On cladistics

The problem for any theory on an evolutionary history of biodiversity is that it is impossible to define a kind of entity that "evolves". The reason is that such a kind of entity is the opposite to fundamental entities (like organisms), and that such a kind of entity is paradoxically contradictory by combining the two aspects "process" and "pattern" of fundamental entities, a fact also Bertrand Russell demonstrated with Russell's paradox. A kind of evolving entity is thus a paradox per definition.

Darwin bypassed this problem by simply using the kind of entity Linné created in the framework of his biological systematics, that is, "species". This kind of entity is, however, defined in terms of the genera in Linné's systematics, which Darwin excludes in his theory. Such "species" thus lose their definition in the framework of Darwin's theory, instead being turned into the paradox that a kind of evolving entity is per definition.

This problem led biological systematics after Darwin into a long discussion about "what a species is". This question is, however, obviously posed the wrong way around (ie, backwards), comprehending "species" as a kind of entiy that exists but which we have difficulties to define, when kinds of entities actually are something we distinguish by definitions. Kinds are not something we find, but something we distinguish. The problem was (and is) thus actually not "what a species is", but instead that it is impossible to define any kind of evolving entity.

In the midst of this discussion, the German Nazi entomologist Willi Henning took one further step in this inconsistency by bypassing this backward problem by discussing species as if they already were defined, instead shifting focus to "the tree of life" for these "species". This step really messed up the fundamental problem that it is impossible to define any kind of evolving entity. The step is consistent in that if there is a kind of entities like species, then there is also a tree of life (given the the theory of a common origin of biodiversity is correct), but inconsistent in that there can't be any kind of evolving entities (like "species"). Hennig simply moved things ahead by pretending that the fundamental problem that it is impossible to define any kind of evolving entity was solved.

Hennig's move unleashed a pent-up desire among biological systematists to find a strictly evolutionary classification, ie, a tree of life, although the fundamental impossibility to define any kind of evolving entity wasn't solved, a move that was called "cladistics". So, what did cladists encounter on the other side of sense, ie, in nonsense? The answer is: Russell's paradox. Cladists in fact assume (actually claim) that Russell's paradox can be found, instead of understand that it is a paradox. Their belief in "species" (actually in classes in general) has thus led them to its unavoidable end point, that is, to acknowledging Russell's paradox as a reality, Cladists thus in fact believe (actually claim) that paradoxes can be found.

The consistent conclusion is, of course, the other way around, that is, that it is impossible to find a non-contradictory (ie, unambiguous) tree of life, because such a thing is a paradox per definition. Cladistics has thus got everything totally and perfectly up-side-down.