If you actually understood anything about the objections that you are copying from those same materials, you wouldn't have so much trouble when asked to define terms or explain the problems they claim to present. There are many other basic logic fallacies in your arguments that will be addressed as they occur. Finally, I will be including many key questions and rebuttals from my previous response that you did not answer or respond to this time. I think that a little refresher will demonstrate otherwise and will drive home the point that it is very unlikely that you have any real understanding of what you are complaining about. That analysis has yet to be produced.
Evolution is simply a change in gene frequency in a population.
These changes result in offspring being different from their parents. This is the problem with evolutionary terminology. Your problem is in your insistence upon incorporating the effects of evolution into its definition. Speciation is not morphological change and morphological change is not speciation. A morphological change is nothing more than offspring being different from their parents.