[Buggman]

Your link is suspiciously empty of data that would allow one to verify the claim. I'd want to see the peer-reviewed article, which would include the structural differences between these five "species." Did any of these "speciated" fruit flies develop new and useful organs? for example. Or are we merely looking at minor differences in size and coloration?

If the structural differences were no greater than what we can acheive by breeding dogs, then I'd say that the claim that this proves macro-evolution is a bit overblown. Of course, evolution, the creation story of secular humanism, is full of overblown statements and stretched (or fabricated) evidence, so that would hardly be a surprise to those of us who dare to look at it a little bit critically.

[narby]

I suppose I was foolish to imagine that you'd take a summary of speciation at face value. You merely repeat "fruit flies are still fruit flies" with no peer reviewed studies and yet you've accepted that because it fits your prejudice.

It's not necessary for evolution to produce "new organs" to demonstrate speciation to have occurred. It is up to the creationist crowd to get busy and demonstrate how and why evolution stops at some "boundary" that they've made up out of whole cloth.

And you have the audacity to demand peer reviewed studied, when what you have is zip, zero, nada.