Talk:Clade/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Clade. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Needs work

Yes this still needs work. Key issues are:

What should usefully be here? As opposed to just referring to cladistics
What is the exact definition of a clade? As opposed to how the word is used commonly. And how should this exact definition relate to this entry?

It bears thinking on, exact definitions are not easily written (and even less easily accepted). Brya 09:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I'm afraid I agree with Elijahmeeks. I'm not a *complete* idiot, but I barely understood a word of this article. Which is too bad - this is a very interesting topic. Perhaps some expert/editor could try this: imagine you're talking with a bright high school student -- start with the basics, without jargon, then move up to exacting terminology you require to be precise. JamestownArarat 01:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A good suggestion. Cladists' strongest property is, however, not listening. Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly

(Moved from talk:phylogenetics)

These should all be merged into one article, probably this one. I don't think they have the potential to stand on their own, and this article needs more detail anyway. Richard001 08:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as there is a stub that links people to the article on phylogeny, this would be fine. There should definitely be discussion of these topics on the phylogeny page.

Yeah, merge it since monophyly paraphyly and other methods of organization are organized as a parts of phylogenetics in most scientific literature.Wiki wiki1 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently paraphyly is also known as an 'evolutionary grade. We need a place which mentions such concept which is useful when talking about the now-discredited progressive evolution. See the 'Sauropsids' section (just search for it) in the article The Ancestor's Tale. Fred Hsu 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I can't see these articles growing to be much more than dictionary definitions once repetitions are done away with. Bendž|Ť 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a look to see if the word 'phyly' was used as a stand-alone term to describe the three forms, but I've only see it used once. Compare with say ploidy, which is used commonly. We could either move them all the somewhat contrived phyly, or merge them here - which is best? Richard001 07:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the target page to clade, as a monophyletic group and a clade are the same thing. This is probably the best article to redirect them to. Richard001 06:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. These three terms are very critical, but individual articles become simply dictionary entries. They key is realizing that any discussion of _one_ of the terms requires comparison with the other two terms. Thus, they should all be in one article. The real question is: what article? The only two candidates are Clade and Cladistics. Cladistics is obviously the "main" go-to article for the topic. But the "Clade" article is more specific, and its thrust is defining a certain kind of organism-grouping. Which is what these three articles are doing. Hence, these three articles would naturally fit into the Clade article. So I think it would be okay to merge these three articles into Clade.

Noleander 21:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. None of these four articles are dictionary definitions. Hundreds of articles link to these articles, so whatever decision is made should not be taken lightly, and should be brought to the attention of WP:TOL and the various animal and plant WikiProjects which link to these articles. Also, -phyly is a suffix, not a word. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. There's more than enough information on each separate terms to keep them as different pages, though I do agree all the articles need to be fleshed out quite a bit. I'd help but I haven't had much free time as of recent. --Kugamazog 01:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Giving these their own space makes it much more likely that editors will work up the best means for easily getting across the important distinctions right away, and there's plenty further to go into from there. Many folks still have a lot of "common sense" learning in this area, which would be much more readily updated with separate articles that folks manage to elegantly or at least clearly and plainly present these critical points of understanding. Linguistics articles here can often be the opposite of what I mean, but browsing about animals is likely a less esoteric exploration; the potential to illuminate things for curious folks coming by via popular articles is pretty great. --chaizzilla (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

AndrewBolt (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC) I was redirected to the Clade page by a link to Monophyletic. The summary for the page says that a clade is a monophyletic group. This is not very helpful since that is the very term I'm trying to understand. There is enough information in the article body to figure it out, but it would be if the summary didn't give an explanation in terms of the words that redirect to the page.

I have recently explained (Envall: Biol J Linn Soc, 94:217-220) that the term "clade" rests on a confusion of process and pattern, and that it therefore is inconsistent. It actually refers to both mono-, holo- and paraphyletic groups, although those that are confused (i.e., cladists) "deny" paraphyletic groups. The truthfulness of this statement is easily verified by using "clade" on paraphyletic groups; there is nothing that excludes them from the concept. The reason cladists deny paraphyletic groups is that they confuse kinds of things in a row, whereas paraphyletic groups are kinds of things alongside (and mixtures of kinds of things in a row and alongside). Their confusion thus forces them to deny the fact that also paraphyletic groups are clades. Without their confusion, clades are simply monophyletic groups, and monophyletic groups are holo- and paraphyletic groups (whereof the former is pattern and the latter are processes). Their confusion (i.e., cladism) is just as difficult to understand as the correct comprehension of phylogenies (i.e., dichotomously branching processes) is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.23.159 (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cladism is actually an unholy (i.e., hypocritical) confusion of the incompatible comprehensions held by Parmenides and Heracleitos about 2,400 years ago, which were consistently synthesized by Aristotle about 2,300 years ago (which, by the way, also laid the foundation for science in general as well as Linné's consistent and correct conceptualization of phylogenies). Cladism is thus a new attempt to handle the essential difference between process and pattern: hypocriticism (or applied inconsistency) instead of consistency. Mats Envall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.23.159 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The definition of 'clade' as "and ancestor and all its descendants" is ambiguous. Representing a phylogeny including only one splitting means that it represents one ancestor and two descendants. Representing two consecutive splittings, however, means that it represents one ancestor in the beginning, three descendants in the end, and one thing (i.e., line segment) in the middle that is ambiguous between being an ancestor and a descendant. If this ambiguity applies to all line segments in the representation, then all single things are clades, meaning that all groups of adjoining things also are clades. If not, then this ambiguity has to represent two things in a row. The definition of 'clade' thus has two meanings depending on how the ambiguity of the middle line segment is interpreted, and Hennig's interpretation actually denies his denial of paraphyletic groups. His interpretation actually includes paraphyletic groups in his definition of clades. I would analogize his attempts to get rid of paraphyletic groups with trying to get rid of snot from his forefinger by sticking it in his nose. Mats Envall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.23.159 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A partitioning of a single asymmetrical phylogeny into clades is ambiguous per definition, since things and their properties actually are both congruent and incongruent. This is shown by the fact that there are three different possibilities to define clades (i.e., stem-, apomorphy- and node-based definitions). The ambiguity means that the stem- and node-based definitions are incompatible with each other, whereas the apomorphy-based definition is incompatible with both the stem- and node-based definitions, and that each of them by themselves depends on the partitioning of properties into characters and character states, which, in turn, contains several equally correct possibilities, since properties are both congruent and incongruent. Stem- and node-based definitions only acknowledge incongruence between properties, whereas apomorphy-based definitions only acknowledges congruence between properties. The empirically correct choice between these is congruence (i.e., apomorphy-based definitions), since simultaneity (concurrency) is an undeniable fact (and a truth per definition). Stem- and node-based definitions are instead mutually contradictory and empirically wrong. The correct choice (congruence and thus apomorphy-based definitions) actually composes the foundation for the consistent and correct Linnean classification. The reason that this system does not differentiate between apo- and plesiomorphic properties is that this distinction includes the incongruence between properties which has to be discarded to avoid falling into the ambiguity (i.e., confusion) explained above, which may lead to the erroneous choice explained above. We simply have to choose between acknowledging congruence or incongruence between properties to avoid falling into a total conceptual confusion, and the empirically correct choice is congruence. This choice means that 'clades' equals mono-, holo- and paraphyletic groups (the former pattern and the latter two processes) as I explained above. Mats Envall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.23.159 (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Monophyletic groups vs clades

Why am I redirected to clades when I search for the definition of monophyletic groups? Clades are not, I repeat not, equal to monophyletic groups. Clades is a actually a conceptual confusion of the specific holophyletic groups with its generic monophyletic groups excluding the other specific paraphyletic groups. Both holo- and paraphyletic groups are thus monophyletic groups. It means that clades cannot possibly equal monophyletic groups. Are the editors confused?Consist (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I can also add that there is no article on paraphyletic groups in Wikipedia. As far as I understand, there are mono and polyphyletic groups. If someone wants to partition monophyletic groups into holo- and paraphyletic groups, confusing holo- with monophyletic groups, he should at least provide a definition of paraphyletic groups. We can only define things we see, and has anyone seen a clade or a paraphyletic group? Has biological systematics gone mad? Consist (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Paraphyletic groups" emerge if one thinks that a decendant equals its ancestor, because there are two descendants in each splitting in dichotomously branching processes. When the phylogeny is asymmetrical, this erroneous assumption leaves paraphyletic groups. 83.254.23.159 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification. Clades as well as taxa, which are not exactly the same thing are monophyletc. That is they have a single common ancestor, are derived from a single stock. While valid clades and valid taxa are monophyletec, the term monophyletic is an adjective that describes the noun.

Paraphyletic groups are another matter. They have to do with exclusivity, not with ancestry. Paraphyletic groups or taxa include some, but not all the descendants of their common ancestor as in the Synapsida, taxonomically speaking excluding the Mammalia. The principle of paraphyly which should not be that difficult to comprehend keeps taxa reasonably concise and from becoming too diverse. John McD7/26/2008

As everyone can see, John McD's "clarification" is not a clarification of the issue at all. He just explains that cladism is a confusion of mono- and holophyletic groups using the confusing concept "clade", and why paraphyletic groups can't be included in this confusion.

I understand that cladism is a confusion of mono- and holophyletic groups, and why paraphyletic groups cannot be included in the confusing concept clades. My message is that cladism is a confusion of mono- and holophyletic groups. I understand the confusion John suffers of, but only explains that it is a confusion. John, the problem is not why cladism cannot include paraphyletic groups in its confusion, but that cladism is a confusion of mono- and holophyletic groups, and that this confusion is inconsistent (that is, self-contradictory) and empirically wrong. The problem is not cladism's problem with paraphyletic groups, but cladism itself. Its problem with paraphyletic groups is actually a problem only it has. The problem isn't even recognized outside of cladism. Cladism itself has created the ghost it chases. It has created an occupation that looks like science, but which cannot reach its goals per definition. It is the golden pants if scientists do not understand or cannot reveal what it actually is. Some cladists understand this fact (e.g. Steve Farris and Gareth Nelson), whereas others (like John McD) obviously don't. There are wolves and sheeps also within cladism; the sheeps unconsciously supporting the wolves.

John McD's "clarification" of the issue above is thus actually an explanation of the cladistic confusion. I can understand it, but it is a confusion. Thorwald did at this page tell that he as teacher had seen that his students appeared to be prone to this confusion, but his contribution was unfortunately deleted from this page by cladists. Cladists do what they can to hinder the fact that cladism is a confusion to surface. Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Clades, Cladistics, etc.

There seems to be some confustion over clades and cladistics and over terms like paraphyly and polyphyly. A clade is a group of organisms stemming from a common ancestor. Diagrammatically a clade is depicted as a branch or group of branches originating at some point called a node. Since there can be ancestors before the branching point the common ancestor originating the particular clade is referred to as the "most recent common ancestor". A clade should probably not be thought of as a taxon in the ordinary (Lennaean) sense, but rather as an evolutionary continuum beginning at some selected point.

Cladistics is simply the use and analysis of clades in determining and depicting evolutionary relationships among organisms (plants, animals, etc). living or fossil.

There are two problems with pure cladistics which have to do with separability and diminishing returns. Clades cannot be separated from parent clades and derived clades become inferentially smaller and smaller. A branch on a real tree can not attain the same or greater weight as the branch from wence ti came. Nor can a clade or evolutionary branch take on a taxonomic weight equal or greater than that of the branch from wence it came. Cladistics attemps to reconcile this dilemma by eliminating taxa or by borrowing from traditional (Lennaean) taxonomy.

Cladistics is a perfectly good and valid approach to the study of organisms. But it is not the only or necessarily best approach at all times. Traditional taxonomy is not nearly as wrought with problems as some allege and often gives a better picture.

