The problem with the notion of a “single true tree of life” is not a problem with choosing between evolution and creationism

Cladists think that a belief in a “single true tree of life” is a matter of belief in either evolution or creation (ie, creationism). This thought utterly wrong. The problem with the belief in a “single true tree of life” is not a problem with belief in evolution, but a problem with that the notion is an inconsistent (actually paradoxically contradictory) model of evolution. Evolution simply can’t proceed according to this model, because reality isn’t inconsistent. If it had been, then no model could have described it.

No, the problem with the notion of a “single true tree of life” is that the model fails because it erroneously assumes that it is kinds (ie, classes) that are real instead of objects. Kinds (classes) actually can’t be real, because it would exclude change and thereby also evolution. The notion thus excludes the basis for its own existence. It is thus wrong if it is right. A consistent model instead has to assume that objects are real, because only objects can change (and thus can provide the basis for the larger-scale assumed evolution). A model that fulfills this requirement is the Linnean systematics (actually any orthogonal system of classification).

This fact (ie, that the Linnean systematics, or actually any orthogonal system of classification) is a consistent model of evolution may appear strange to those of us that don’t understand object oriented programming (OOP). but is none the less a fact. The problem for us to understand this fact is that we expect that evolution can be described both consistently and unambiguously at the same time, when fact is that “consistency” and “unambiguity” are incompatible, because consistency is ambiguous. Nothing can be both consistent and unambiguous, because consistency is ambiguous.

A belief in evolution does thus not require a belief in a “single true tree of life”, but rather excludes it. The consistent replacement of a belief in a “single true tree of life” is any orthogonal system of classification, like Linnean systematics. Evolution is thus not a matter of the origin of species according to a strictly dichotomously branching model, but according to an orthogonally branching model, like Linnean systematics. It means that although Darwin understood evolution, he, obviously, did not understand modeling reality. If he had, then he would have understood that the Linnean systematics is a consistent model of evolution. The only problem for us to accept this fact is that we don’t want to accept the fact that evolution can’t be described unambiguously. This fact is thus unwanted. (And, as usual, we try to explain away unwanted facts).

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