On the route into the consistently inconsistent reasoning that is called "cladistics"

Those biological systematists that are called cladists believe that there is a single true description of the origin of biodiversity, which they call "the true tree of life". Whether they also believe that there is a single true description of any other historical event, a single true painting of any part of reality, or a single true description of our the present reality is unknown, but the reason for this their obviously erroneous belief is known - that they believe that "species" are real.

Cladistics actually started with a discussion trying to find an answer to the question: what is a species? The answer to this question was sought after by trying to find a definition that encompasses everything they put into the concept "species". When this discussion had reached tens of different definitions, some of the biological systematists (ie, the cladists) simply changed focus from this question into the question: which is the true tree of life? The fact that this question requires an answer to the former question was dealt with by trying to define "species" post-hoc circularly in terms of the notion of a "true tree of life". This circularity led cladists into the erroneous belief in a "true tree of life" by simply shifting focus from one question to another without them even being aware of that it did. Once in the belief, they simply didn't know how to get out of it, because they didn't know how they got into it. They were simply stuck in the belief by lacking the understanding that could have kept them outside of it.

The original question was thus: what is a species? Now, this question is inconsistent by asking for what we actually decide. A species is simply what we say a species is. If we, for example, say that humans is a species, and define what we mean by "human", then humans is a species. It isn't more complicated than that. The (cladistic) idea that the question "what is a species?" has an answer rests on the assumption that species are real, ie, existing entities, like objects (eg, organisms), an assumption that, however, is inconsistent, since not both objects and species can be real at the same time by being orthogonal. If objects are real, then species are abstract, and vice versa. In conceptualization, there has to be a difference between "real" and "abstract" (ie, the represented and representation), and one of them has to be on the opposite side to the other to avoid self-contradiction. In a fundamental sense, it doesn't really matter whether we call objects or species real, but in a consistency sense, species can't, of course, be real if objects (eg, organisms) are abstract. Species can't consist of abstract entities, but abstract species can consist of real objects. This means that objects (eg, organisms) has to be real, and species has to be abstract to avoid inconsistency.

There is, however, a further problem with the concept species. Whereas an object is single both in reality and in abstraction, a species is a infinite in abstraction (ie, a type, or abstraction) and finite in reality (ie, a category). It means that assuming that species are real (and thus can be defined) conflates infinity with finity, which can't be practically accomplished, since infinity and finity are orthogonal. This imposibility composes a practical barrier to all attempts to define the concept species. No matter how "natural" we think that species are, we still will thus never succeed to define them. Instead, they are actually impossible to define.

We can thus describe the origin of biodiversity in terms of "the origin of species", but this description can never reach unambiguity, since species can't be unambiguous. Changing focus from the definition of species into "the true tree of life" does not change this fact, but just discards it. This discarding does thus not , however, change this fact, but just leads into the consistently inconsistent reasoning that cladistics is.