John McD7/26/2008

Cladism is inconsistent (that is, self-contradictory) and empirically erroneous as Envall has explained in the scientific literature. This statement is a matter of fact, even if John McD doesn't understand it. I bet he neither doesn't understand the relativity of time. Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources & snippets

A clade is made up of an ancestral species and all its descendants — New Scientist, 11 Sep 2004, p.13

-- Philcha (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A cladist is made up of an inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically erroneous mind. Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On the notion of clades

The notion of "clades" is actually a confusion of the specific with the generic caused by an inconsstent classification of a classification (or an inconsistent conceptualization of a conceptualization). Darwin's processual illustration of phylogenies opens a possibility for an inconsistent conceptualization of such processes by interpreting the internal lines (i.e. lines between the nodes) as single things instead of the duets of consecutive things they represent per definition. Such conceptualization is inconsistent and self-contradictory by contradicting the fundamental definition of single things, and also empirically erroneous (i.e. contradicting the fact that time is relative) by acknowledging an abstraction (i.e. an ancestor and its descendants) instead of a reality (i.e. single things). People that enter the confusion may fail to understand (or just give the impression that they don't understand) that this "acknowledgement" of an abstraction actually contradicts the prior acknowledgement of a reality, but their inability to understand does of course not change the fact that it does. This inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically erroneous confusion is encapsuled (packaged) in the notion of "clades". It means that such things (i.e. clades) do not exist, have not existed, cannot exist nor can have existed. They are simply a result of an inconsistent conceptualization. The reason for their apparent unambiguity is that they are totally subjective per definition, i.e., that everyone can have his or hers personal clades. It also means that there is no single "true" such conceptualization to be found per definition. Such "thing" is actually a "carrot in front of the donkey's eyes" or "a pie in the sky", that is, a result of an inability to understand what one is doing. Cladism is thus, in itself (i. e., trying to nail phylogeny in the form of clades), a Sisofys work per definition. The consistent conceptualization of phylogenies is instead accomplished by a system of the Linnean kind, that is, in the form of categories of categories (instead of a category of categories). Consist (presently at 83.254.20.53 (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Could you put that in plain English please? At present it reminds me of studying Hegel at university. -- Philcha (talk)

In plain English it would translate to: "it is just as impossible to distinguish clades and monophyletic groups from paraphyletic groups as it is to distinguish fruits and apples from pears".

Cladists simply misses the point of Aristotle's consistent conceptualization (using 'specifics' and 'generics' to distinguish pattern and process) totally. They appear to think that the conceptual confusion that preceeded his invention of this conceptualization is "natural". It isn't. It's inconsistent. It confuses pattern and process. The problem of the relation between pattern and process has been discussed by humanity since the emergence of discussion (i.e. of concepts), so Philcha may well have encountered it in philosophical writings. Cladists, however, are either totally ignorant of this discussion or think they have found the solution of it. I only explain that it is certainly not the latter, since the solution was found by Einstein about a century ago. The cladistic solution is instead acceptance of both sides of an incompatibility, that is, hypocrisy. Until recently, cladism survived as the orthogonal (i.e., contrary) comprehension to traditional science by "being consistent on its premises", although it obviously appeared insensible. Recently Envall (Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 94:217-220), however, drew attention to the fact that cladism also contradicts the fact that time is relative. It means that cladism is not correct in any sense, that is, totally wrong. The error resides in its basic assumption that kinds, instead of things, exist. This is a tough message, but it has to be spoken out clearly and concentrated because it is an empirical fact. Everyone is of course free to embrace any comprehension he or she prefers, but on making this choice it is important to know that cladism is inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically wrong (that is, wrong). Embracing an erroneous comprehension of reality does, of course, lead to erroneous deductions and a world of paradoxes. Consist (presently at 83.254.20.53 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

FYI: Consist is blocked indefinitely after disruptive editing having to do with pushing his own research.Sjö (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sjö is blocked indefinately from science after having deleted all sensible contributions to all possible articles and discussion pages in Wikipedia. Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What is a clade?

After reading the article, I began wondering what a clade is. Isn't the article written to explain what it is, not to awake a wonder what it is? It first says that it is "a taxonomic group comprising a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor.[1] Any such group is truly considered to be a monophyletic group, and can be represented by both a phylogenetic analysis, as in a tree diagram, and by a cladogram (see cladistics), or simply as a taxonomic reference", which protrudes as extremely confused, and then it has a section titled "Phylogenetic alternatives". I can understand that it points at lines in an illustration of a dichotomous propagation, but what is it trying to catch? Is it trying to define the old saying "eating the cake and keeping it at the same time"? If so, why not clearly state that the concept (i.e., clade) is a confusion of two incompatible phenomena, namely process and pattern, and that it therefore only is an attempt to confuse our minds (i.e., trying to do conceptual magics)? As far as I understand, the article is totally redundant. It is impossible to eat the cake and keep it at the same time. No words on earth can change this fact. The article cannot accomplish anything else than confusion of minds. Merging it with cladistics is only the third best alternative. Deleting both it and the article about cladistics is the second best alternative, and distinguishing it and phylogenetics is the best alternative. Phylogenetics does not require acknowledgement of the confusion in this article. Understanding of change in different resolutions is not even possible in light of it. Why not dismiss cladistics as the inconsistent confusion of process and pattern it is right now? Why continue fighting for an erroneous approach? Consist, presently at 83.254.20.122 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC) (will change tomorrow)

I agree that the article is a mess. I made some minor tweaks to make it a little less confusing, but I agree that ideally the article would simply be a dictionary definition. To this end, I've replaced it with a "disambiguation" style page; is that an adequate step on the way to a solution? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first person to admit that I'm not qualified to weigh in on the subject, but one side effect I've noticed is that a whole litany of pages are now listed on Special:Disambiguations, because they link here, and this page is now considered a disambiguation page. Is there another solution that would keep this as a non-disambiguation page? Thanks, Matt Mikaey (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could just have a dictionary definition but no "disambiguation" disclaimer. We might have to ignore some rules to do so though! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article can never be anything but a mess, since the reasoning behind it is a conceptual confusion. There is, however, a consistent line in the confusion, since cladistics (cladism) actually is a total conceptual confusion. It means that it is consistently up-side-down in the relation to sense, that is, non-sense. All its concepts are equal to their opposite in sense. If Wikipedia accepts cladism, it has to create a generic part for it and its reasonings, preferably called cladism. In this section, each concept has the same definition as its opposite has in the sensible section and vice versa. Cladism is just a turning of conceptualization up-side-down. If anyone wonders why humanity had to create this mess, they can send this question to Steve Farris at the Swedish National Museum of Natural History, Gareth Nelson at the university of Melbourne, Kevin de Quieroz at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC, among others. Their common denominator is that they work with abstractions. They thus have all reasons in the world to "deny" reality for a historical abstraction. I am, however, not "denying" their historical abstractions, but only explaining the consistent way to conceptualize them. I'm only allocating reality to reality and abstraction to abstraction, just like Linné did. Reality is not equal to (or in a Wikipedian language, synonymous to) abstraction, and can never be, although it can, like Thorwald concluded above, come very nearly to. Total equality, or synonymity, is subjectivity, contrary to objectivity. The conceptual space is restricted by four by four corners (time and space); in in this time-space, we can only keep concepts apart or confuse them. Science is keeping them apart, whereas cladism is confusing them. Cladism's confusion is thus a totally isolated conceptual space. It shares no concept at all with science. Even the concept for the approach itself differs between the approaches: as a science (i.e., cladistics) for cladistics itself and an -ism for science (i.e., cladism). As such, cladism requires an own encyclopedia. In a scientific encyclopedia, it has to be isolated as the antipole to conceptualization that it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.20.59 (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone seen a clade?

As a skepticist, I just wonder whether anyone has seen a clade. If such things exist, then things (like you and me) does not exist. This question is fundamental, because if anyone has seen them, I do not exist. If I do not exist, then I can do whatever I like, because I cannot be held responsible for what I do. So, can all of you that read this comment please tell me if any of you has seen a clade. (It would be a sensation, since ancestors disappear in the moment their descendants appear). If the definition in this article is correct, definitions of things that exist are not correct. Either dream or reality has to be correct. Both of them cannot be corract at the same time. Cladism is dream. Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"ancestors disappear in the moment their descendants appear"

Gosh, in that case I think I'm going to shelve my plans to have kids! (-: Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about dichotomously branching processes - phylogenies. Can't we at least keep one concept unconfused? A cell that splits into two disappears in the moment its descendants appear, or ...? What does Martin think we're talking about? His family? Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he isn't confused; you are. A clade includes the ancestral species and all of its descendant species. Just as your family includes all individuals descended from a given individual. Thus your grandfather, your father, your uncle, your cousin and yourself are all part of that family. If that group included all individuals descended from your grandfather it would be a clade. When a species forms from a new species the old one does not necessarily disappear. Speciation usually occurs in only a small portion of the parental species, leaving the majority of the parental species to continue on. The parental species can even give rise to another descendant species later on. This is the misunderstanding that underlies much of the opposition to evolutionary thought. Evolution is not transformation (the pre-Darwinian term), but rather descent with modification (Darwin's own term) or changes in allelic frequencies in a population (a modern rephrasing). Your example of a cell dividing and thus disappearing (while true for organisms that reproduce solely by mitosis) is simply a straw man as far as sexually reproducing species are concerned.199.90.28.194 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Coming back to claim this post I made without logging in.Khajidha (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Phylogenies are not consistently analogized with human relations, because the things in phylogenies disappear in the moment their descendants appear, contrary to humans which, normally, survive the appearance of their descendants. A cell that splits disappear in the moment its two daughter cells appear per definition. The cladistic confusion is "actually" expressed fairly well by Khajidha's reasoning that "When a species forms from a new species the old one does not necessarily disappear. Speciation usually occurs in only a small portion of the parental species, leaving the majority of the parental species to continue on. The parental species can even give rise to another descendant species later on". The first sentence says that "When a species forms from a new species the old one does not necessarily disappear", that is, that "a species...form from a new species...the old species does not...disappear". To whom does it make sense? The next sentence says that "Speciation usually occurs in only a small portion of the parental species, leaving the majority of the parental species to continue on", that is, that "Speciation...occurs in ...the parental species, leaving the majority of the parental species", leaving us wondering whether "parental species" is (are) singular or plural. This confusion is "actually" counterproductive to phylogenetics (and evolutionary science), not productive as Khajidha claims. Productive is to keep the evolutionary model (i.e. Darwin's model) and conceptualization of it (i.e., Linnean classification) consistently apart and consistently united. None of them is wrong; they are instead as interdependent as lock and stock for phylogenetics. Consistent phylogenetics is not possible without any of them. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I admit I made a booboo. I MEANT "When a species forms from an older species." I apologize for that error and any confusion it caused. However, you are still missing the point. A parental species can become divided into two (or more) populations. The larger population usually remains the same. It is still the same parental species. The smaller population can undergo shifts in allelic frequencies (EVOLUTION) to become the new, descendant species. An analogy from human relations would be colonization. Settlers from a parental country (say, the United Kingdom) can move into a new region isolating them from the parental population. This new, smaller population (say, the American colonies) is then free to develop into a new country (the United States). Just as the UK continued to exist after the founding of the USA, so can a parental species continue to exist after a PORTION of the population has split into a new species (speciation). To reiterate, a parental species is NOT transformed wholesale into a new species; a PORTION develops into the new species. The rest of the parental species continues on and may generate other descendant species. Khajidha (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A species cannot be divided into populations in Darwin's evolutionary theory. A species consists of populations. When a species has divided into two species, then both of these species have their populations. Neither Darwin's nor Hennig's models contain populations anywhere. Building conceptual models requires keeping concepts apart. Khajidha confuses species and populations. In the end, Khajidha says that "a parental species is NOT transformed wholesale into a new species", which is, of course, true, since species split into two species per definition. There is, however, no PORTIONS of species in any known evolutionary models. Mats, presently at 83.254.20.29 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A species is quite often and validly divided into populations in ALL evolutionary theories. A population is simply a portion of a species living in a given location at a given time. With this understood, one SMALL population can become reproductively isolated from the other population(s) that had until that time formed the rest of it's species. The smaller population has become a new species, the larger population can continue to be considered the same species it was before.Khajidha (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What is this article talking about?

