On the fundamental battle in biological systematics between Linnean systematics (Evolutionary taxonomy) and cladistics

Biological systematics has been struggling with the issue whether kinds are real or not since the dawn of Man. The fundamental problem with this issue is that it confronts kinds and relationship groups (including single entities) concerning which of them that comes first (aka is real). This problem is actually insoluble, since kinds can't be real without single entities, and relationship groups can't be real without kinds. This fact means that kinds must be both real and not real at the same time, which, in turn, is explained by that reality has two aspects: pattern (ie, kinds) and process (ie, relationship groups) at the same time. None of them thus comes first, but both of them are, instead, simultaneous.

However, logical reasoning requires something that comes first, that is, a presumption, or axiom. It means that there are two diametrically opposite (ie, orthogonal) lines of logical reasonings, which thus are completely contradictory in not sharing a single common point. These are thus not contradictory in opinion, but in subject. They simply don't handle the same subject. Whereas one discusses kinds and derives relationship groups, the other discusses relationship groups and derives kinds. These two orthogonal lines of reasoning meet each other in biological systematics in discussing the same subject, ie, biological systematics, but not the same subject, ie, kinds and relationship groups, respectively, at the same time. They thus think they talk about the same thing, but do actually not share a single common point (ie, meaning of a concept). Instead, they dance an orthogonal dance around the insolubility that "kinds can't be real without single entities, and relationship groups can't be real without kinds". Both of them think that there is a solution to be found, which actually is the only shared point between them, and also the point that drags them into this orthogonal dance.

The orthogonal dance between the two possible lines of logical reasoning does thus not have any single solution -.neither kinds nor relationship groups comes before the other, ie, is more real. However, this lack of solution means that one of them has to end in ambiguity and the other in paradoxical contradiction, since these are the only possibilities except unambiguity. Concerning this issue, Betrand Russell demonstrated in 1901 that assuming as an axiom that kinds comes before relationship groups, ie, that kinds are real, which cladistics assumes, is paradoxically contradictory. This fact leaves the axiom that relationship groups, fundamentally single entities, comes first, ie, is real as the consistent (although ambiguous) alternative. It means that assuming that relationship groups comes first, ie, are real, as Linnean systematics does, is the consistent alternative, although it may appear illogical to cladists.

A thorough consideration of the contradiction between Linnean systematics (Evolutionary taxonomy) and cladistics in biological systematics does thus result in Linnean systematics (Evolutionary taxonomy) as the winner, although it was invented before Darwin's theory of evolution. This fact is something biological systematists have to try to understand for the coming millenias of years (they obviously can't today) to escape the eternal othogonal dance around a lacking single "correct" solution.