Creating different breeds is not evolution. Adaptation is totally different to what so many Evolutionists are so keen to call evolution.
Breeds weren't created (that has already been done for centuries in the form of dogs), species were. A species is a reproductively isolated population of organisms. They're both just degrees of the same thing though. Continuous adaptation over a long period of time leads to speciation.
Speaking of dogs, even though they can interbreed, there is more physical variation between breeds than there are between some species (because humans selectively bred them causing more rapid change). You can see how much physical difference can occur in only a few centuries, so why can't you believe that even more significant changes are possible over much, much, much longer timespans?
A black man has adapted to his climate in the same way white men of the north have adapted to their climate. There is no evolution from black to white man. In fact many of the first evolutionists argued that white people evolved from blacks and used this Belief to argue their views on race superiority. And getting back to what you mentioned about sharing DNA. DNA are building blocks, just cause we may share alot of the same types of building blocks as another species, it doesn't mean we evolved from them. You are just assuming that we evolved from each other to back up the theory that you believe in.
Evolution is adaptation, adaptation to the point where a sub-group of organisms becomes isolated and diverges genetically enough that it can no longer interbreed with its parent group.
It's not just that DNA are building blocks, it's that we can observe exactly how DNA changes from one generation to the next. Human DNA exists in a pattern that supports evolution.
You assume That if a person comes from a religious background that their arguement is invalid. Would i qualify better in your books if I were brought up an Atheist and turned to christianity? I have studied extensively myself and yes i have read books on evolution. For and against.
Of course I don't. I simply asked whether you have a non-religious reason for doubting evolution. What could cause doubts strong enough for you to disagree with 99% of scientists?
Then likewise so is Evolution, surely we would have fossil evidence to support a species changing from one to another. Unless you believe in the punctuated equilibrium version of evolution. And there you also have it, evolutionists cant even agree on how the species evolved from one to another, why? ... no proof!
You're asking for something which is impossible. All fossils are fossils of individual organisms and individual organisms don't evolve, evolution occurs over much longer periods of time and between generations. Unless we find fossils of every generation of humans and their ancestors that has ever existed, there will always be gaps. Is that the only thing that would remove your doubts? In that case we haven't "proven" that the planets orbit around the sun yet because we haven't directly observed them all at every stage of their orbit, we just have a theory which predicts their orbits which has so far been accurate.
The perfect way in which DNA evidence and fossil evidence corroborate each other is more than enough evidence to prove evolution beyond reasonable doubt.
Even if you don't think it's proven, the theory is supported by all the available evidence, whereas there is absolutely nothing to support creationism.
Let's put it another way. You accept microevolution, i.e. small genetic changes of a short period of time, so how can you logically refuse to accept macroevolution, i.e. large genetic changes over a long period of time?