The impossibility for things like "clades" to exist questions what the article discusses. If I similarly would invent a concept that confuses yellow with colors, calling it yellowism, would I be allowed to write a page about things that are yellow (i.e., that have any color)? Or, would cladists stop me by claiming that there are other colors than yellow? Would cladists understand that there is a difference between the generic and the specific in all other aspects than the one they're confusing? Can they arise from the confusion they reside within? If not, can't they at least keep their mouth shut? Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A clade is a group of organisms that share a common ancestor. For instance, echinoderms, or primates. Cladistic approaches attempt to fit organisms into clades rather than taxa, as Linnean taxonomy is less informative about relationships. And this isn't really the best place to discuss philosophy. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Since my answer has been deleted twice, I concentrate it. If Martin's definition of clade is correct, then Reptiles is a clade, which the article says it isn't. This is what I'm trying to explain: a cladist does not agree with himself. He's inconsistent (that is, self-contradictory). I furthermore explain that self-contradiction does not agree with facts. Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you've raised a sensible point, so I'll answer it. Martin tried a little too hard to be brief, and that introduced an ambiguity that he'd easily avoid in more formal writing. The formulations I generally use are e.g. "An ancestral species and all its descendants" or "A group that is descended from a common ancestor which is itself one of that group". The point of requiring the common ancestor to be a member in the 2nd formulation and of "all" in the first is to prevent silly things like grouping together mammals and insects - they share a common ancestor, Urbilateria, but that was neither an insect nor a mammal; the grouping mammals plus insects excludes a whole lot of other descendants of Urbilateria.

Martin and I are both mainly interested in paleontology, and that's where the Linnean system really breaks down. Its problem is its fixed number of levels, which can never be enough to handle all the groupings, sub-groupings, sub-sub-groupings, etc. that you find when looking at hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Cladistics wins easily in paleontology because it's recursive and can therefore accommodate an unlimited number of levels - which may sound like overkill, until you see some recent analyses that attempt to figure out the family tree of all animals.

Back to your example of "Reptiles". Paleontologists avoid the term because it's one of the most problem-laden: the last common ancestor of all reptiles was also the ancestor of all birds, yet birds are not generally regarded as "Reptiles".

I think the bottom line is that classification systems are tools, not things in their own right - "the map is not the territory". Cladistics has proved itself a far better tool for use in paleontology - and (excuse this provocative statement, but I think it's true) that means in principle it's also better for neontology, because neontology only considers extant organisms while paleontology considers both extant and extinct organisms. One consequence of this is that cladistics can help us to work out the relationships between the most recently-evolved groups, e,g, humans, and groups that first appeared hundreds of millions of years ago, e.g. sponges. --Philcha (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The only "small" problem is that cladistics, unlike the Linnean system, is inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically wrong. If it is preferred by palaeontologists in general, as you claim, then it means that palaeontologists in general contradict themselves and are wrong. The question is then what on earth they plan to do with what they're doing? It is, actually, totally impossible to claim that something that rests on cladistic reasoning is more sensible than something that rests on a scientific reasoning, since cladism is insensible per definition (i.e., not agreeing with facts). The truth is that it simply is impossible to partition reality into clades per definition, since such "things" are ambiguous per defintion (which Brummit has tried to explain for a decade or so). It would have been great if it had been possible, but, unfortunately, it is actually a donkeys chase for the carrot in front of his eyes (which he cannot reach per definition). It's a Sisofys work. It is conceptually impossible. Conceptualization is ambiguous per definition, since there are kinds of kinds. The cladistic claim that there are kinds of kinds, and that there are not kinds of kinds is simply self-contradictory. They think that they see what they themself construct, and this thought is inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically wrong. The thought that the carrot is reachable may feel nice for the donkey (like scratching oneself on oneself's back may feel nice), but it can never, I emphasize, never, be sensible. The problem with it is the same as the problem with subjectivity, since it is subjectivity per definition. I really hope that this is not why it feels nice for palaeontologists? So, I hope this opinion is not held by all palaeontologists. (I understand palaeontologist's problem, that is, that history, just like present, is ambiguous. It is, however, a fact they, just as everyone else, have to live with. It doesn't change merely because they think it does. Confusing minds doesn't make reality unambiguous). Phew... Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Consist, if you really are the blocked user Consist, there is one useful thing in your last post (23:00, 10 November 2008) - the name "Brummit" (although the correct spelling is "Brummitt"). I Googled for this name plus the word "cladistics" (so the search string was: Brummitt cladistics), and got some hits in good sources. I'll add some more below when I've finished this post, and I've suggested below how you can help in the search for relevant articles in reputable scientific publications. If you stick to the procedure I've described below, I'll play fair and consider all the items as objectively as I can - those who know me are aware that I'm no follower of orthodoxy for its own sake, and that when I open a sources section it's the preparation for some serious analysis. It may take me a month or so to get into full action as I'm quite busy with other Wikipedia stuff at present, but it will happen, hopefully before the end of 2008.

In the meantime, please stop these long, rambling posts which just clutter up pages. If you stick with the procedure I've suggested, it may well be interpreted as a sign that you're willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS - I admit I too find them frustrating at times, but the consequences of not having such rules would be far worse. If you show that your are willing to abide by these rules, you may even be unblocked.

However if you continue to clutter up pages with long ramblings without a single WP:RS in sight, that would be interpreted as disruptive editing in defiance of the existing block, and I or someone else will urge the admins to bring it to a complete stop.

It really is in your best interests and those of the views you advocate to stick to finding WP:RS on the issue. --Philcha (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This was the kind of straight talk I like, but which I have become to think Wikipedia is unable to. Is this the same Philcha as wrote the earlier comments? I have no other aims than explaining that cladism is inconsistent and empirically wrong, and will continue doing so for the foreseeable future. Brummitt was one of the referees that enforced publication of my article by supporting that it is correct (although I assembled 8 or 9 supporters before the article was accepted). However, I don't see that Philcha understand the problem, nor has any suggestions of how to resolve it. I, of course, abide to as many rules as I can; I have, for example, never tried to hide who I am, but I am prepared to do abide to what is needed. I'm, however, not scared by Philcha's threat of a "complete stop". I assure Philcha (and everyone else) that I will continue explaining how cladism is wrong. Cladism is not a mystery, but only an attempt of biological systematists to reach the front pages of media, earn money and make a career. It is, like most things we don't understand, just a matter of fame and money. I can't convince myself of why I should await Philcha's ""attempts" to consider all items as objectively as he can", when my scientific publication demonstrates that cladism is inconsistent, self-contradictory and empirically erroneous (that is, not agreeing with facts), among all other significances it has. Do I need Philcha? I am susceptible to any agreements except awaiting anyone's ""attempts" to consider all items as objectively as he can". Philcha thus has to confront the fork: join me or fight me. As long as he doesn't have any explicit suggestions, we don't have a deal. My view is correct. Philcha, as well as everyone else, has to choose visions. My "long, rambling posts" will continue until my points is included in the articles I attack. The question is not whether science or cladism is wrong, but only if cladism can keep the power it has seized. I am convinced that I will bring cladists (like Farris) to the stand. Sorry, Philcha. Your suggestion didn't have enough meat on the bones. If you decide to fight me, we will continue the fight about cladism's obvious inconsistency (which I have shown to be empirically wrong, that is, not agreing with facts). Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Consist, or whoever you are:

Re your "I don't see that Philcha understand the problem", at present I don't, and that's why I'm assembling a list of WP:RS for me and other editors to study.
Re "Brummitt was one of the referees that enforced publication of my article by supporting that it is correct (although I assembled 8 or 9 supporters before the article was accepted)" can you please provide a citation for the article, using the procedure I outlined below. For you to edit it into a WP artcile would be a violation of WP:COI, but if it's good content in a WP:RS it will get serious consideration.
I understand the frustration behind your " I can't convince myself of why I should await Philcha's ""attempts" to consider all items as objectively as he can"" - but you have brought this on yourself by using annoying but ineffective tactics. Cluttering this Talk page is poor tactics on your part, because it distracts attention from the attempt to develop an objective review, including sources that support your position. I've been involved in much hotter debates, but everyone stuck to stuck to the point, cited good sources and avoided threats of disruption, so no-one got blocked or even told off. If you read carefully what I've written, I'm actually offering to help to get the viewpoint you advocate considered objectively.

Your statement "My "long, rambling posts" will continue until my points is included in the articles I attack" is a threat to continue disruptive editing - while you are already blocked. If there any more long rambling posts from you, I will immediately hound the admins until they find a way to stop the disruption. --Philcha (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also Thorwald has been deleted!

To my surprise I see that also Thorwald's recognition of my explanation has been deleted. Wikipedia appears to have entered a risky road. Does it really think it has the power to define false as true? Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The correct definition of clade (from an outsider)

The correct definition of clade is "a confusion of now and then (i.e., of present and past, or of thing with kind). The reason that some persons cannot understand that it is, is that they confuse now and then. The only persons that cannot understand a confusion are those that are confused. They are instead doomed to search for a definition of their confusion forever, just like they are doomed to search for clades forever (i.e., the definition of cladism). Confusions do not exist. For how long will Wikipedia offer them a scene for their internal struggle, and allow them to contaminate scientific concepts like phylogenetics with their confusion? Consist, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It'd be great to include this point of view in the article. Could you provide a reliable source that gives a bit more support to this viewpoint, so I can include it in the article? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

|}

I have tried to provide a reliable sourse for a couple of weeks, but I constantly get deleted and blocked for vanadalism or anything else doing it. Sorry. Consist, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Consist, using the terminology you recommend, a clade is a holophyletic group. I hope that clears up your confusion. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You probably mean that the concept clade is synonymous to the concept holophyletic group. Yes, it is what my terminology means, and thus that clade is not synonymous to the concept monophyletic group as the article about clade presently states, hoping that it will "clear up the cladistic confusion" (as you express it). But...why do you "hope that [it] clears up your [my] confusion"? I'm not a cladist. I'm not confusing anything. I'm trying to disambiguate the concept clade. Understanding that clade is synonymous to holophyletic group (as Martin obviously does) means that the concept clade vanishes as a hallucination. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources - recognised scientific publications

Consist, if you really are the blocked user Consist, do not mess with this section because changes by you will be reverted. This is not censorship, it is the start of an attempt to assemble a list of recognised scientific publications (see WP:RS) that discuss the validity and effectiveness or otherwise of cladistics. Given your opinions in the subject, you should be happy about the starting of this list because it gives other editors who are not blocked the opportunity to read and use the material here. If you wish to draw our attention to other recognised scientific publications about the issue (not WP:SPS! I recommend searching through Google Scholar), start one section immediately below this and list publications in a similar way. If they are in reputable scientific journals one of us will copy them into this list and place a Y next to the corresponding item in your list; and if we are not happy about the source, we will place a N next to the item in your list. Keep summaries of the content of items short, one line only, like the first entry below. --Philcha (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

These are all Google Scholar gave for "Brummit cladistics" (w/o quotes). Next step should be to check citations within these. --Philcha (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Phylogenetics in plant biotechnology: principles, obstacles and opportunities for the resource poor (2007) - could be useful intro to some concepts and terms
Incongruence between cladistic and taxonomic systems (2003) - a botanist criticises cladistics; tons of internal refs to follow up.
Paraphyly, Ancestors, and Classification: A Response to Sosef and Brummitt (1988) - a botanist defends cladistics
Plant Variation and Evolution (book, 1997) - brief overview of debate; zoologists keener on cladistics than botanists
The new and improved PhyloCode, now with types, ranks, and even polyphyly (2005) - no great content, but refs may be worth follow-up
Further dogged defense of paraphyletic tax (Brumitt, 2003) - the man himself, gotta give this some quality time
Tests of the accuracy of cladograms in Gilia (Polemoniaceae) and some other angiosperm genera (2001)- "The cladograms of the four plant groups all differ in significant details from the known pedigrees"
Palaeos: Systematics - some refs worth follow-up
Paraphyly is bad taxonomy (2006) - provocative title, I haven't looked inside yet
What is cladism? (starts on last page) - this 'debate' has been going on for a long time. Maybe cladism needs a "history of science" section adding too.

