Goku: You say we don't see these things in a lab because evolution is false, but it could also be that such novel features take more than a few years to develop. If that's the case then we wouldn't expect to observe these things even if evolution is true. This makes your test a bad test; a negative result is simply inconclusive.
But even if the result was inconclusive, that means you just admitted that the evidence in this particular area, cannot be conclusive, and therefore cannot be "sufficient". Think about it - even if it is only "inconclusive" how then does that defeat the axiom? If the superman claimant claims to have forever returned to Krypton we might say that it is, "inconclusive" as he can't perform superman-feats, but will that alter the fact that his fantastic claim is not sufficiently supported? No, but rather the fact he can't show us, doesn't change the axiom but actually confirms what I am saying; that the claim because of it's size, is insufficiently supported. "a negative result is simply inconclusive" will mean you have to look at areas that don't sufficiently match the claim instead, tacitly admitting that it is inconclusive and therefore there is no sufficient support.
That's only one type of matching evidence. Really there are three main areas where evolution has ample opportunity where it fails;
1. Intermediates in the here and now, or new information coming about, genetically. We see beetles on islands lose wings but never gain them. The lizard example was actually epigenetics IIRC. We might expect to see many hundreds of examples of intermediates TODAY, given all populations differ in their generation times, yet it could be an accurate statement if we were to say, "all organisms are in stasis", in the sense that no data can be said to be giving any clues as to how anatomies change from one type to another, from scales to feathers, from bellows type lungs to contraflow, from arms to wings from legs to arms, no but rather we see a variety of feathers, variety of scales, variety of arms, variety of legs, variety of bellows type lung. This is one area where you would not need to observe the changes but evolution would be displayed, in that micro evolution is supposed to be macro evolution, so then why is every organism to you mind, on the same page? Why are they all on page 500 of their respective evolutions? If evolution were true, they would some of them at least, say 20% if I am to be generous, be in the middle of macro-evolving. This isn't a misunderstanding of how evolution works, ironically it is the correct understanding from creationists, because if micro adds up, we should presently see what it is adding up to. So if 1 add 1 is two, and we carry on adding, before we get to 500, we have to go through 45, 46, 46. But all organisms are up to 500. Lol
2. Transitionals in the fossils. You can say they are there if you want but you must have seen the likes of Bonedigger's posts, where he specifically examines the claims such as with Tiktaalik. Each and every example cited for transitionals of evolution are extremely weak as circumstantial evidence, and the percentage of transitionals they list is about 250 if I remember correctly, which turned out to be 0.8% of the fossils found in human history. So then it is the slothful induction fallacy, even if you can't be bothered to understand what that fallacy is, nevertheless the transitionals simply are not there. if they are there, as Wibble for example claimed, "in the multitudes", then give multitudinous examples. Show me those clear, unequivocal transitionals showing how scales become feathers, how arms become wings, how legs become arms, how insects without wings, evolve wings, how quadrupeds become pterosaurs and bats. etc....they don't exist, Goku.
3. The third type of matching evidence is the expectation for far more plasticity in those fast replicating forms. In fruit flies and bacteria, all they can do is create less fit individuals overall. The overall impression we get even from beneficial mutations is that breaking something designed, and it being selected for, still leads to overall a less efficient, "less than before", less fit organism. Like with say sickled cells being favourable where malaria exists, yet the cells are less than their perfect design. In the same way fruit flies, all they could do is basically create mutations that made the flies a worse design, they wouldn't fly, etc..the point is, you claim we shouldn't see evolution but I think there are in such tiny fast replicating organisms, a clear picture of no macro-changes happening. To compound this we can take the smallest organisms such as bacteria or even animalcules which are found in the Cambrian, and the generation-spans mathematically would be hundreds of billions of years, and yet the bacteria/animalcules, are identical. I think it is pretentious to argue that we shouldn't observe evolution, we simply should see new features either in the middle of arising, like new organs or organelles on a smaller scale, or near the beginning of major change, or near the end. In actual fact everything is at the complete stage of "evolution", wherever we look which is what we would expect from created kinds, designed in a complete stage.
The conclusion from this is obvious, macro evolution isn't providing any genuine evidence, what it is really providing is a LOT of superficial evidence which doesn't really show it, but because there is a build up, an induction, they say the evidence is overwhelming. What any logician worth his salt knows is that you can have masses of evidence that seem to support a notion but if it is only circumstantial then each piece of evidence is like a feather, but with consequential evidence, one piece of evidence may weigh that of a brick.
The rhetorical device of playing-it-up is in operation in science. They play-up the significance of the evidence, and play down the falsification evidence and excuse it.
The rest of your post is "more of the same", with the summary statements you tend to get into making which are mostly bare assertions.
Goku: I think most evolutionists on the web understand that evidence must be proportional to a given claim, and even the same evidence can have a different value depending on the level of the claim.
Hmmm. And yet they never come up with any insights, it always seems to be me that expounds these things and they give tell-tale signs that they themselves don't really fully understand these things, like when you think the evidence for evolution is sufficient, that tells me you don't understand what sufficient evidence is, or are just giving excuses for evolution.
Goku: We do not directly observe any intelligent agent designing and creating organisms. You say that it is false intellectualism to demand that the designer show up and demonstrate to us his abilities, but isn't that exactly what you are asking evolution to do with your lab test?
This is why I am not convinced you understand the more acute logic that must be understood. You would only say this if you don't know the difference.
The difference is a logical one; that where evidence for intelligent design is matching the claim, there is no need for further proof. In other words, with design, the matching evidence we expect to see if there can be no demonstration of ability, is that the thing claimed to be designed would have all of the usual features showing it is intelligently designed, which we do find in organisms. After all, I can show cars and trains and computers have the correct parts, correct specified complexity, contingency planning, ingenius solutions to problems, information, etc, etc..and in the same way we know what superman can do, so if we have scientific evidence someone can punch through walls, etc, you cannot say, "show me more evidence", the difference is, with a superman claim there can't be any evidence left as such that could match it but there can with design, because we know from looking at designed things, what evidence they leave, which is also in life, only life's designs are cleverer, and far more sophisticated. For example the dexterity of the human hand still out-strips a robots even now.
So the key logical difference is that with design to ask for more evidence of design when all of it is there, is false intellectualism, but to ask for more evidence of evolution when there isn't the matching evidence showing evolution (transitionals, a display it has ability to create clever new morphology, no living intermediates), is actually the correct request.
Another difference is that the Creator of life created self-replicating organisms, reproduction so He could design everything from the start and not have to come back to create new versions of the same organisms so the point we don't have any mechanism for a designer is FALSE, as the mechanism God put in place is actually reproduction, meaning He put a natural mechanism in place, like a car designer might put in a fuel tank and fuel assembly, rather than manually pouring fuel into the engine. So we don't expect a supernatural mechanism if life is made to replicate, so it is a false complaint.
So then did you overlook the important logical difference with your comparison, that evolution isn't a one-time event in the past but is allegedly supposed to exist now, and in the past? It's fingers and it's signature should be marred over all things, and yet logically it's presence is conspicuously absent. So there is a distinct difference with the claims, another point is that we expect intelligent design from an intelligent designer, we test this and know this from experience in real life, when people invent things, but the expectations for macro-evolution are FALSE expectations because nobody has witnessed macro-evolution, therefore the prediction that macro evolution could only produce three barely viable, simplistic blobs of proto-plasm is as logically valid, and if not more so, than the circular, pseudo-prediction based on circularity, which says we would expect to see everything we see in nature. Says who? How do you know what macro evolution can design, and how much intelligence it could put into those designs, given it has no intelligence. (a contradiction)