“follow science” isn’t meaningful in this context though, it’s not inherently unscientific to group organisms based on commonalities that are not genetic lineage.
because i don’t think it’s attainable in a meaningful way. I think things mix and hybridize, different types of genetic material (mitochondrian vs not, etc) act differently, and evolutionary convergence makes things that are not very related act similar. Plus changes happen in spurts and drawing it out like something where everyone evolved the same amount makes no sense either. A true cladistics would have aspects of a braided river rather than a truly dendric one, which means trying to be strictly monophylletic won’t be meaningful. I think one of the reasons the current attempt to classify taxa to great detail with genetics is spouting out unusable gibberish is that it turns out life and evolution are much messier than we thought and species are just never discrete entries.
Relatedly trying to keep every thread on this forum ‘on topic’ is pretty impossible and meaningless in the same sort of way and ends up leading to what feels like arbitrary censorship. But if you want to move this to that other thread you can. Since it’s not open now i can’t do it yet.