Other: --Philcha (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Incongruence between Cladistic and Taxonomic Systems (2003) - another botanist, "One approach is not right and the other wrong; each is operating by its own standards. However, when cladists apply the paraphyly rule to a taxonomic system and conclude that it needs revision to eliminate paraphyly, as cladists often do, they are judging the taxonomic system by a wrong standard"
The works of D.I. Williamson: "Larvae and Evolution" (1992), "The Origins of Larvae" (2003), Larval transfer and the origins of larvae (2008)
Phenetics, cladistics, and the search for the Alaskan ancestors of the Paleoindians: a reassessment of relationships among the Clovis, Nenana, and Denali archaeological complexes (2007) - thanks, Dysmorodrepanis!
Anything to do with horizontal gene transfer / introgression in plants, especially Hieracium or Rubus - thanks, Dysmorodrepanis!
Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists : is Linnaeus dead? - Benton (2000)
Taxonomic Level as a Determinant of the Shape of the Phanerozoic Marine Biodiversity Curve Lane & Benton (2003)
Towards a phylogeny of the Metazoa: evaluating alternative phylogenetic positions of Platyhelminthes, Nemertea, and Gnathostomulida, with a critical reappraisal of cladistic characters RA Jenner (2004) - studies often spend too little time building & checking the matrix, compared the attention given to drawing conclusions.

Discussion about cladistics would surely be better placed at cladistics than here? (Unless someone works out how to merge the two articles). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in this section, but may provide us cladists with a better understanding of Consist's frustration with the current draft of the article. I have yet to read it thoroughly but will post the link here so I don't lose it! http://markmail.org/message/dp4rqq7r3brwapun#query:Holophyly+page:1+mid:jjxwsqal7rx5litg+state:results

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion does, of course, belong in this section. Martin appears to think that the definition of the concept clade concerns "providing us cladists with a better understanding of Consist's frustration with the current draft of the article" instead of providing a consistent definition of the concept clade. Cladists will, of course, never allow themsleves to be provided with a consistent understanding (i.e., definition) of their concept clade, since it dissolves their fundament. The discussion may be considered to belong in both the discussions of clade and cladistics, but not in neither. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Consist

Please do not encourage this user. His named account is indefinitely blocked, and he is persistently abusing his editing privileges by using IP accounts to promote his own original research and non-neutral point of view. He has published these ideas in the scientific literature in Biological Journal of the Linnean Society volume 94, pp 217-220 (2008) in a paper entitled "On the difference between mono-, holo-, and paraphyletic groups: a consistent distinction of process and pattern.". The citing of this paper by other editors is perfectly legitimate, of course, but under WP rules Consist must not promote his own OR or POV. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he needs much 'encouragement'. As WP's blocking procedures are inadequate for silencing him, I don't think ignorance is the best approach. After a bit of reading I think that his ideas deserve mention somewhere on WP. They may not be accepted by any scientist, but they appear to be a resurrection of an argument that was settled in the 1970s. The argument is of passing historical interest, so I suggest the following content be created.

Holophyletic (done) - an overview of the un-used but semantically correct term
Monophyletic - a history of the term 'monophyletic'; early definitions, and the path that led to today's semantically questionable but scientifically meaningful definition being universally accepted.

The references in Holophyletic, and a scholar search for 'holophyletic', are good starting points. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I have to say, thanks Martin. You and I have a lot of explaining to do. Then, I would like to say, oh, dear! "Please do not encourage this user" (Plansurfer). Why not? When I'm right? Isn't it in Wikipedia's interest to have clear and consistent articles? The non-neutral view is, as I have explained earlier, not applicable for the incompatibility between science and faith. There is no neutral ground to be found between these two approaches. I (Mats Envall) only demand to include a note in the article about "clade" that explains that this kind of "thing" is a belief. It cannot exist per definition, since ancestors cease to exist in the moment their descendants appear in dichotomously branching processes. The notion that they are realities (i.e., cladism) is a paranoia emerging when one looks more at the illustration than at reality. It is, in the cladist Fredrik Pleijel's terminology, a farewell to reality (and thus to science). If Wikipedia starts accepting articles about illusions, then Wikipedia will have more severe problems than this in the future. This problem does, however, concern whether a definition of an illusion should be written by an enticed or by a non-enticed. I just demand that the article shall contain a clarification that the concept is anti-scientific, nothing more, nothing less. I'm grateful for Martin's support, but this issue is actually not a question of whether I'm right or wrong, but of understanding the issue and standing up for one's understanding (although one may have to pay with one's own career). Cladism is simply inconsistent (that is, self-contradictory) and empirically wrong, independently of whether one admits it or not. Consist, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mats, a clade is an alternative term for a holophyletic group. Are you denying the existence of holophyletic groups? I got quite the opposite impression from your Bot J Linn Soc article. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm denying the existence of holophyletic groups. The groups that exist are monophyletic groups. These can be partitioned into holo- and paraphyletic groups, but whereas some paraphyletic groups also exist (i.e., those that do not include ancestors), holophyletic groups do definitely not exist. Or...can you maybe show me an ancestor? This is exactly the difference between science and belief; science acknowledges things that do exist, whereas belief acknowledges things that do not exist. The problem with cladism's acknowledgement of these things that do not exist (i.e., clades) is not the acknowledgement per se, but the simultaneous denial of things that do exist, that is, paraphyletic groups (not including ancestors). This is the source for the conceptual mess in the articles about clade, cladistics, phylogenetics etcetera. Acknowledging clades actually requires also acknowledging paraphyletic groups, which, however, is a self-contradiction together with a simultaneous claim that they exist. Holophyletic groups and paraphyletic groups that include ancestors do not exist. They are conceptually monophyletic groups before and after change. The problem does thus reside in the notion (claim, definition?) that clades do exist. Such things do not exist, have not existed, cannot exist nor can have existed. They are simply conceptual contradictions in a notion that they exist, that is, inconsistent conceptualization. They are actually deconceptualization. How on earth can anyone claim that they exist? Have you or anyone else ever seen one? No, this idea is a derailment from sense by looking more on the illustration of reality than reality itself. Consist, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(BTW, the interesting thing with this particular belief is that it is falsified by facts (i.e., the fact that time is relative). The reason is that it actually claims that the abstract is reality and reality is abstract, whereof the latter is falsified by reality. It is thus the only belief I know that is falsified by facts. As such it can shed light on beliefs in general, that is, in principles, both on beliefs themselves and on the behaviors of believers. See for example Farris' and Nelson's behavior against Ashlock, Mayr and Brummitt. The question turns from the phylogeny into the pie-throwing of personal adjectives that is also directed towards me at the moment. Every approach requires agreement about its fundamental axioms; those that not accept them are either silenced or attacked. Cladism is actually the anti-pole to science: cladism requires acknowledgement that clades exist and denial of facts, whereas science requires denial that clades exist and acknowledgement of facts. They are just as internally consistent; the difference between them beng that cladism rests on the axiom that kinds exist, whereas science rests on the axiom that things exist). Consist, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I thus want to insert warnings in Wikipedia's articles about clades and cladistics that they may function as gates from sense to anti(non)-sense. Even better would be to let a non-cladist rewrite them. Cladism cannot be understood nor consistently explained from the inside, since it is applied conceptual confusion legitimated by a notion (claim, definition?) that conceptual confusion is "natural". Consist, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Your paper didn't quite make that point. Here's an example of a holophyletic group: My dad, my siblings and myself. Seems pretty holophyletic to me? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My paper made that point. You cannot use these concepts to denote kinds of groups of humans, because humans do not have a dichotomous propagation. Imagine instead a cell that splits into two cells. Now, can the ancestral cell exist simultaneously as its descendant cells (that is, presently)? Of course not! Together they are, however, a holophyletic group (that is, a clade). At this point of reasoning, one has to remind oneself what the question is. Without any question, the reasoning will be split between holo- and paraphyletic groups (those that include ancestors), since both of these actually are monophyletic groups (i.e., an ancestor and its descendants). This fork actually ends reasoning (i.e., deduction), since it enters definitions. It is the definitional point in conceptualization where deduction meets assumptions. Both alternatives in the fork is defined by the assumptions. A denial of any of them is in fact a denial of one's own assumptions (i.e., an inconsistency).

The problem is due to the fact that conceptualization is a tool we use to discuss reality. It starts from axiomatic assumptions (i.e., non-deniable facts) and continues by comprehending one process as two patterns in a row. The process is generic, whereas the patterns are specific; the process is a kind, whereas the patterns are things. The process is thus overlapping the two patterns (the kind is overlapping the two things). It means that we can use this tool to formulate consistent descriptions of reality and hypotheses of processes in reality as long as we don't confuse pattern and process.

Hennig didn't understand the conceptual tool (or deliberately pretended not to understand to reach fame), but instead boldly confused process and pattern (kind with thing). He appeared to believe that this confusion "catches" the single thing (i.e., species) and its ancestry at the same time, although such a catch is comparable to eating the cake and keeping it. It is simply impossible. The fact is that it only turns conceptualization up-side-down, like turning a screw-driver up-side-down. What happens is that it simply changes the basic assumption (axiom) from the scientific axiom that things exist to the axiom that kinds exist, which is both inconsistent and empirically wrong. However, to really nail its inconsistency, Hennig also denied science's axiom by denying paraphyletic groups. Thereby, he had passed the bridge from science to belief, that is from consistent conceptualization to inconsistent conceptualization, denying science, that is, denying consistent conceptualization.

The only "small" problem that remained was that whereas the scientific approach agrees with facts, the opposite cannot agree with facts per definition. It can, as Thorwald expressed it "come very nearly to" (just as the donkey is very near to the carrot), but it cannot reach it per definition. It only transfers the fact that conceptualization of reality is ambiguous into the coding of characters and character states. Its parsimony criterion leads towards a Linnean classification (that is, towards a symmetrical organization of properties in the terms of characters and charater states), but cannot reach it even if it is, and since it neither can reach a balancing point within the space of asymmetrical phylogenies, it is eternal per definition. There is simply no end to be found for it.

This was a pretty long answer to your question: "Seems pretty holophyletic to me?", but such unscientific questions require long answers, since they have to include an explanation of science. The short answer is that your example of group is irrelevant for this issue, and that the problem is not holophyly per se, but "denial" of paraphyly. Paraphyly is actually two different kinds of groups (with and without ancestors), which have to be distinguished to reach a consistent reasoning. Such a consistent reasoning can understand that the parsimony criterion is a Sisofys criterion, that is, lacking an end point. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(Ps I'm working as a biological analyst performing multidimensional variance analyses of satellite registrations. If I had been wrong, my methods and results would have been impossible. I thus disprove cladism daily. I use conceptualization to deduce a situation from data. Cladism actually claims that there isn't any difference between the situation and data. It would have been interesting to find out how they would have equalized the distribution of certain biota with pixels. Unfortunately, they don't answer questions. I've been trying to get an interview with the cladists Mikael Härlin and Per Sundberg for many years by now (for a newspaper), but haven't succeeded yet. ds, Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

I think I might be starting to gradually understand your point. In your example of the dividing cell, you make it sound like all the members of a holophyletic group have to exist at the same time. Nobody has ever made that stipulation; if it were true, palaeontologists would not be able to use cladistics. So the holophyletic group consists of the (dead) parent cell in addition to its progeny. The three organisms have one ancestor in common (the parent), and the group of three organisms does not contain any individual that isn't a descendant of that ancestor (the parent). Is this, or is this not, a holophyletic group? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I first have to correct you: the holophyletic group consists of two progenies and their ancestor. Two of them have one ancestor in common. This is a holophyletic group. The problem with this group is that not all of them can exist at the same time per definition, because two exist and one have existed per definition. Joining them in a group is analogous to joining things that lack a common denominator. They are simply not the same kind of things per definition. This problem is crucial for scientists, but less important for cladists, since cladists assume that kinds exist. The communication problem between scientists ande cladists lies in that scientists classify reality whereas cladists assume that classes exist. Scientists create and cladists believe. Normally, one would be content with another one comprehending one's own creation as a fact, but the problem with cladism is that it first accepts it and then denies it. It is thus an attempt to turn classification (categorization) into a discipline on its own, although it as such is internally inconsistent, because classification of reality is ambiguous. The result of this attempt is visible all over biological science. The world is full of paranoid biologists claiming that sense is non-sense, and non-sense is sense. All of them have sank into Hennig's up-side-down comprehension of conceptualization. Sorry to say, it is is a world- and historical record of being wrong. Linné's system, on the contrary, is a scientific classification in that it acknowledges the ambiguity of classification (categorization) of reality. I love you Martin for asking these questions, but you will, just as I was, be forced out of the position you have by cladists as soon as you question cladism. Cladism is not just an approach, but rather what a golf boll is to golfers.

