There have been a number of fruit fly experiments trying to force evolution. All have failed.
Misrepresentation of the experiment used to determine what genes did in this paragraph:
"If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in
Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve."
1. Everyone knows that HOX genes, genes related to bilateral symmetry, are highly conserved. That the genes that tell where eyes should be rarely mutate without dire consequences says nothing about the majority of the genome, so to conclude that since mutations on these genes are generally detrimental means that a group of organisms cannot evolve is ludicrous.
2. The source incorrectly labels this as an evolution experiment, but it wasn't. The fact that genes were selectively mutated in lab conditions should be the first clue, since actual evolution experiments do not involve directed mutation, and they rarely involve introduced mutagenic factors.
Misrepresentation of a bacteria evolution experiment as well:
"Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative."
1. The statement that "all accumulated mutations" were degenerative is a flat out lie. For example, one of the experimental groups acquired mutations that allowed the bacteria to effectively digest citrate without the presence of oxygen (something never seen in that species before).
2. That source of obviously biased nature uses sources from 2010 in its references. In 2010, the evolution experiment had been running for 22 years (not 20) and had reached 50,000 generations (not 40,000). If it is getting basic numbers wrong, why would you think it is depicting the experiment accurately at all?
3. If their statement of accumulated mutations was accurate, all bacteria populations would continuously get more sickly as detrimental mutations built up and there were no benign mutations to offset them. It's rather clear that this is not observed in nature at all.
Note that you'll only find explicitly creationist propaganda sources that claim that either of these experiments were failures, and you definitely don't find any reputable sources that call what was done with the fruit flies "an evolution experiment".
