this isn't about producing something that meets ZZZzzzzzz's approval. come on, you are losing credibility fast. if you can't produce something then admit it.
" if you can't produce something then admit it." Not a chance of that happening... If these clowns have reasoned that all the ID supporters in this thread are the same person...then that is a perfect demonstration of how wacko their powers of observation and deduction really are, how they reason from conclusion, and have no means to verify their claims...then having made claims without fact, they challenge you to "prove me wrong." So silly...
Your premise is false -- and I suggest that it is intentionally so. In natural evolution, a group AA of species A will be geographically dissociated from some group BB, while both groups remain inter-fertile members of species A. Over time both groups will develop allele differences which will not affect intra-group fertility, but which will eventually prevent inter-group fertility. And, the result is species AA and species BB. Meanwhile, species A will no longer exist -- it will have become "extinct," as neither AA nor BB will be a genetic match to what species A once was. Thus there is no "direct" path from two parents of species A to a single child of species B, because this would be a practical impossibility, as there would be no second member of the new species B with which any other members of species B could be reproduced. Your required test does not occur in nature (or if it does occur, examples would be incredibly rare), because of the near zero probability of two offspring of a species A being produced simultaneously, from two different sets of species A parents, with their respective offspring capable of reproducing among each other, but not with their respective sets of parents. However, scientific evidence exists demonstrating that successive incidences of geographical dissociation will produce a "ring species," of groups A, B, C, etc., where group members A <-> B, and B <-> C are inter-fertile, but groups A <-> C are not. Species A and C, thus originated from the same same species A, yet no "direct" species C offspring of species A ever existed. So, Z, your premise -- is false.
Z's premise is false, and represents a misunderstanding of how natural evolution operates. No example evidence of can possibly be produced to meet his requirement, because his requirement is not an example of evolutionary speciation.
"a group AA of species A will be geographically dissociated from some group BB" Oh man, now the "chance mutations" aren't enough, we have to have geographical dissociations... LOL!
I'm sorry that real evolution avoids your strawman with such ease -- but it does. I take it back. I'm not sorry at all. In fact, I'm rather pleased to be able to provide you with some education -- despite your steadfast resistance.
Only so called "scientists" can take something as simple as nature and make up a complicated explanation to rationalize their unproved position... What was it about the simplest theory usually being the right one? LOL...
Your willful avoidance of the scientific evidence explaining your misunderstanding only maintains your ignorance. That's your choice.