some doubts...

[waynepii]

For the species creation part, Darwinian Evolutionists will tell you a "new" species have been created. They will point to evidence such as experiments with fruit-flies (one of the major ones), the so-called "evolved" fruit-fly population y could not interbreed with pre-existing fruit-fly population x, thereby the fruit-fly population y are rendered a "new" species. The experiments reveal however, that they did not want(a decision) to interbreed, not that they could not, thats a huge difference. Another point to consider is that anything that is freely reversible is not evolution, if its irreversible then its evolution, however none of these types of experiments have shown irreversibility.

But if two "proto-species" do not reproduce with each other, even if they physically could, they will most likely continue to adapt independently and may well end up unable to interbreed.

As far as reversibility is concerned, interbreeding is the most likely cause of reversing. Anything that interferes with the likelihood of interbreeding (lack of interest, geographical obstacles, behavioral differences, etc) will tend to decrease the possibility of reversal over time.

[jlay]

they will most likely continue to adapt independently and may well end up unable to interbreed.

Most likely? Is that a scientific term? That is a faith statement.

what if these fruit flies diverged and could never breed again. So, what. What new information was generated?
You still have a friut fly. All this demonstrates is that there is something hard wired in their DNA to produce this result. No new info, no darwinian evolution.
I've got a pretty decent vertical leap. Not like I did when I was 20. I can become airborn. But no matter how high or how often I jump, I am not going to gain new genetic information that would lead to me or my offspring flying.

This is wishful thinking. Taking this peculiar trait in fruitflies and trying to infer that darwinian evolution exists is leap of faith. An example of forcing your faith view on to the science.

[hopefulcynic]

they will most likely continue to adapt independently and may well end up unable to interbreed.

Most likely? Is that a scientific term? That is a faith statement.

No, it's a statement of probability.

what if these fruit flies diverged and could never breed again. So, what. What new information was generated?

The inability (or unwillingness) to interbreed has a genetic basis. In order for this genetic change to have occurred, new information must have been gained.

You still have a friut fly.

It is also still an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and a eukaryote. What is your point?

All this demonstrates is that there is something hard wired in their DNA to produce this result. No new info, no darwinian evolution.

If there is something "hard wired in their DNA" that produces this change, then it is by definition new information, and evolution.

I've got a pretty decent vertical leap. Not like I did when I was 20. I can become airborn. But no matter how high or how often I jump, I am not going to gain new genetic information that would lead to me or my offspring flying.

You're right. That would be an example of the discredited idea of Lamarkian evolution.

[jlay]

The inability (or unwillingness) to interbreed has a genetic basis. In order for this genetic change to have occurred, new information must have been gained.

Says you?! loss of info is not new info.

What is your point?

a fruit fly changing into a fruit fly is not evidence of darwinian evolution. It's called grasping at straws.

If there is something "hard wired in their DNA" that produces this change, then it is by definition new information, and evolution.

Only the loosest definition of evolution. Certainly not Darwinian. A leap of faith. There is something hardwired in my DNA that will cause me to get gray hair as I age. Look ma, I'm evolving.