Seems to me a more compelling speciation event would be more than showing the reproductive mechanism is broken. How about some physical change beyond genetic variation?
In other words, how about something observed that satisfies the "folk" definition of species (tell them apart by looking at them) or "phenetic" definition (by ordinary means)?
I agree that the experiments show that these creatures adapt to their environment, over generations, including not even producing offspring that will be de-selected from the environment.
In other words, they genetically tend towards traits that will survive in the environment to the point they genetically don't bother to even produce offspring that are not adapted, should they have an opportunity to mate with the other population.
How is the evidence of more than broad variation inside the same phenetic species?
Doesn't it still take a leap of faith to believe these events show a fruit fly population off on its way to becoming bumblebees?
Anyway, how many such changes should we be observing to account for all the species of all the creatures in the world? In other words, is the world old enough to support these theories?
(Enough of this dry scientific stuff -- I'm off to DU to see how they are handling the news of Saddam's capture!)
Not a leap of faith. A rational inference. There's a big difference, because a leap of faith is done in the absense of evidence.
Anyway, how many such changes should we be observing to account for all the species of all the creatures in the world? In other words, is the world old enough to support these theories?
I assume that demonstrating some observed instances of speciation isn't sufficient for your exacting requirements. Why not? In a short span of years, we can see that speciation does indeed happen. This is something that the creationists have been claiming never happens naturally. Now it's seen to happen naturally.
So what do the creationists do? Do they admit they were wrong? Of course not. They move the goalposts and say "Not enough evidence!"
So, with your exacting demands for ever more evidence, tell me ... what's your evidence for creationism?