A few problems here. First of all the lab is not the only place observations take place but even in the lab the data support evolution. The case of Drosophila is irrelevant since as has been pointed out no continuous pressure was placed on the flies. Behe's arguments have also been shown to be failing in some areas. So your statement should be that there is a Biochemist named Behe who used 'irreducibly complex' arguments in an effort to show evolution wrong. However since then others have pointed out flaws in Behe's thinking. And of course there is still the problem of having the observation support evolution. All that remains is the mechanism of evolution.
Ron: Most field observations are done with a scientist all ready assuming macroevolution took place, as is taught in American Educational Institutions. >>
And as is supported by the data. But you are wrong, scientists who could prove Darwinian evolution wrong would have a quick rise to fame.
Ron: This is a somewhat parochial attitude since the rest of the world largely is disassociating itself from Darwinism. >>
Irrelevant, science isn't and that is what matters. That some people believe that Darwinism conflicts with their faith should not lead to ignoring the data. I call that lack of faith.
Ron: There is much, much more that could be said - this thread is
based on that. As you are an active peruser I'm sure you are aware of that.
I am interested in what specific observation you know of that runs counter
to what I have said.>>
You are the one who made the statement, "no it isn't". Should it not be up to you to support that with some data ?