"Best" evidence for evolution.

You're going to have to stick with 'kind', or the scientific 'Family'. 'Species' has a different meaning. Every one of those categories has identifiable morphological features and are genetically related. That's why they're in the categories they're in. Except that they proveably are. That's why they're grouped that way. This is science Faith; it's not made up, you can see exactly how if you need to. But, of course, you won't. They'll be identical because you're doing the same things that taxonomists do. Mind you, it's get damn complicated with some organisms, but you've got enough on your plate just dealing with the big and obvious ones like dogs and cat.Not that you're actually going to attempt any of this of course.

You can't mix terminology. If you recognise animals below your kind as individual non-interbreeding groups - which I'm sure you do - then you need a category name for them. Maybe kinders and sub-kinders. Whatever you call them they'll settle into the same groups that science has already defined. And if you don't call them anything, they'll still exist. I'm sure that you'll soon find that you do otherwise you'd have to name each animal individually.And as for anything above Family, well just as an obvious example how about insects? They're an enormous Class - way above family but maybe you'd put them as a kind? Beetles alone contain 400,000 species and, as an Order they are also above family. Are beetles a kind?It doesn't matter what you call these groups, you're doing what has already been done, then drawing a totally arbitrary line in different places in a totally subjective way. No two creationists would be able to agree what the kind is because you have no objective way of drawing the line. So the level of developed detail in your new taxonomy is that 'some time back some told you something'. Impressive.You'll never even start to do this task because you know that you can't. Instead, what you'll do is tell yourself that you've done for cats and dogs and that'll do for you.

Well my prophecy came true with a couple of days. Fastest yet.Basically you're not interested because you've begun to realise that you're making shit up that you can't defend, yet again. 'Kind' has no objective descriptive value. Done.

Your welcome, but you know that's as basic as basic gets. I really wish you'd actually learn something.

Uh? Where are you getting that from? Cheetah's are related to pumas and lynx and evolved in the usual way millions of years ago.Cheetah - Wikipedia

Pretty much everything. There isn't another point of view, if you're arranging organisms by morphology and genetic relatedness you are forced to arrive at our current taxonomy because that is how it is done.

How do you know, all you've looked at is cats and dogs? And by looked I mean you've seen a picture. You tell us you're not interested in anything else, couldn't care less about insecta but have decided - from total ignorance - that all trilobites are a kind; an entire class, 4 categories above family. Go girl.Ultimately whatever you do (but of course you won't actually do anything) will arrive at the same classification as our modern taxonomy and you'll then arbitrarily pick a category and claim it to be a kind. You picked family for dogs and cats. Only a few thousand more decisions to make.

Right, so you and you alone are the arbiter of what is classed as a kind. And they say Americans don't get irony.

We bow to your knowledge and intellect. What are your thoughts on worms? When is a worm not a worm?We know with certainty that you'll do absolutely nothing about the Faith Classification System while thinking that you have.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Oh, silly me, you've already published your taxonomy? Please provide a reference.