Cladistics lacks solution

The problem with the (among others cladistics’) notion of a true tree of life

is that every such “tree” contains paradoxical contradictions, since classification is ultimately paradoxical (see Russell’s paradox). The problem is thus not whether biodiversity has a common origin or not, ie, whether Darwin’s is correct or not, but that such origin can’t be described by a single non-contradictory “tree” (I’m putting “tree” within citation marks because it isn’t really a “tree”, but a dichotomously branching graph).

This problem of illustration is, however, commonly conflated with a belief in evolution or in Creation, in that understanding of that it is a problem of illustration is conflated with “disbelief” in evolution. This conflation is extremely unfortunate, since understanding of the process of evolution requires understanding of the problem with the illustration. There is no way of understanding the process of evolution without understanding of the problem with the illustration of it. The problem is that we can’t illustrate both pattern and process at the same time, and thus can’t distinguish what cladists call “clades” and “paraphyletic groups”. This distinction is thus a brain ghost. Trying to make this distinction, as in cladistics, is thus endless. It is like finding the route that passes the seven bridges of Köningsberg only once – it has no solution.

Cladistics does thus lack solution.

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