I've posted the thing a bout fruit flies here before and I haven't seen a rational argument proposed against it.
That one to me suffices by itself, being an absolute laboratory test of the entire theory (of evolution), but there're lots of others.
There are animals and animal features which could not plausibly evolve, since they are massively complex and would be useless in anything but the finished stage. The bombardier beetle is one such; baleen is another; wings are another.
Or take snakes for instance. The first step in evolving into snakehood would be being born/mutated as a quadraplegic and, starting from there, you'd have to somehow or other learn how to slither and kill prey in the fifteen minutes you'd have before the first predator which came along ate YOU.
I mean, none of this crap works from a standpoint of simple logic.
We have posted several articles that show speciation.
It is your misunderstanding of evolution that keeps you from realizing the significance that when speciation occurs, it is evolution. You won't see jumps from one Genus (or above). That's just not how it works.
So, instead of misunderstanding, do you have any scientific evidence that refutes evolution? [I expect another ad hominem post about all scientists being homos]