Well, I don't think you will find ONE SINGLE creationist or Intelligent Design backer that does not believe that DNA contains the blueprint for every life form on this planet.
They replaced a gene to create a different blueprint. If they replaced enough of them, I am sure that you could come up with a fruitfly with a snake's body having banana's sticking out of it's arse.
The point is this was done MANUALLY, It was NOT observed naturally, and there most definitely was intelligence behind the creation of a different blueprint.
When man starts to take on the role of God, it won't matter how smart we think we are or how much we think we know about the origin of life, because ours will be shortened.
This experiment wasn't designed to demonstrate the presence of a designer. It identifies a direct genetic contribution to a speciation event. The results confirm theoretical predictions.
If there was an experiment that demonstrated the presence of a designer, say, something elegant, like the double-slit light experiment, would you discount the results because it was done manually?
I agree. This was more a demonstration of intelligent design because this gene changing was done via intelligent design not Darwinist mutation and natural selection. If "scientists" create a 1968 Ford Mustang in the lab, does that mean a 1968 Ford Mustang could be created in the "wild" via Darwinist mutation and natural selection?