I'm going to quote a lot you probably won't read from the above link, but at the bottom I'll bold the bit that says you're operated on flawed historical assumptions that predate DNA. Stuff that used morphology (what something looks like) because that's all we could do

First off, you're not understanding what a subspecies is, so quoting that bit:

Subspecies are groups at the first stage of speciation; individuals of different subspecies sometimes interbreed, but they produce many sterile male offspring. At the second stage are incipient species, or semispecies; individuals of these groups rarely interbreed, and all their male offspring are sterile. Natural selection separates incipient species into sibling species, which do not mate at all but which in morphology, or structure and form, are nearly indistinguishable. Sibling species then evolve into morphologically (and taxonomically) different species. Because it is often difficult to distinguish between subspecies and stable species, another criterion has been developed that involves a historical, or phylogenetic, dimension. In this form, a species is separated from another when there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent.

Fourteen species of Galapagos finches that evolved from a common ancestor. The different shapes of their bills, suited to different diets and habitats, show the process of adaptive radiation.

Speciation may occur in many ways. A population may become geographically separated from the rest of its species and never be rejoined. Through the process of adaptive radiation, this population might evolve independently into a new species, changing to fit particular ecological niches in the new environment and never requiring natural selection to complete its reproductive isolation from the parent species. Within the new environment, populations of the new species might then radiate into species themselves. A famous example of adaptive radiation is that of the Galapagos finches.

But here's the part about genetic you got backwards:

There are many hypotheses about how speciation starts, and they differ mainly in the role of geographic isolation and the origin of reproductive isolation (the prevention of two populations or more from interbreeding with one another).

The evidence for speciation formerly was found in the fossil record by tracing successive changes in the morphology of organisms. Genetic studies now show that morphological change does not always accompany speciation, as many apparently identical groups are, in fact, reproductively isolated.

Like, it's almost impressive that you managed to be so convinced of the opposite of the scientific consensus in every possible way...

Where are you getting your information?

TikTok?