Agreed, it is a phrase that I used to fast-forward the discussion past the "micro-evolution" examples. However, it seems to me that the examples you referenced as "real-time changes" didn't have a fast-forward function.
It is possible that I don't understand the significance of these examples, because, frankly, I'm underwhelmed. Esentially, we have fruit flies speciating to somewhat different fruit flies, other flies and cichlids speciating into other flies and cichlids.
Reading about these experiments is interesting on several levels, however, so I am, personally, coming away with something. For instance, it seems entirely likely to me that fundamentally different rules govern the diversity of plants and animals. After all, plants and animals are fundamentally different.
My favorite sentence: Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
You do realize, right, that the type of changes that you dismissively refer to as "a fruit fly changing into a slightly different fruit fly" are the ONLY changes that evolution predicts will ever occur. If you ever saw a dog give birth to something that is obviously and demonstrably NOT a dog, then evolution is falsified. What was observed in those cases is indeed speciation. Most closely related, but different species cannot be distinguished from one another by nonexperts. What you probably meant to claim was that there is no evidence for changes that crossed taxonomic lines higher than species. If that's the case, then don't try to move the goalposts. Retract your original claim and make the modified one that I suggested. Your original claim is demonstrably false.