"Kind"ly Creationism

Dear Lithodid-Man,I use kind with both fossil and recent organisms. I just attract a short attention in that only fossil species are defined with uncertainty (impossible to test the interbreeding). This is inconsistent for genus because of the following explanation.Kind (genus) is the taxonomic division immediately above species. I mean that you have a kind (genus) when you are able to demonstrate an evolutionary trajectory through time scale underling and supported by fossil records. I insist on the fact that the time between two fossil records must be at least superior of 2,5 million years for a fish.
In fossil fish taxonomy, we have a few Goody-two-shoes completely ignorant of this concept. They still create genus each time they found something different. Before rejoining this forum, I was not aware about the Creatos though (nothing here like that). I suspect the concerned Goody2S to be cryptic Creationists.Denesha

I'm glad you reached the same conclusion than me.
On a simple question, answers are technoligicaly disproportionate.
I don't think this is really helpful and reflect a bad (false) idea of what scientists are (and prefer not show).Denesha

Dear Dr. Brad,Currently, modern taxonomy illness is the result of too many peoples erect new taxa AND different other peoples arrange them in the Classification. The result is near to a pity in some special cases (polyphyletic famillies). This doesn't not mean that all is good for the wastebasket. We have a snapshot of an edification.
To be honest, I can't believe your Barmin concept could be really helpful for the moment and in this context. We have nothing at the rank "kind", only genus. The best to do is to let taxonomist more time to cleanup these little mess.Denesha

Dear Brad McFall,Accept my apologies for misspelling your name.I have a problem with your generous reply. I can't understand more than 10% of it and when reed the whole reply, I forgot for a short moment, the thread of my initial post.Denesha

Yes. It's not the right place to debate of this but I'm firmly convinced that a polyphyletic resolution underscores a wobbly general consideration in my field (fishes). I'll stay on the thread subject.
The main error is the blindness and tenacious desire of systematical gathering based on erroneous or inconsistent taxonomic features.
IOW, organisms are still related wrongly. I agree that it is not simple and quite subjective to decide which feature have a "high" taxonomic value or conversely a "low" value within a evolutionary trend. There is an obvious integrity lack from certain authors in the scientific community.Denesha

Dear Brad,I can't add more without completely escaping from this thread.
However, why not open a new thread like:
Scientific dogmatism: how can some "gurus" ruin a student perspective?Have a nice day,Denesha