[RightWhale]

I see the pattern. Funny thing, though, they say no two snowflakes are alike. Might be so, and likewise no two quartz crystals are alike. The specific shape and composition of the crystal indicates each crystal forms to a different pattern. The pattern disappears unless the reference is to an ideal pattern. A pattern in the mind.

Anyway, back to evolution, the science of taxonomy.

[VadeRetro]

You know, you're right, that last one isn't absolutely identical to this one.

For all that, there's a consistency in nature. A pattern. It's out there to be seen.

I don't like semantics and I don't like "It's all in the mind" unless something really IS all in the mind. Some things are all in the mind, but not everything.

Taxonomy is somewhat arbitrary, yes. It tends to fail as you go back in the fossil record to the divergence point between branches. The taxons tend to be based on specimens from farther up the branches where the distinction is clearer.

That wouldn't happen so much if evolution were false. That it does happen quite reliably points to evolution having happened.