Your definitions of "species" are completely arbitrary.

And moreover, they don't work either. I.e., darwinists claim that different species can't interbreed, even though species that aren't "supposed" to be able to interbreed can do so, and even though darwinists also paradoxically, at the same time, INSANELY, make an antithetical claim that debunks their very own other claim, that different species can interbreed!

To wit,

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-skull-could-be-from-human-group-that-interbred-with-neandertals/

New Skull Could Be from Human Group that Interbred with Neandertals

What?! So your definition of species is based on the fact that they can't interbreed with one another, except for when they can?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!? truthy, can I get an AMEN (or at least a HEEHARHAWWWW or something???) for how LUDICROUS darwinists' insane & non-functional definition" of species is?!?!??!?!?!?!

darwinists call something a "different species" or not based on subjective opinion-based judgements.

What you call "speciation" is, in actuality, merely variation within a single kind of life. It is not, as your evolution story requires, evidence of lower forms of life transforming into new, higher forms of life.

Now, let's pretend for a moment that I didn't have any of the evidence which I just used to destroy your "specieation" argument (that evidence, by the way, is just one drop in the bucket)...

Even if darwinists did legitimately observe some "specieation"...that would still be grossly insufficient to prove their outlandish claims. darwinists claim that bacteria "descended" into all forms of life. So unless/until they observe every single one of those alleged transformations of "specieation," then their extraordinary claim of "common descent of all life forms from bacteria" will remain the unproven faith-based belief that it has always been.