Never has it been demonstrated that an isolated population will mutate into a different species that can no longer breed with the larger population.
Sure it has (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), etc. etc. etc.
Sure, organisms adapt and change behaviors and characteristics, but on a cellular level, the proliferation of species is not explained by mutation.
You don't say... (2), (3), (4), etc.
Even a demonstration of how this works with simple life forms would suffice.
Here you go. (2), (3), (4), etc. etc.
With all the gene splicing that's coming along, I would think that evolutionists could produce results in the lab that support their position.
You mean like this, for example? HARNESSING THE POWER OF EVOLUTION TO CREATE NANOSCALE BIOSENSORS. Or how about: Directed evolution of a fucosidase from a galactosidase by DNA shuffling and screening. Or maybe: Outrunning Nature: Directed Evolution of Superior Biocatalysts. And so on.
Contrary to the claims of anti-evolutionists, evolution *works*.
Cool.. I did not know that. Like I said, this isn't my thing, economics and politics are. You see, everything I know about evolution I learned in government school and college. A surface review certainly seems to support your position in most of these cases.
However, I will say that in at least one of the examples you cite, the isolation of populations is claimed to have occurred thousands of years ago. How do you know? Isn't it possible that there were multiple species all along?
And why is it that we never hear of a beneficial mutation in humans that actually improves our performance? From everything I observe around me, if someone is born with a genetic aberration so severe that it precludes them from breeding with regular humans, first they would have to survive. Second, it would have to be beneficial to be considered evolutionary progress. Third, they would have to find a mate with exactly the same genetic mutation to generate a new population.
Just some logic that makes it a little far-fetched for me in practice.