On the (cladistic) vain search for “the tree of life”

The new approach in biological systematics called “Cladistics” rests on the claim that there is a “true tree of life” (which it thus calls “The Tree of Life“).

Now, if this claim is correct. then Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation, the fact that time is relative, the fact that quantum mechanics is correct, the fact that address is distinct from location, the fact that there is a difference between procedural and object oriented programming, the fact that there is a difference between you and me, the fact that there is a difference between a point and a line, the fact that there is a difference between object and class. and the fact that reality is in continuous change, is wrong. Furthermore, then this “tree” actually couldn’t have originated (can’t originate?).

So, this claim is obviously instead simply plain wrong. At a closer inspection, anyone can see that it actually is a logical somersault from our conceptualization of reality in terms of objects and classes into excluding objects from conceptualization by conflating classes with objects. Such a thing (ie, a “true tree of life”) is thus simply not to be found, because it is actually paradoxically contradictory. Cladists will thus search for this thing forever without success. The thing simply is not to be found although cladists claim that it is to be found.

Now, we live in a free world. Noone can stop cladists from pursuing their vain chase. But, why encourage them by paying them for it? Who, apart from cladists themselves, get something out of it? The fact that they can’t halt at any particular “tree” (actually graph illustrating the origin of biodiversity), because all trees actually are paradoxically contradictory, serves them well, because they don’t want to halt ever. The chase is their living. But, again, why pay their living? Are they entertainers coming up with new true “tree of life” now and then? And, how shall biological sciences handle this continuous change in classification of biological organisms? Do they have to perform new, and possibly several different, scientific investigations on different classes of the same biological organisms every time cladists “find” new “true trees”, or possibly several cladists “find” different “true trees” (all of which are paradoxically contradictory)?

Why should sensible people accept cladists eroneous claim? Darwin’s theory of evolution does not require acceptance of this claim. The only fact we have to acknowledge in order to acknowledge Darwin’s theory of evolution and escape both Creationism and Cladistics is that there are several different “true” illustrations of the origin of biodiversity. This acknowledgement leads us back to an orthogonal system of classification (like the Linnean systematics) to illustrate the origin of biodiversity, which is called “Evolutionary taxonomy”. Evolutionary taxonomy is thus the “third” option liberating us from both Creationism and Cladistics, which grand old evolutionists like GG Simpson and PD Ashlock also used.

The fundamental question is whether there is a single true description of reality or not, because if there is, then either Creationism or Cladistics or any other creation description is correct, whereas if there isn’t, then we have to refrain to an orthogonal system of classification, like Linnean systematics. The problem with creation descriptions (in general) is, however, that they are paradoxically contradictory, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated with his paradox. It means that there is no creation description that isn’t paradoxically contradictory, and thus that we have to refrain to an orthogonal system of classification, like Linnean systematics. The practical problem is thus not whether there is a single true description of reality or not, but which orthogonal system of classification we shall refrain to. The problem is not whether dream or reality is real, but which real system of classification we shall refrain to. Cladistics’ vain search for “the tree of life”  is actually just an inconsistent creation description (like Creationism), although it looks like science by using classes. Its inconsistent reasoning is actually the same as in Creationism.

Our practical problem is thus to hone our orthogonal systems of classification describing the origin of biodiversity instead of finding the “true tree of life”, because there isn’t any “true tree of life” to be found. The only alternative to this practical problem is to search for a “true” evolutionary description, all of which are paradoxically contradictory. These are the only options we have. Dream is dream and reality is reality.

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