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.
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.
Minor nitpick: the term "fruit fly" is used to refer to all of the species within the genus Drosophila, which includes things like Drosophila melanogaster (the species typically used in research).
Your bitter fulminations serve only to present theories of evolution as more firmly rooted in ego and wishful thinking than in science and common sense. If that is what you prefer, then please keep it up.
The so-called geologic column rests on data so incomplete it is preposterous to hold it up as a “cornerstone” of evolution theories. Simple math bears this out quite well. Should anyone conclude, after lifting a fraction of a single card off a deck, that the entire deck is suited in diamonds? Such a one would be not playing with a full deck, both literally and figuratively. Perhaps evolution theories, insofar as they purport to have the true answers to history, could better be described as a full deck of jokers dressed up as aces.
Rather than address the math and substance related to data present in the world today, you’ve insisted that I present a specific model as to how the Grand Canyon was formed “billions of years ago,” all the while accusing me of bait and switch tactics. Despite the fatuity of your question, insofar as no answer will prove satisfactory other than one rooted in your faith tradition, I will address address it shortly.
Rather than address the question as to how evolution theories have been scientifically demonstrated in the present day, you apparently insist schools must adopt a faith based upon a static record that could be interpreted in billions of ways. As mentioned before, I would not consider predictions based on a static record as science any more than I would call it science if I were to predict a find of cheeseburgers at a McDonald’s restaurant.
As for the hydrological principles in play at the time the Grand Canyon was formed, I would assume deposition and erosion were the two most prevalent and in that order. Sudden plate up thrusts may have opened the gaps rather suddenly, much as what happens in the present day when a pond dries up and one finds a pattern of gaps amidst the dried mud. I would also think the amount of water in play at the time was enormous, though nothing compared to the total amount of water present upon the earth today. The fossil tracks present in the geological record indicate watery conditions at the time they were formed.
If you believe my ideas in this regard to be unsuited to the record at hand, so be it. I'll leave it to you to specify how this understanding is ipso facto incorrect and then back your specifications up with science rather than extrapolations based upon an incomplete, static record.