I understand the cladistic wish that reality ought to be unambiguous, but acknowledge that it isn't. It means that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, has to either deny or ambiguate articles that define phenomena that do not exist (i.e., that cannot be shown). It is the only way to keep concepts unambiguous. All articles that explain cladistic concepts thus has to be ambiguated(explaining their internal inconsistencies), and the influence of cladism on other articles has to be deleted. This is The way for Wikipedia to become The encyclopedia. It has to choose side betwen science and cladism, between which there is no common ground. (Read it fast, Plantsurfer is out cleaning again). Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We can both simplify and problematize each matter, but we have to be consistent to avoid being self-contradictory and wrong whichever we choose. Cladism's simplification that problematization is wrong is simply wrong. We can both simplify and problematize each matter, that is, also phylogenetic reconstruction. Cladism is thus an erroneous simplification. Our (non-cladists') problem is to explain to those that do not understand that they do not understand. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you accept my example of a holophyletic group. Nowhere in the definition of a 'holophyletic group' does it state that all organisms must be alive at the same time; indeed this isn't usually the case, as the article stipulates. If your problem is with some organisms being alive and others not, let's take the trilobites as an example. Trilobites lived for around 250 million years, and are now all extinct (i.e. none are living). All trilobites are descended from a single common ancestor, which is, by definition, the first trilobite. All descendants of this single common ancestor were trilobites. How, then, is "trilobites" not a holophyletic group? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that trilobites is not a holophyletic group. If your scenario is right, it is. What I'm saying is that it is inconsistent to acknowledge only holophyletic groups (calling them monophyletic groups), and "denying" paraphyletic groups, since it means that you at the same time denies the group consisting of their presently living descendants, that is, the group that exists (i.e., the monophyletic group "trilobites"). You simply contradict yourself and deny all presently existing things and groups of things at the same time. This is the anti-pole to science's acknowledgement of things (and of monophyletic groups). It is actually an acknowledgement of kinds instead of things as axiom. It makes you think up-side-down, that is, wrong. In this state, you are simply unable to understand that reality can be partitioned in several different but just as correct ways into kinds, and that phylogenetic analysis thus can reach several different phylogenetic hypotheses using the parsimony criterion depending on how you partition properties into characters and character states. For a practical example, consider that a single species can consist of a paraphyletic group of populations, or that a cell can consist of a paraphyletic group of mitochondria. Fact is that phylogeny (or phylogenies) cannot be unambiguous in terms of kinds, because thing cannot equal kind. It is erroneous to think it can, and it is both erroneous and inconsistent to acknowledge kinds instead of things. Two wrongs do not make one right. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(If you claim that all descendants to "trilobites" are dead, that is, that the whole group is extinct, then it's a backward example to demonstrate my point. Does cladism really acknowledge extinct holophyletic groups? Doesn't an acknowledgement of an extinct holophyletic group in an asymmetrical phylogeny (i.e., the top of the tree) also acknowledge that its sistergroup is paraphyletic, although the latter in a phylogenetic analysis using the parsimony criterion may be acknowledged as a holophyletic group? Would cladism acknowledge or deny such a group?) Mats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.21.226 (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cladism doesn't deny that paraphyletic groups exist. It just says that they aren't very informative, and cannot be called "clades".

Cladism makes no specification as to whether or not a group contains extinct members, so does recognise extinct clades. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I just demonstrated that a parapyletic group may equal a holophyletic group, and thereby, which we concluded above, also equal a clade, and then you say that it cannot be called a clade! It is by all definitions a clade! Your statement that "it cannot be called a clade" is simply self-contradictory. It is a clade!

If cladism as you say "recognise extinct clades", then it also recognizes that all paraphyletic groups also may be clades. It means that my question above awaits an answer. Does cladism recognize or deny (i.e., consider it "very informative" and/or claim "that it cannot be called clade") such a group (i.e., which is paraphyletic relative to an extinct clade, but holophyletic in a phylogenetic analysis, that is, relative to extant species)? Mats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.21.226 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hang on - how did you demonstrate that trilobites are paraphyletic? I missed that bit. Which descendants of the 'ancestral trilobite' do not fall within the group "trilobites"? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't demonstrate that trilobites are paraphyletic. I demonstrated that an extant group of species that is paraphyletic relative to trilobites may be holophyletic in phylogenetic analysis (that is, relative to the rest of the extant species). This group is thus holophyletic (that is, a clade) as judged by the parsimony criterion in phylogenetic analysis, but paraphyletic relative to trilobites. My question is: does cladism recognize or deny (i.e., consider "very or not very informative" and/or does or not does claim "that it cannot be called clade") such a group? Or shorter: does cladism judge such a group as a clade? Mats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.21.226 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(The question reveals that paraphyletic groups actually are included in the concept clade, although cladists don't want it to be, as I explained in my article). Mats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.21.226 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Martin, is such a group (that is, a group of extant species that is paraphyletic relative to an extinct holophyletic group (for example, to trilobites) and holophyletic in relation to extant species) a clade or not? This question begs for an answer of "what is", and puts the queried in an impossible situation. If he answers yes, he acknowledges his opponent, and if he answers no, he denies all presently existing monophyletic groups. Martin is thus confronted with a question he cannot answer. The question concerns the rationality of the concept clade. If he, or any other cladist, can answer this question, then the concept clade can be defined unambiguously, but if not, then it can't. Mats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.21.226 (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, you are saying that a group - let's take 'arthropods' as an example - is holophyletic, and contains the trilobites. The group "living arthopods" does not contain the trilobites, so it isn't holophyletic - it doesn't contain all the descendants of the last arthropod common ancestor. Ignoring tiny clades where the last common ancestor is still alive, no group of "living X" can be considered a clade, because the last common ancestor of "living X" is dead, and therefore not included in "living X". To define a clade based on "living X", you have to include all descendants of the extinct last common ancestor of "living X" and call the clade "X". In other words, all clades will "extinct" members.

I think this has answered your question - if not, could you clarify a little by giving an example of an extant group that is "paraphyletic relative to trilobites", and perhaps explaining what you mean by "paraphyletic relative to". Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that any particular group is holophyletic. I'm saying that if you say that a particular extant group (for example 'arthropods'), which is paraphyletic relative to an extinct group (for example 'trilobites), is holophyletic including this group (i.e., the 'trilobites'), then you're actually saying that a paraphyletic group is a holophyletic group in a specific sense, which is exactly what I'm saying in a general sense. I'm saying that it is impossible to exclude paraphyletic groups from holophyletic groups, because the concept paraphyletic groups is included in the concept holophyletic groups. My question to you is whether the ambiguous group (in your example the 'arthropods') is a holo- or paraphyletic group? Just answer this question. (Not including anything outside of the group or excluding anything in the group). I'm saying that it is both holo- and paraphyletic, what do you say? Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

But "arthropods" isn't paraphyletic relative to trilobites. "Arthropods" includes trilobites, as well as every other animal descended from the last common ancestor of arthropods. As such, it is holophyletic - not paraphyletic. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:28, 13 De

If so, then reptiles isn't either paraphyletic relative to dinosaurs. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin's view is an interesting turn of cladism. Reptiles is a holophyletic group including its internal holophyletic groups. This is actually the opposite to cladism, confusing paraphyletic groups with their internal holophyletic groups. However, I'm not a proponent of cladism. I just point at the inconsistencies with cladism, just shown by Martin. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, you still haven't explained what you mean by something being paraphyletic "relative to X". This is a meaningless term.

Secondly, "reptiles" is conventionally defined as "All of the descendants of the last common ancestor of reptiles, excluding the birds". Because this definition does not include all the descendants, "reptiles" (defined this way) is a paraphyletic group, and not, as you suggest, a holophyletic group. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Paraphyletic and holophyletic are relative terms and so have to be referenced to something. If you, in your next example, (1) exclude 'birds' from 'reptiles', then 'reptiles' are holophyletic per definition, since you have excluded 'birds'. (you can draw the phylogeny of this group on a paper and check it yourself, that is, without 'birds'). If you, instead, (2) include 'birds' in the group, then the former group is paraphyletic per definition, since you have included 'birds' in the group. (Surely you have holphyletic and paraphyletic reversed in this example. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)) This is the cladistic definition of 'reptiles', that is, including 'birds', since it includes all descendants of their most recent ancestor and also are defined by its apomorphies. If you instead, as you do, (3) define 'reptiles' as "all of a group...excluding some in this group", then you have actually defined "reptiles" as both the whole group and only those that are conventionally called 'reptiles'. You first point at the whole group (including 'birds') and then at a less inclusive group (excluding 'birds') with a definition for a single term, that is, 'reptiles'. You do not point unumbiguously at any of these groups for the term 'reptiles', but instead confuse them by pointing at both. The first problem is thus which of these groups you actually point at for the term 'reptiles'?

The second problem is that the definition is circular: "all descendants...of the ancestor to 'reptiles'". It thus requires an additional definition of 'reptiles' in terms of properties in order to be operable. Such definition cannot, however, be the definition of what we conventionally call 'reptiles', since it would not equal the circular definition by not including "all descendants to the ancestor of 'reptiles'". (Yes, it is good point. From the point of view of a computer programmer working from the ancestor forwards to the clade, he would have to declare the definition of reptiles before the ancestor of reptiles could be defined. But that is not an impossible position for a scientist, since he can work backwards from the hypothetical definition of the clade (possibly one of many) to find the ancestor. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

Both these problems are ambiguity problems: the first concerning which group you actually point at and the second concerning that the definitional circularity cannot find a matching structural definition. It is actually two wrongs, and two wrongs do not make one right. Your aim is to confuse thing (i.e., taxa) with kind (their structural definitions), and your problem is that thing do not equal kind. A single thing does have properties, but a single property does not have things, because properties do not exist as singularities. You, and other cladists, may believe you have succeeded to confuse thing and kind because you have confused yourselves; I only try to explain the existing conceptual mess in the articles that describe your confusion, that is, about clade and cladistics. My explanation is in a nutshell that cladism's err resides in being founded on the (erroneous) axiom that kinds exist. The Linnean system is instead founded on the (correct) axiom that things exist, which, BTW, also science is. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm glad we've finally got to the root of your confusion.

You are wrong that holophyly and paraphyly are "relative" terms. Let's revisit their definitions:

A holophyletic group consists of an individual and all of its descendants
A paraphyletic group consists of an individual and some of its descendants

So with the reptiles:

"Reptiles and birds" forms a holophyletic group, because its last common ancestor falls within the category "reptiles and birds", all of its descendants are "reptiles and birds".
"Birds" are not "reptiles". "Birds" is not included in the group "reptiles".
"Reptiles" does not contain all the descendants of the last common ancestor of "reptiles", even though the last common ancestor of the "reptiles" was itself a "reptile". For this reason "reptiles" is not holophyletic. You could define reptiles as "All the members of the holophyletic group 'reptiles and birds', minus members of the group 'birds'"; this does not recognise holophyletic group called "reptiles" at any point.

You are right that clades can be hard to objectively mark out. A popular way of defining a specific clade unambiguously is to select two living individuals, and define the clade as 'the last common ancestor of these two organisms, and all of its descendants'. There are lots of ways of marking out the limits of a clade, each of which is suited to a different range of applications, but this is one perfectly unambiguous option.

Clades and taxonomy address different questions and are not interchangeable. They are two different ways of looking at the same data.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The first and second definitions above are consistent (i.e., not inconsistent), but since they refer to the same terminal units, they are definately relative. Relative means that a change in one of them also causes a change in the other.

