On cladistics and “natural groups”

If one cell gives rise to two cells by division (as the figure below illustrates), then the remaining two cells form a clone.

Clade_1

However, if all these three cells (ie, the ancestor and the two descendants) are considered as “a group”, as in cladistics, then this “group” conflates “now” with “then”, and does thereby also conflate “pattern” with “process”.

And, since pattern and process are orthogonal, this conflation enters Russell’s paradox, meaning that it in practice lacks A SINGLE solution, but instead has TWO consistent solutions whereof each point at the other.

This kind of group is thus not “natural”, as cladists claim, but instead The Shortest Way to conflate pattern with process (ie, particle with wave). Fact is thus that this kind of group is not a “natural group”, but rather the “natural conflation” of pattern with process. As such, it actually reveals exactly how (class) realists conflate pattern with process.

The question is thus not whether this kind of group is “natural” or not, but rather how biological systematists could have let cladists take command of biological systematics, when cladistics actually is inconsistent (ie, paradoxically contradictory). Who benefits of an inconsistent biological systematics?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s