Yes, for the first 3, no for 4, 5 I can't speak to.<quoted text>
Was not there a first airplane and the first pilot?
The first automobile?
The first bicycle?
The first red rose?
In your case to bringing it closer to home, the first as*h*le.
Do you know what a ring species is? It's a species that has a huge geographic barrier in the middle of its range. So the species goes around it - that effectively breaks up the species' environments such that each population has a slightly different one.
So think of them as living around a ring. None in the middle, and they can only reproduce with each other along the sides.
If you compare one population to the two adjacent it, they look almost the same. But if you compare populations that are separated by a lot of distance (in ring species only), they look quite different. In fact, they don't look like the same species, even though they are connected through gene flow along a geographic continuum.
All species are like ring species, except that we're travelling through time. So if you take an extant individual now and compare it to one member of the same lineage 500 generations ago, then 1000 generations ago, and so on, the differences add up until you get a very different morphology.
Your problem is in how you conceptualize nature. You are thinking of it in terms of discrete categories. Normally you use bad categories, like "horseshoe crab" instead of species categories that are more specific (hence the word "species").
But in this case, if you want to understand how species change over time, you have to drop the categories and see them as gene pools. Over time genes are added and subtracted from the gene pool - and that creates slightly different morphologies (bodies with physical characteristics).
Does this make sense to you? Am I using difficult technical jargon?