Sorry for the cheap shot but it isn't as if I didn't take quite a few from you before responding in kind.
However, my question to you was very simple. Has mating of fruit flies ever produced anything other than fruit flies?
Answer: NO.
See my response to shubi below for my opinion on speciation.
Make that my answer to shubi ABOVE, in post 1,300.
Against my better judgement, I read your response, and I pretty much feel now that giving you cheap shots is far better than you deserve. Where is the evidence you point to for, for example, your claim that we can't create dogs smaller than teacup poodles? What evidence suggests to you that that is the limit? You make claims on limits with far less (namely, none) evidence while railing at the lack of evidence of speciation right under our noses that natural science lays claim to. This is even more rediculous than the the silly flood theories we're dealing with here. Your claims against modern biology are tissue thin, and fundamentally based on a rejection of inductive reasoning in exactly the manner that biology shares with every other natural science. This is misleading nonsense, and you have been given more than the benefit of the doubt to try to demonstrate otherwise. If you respond to this with the amount of text you just made me read, I won't be responding to it. You cannot make your point by repeating it over and over with different words, you have to somehow come to grips with the critical responses to it, or expect to be igonored.
The fruit fly populations referred to here cannot mate with each other so....if you continue your lunkheaded insistence that an arbitrary naming distinction is a binding law of nature, than I have to inform you that the entity produced in the lab is not a fruit fly. It is merely being called a fruit fly as a labeling convenience. It cannot breed with the other fruit flies, and that is the most universally accepted technical quality that it takes to be a fruit fly.
So, lets return to my question. Have the matings of cats, such as, say, a male lion, and a female tiger, ever produced offspring?--ans: yes. How about lion and a housecat? ans. no. So, what is going on here? What is going on when a horse and a donkey mate. They get offspring also, but they are sterile.
The plainly obvious answer, to all but creationists, is that what is going on is gradual speciation. distinct species with distinct boundaries and disctinct names is a human invention: critters do as they please and they can, and when their cross-bred offspring get evolved far enough from their origins, no further crossbreeding occurs. The tangible evidence that there is somehow, a magic limit to this process flies ludicrously in the face of the overwhelmingly available evidence of this very process going on today in freeze-frame snap shot like the donkey-horse-zebra, or the camel-llama or the lion-tiger strained breeding results. There is just about zero evidence to suggest that this process somehow has a natural micro-macro boundary limit, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue. And it packs nonsense on top of nonsense to try to suggest that inductive reasoning about the fossils we do see, and make inference about deep into the past, is fragile, but micro-macro boundaries for which the tangible evidence is extremely strained, are a solid notion.