that does not a new species make. You can cross a donkey with a horse and get a mule, but so what? All dogs evolved from wolves, a perfect example of microevolution, but dogs can crossbreed with wolves and vice versa, and one definition of a new species is fertility without the ability to interbreed.
And even if some new species are produced, they are really just subspecies and it cannot be demonstrated that they have the ability to turn into a another whole new animal, such as a fly turning into a bird, or a dog turning into a dolphin. That absurd proposition is what you evolutionists speculate on all the time, and you have absolutely no proof that such a thing has ever happened.
Re PE v. gradualism, your problem is you apparently understand neither concept. Gradualism is descent with modification over millions of years, PE is same in small groups in much shorter leaps, thus supposedly "explaining" the embarrassing lack of transitional fossils. Yet in either case, transitional fossils would have to show up somewhere, and they simply don't exist.
Scientists are people just like everyone else, and they can be snookered just like everyone else. They can also be just as dishonest as other people, and often are. Or are you saying that scientists are members of a select priesthood, and are somehow "holy?" Yes, that would fit into the atheist religion of humanism that most hardcore evolutionists subscribe to. As for me, I believe none of it.
As far as my position on where creation came from, I was not discussing that. I made no assertions, other than that the universe did not self-create. YOU asked me what it all meant, remember?
"OK, so God did it. HOW? WHY?"
So who's talking about God now? You are.
As for your answer, I do not cast my pearls before swine, because I know they can turn and rend, as swine are wont to do.
Know what I mean?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
What replication in the laboratory are you referring to? There is no such work.
The Drosophila experiment conducted by Diane Dodd in 1989.
Unless you have another definition for "species", this is it. This alone demonstrates "macroevolution". Can you debunk it? Or are you going to change the definition of "species" on us?
Yet those fossil records do not substantiate evolution. Darwin thought they would, hoped they would, but even Gould had to admit that gradualism is not verified in the rocks, period, and Darwin was wedded to gradualism. That is why Gould came up with PE, which is in contrast to gradualism, but rather than admit that Darwin was bust on gradualism, most evolutionists refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth of the matter.
Your problem is that you are considering PE to be mutually exclusive of evolution, which you find false because gradualism was considered insufficient by PE. Not only is this moderate circular reasoning, this is totally untrue, and not what Gould meant.
This helps explain things:
Real scientists know it, and the honest ones admit it.
So you're calling 98% of scientists liars or fools?
As to where they came from and what they mean, that is another question altogether. But jumping to conclusions to provide a "scientific" explanation is not the answer.
Aha - getting ever nearer to your position, but not revealing it.
The fossils exist. WHERE DID THESE ANIMALS COME FROM? Why CAN'T there be a scientific answer?
We are but finite humans, and questions like these have to be approached with humility and not a little awe.
Ah, ever closer. So we should just LOOK at the fossils and not STUDY them? What does that answer?
Objective truth exists and we have no business substituting our assumptions for reality.
Oh boy - here it comes... where is this "objective truth" that is more real than we could possibly imagine?
Most Americans believe that God created all things, and that would include dinosaurs. One thing for sure, they didn't self-create. There is no evidence for that anywhere.
YEEEE-HAAWW. We got it. "God". (by the way, just becuase "most americans" believe something doesn't make it true.)
OK, so God did it. HOW? WHY?
If evolution's explanation of the things we see is not good enough, then surely you must have a better one.
Didn't self-create? OK, let's be clear. Are you speaking of speciation or abiogenesis?
As for modern biology making no sense without the principles of evolution, I would like you to provide some evidence for that assertion, before I would attempt an answer.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- Theodosius Dobzhansky
Here's the entire essay - SO IT'S IN CONTEXT I might add:
DNA evidence forthcoming. So much going on in these posts.