[DannyTN]

"It provides the only practical framework for a taxonomic structure, allowing a systematic study or a confusing collection of species. "

Evolution is not even necessary for that.

The first catalogue of the animal kingdom was produced 250 years ago before Darwin and was based on similar morphology but not evolution. And at least two of the most prolific cataloguers after Darwin didn't beleive in evolution.

Evolution only adds evolutionary lineage, based also on morphology, but that lineage is questionable. Evolution mistakes species variability for transition from species to species.

[gitmo]

What you said is true, but concepts of evolution provide a framework in which there should be a "correct" placement for a species in the taxonomic structure. Without it, the placement is simply by convention based on morphological similarities.

In reality, however, it still boils down to conventional acceptance of proposed structure. The biological community has to agree with the phylogeny proposed for a group, and evolutionary theory provides no proofs. For example, moving Fungi into its own Kingdom assumes an independent phylogeny from plants. Some of us agree, some disagree.

[b_sharp]

"Evolution only adds evolutionary lineage, based also on morphology, but that lineage is questionable. Evolution mistakes species variability for transition from species to species."

Define 'species'. You apparently don't accept that used by 'evolutionists, you must have your own version. Share it with the rest of us.

Do you consider bears, dogs and raccoons to be the same or different species?