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.
No, I am not clear on this point- if what you state is accurate.
How is it that we hear about common ancestors for man and monkeys...and this being the result of evolution? And the divergence from a common stock ancestor (usually denoted by a "?") in many cladograms I've seen?
Regarding speciation, it is likely that I am using the "wrong" terminology. Perhaps you are right in that I am referring to evolution effecting changes from one genus into another genus or family to family.
Believe me, I am not trying to move the goalposts - I am just trying to pin down the "how" part of vertebrates from invertebrates, men from first mammal, bird from dinosaur...et al. The examples of "speciation" which I was commenting on in the earlier post, according to my understanding, just ain't gettin' me there.
P.S. There was another thread regarding ring species that was interesting to me in which I was led to conclude that often a new "species" designation is simply a literary element.