Your "conclusion" of what the definitions specify is, however, confused. The issue concerns three (3) groups: (i) 'reptiles'+'birds', (ii) 'reptiles' and (iii) 'birds'. Two of them are holophyletic: (i) 'reptiles'+'birds' and (iii) 'birds', and one is paraphyletic (ii) 'reptiles'. You do, however, only have two names for these three groups: (ii) 'reptiles' and (iii) 'birds', whereof one denotes a holophyletic group and the other a paraphyletic group. You thus define two (2) names as three (3) groups. The two groups you confuse are (i) 'reptiles'+'birds and (ii) 'reptiles'. In order to be consistent, you have to have use three (3) names for three (3) groups.

Your third statement will I not even comment, since it is what I would like to classify as "cladistic crap".

Your fourth statement actually says that a class (like clades) and classification (of real phenomena into, for example, clades) address different questions, which is cladistics in a nutshell. A cladist does not realize that clade is a class, because he (erroneously) assumes as an axiom that classes exist. This error is the nut to crack to resolve cladistics. The cladistic belief that classification itself "adresses questions" is, ...how shall I formulate it..., the best word I can find is strange. Can Martin give an example of a question that can be answered with a classification (excluding alternative answers)? However, even if he can, his statement that class and classification address different questions means that this example can address two different questions, leading to the question how a question can address a question? This reasoning is actually the hallmark of inconsistency: one address leads to another address, which leads to another address, and so on, without any possibility to get in contact with any inhabitant on any of the addresses. It is by definition a paranoia (i.e, circular reasoning). Conceptualization actually makes no difference between concepts and conceptualization, other than that the former are the results of the latter. None of these do, however, "answer questions". They are, instead, used to formulate hypotheses that do answer questions. Examples of such hypotheses are phylogenetic hypotheses. Such hypotheses can answer questions like "which is the phylogeny of biological species"? Any choice between alternative such hypotheses does, however, have to rest on traditional scientific methods to distinguish true from false. It is not classes themselves nor classification itself that distinguishes true from false, but comparison of the hypotheses with facts. Your statement that "a class and classification address different questions" is thus a strange (lacking other words for it) distinction. Whatever it is, it is devastating for an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, since it distinguishes its work from its results. It actually claims that Wikipedia ought to confuse concepts instead of explaining each of them. I'm only trying to explain this claim is inconsistent (that is, self-contradictory) and empirically wrong. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I take the liberty to post one more contribution in order to summarize the contribution above. The message in a nutshell is that conceptualization of nested groups, like for example those resulting from dichotomously branching processes, that is, partioning them into named, nested groups, requires at least two kinds of groups, like for example species and genera, in order to avoid an inconsistent, and thus endless regression. Inconsistent means that the groups cannot be specified by properties, which makes the regression endless. Such regression catches our minds by consisting of two components: one concept that refers to itself (i.e., holophyletic groups) and one concept that refers to two things (i.e., paraphyletic groups), which leads our thought by the former composing the regression itself and the latter acting as what can be called a "running point", leading the thought back to the regression. Introduction of two kinds of groups, for example species and genera, halts this endless regression and makes conceptualization consistent, that is, makes it possible to specify these groups by properties without confusing thing (in this case group) and kind. This kind of conceptualization was invented by Aristotle (as far as I know), and was developed further by Linné by introducing several such nested kinds of groups. Cladism is thus an inconsistent, endless regression, whereas Linnés system is a consistent conceptualization of phylogenies. (Some have even called Linné's system the first object-oriented programming, see Wikipedia). Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

There are infinitely many possible clades, therefore specifying a name for each is somewhat pointless. If it made you happier I could invent a name for "birds+reptiles" - "reptavia", perhaps - so you have three groups and three names. However the whole point of cladistics is that nature doesn't break down into neat parcels; even if you had a complete fossil record, it would be arbitrary to draw a line and say "this species stops being species A here and changes into species B there". That's why Linnean taxonomy, useful as it is for extant species, is less useful for questions over evolutionary time. Linnean taxonomy is more useful than cladistics for addressing questions like "how much biodiversity is there". However, Linnean taxonomy completely fails to provide a useful answer to questions such as "How are the onychophorans related to the arthropods". Under Linnean taxonomy they are placed into two different phyla, whereas in cladistics the two clades can be placed on a phylogenetic tree, and fossils (e.g. Anomalocaris) which appear intermediate between the two (thus cannot be placed in either clade) can be placed in the stem group of one or the other, rather than their own phylum.

Your statement regarding clades and classes is completely confused. I assume that you mean 'class' in its Linnean term. I'll say once again that cladistics and Linnean terminology are not interchangeable, and that attempts to equate classes to clades ultimately fail because Linnean taxonomy struggles to comfortably accommodate non-extant organisms (i.e. the first members of classes).

So in summary: Cladistics is not the same as Linnean taxonomy, and is not a replacement for it. It's a completely different way of looking at the same data. It may not be useful in your line of work, but that doesn't detract from it, or Linnean taxonomy. However, it is indispensable for palaeontologists, and that is why it is now almost universally used in palaeontology. It is a clear and efficient way of communicating information, and all scientists understand how it works and what it means. It isn't applicable in all fields, but in fields where it can be used, no practising scientists have problems with it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

1. "Inventing" a name, that is, in normal terminology, naming, the group ['reptiles'+'aves'] 'reptavia' means that the cladistic definition of this group (according to you) is: "All of the descendants of the last common ancestor of reptiles" (see above). 'Reptavia' is thus defined as the group 'reptiles', and does also require knowledge about the group 'reptiles' in terms of properties to find out which group the definition refers to. 'Reptavia' is simply equal to 'reptiles' per definition. This group is, furthermore the only group of these three groups (i.e., 'reptiles'+'birds', 'reptiles' and 'birds') that cladism denies (denies the importance of?)... This total conceptual confusion is the result of cladism's impossible attempt to exclude paraphyletic groups from monophyletic groups that I have demonstrated. Paraphyletic groups are simply included in cladism's paranoic reasoning as a "running point", that is, the opposite to the circularity in a self-referencing confused concept, like holophyletic groups. The definition means that either 'reptiles' or 'reptavia' cannot exist, or have to be the same thing, having the same definition.

Mats, we should agree how we are going to define reptiles. You seem to be flicking between two mutually exclusive alternatives. Either reptiles is:

ALL of the descendants of the last common ancestor of the four clades Crocodilia, Sphenodontia, Squamata and Testudines - INCLUDING birds (the holophyletic definition, which I named 'reptavia'); or it is
All of the descendants of that common ancestor EXCEPT birds (polyphyletic definition).

The most common definition, and the one I have been using, is the polyphyletic definition. Cladism accepts this definition, but notes that "reptiles" isn't a clade, but a paraphyletic group. Do you see the distinction between 'reptavia' and 'reptilia'? The difference is that a bird is a 'reptavian', but is NOT a 'reptile'. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "flickering" between these alternatives. I define the concept Reptile as "tetrapods with scales". I'm instead highlighting that you "flicker" between the alternatives you mention by confusing thing (that is, taxon) and kind, by assuming that kinds have taxa. I'm not confusing thing (that is, taxon) and kind, because I comprehend taxa as having properties. The taxon Reptiles have scales (except for the members that have reduced this property secondarily). The difference between us is that you cannot define Reptile and therefore "deny" it, although you use it for inconsistent definitions (which may also be called "flickering"). The concept Reptile do I define as "tetrapods with scales". Can you find any error in my reasoning or definition? Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(Ps You do not understand that "phyletic concepts" are relative, and therefore get caught in a mess you don't understand. The definition of one of them influences the definition of another one, and the result is that you define a generality as synonymous to one of its specifics, although the generality is, of course, not less synonymous to its other specificity, which you "deny". You simply have reached the top of your capability to understand and therefore simplify the issue inconsistently. The fact is that holo- and paraphyletic groups are two kinds of monophyletic groups, and that understanding of reality thus has to take off from this point. Your (and cladism's) confusion is counterproductive to phylogenetics. ds) Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

2. The Linnean system is not "less useful" than cladism is for anything at all (neither answering questions over evolutionary times), since it does not exclude recognizing holophyletic groups. It cannot be less useful than cladism is, since it only excludes cladism's denial of it (actually falsifies the denial by facts), whereas cladism instead excludes the Linnean system itself. The Linnean system only sets the frames for a consistent and correct phylogenetics.

When you claim that my statement that "clade is a class" is confused, which things (concepts) do you claim that the statement confuses? Confusion is resolved by disambiguation, which by Wikipedia is defined as "the process of resolving conflicts ... that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic". What conflict do you see in my statement, and how do you suggest to disambiguate it? (I hope it's clear by now that the confusion I see in cladism fundamentally is that of process and pattern, which, among all expressions of it, can seen in cladism's failure to distinguish what they do from what is done).

Yes, I agree with you that cladism indeed is a "completely different way to look at data" than science (and thus than the Linnean system). It is, actually science up-side-down, that is, an inconsistent and erroneous way, which I have demonstrated. This fact, as I try to explain, is also the reason for the conceptual mess in the articles about clade and cladistics. These messes do Wikipedia have to live with as long as its editors fail to realize this fact. The messes, furthermore, risk propagating into neighboring articles confusing also them instead of disambiguating the articles about clade and cladistics. Cladism is actually a counteracting force against disambiguation of concepts, since it is confusion per se, as I have explained in my article and here. (I can also add that I'm presently preparing an article entitled "Long-branch attraction: its reason and consequences". Hopefully, it will appear in Biol. J. Linn. Soc. in a year or so. Until then, I will continue my struggle here to insert a note about the dangers with cladism in the articles about cladistics and clade). Martin obviously instead defends these conceptual messes. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is actually very difficult indeed to fit Linnean species into clades. If species A splits into two new species, species B and species C, then species A cannot be a holophyletic group (because it excludes species B and species C, even though the three species share a nearest common ancestor). But we should avoid getting sidetracked here until you have persuaded me that cladistics is internally inconsistent. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The consistent formulation of this problem is that "it is actually impossible to fit clades into clades, because such fitting either does not enter itself or shrinks into nothing". The problem is actually not restricted to Linnean species per se, but does instead concern "things" in a general sense. Cladism is conceptually, as I have said, an endless regression. Its fundamental error is its axiom that kinds exist, because kinds logically cannot exist. If we, for example, partition you into two things over two consecutive days, and then "group" the two yous into one you over these days, then we have conceptually contradicted ourselves, and logically first conceptualized you and then deconceptualized you. (You exist independently of this "mental carousel". Conceptualization is just a tool to be able to talk about you consistently in terms of pattern and process: each of the two yous in each day representing pattern and the single you over these days representing process). Cladists appear to comprehend the deconceptualization as a "catch" of a "natural" you, although it is just a self-contradictory circularity, or a "double self-contradiction" as Plantsurfer called it. Cladists are probably decieved into this comprehension by the illustration's (the phylogenetic tree) lack of differentiation of process and pattern. Such differentiation is accomplished by comprehending internal lines as two things (e.g. species) in a row, since it turns external lines into representations of pattern and internal lines into representations of process. (It does, however, complicate matters substantially). The major problem in explaining cladism's error does not, however, reside in resolving this conceptualization error, but in "explaining away" its parsimony criterion, because if it fills the function cladism claims it does, then cladism is undeniable with regard to phylogeny independently of being "doubly self-contradictory" and falsified by fact that time is relative. This is what I aim to do with a discussion about the cause for the so-called "long-branch attraction". Here, I only try to explain the cause for the conceptual mess in the articles about clade and cladistics. The concepts themselves are only possible to understand using a consistent conceptualization, that is, looking at them from the outside, even if the result of "jumping into" them should be undeniable with regard to phylogeny. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your post is very difficult to understand, but I think your problem is that clades can exist within other clades in an endless regression. That is true, but it presents no problem. Your analogy has nothing to do with cladistics. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On holophyly and holophyletics, or clades and cladistics

When I now have demonstrated both in a scientifically accepted article and here on Wikipedia that Ashlock was right in the 1970-ies claiming that clades rather ought to be called holophyletic groups, and that such holophyletic groups actually include paraphyletic groups, paraphyletic groups thus being impossible to exclude from holophyletic groups, both holo- and paraphyletic groups instead actually being parts of conceptualization of monophyletic groups, and also that this misinterpretation is falsified by the fact that time is relative, am I then permitted to insert a note in the beginning of the articles about the concepts clade and cladistics warning the reader that reading them risks leading into a conceptual black hole confusing apples with fruits, or the specific with the generic, called cladistics, but which consistently ought to be called holophyletics? Or, is there any other possible way that cladism can be wrong that I haven't demonstrated that it is yet? I can't think of any. As far as I understand is is totally wrong as being the anti-pole to science. It is just as wrong as science is right.

