Phylogenetics is not cladistics

Phylogenetics is the science that studies evolution. Evolution, in turn, is an extremely difficult subject to study, since, unlike change, evolution does not proceed via physically coherent entities, like organisms or cells, but by change in such physically coherent entities and natural selction among them over generations. The difficulty does thus reside in that evolution are both the result of change and change at the same time. It is like a vector having both an absolute value and a direction at the same time.

This duality challenges our imagination: can we keep track of two orthogonal lines of reasoning at the same time? Can we understand the nature of evolution when there isn’t any entities that evolve at all – neither any species, nor any other kind of entities. Can we understand diversification of the biological diversity consistently in both lines of reasoning at the same time? Can we paint evolution unambiguously?

The answer is yes to the first three questions, but no to the fourth. Yes we can both keep track of two orthogonal lines of reasoning at the same time, understand the nature of evolution when there isn’t any entities that evolve at all, and understand diversification of the biological diversity consistently in both lines of reasoning at the same time, but no, we can’t paint evolution unambiguously. The reason for the failure of the fourth is that the two lines of reasoning are orthogonal, ie, lacking a common point, because we simply can’t turn ambiguity unambiguous.

Cladistics’ solution to this factual problem is to turn it up-side-down, ie, to claim that we indeed can turn ambiguity unambiguous. The problem with this solution is that it does not solve the problem, but just pretends to. Fact is still that we can’t turn ambiguity unambiguous, but now we believe we can. The fact that we can’t do what we believe we can do means that our goal is a paradox (which Bertrand Russell demonstrated 1901 and today is known as Russell’s paradox). We simply believe in something that isn’t to be found (ie, a single true tree of life). Our turning up-side-down of a fact hasn’t changed this fact, but just our acknowledgement of it. We have simply left the scientific track of acknowledging facts in favor for acknowledging a belief, which, in this case, has led us to a paradox called Russell’s paradox. This solution is thus not a solution of the problem, but just of how we relate to it. It merely denies the problem.

Phylogenetics is thus not cladistics. Instead, cladistics is an over-simplified version of phylogenetics. Cladistics is a paradoxically contradictory version of phylogenetics for the dummies, whereas phylogenetics itself is for the scientific phylogeneticists. The worst part with this diversification is that cladistics contradicts phylogenetics, ie, that inconsistent over-simplification contradicts the scientific approach. The battle between them is thus a battle between belief and science. Phylogeneticists have to take the battle with cladists to retain a position between all different beliefs also in biological systematics (called Evolutionary taxonomy)..

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/