I sgree with Linda that the evidence for evolution is multidiciplinary.
When bacteria are exposed to antibiotics , often only mutant forms survive and the original strain may become extinct as you know from your genetics studies with Dr Watson.Hence a new species arises . Over 99% of the species on earth have become extinct. If you had any science education you'd know antibiotics are for bacteria not viruses.
What point are you trying to make when you say that short people can have tall children? Are you trying to suggest that height is not genetically determined?Can two blue eyed people have a brown eyed child? I am a fair skinned , blond white woman whose ancestors were from Northern Europe If I had a child with a Swede with similar features whose ancestors were from Sweden , could we have a brown eyed , black child?If you compare my DNA to that of a black African, you will see that our ancestors could not have bred together 75,000 years ago long before the flood .Do you not believe in DNA?
There are plenty of examples of mutations leading to two species where one formerly existed . Look it up if you can understand the science.Since who agree that genes can mutate and these mutations can change phenotypes, why is it hard to believe that the sum of these mutations , selections , reproductive isolation could result is species as different as eg horses and rats arising from common ancestors .
You said you would believe in evolution when monkeys lose their tails . As explained above, those types of changes typically take a long time.Sometimes only one mutation can produce two groups that can no longer breed with eachother and thus speciation has occurred.
Why is it that when archeologists discover a species intermediate between two others, dating methods show that species arose at the time expected given its' morphology. Why do the intermediates between humans and apes date to a time before modern man?