The worst part with cladism is that it confuses itself with phylogenetics. This confusion is, also, totally wrong. Phylogenetics does not require cladism. It is not Darwin's representation of evolution that is wrong, but only cladism's interpretation of it. The small difference between cladism's erroneous and a correct interpretation of this representation is to interpret internal lines (i.e., lines between nodes) as a single respectively two things in a row. Cladism's interpretation of them (actually definition of them) as single things is, in practice, a defined confusion of thing with kind. This is the entrance to Cladism's insensible and erroneous Wonderland. As long as we interpret them as the two things in a row that we actually define them to be with our fundamental assumption (i.e, axiom) that things exist, we're immune to cladism. It makes us able to understand evolution in terms of things that can change, that is, monophyletic groups consisting of holo- and paraphyletic groups. This consistent approach is called evolutionary systematics, but is presently almost eradicated by cladism's brutal enforcement of its inconsistent and erroneous simplification. This process has large similarities with other historical enforcements of erroneous simplifications, none mentioned and none forgotten. It does thus seem to be a stage humanity have to pass. Its proponents will sooner or later be placed on the historical positions their contributions to human development renders them to. I just do my part in the process trying to explain that cladism is analogous to turning the screw driver up-side-down. Conceptualization is a tool, not a fact. Consist, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is inaccurate; please reply to discussion above. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have done. I have, once again, asked Martin whether an extant group of species that is paraphyletic relative to an extinct holophyletic group but holophyletic relative to extant species (that is, according to phylogenetic analysis and judged by the parsimony criterion), is paraphyletic or holophyletic? This section is thus not "inaccurate" (whatever it's supposed to mean). A hypothesis cannot be falsified more than I have falsified cladism's hypothesis that paraphyletic groups can be excluded from holophyletic groups. I'm thus, once again, requiring permission to include these facts in the beginning of the articles about clade and cladism. I assume that the editors of Wikipedia understand that they are responsible for leading readers into conceptual confusion as long as they do not insert information about the facts I convey in the beginning of the article. Lack of this information leaves the gate open for recognition of extinct things instead of extant things, although the former also is inconsistent and empirically wrong. It is the gate to up-side-down conceptualization, that is, conceptualization of things that definitely do not exist. (Martin has taken the issue further discussing things whereof half or whole do not exist. It is difficult to discuss such settings, but I don't mind. It is exactly what I do in my work performing multidimensional analyses, which Martin, guaranteed, does not understand the least of). Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If your guarantee is void, can I have my money back? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My guarantee is void. Your problem is not getting the money back, but getting the credibility back. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mats, you wrote above "Lack of this information leaves the gate open for recognition of extinct things instead of extant things, although the former also is inconsistent and empirically wrong." Do you deny the fossil record? The overwhelming majority of biologists do not reject extinct things. The use of evidence from the past to explain phylogeny is accepted as valid by all scientists. You keep repeating to the point of tedium that this is inconsistent and empirically wrong, but never explain why. Aves does not become paraphyletic merely because the Dodo became extinct. Dodo remains in the clade. Dodo was just a genetic code, and who knows, the programme may run again. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't deny the fossil record. I try to explain that facts falsify a recognition of extinct things instead of extant things, since extant things are facts. It is OK to recognize past, but not OK to recognize past instead of present, since present is a fact. Concerning consistency, I'm trying to explain that the conceptual mess in the articles about clade and cladistics is due to that cladism is a conceptual mess. It is actually deconceptualization per se and thus a conceptual mess per definition. It can actually be defined as total conceptual confusion or how to rewind conceptualization (sorry to say). The worst problem with it is that there are several different possibilities to conceptualize reality and thus also several different ways to deconceptualize it, because it means that its induced aim is a Sisofys work (that is, without end) per definition. It is thus not only inconsistent and wrong, but also endless per definition... Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, just a repetition of the same statement of your position and once again totally devoid of useful explanation. It is coming cross like the chanting of a mantra. You will have to begin to demystify this for the professional scientists among us, or it will never be of use to the readers of this encyclopedia. And for a start, please tell me who is trying to recognize the past instead of the present? What possible purpose would that serve? Plantsurfer (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Just a repitition" appears to imply that I ought to change my explanation, and "totally devoid of useful explanation" denies that it is a (useful) explanation. I can only respond to these allegations by assuring that I will not change my explanation without a falsification of it (since I actually falsify its alternative, that is, cladism, or Plantsurfer's comprehension), and wondering what Plantsurfer means by "useful" explanation. Plantsurfer obviously cannot keep in mind that the issue we're discussing is the obvious mess in these articles. If Plantsurfer does not accept my (correct) explanation of it, then he has to come up with another one, primarily to resolve cladism's internal confusion, and secondarily to hinder it from being spread to other articles (first phylogenetics, evolution and Linnean systematics, and then to all other concepts, like process and pattern, before and after, including and excluding, etc). Cladism is not only a confusion of concepts, but The Confusion of Concepts. It is backward conceptualization, that is, deconceptualization. Its proponents may claim that it is sensible (although it isn't), but it is definitely devastating for an encyclopedia (like Wikipedia). If cladism become generally accepted, then Wikipedia can close down. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well we'll just have to disagree on that point Mats. Your over-inflation of your claims does not contribute to their verification. Not the way science is done. I think Wikipedia, and indeed mankind, will totally recover from this "devastating crisis". If, in fact, it ever notices its infinitessimal impact. Plantsurfer (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we appear to have to disagree on this point. Wikipedia thus will have to live with the mess in the articles discussed as long as Plantsurfer is in charge. If Plantsurfer, however, can decide what is science, is a totally different matter. Has Plantsurfer ever got any of his thoughts or convictions published in any scientific journal? Probably not, just just Hennig never got his cladism published in any scientific journal. Science is actually immune to both Plantsurfer's and Hennig's cladism. It will be denied in the moment scientists get their eyes on it. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to be content to wait for practising scientists to deny cladism before this denial is reflected in Wikipedia's articles. If you feel that Wikipedia should lead science, you will have to take this issue up at Wikipedia:Original research. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Does a practising scientist have to confirm that cladism equalizes time and space, and that this equalization is falsified by the fact that time is relative to space, as I, a practising scientist, have demonstrated? Which practising scientist? Is it OK with anyone I can find? How does Martin define scientist? What shall he/she confirm? That cladism equalizes time and space or that this equalization is falsified by the fact that time is relative to space? I have professor Helge Malmgren at the philosophical institution at Göteborg university (who have promised not to change his mind under cladistic oppression), Dr. R K Brummitt at Kew Gardens (who argues the same arguments as me and also has given me right) and all referees (8 I think) that accepted my article for publication, that give me support. It is not just one "scientist" that have confirmed the correctness of this demonstration. So, what do I have to wait for? Cladists understanding the problem? In that case, I will have to wait forever. And, Martin does at some point have to reach the understanding that the articles about clade and cladistics will always be a mess due to what I explain. It is thus ultimately a question of whether Wikipedia wants to appear as a mouthpiece for cladism against science (and thus also against conceptualization) or as an encyclopedia. Pure self-preservation ought to make Wikipedia getting rid of editors like Martin. Editors of an encyclopedia have to have at least some education and understanding capabilities. If definitions of words are allowed to be formulated by believers or persons that do not understand the concepts, then the encyclopedia will loose credibility (as Wikipedia also presently seems to be). Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem comes down to three words in what you just said: "I ... have demonstrated." As Martin said, that puts your views in the realm of original research. If/when other scientists publish on the subject, then there are multiple sources to evaluate. For now, though, it has all the appearances of once scientists on a soapbox, which Wikipedia is not. —C.Fred (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is that I have falsified an erroneous approach, then Wikipedia's editors claim that the problem with my demonstration is a generic problem with science. Every falsification of hypotheses is "in the realm of original research". Wikipedia's editors claim that no scientific progress can be accepted by Wikipedia if it is not supported by positive evidence, that is, induction. The editors of Wikipedia has thus turned its foundation from science into belief, requiring positive evidence. The fundamental question to these editors is: how many churches have to be destroyed by earth quakes to prove that God does not exist?

I'm actually explaining that Wikipedia's definition of clade is wrong. A clade is indeed a monophyletic group, as the article says, but the continuation "- that is, a single common ancestor and all its descendants" is actually a definitional confusion. The definition "a single common ancestor and all its descendants" is actually the definition of holophyletic group, not of monophyletic group. It actually explicates that clade is synonymous with holophyletic group. Such a group (i.e., clade/holophyletic group) is a monophyletic group only in a generic sense, that is, analogous to how apples are fruits. The reference "that is" in the continuation, refers to both clade and monophyletic group as if they are synonymous, although also paraphyletic groups are monophyletic groups (analogous to how also pears are fruits). The continuation thus actually confuses clade with monophyletic group, erroneously excluding paraphyletic group from monophyletic group. It is actually an attempt to confuse a specific (i.e., clade/holophyletic group) with its generic i.e., monophyletic group) excluding the other specific paraphyletic group from this generic, and thus a generic attempt to confuse specifics with generics. Such confusion is actually the contrary to conceptualization, that is, deconceptualization. I thus demand that Wikipedia changes the definition of clade into a synonymization with holophyletic group as soon as possible. The present definition of clade in the article is obviously a definitional confusion (and a serious such). Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Specific questions for Mats

Magnificent, we have consensus on something! However your tendency to make this into a personality clash is irritating. The scientific method is to keep arguments objective. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of your statements appear contradictory or counter-intuitive. I would like to ask you to explain them one by one. First you say above "A cladist does not realize that clade is a class, because he (erroneously) assumes as an axiom that classes exist. This error is the nut to crack to resolve cladistics." The first sentence is doubly internally self-contradictory, because it first states that clade is a class and that cladists are not aware of the fact, and then that cladists assume that classes exist but that this is an error". Please resolve these contradictions. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Next point is your statement that things exist and that kinds do not. I have a serioius issue with that because both in the biological and physical worlds kinds (=classes, =types, call them what you will) clearly do exist and are powerful reality. Consider the moments after the big bang when kinds of fundamental particles were created. Electrons and neutrinos are kinds. Consider the chemical elements, each a distinct kind of atom with individual properties and the natural tendency to aggregate together into crystals. Animals flock or herd or shoal as groups of the same kind. Consider that humans do not mate with dogs or pigs - barriers to reproduction between different kinds sometimes delimit species. In other groups such as fungi, mating requires opposite mating types. These phenomena are not some conceptual error, they are observable reality. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The last part of the first statement that "clade is a class" means that "clade is a class", that is, that the concept clade denotes a class of things, that is, clades. The definition of this concept (i.e., of this class) is what we're discussing on this talk page. Is this difficult to understand or ambiguous? The first part of this statement that "cladists do not realize this fact" is verified (demonstrated) by Martin above. You can ask him about whether he agrees that "clade is a class" or not. Cladism thus acknowledges one class of things (i.e., holophyletic groups) and denies another (i.e., paraphyletic groups), at the same time denying that these are classes of things. The "doubly internal self-contradiction" Plantsurfer sees does thus not reside in my statement, but in the phenomenon it describes. Cladism can be defined as a "double internal self-contradiction".

