(Part 1)

“Evolution is the process by which species adapt to environmental pressures and divide into spin-off species over time, which in turn can split into more forms. Once a population cannot "breed true" with another population, they are distinct species.”

Ignore the word "evolution" in that sentence, and it's called breeding and adaptation ;) . Anything past that cannot be tested by the Scientific Method.

All what you're referring to here is just "horizontal" variation of "species". Whether by genetic drift or mate choice, it does not innovate. In other words, genetics is conservative, not creative - and you've just proved it by saying that, whether these "spin-offs" can or cannot interbreed is besides the point: Fruit flies are still fruit flies; mosquitoes are still mosquitoes; beetles are still beetles (cats are cats, dogs are dogs, etc. etc. etc.). It's the same tired old story of the variation of beaks Darwin noticed on the Galápagos Islands

“All life on Earth has an ancestry this way.”

Observational science tells a very different picture. It's only through imagination palaeontologists have that tells us stories of how all creatures came from a single common ancestor - which as I've already stated, cannot be tested by the Scientific Method; nor is there any objective observable evidence that this is true.

“The idea that this is counter to the existence of a god is not only a regionally limited idea but a fairly recent one.”

This is besides the point, as it's an eisegesis vs. exegesis matter, but I'll get on to its origins in the other reply.

Most who push this simply do not know what it is they are discussing.

You're the one who thought I said "we evolved from monkeys" :roll: . You're not even understanding what I'm talking about here, let alone anything else!

“I follow scythemantis and saw him poking fun at some of your responses but I'm more interested in the topic of evolution and adaptation.”

Aah, ignorant, pretentious minds think alike.