"If you can't do that, I'll have to believe..."
Assuming you're using the evolutionist's definition of "evidence" to be synonymous with "proof," then that is pretty weak evidence indeed. Like evolution, classifications are a construct of man subject to the whims of the times.
Maybe if I paraphrase, you'll see how circular your statement is: "Scientists classify living things according to a classification system based on the belief that all living things are descended from a common ancestor. Evolution predicts that all living things will fall into a classification based on common descent. Therefore evolution is true."
Your examples are either the byproduct of the false evolutionary presuppostions, or can be equally applied to creation as well.
OK. Take me back down the branching tree to the point where a reasonable, rational person would conclude, without doubt, that a fish became a lungfish became an amphibian.
If you can't do that, I'll have to believe that at some point you "assume" it, or it "could be," or it "probably" happened, or you "believe" it happened. Which, in itself, for you personally, wouldn't be such a tragic thing. It becomes tragic, however, when a whole branch of science gets corrupted by that kind of thinking, and it becomes the dominant kind of thinking in schools, government, the media and even in churches today.
Dave, maybe I misunderstood, but you have to believe what you already believe regardless of anything I can possibly say or do. You already said that no possible conceivable evidence could possibly persuade you of my point of view, that if scientists give you a "fact" that contradicts the Bible, then scientists would need to find a new fact. So why should I spend my time going from here to there with you? Is it all about me changing my own mind, and there is no need for you to change yours? Sure, I will change my mind if I see sufficient evidence for special creation. Evidences for special creation are not those minute gaps in our knowledge that evolutionary biologists don't know because they happened 300 million years ago. That is just an ad hoc reason that you come up with so you don't have to be convinced of the theory of evolution, and you will always have those ad hoc reasons. Yeah, I can't give you the day, month and year when we can all be certain that the first lungfish was born. Sorry.