All well and good except that those mutated fruit flies could not re-produce and they were still fruit flies. Also since this was done in a lab where intelligent design was super-imposed this would in fact invalidate the very idea that it is a natural process proving macro-evolution.
Macro-evolution means they would have to evolve into some new kind of organism. Never mind that the odds of any organism re-wiring the genetic code to re-produce something other than what they are is mathematically impossible. Even a measly 2-6% is a highly insurmountable number of ‘beneficial’ mutations for any organism to undergo - right AMD?
What mechanism is going to stop a 2% genetic change from accumulating in a population?
A human is perfectly viable, and the DNA it uses makes perfectly functioning proteins.
A chimpanzee is perfectly viable, and the DNA it uses is 98% the same as ours, and it makes perfectly functioning proteins.
Where along that 2% change do you see any insurmountable differences? Where does a perfectly viable human DNA sequence changing to a perfectly viable chimpanzee DNA sequence lead to a DNA sequence that doesn't work?
Are you suggesting that if the DNA is only 1% different it will not make a functioning protein, that it needs to be 2% different to work? And thus there is a “gap” that needs to be surmounted? Illogical and based upon absolutely nothing, but at least it is an actual testable claim, rare among creationists.
So.... what is this barrier you imagine that needs to be surmounted?
Which is exactly the point. The individual lines could interbreed quite happily. The fact that not even sterile offspring of attempted crossbreeds occurred proved that those two lines of fruit flies are less closely related than (for instance) tigers and lions, or horses and jackasses. The fact that they still looked like fruit flies is irrelevant to the scientific point proved.
"Also since this was done in a lab where intelligent design was super-imposed this would in fact invalidate the very idea that it is a natural process proving macro-evolution."
Yes, but the mechanisms were the same as the ones that act in nature, so it was an ideal laboratory proof of "macro" evolution.