First, you admit here that species actually exist.
Admit? No part of the argument is the existence of species. There's no "admission" here. it was never in contention. But a species is no longer the best level to consider evolution at.
As I noted in response to serviscope_minor, there are other examples of macroscopic phenomena which don't make sense to consider only in terms of the smallest scale that contains the phenomena.
There's sound, and there's music. Your contention is that evolution is like music, not sound. That's wrong, because music is about a subjective appreciation of art. And evolution, like sound, is a purely objective physical process. Music only exists at a macroscopic level. Evolution exists at the gene level.
That you observe the outcomes of gene selection at the species level rather then the gene level is a function of what your senses are capable of perceiving not what is actually happening. You also may notice that iron goes rusty, and to you that means it turns from grey to reddish brown. But what's really happening is happening at the molecular level.
But it can also experience higher level selection (such as survival being dependent on morphological properties such as size, speed, or physical appearance) which can depend on a subtle mix of large numbers of genes acting together.
Correct. But the way those high level features continue is through selection of those genes individually. There is no other level that selection works at. If a gene finds itself in an lifeform that has an advantage in part because the action of that gene in combination with other genes, then it will be more likely to successfully reproduce. Period.