So...you basically just repeated what I've been saying all along. Animals can speciate. Speciation is essential to the creationist model of life too. Without speciation, the number of animals that would have gone extinct would be far greater than it is. I skipped over everything but the fruit fly part, so maybe I need to dig deeper, but I'm still not seeing evolution in action. At least not the kind of evolution you're speaking of.

Furthermore, this also shows the amount of confusion caused by trying to define animals by species. Fertile hybrids are constantly produced from seperate species (more and more so as time goes on), thus not making them seperate species in the first place (depending on which definition of species is most convenient for scientists at the time). In fact, the more you allow these different phenotypes to mate without selective pressure, the closer they'll get to the phenotype of the 'master species' I was talking about. Zeedonk or liger, anyone?

Selective pressure simply specializes the genes (through speciation even) based on the environment, etc, showing how one general kind of animal can lead to many different species. So, since this could either be evidence of creation or evolution, tell me why I should accept evolution on faith? Especially when the only answer that that faith has to offer me is that I'm nothing more than an animal and my life is meaningless, and is meant to end in nothing more than death.

People have a huge misunderstanding of creationism. They think speciation occuring disproves the Genesis account. Which on the surface it seems to, but people don't understand that selective pressure wasn't on the animals in the beginning. They didn't even hunt each other, and there was no death, so God wouldn't have created all the variety of species we see today. He would have created a more general Kind, and when the fall occured, these animals were able to speciate, or specialize in other ways based on new pressures to create new species that are able to interbreed back towards the more general kind (although some cannot (if A and C can interbreed and B and C can, but A and B can't doesn't mean they weren't from the same kind) or won't produce fertile offspring, but that's due to non-evolutionary changes in chromosomes as we like to call it). It is interesting to note when these barriers don't exist, that hybrids tend to take up a more generalized phenotype, though, showing that our model of biology isn't as quack as some people would like it to be.

Maybe I'm reading the paper wrong, but you've given my argument a leg up here.