Problems still remain for "evolution", even with this attempt at "explanation", and, to an extent, because of it. The process essentially describes "evolution" as proceeding determinedly, with a will of its own. No considerations of a change being lost, not exerting itself so much that it causes a new type of animal to come about. But, Darwin described it as acting only to provide survival advantage. But, if a precursor species can last long enough for "evolution" to take place, that means the precursors already are well adapted to the environment, and so have no impetus to change. And, again, consider the first creature to arrive that cannot even mate successfully with siblings or parents. Who does it mate with to produce a new line?

But, if a precursor species can last long enough for "evolution" to take place, that means the precursors already are well adapted to the environment, and so have no impetus to change.

If you can't be bothered to read text books, you can find answers to that question in more entertaining form in "The Beak of the Finch".

consider the first creature to arrive that cannot even mate successfully with siblings or parents. Who does it mate with to produce a new line?

Did you even bother to read the article? The topic is speciation not being an all-or-nothing process, contrary to the assumption you need for your objection to be valid. From the article:
Pairs of populations/species falling in this zone are typically characterized by a semi-permeable genome: some genes are freely exchanged between populations, but some are blocked and contribute to isolation - the so-called species barriers.

that means the precursors already are well adapted to the environment, and so have no impetus to change
The godder expects that we live in the perfect world that god hath created and so cant acknowledge that it changes. He cant acknowledge that species create more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity because that implies nstability. And he cant accept that population pressure compels life to seek out new niches to inhabit because that would imply that gods plan was incomplete.

So of course he is blind to the need for new species.

Sigh seems under the impression that just quoting a section of the article "refutes" flaws in the claims of the article. The fact is, in "speciation", at some point, by definition, a creature is born that cannot mater with its own siblings. Random mutations make it completely incapable of producing offspring with them. Where, then, does it find a mate? Will random mutations produce a member of the same group to be such that they can mate with the creature?
In their wholesale hatred of God and me, TheGhostofOtto1923 has declared that the purpose of "evolution" is filling all niches, not helping progeny survive in their own niche as conditions change.

not helping progeny survive in their own niche as conditions change
-This doesn't mean anything. You want to change definitions to suit your argument. And you bet I hate that.

"In ecology, a niche is a term with a variety of meanings related to the behavior of a species living under specific environmental conditions..."

-Note 'specific'. A changed condition indicates a new niche. And of course a group of animals which have expended a lot of 'effort' over the course of many gens adapting to this new niche, will resist contamination from the old gene pool which would compromise those adaptations.

This is the reason why at some point diverging groups can no longer mate. It is also BTW the source of prejudice and bigotry in the human animal. The 'urge to diverge'.