The second statement that "things exist and kinds do not" rests on the fact that logical reasoning founded on the axiom that things exist (i.e., science) agrees with all known facts, whereas such reasoning resting on the axiom that kinds exist (i.e., cladism) does not agree with the fact that time is relative (apart from being totally incompatible with the former). The fact that time is relative does thus falsify the latter reasoning. Explanation of this (indeed surprising) fact has been difficult to find for me, but now I would like to express it as that "simultaneity (or is maybe concurrency a better term?) is more fundamental than continuity", and point at a fundamental explanation for this fact to be found in the imposibility of an objective meaning of the concept present. However, a simpler explanation is that it is a result of our partitioning of reality itself. The only aim that is conceptually impossible is to "make" the conceptual partitioning into a non-partitioning, or parts of the whole into wholes. Instead, we have to accept at least two kinds of things, specifics and generics, in our discussions about reality.

The explanation of cladism's error is thus extremely difficult to grasp (at least for me), but the fact that it erroneous is much easier to understand. I just want to put a halt for its attack on science. Cladism isn't correct just because we have huge difficulties understanding of how it's wrong; we can still falsify it with facts. I hope this have answered your questions satisfactorily. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(Ps the explanation above means that the concept clade is synonymous to the concept holophyletic groups (which also the cladist Martin, above, agrees on). It means that the article we're discussing, i.e., about clade, can be merged with the article about holophyletic groups, and that the concept cladistics simply can be defined as "a recognition of holophyletic groups and denial of paraphyletic groups". It would, totally consistent, disambiguate cladism's confusion of the concept holophyletic groups with the concept monophyletic groups (i.e., of one specific with its generic), thus opening for the consistent definition of the concept monophyletic groups as "holo- and paraphyletic groups". These are the consistent definitions of these concepts based on the approch that rests on the axiom that things exist, that is, science. Such change would dismiss my demand of a warning flag against cladism's double self-contradiction. ds) Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I once again take the liberty to conclude that the concentrated definitions of these concepts can thus be formulated as: a holophyletic group is "an ancestor and all its descendants"; a paraphyletic group is "an ancestor and some of its descendants", and their generic monophyletic group is "an ancestor and its descendants" (lacking a quantifier). It means that comparing them is analogous to comparing apples and pears with fruits, since the quantifiers of the former two means that they have to be discussed by first-order logic, whereas the lack of quantifier for the latter means that it can't be discussed by first-order logic, but instead have to be discussed by propositional logic (see Wikipedia for definitions of these concepts). Monophyletic group is instead the generic concept for holo- and paraphyletic group.

Cladism's battle is to confuse the specific holophyletic group with the generic monophyletic group calling the confusion (i.e., what Plantsurfer called a double self-contradiction) a "natural" group (i.e., clade). A practical example of such a "natural" group can be understood if one takes a sausage and cut it into two pieces: the "natural" group is the sausage and the pieces of it. Such a group is obviously "natural" to cladists, but it is, none the less, both insensible to non-cladists and empirically wrong, since the sausage cannot form a group together with its pieces. The (monophyletic) group is instead, obviously, the pieces. However, understood as descriptions of processes, both holo- and paraphyletic groups are consecutive sausages forming monophyletic groups. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is actually a trivial point, and I am surprised at your obsession with it. Everyone can see that the original sausage (or prokaryotic cell) disappears at division. So what? Cladistics is not concerned with the actual, current existence of the ancestor. It is concerned with the ancestor as exemplar of an evolutionary stage (stem, node) that can be included in a two-dimensional diagram. Time is only relevant insofar as the correct sequence is observed. Time is a dimension that can be added later, derived from whatever evidence is at hand. Science can handle the concept of the sausage together with the concept of its pieces. What cladistics does is record the sausage as the ancestor of its descendants. That is not in any way inconsistent. A parallel example that you Swedes may understand. Nitroglycerine (ancestor=precursor) divides quite quickly into nitrogen and carbon dioxide, etc. (reaction products=descendants), destroying itself in the process. However, I don't see chemists racked with angst about whether chemical reactions are inconsistent because of this. Scientists make lists, diagrams and tables constantly, as tools in an attempt to organize concepts of reality, not to recreate it. Periodic table refers. I imagine gold is blissfully unaware that it is the second-heaviest transition metal. Plantsurfer (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientists do not make groups consisting of a thing and its parts, like, (from your example which "we Swedes maybe could understand"), nitroglycerine, nitrogen and carbon dioxide, because the two latter are included in the former. It is a group consisting of a thing and its parts. Another example (which maybe you Americans could understand) is a group consisting of Plantsurfer and his two kidneys. Such groups represent a confusion of a generic with its specifics (or kind with thing), they simply have no common denominator, and if there's something science really cares about keeping distinct, then it is specifics and their generic, or thing and kind. It, on the contrary, actually consists of a constant partitioning of reality into generics and specifics using concepts. Cladism has only got it up-side-down. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Aristotle explained the concept definition as: "a set of words that is one, not by conjunction, like the Iliad, but because it deals with one object", later explaining that "it is necessary to divide the unity from the beginning according to several axes" (Parts of Animals 1.3.643b23). This kind of division did he accomplish using the three concepts genos (genus), eidos (species) and diafora (specific difference). He explained the concepts genos and eidos as: "For everything that differs, differs either in genos or in eidos, in genos if the things do not have their matter in common and are not generated out of each other, as are the beings that have forms different in category; and in eidos if they have the same genos (Metaphysics, Iota 3.1054b27). He explicated the larger distance between gene than between eide with: "For things that differ in genos have no path to another, but are too distant and without common measure" (Metaphysics, Iota 4.1055a6) and "For I give the name of 'difference in genos' to an otherness that makes it itself other" (Metaphysics, Iota 8.1057b37), and the contrary common measure of eide with: "Genos means that by which two different things are said to be essentially the same" (Metaphysics, Iota 3,1054b30). Eide are thus different, whereas gene are other. He explained the difference between these concepts as "difference and otherness are distinct. In fact, on the one hand, that which is other do not necessarily have to be other in virtue of something (they share); for all that is, by the vary fact that it is, is either the same or other; that which is different, however, is different from something by something, so that there be a same by relation to which the different differs (Metaphysics, Iota 3,1054b27). He then concluded with "the eide issue from the genos and from its differences" (Metaphysics, Iota 7.1057b7). (All citations extracted from Pellegrin, 1982. La classification des animaux chez Aristotle: Statut de la biologie et unité de l'aristotélisme. Socité d'édition "Les Belles Lettres". Translated by Anthony Preus, 1986. Aristotle's Classification of Animals, University of California Press). This definition of definition does still compose the fundament for science (i.e., using the orthogonal concepts generic and specific). Neither "nitroglycerine, nitrogen and carbon dioxide" nor "Plantsurfer and his kidneys" are eide of the same genos. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Conceptualization of reality aims to catch reality with concepts in a way that agrees with reality, that is, modelling reality. Cladism's belief that concepts exist is both inconsistent (that is self-contradictory) and empirically wrong (i.e., a double self-contradiction), even if this fact is a "devastating crisis for mankind" as Plantsurfer expressed it. I myself, on the contrary, view cladism as a "devastating threat against science". Here, we ought to get fascinated by how similar a clash between two incompatible comprehensions appears to proponents of both comprehensions! One of them is fundamentally wrong (i.e., in its axiom(s)), the running point is which. I thus claim that it is cladism, by falsifying its equalization of time and space with the fact that time is relative. As a scientist, I am, however, prepared to change my mind as soon as anyone (someone?) can falsify science, but until then I fight for science in biological systematics. In this fight, I view Linné's system as a consistent and correct fundamental synthesis of process and pattern. It is, using Plansurfer's terminology, magnificent. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On the task of encyclopedias

I have to acknowledge the importance of Wikipedia. The power over words (i.e, concepts) is fundamental. This may be understood as an arbitrary choice of preferences, but this is a misconception. Conceptualization is actually governed by the power of disambiguation, by its opposite position to ambiguation, which is an enemy to encyclopedias per se. Encyclopedias have to continue disambiguate, independently of what single editors wishes, in order to survive. Survival forces encyclopedias to disambiguate.

It means that Plantsurfer and all other editors ultimately have to give me right, independently of what they think or believe. Going against me is actually a going against encyclopedias in general. They just have to find the way of doing it. I can understand their mess of feelings, but not that it influences their work on an encyclopedia. Defining concepts is not a work for "hot" people, but rather for "cold" people. Being consistent is not a matter of belief, but of non-belief. One has to be prepared to abandon one's conviction (or belief) all the time. Best is if one does not believe at all. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You should review Policies_and_guidelines and WP:NOT and take up this issue there if you disagree. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin is right. I am definitely a cold person my wife tells me, and in the cold light of this morning I have to say that I am convinced this argument is getting neither you or Wikipedia anywhere. The bottom line is the ideas you try to express are WP:OR and WP:POV and Wikipedias policy is WP:NPOV. WP:verifiability is also relevant here. You have published your ideas, I acknowledge that, but so far without citations. WP:POV states "The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." Until others representing the mainstream in science cite your work and accept these ideas they are out of place in Wikipedia. Plantsurfer (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Plantsurfer cannot even keep different issues apart. I'm claiming that the definition of clade (in the article here) is a definitional confusion, whereas Martin claims that I'm not behaving properly. Plantsurfer's conclusion that Martin's right does not exclude the possibility that I'm right. Both of us may be right (although Martin's being right is not science, and not being comparable with me being right in any sense. Martin just echoes cladism's simpleminded confusion, whereas I actually provides an explanation of Linné's magnificient system. Martin is zero, whereas I do at least provide a contribution to science). Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The definition of clade in this article is wrong

The definition of clade in this article is wrong. A clade is indeed a monophyletic group, as the article says, but the continuation "- that is, a single common ancestor and all its descendants" is a definitional confusion. The definition "a single common ancestor and all its descendants" is actually the definition of holophyletic group, not of monophyletic group. It actually explicates that clade is synonymous with holophyletic group. Such a group (i.e., clade/holophyletic group) is a monophyletic group only in a generic sense, that is, analogous to how apples are fruits. The reference "that is" in the continuation, refers to both clade and monophyletic group thus creating the impression that they are synonymous, although also paraphyletic groups are monophyletic groups (analogous to how also pears are fruits). The continuation thus actually confuses clade with monophyletic group, erroneously excluding paraphyletic group from monophyletic group. It is actually an attempt to confuse a specific (i.e., clade/holophyletic group) with its generic monophyletic group) excluding the other specific paraphyletic group from this generic, and thus a generic attempt to confuse specifics with generics. Such confusion is actually the contrary to conceptualization, that is, deconceptualization. I thus demand that Wikipedia changes the definition of clade into a synonymization with holophyletic group as soon as possible. The present definition of clade in the article is obviously a definitional confusion (and a serious such). Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.21.226 (talk)

So would you like to propose forms of words for the definitions of monophyletic and holophyletic groups that would meet your consistent definitions? Plantsurfer (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained, both in my article and here, that holophyletic group is defined as "an ancestor and all its descendants", paraphyletic group is defined as "an ancestor and some of its descendants", and monophyletic group is defined as "an ancestor and its descendants" (without quantificator), by the fundamental assumption, that is, axiom, that things exist. These concepts may be difficult to understand, as witnessed by the conceptual confusion that is called 'cladistics', but are none the less defined this way by the fundamental axiom that things exist. The concept clade is consistently defined as "a confusion of the concepts holophyletic group and monophyletic group", and does, in practice, rest on the inconsistent and empirically erroneous axiom that kinds exist. This explanation describes the factual situation independently of who that describes it. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the definitions above are not complete. The concept paraphyletic also includes "groups consisting of 'all' descendants of a particular ancestor" (that is, excluding the ancestor). Paraphyletic group simply collects all monophyletic groups that are not included in holophyletic group. It does not, however, include the concept polyphyletic group, since this, like monophyletic group, is a kind of phyletic group. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(The choices Wikipedia has in this issue is 1. to disambiguate clade and cladistics into the consistent definitions above, or 2. to adopt cladistics' conceptual confusion and thus "deny" both the concept paraphyletic group and disambiguation, which an encyclopedia, of course, can't do. Wikipedia thus, in practice, has no other option than to accept facts, independently of whether Wikipedia's editors like them or not, in order to remain an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is objective per definition and thus has to acknowledge that the concepts above compose the meeting point of process and pattern resulting from objectivity's fundamental distinction of process and pattern. It has to accept that cladistics (i.e., cladism) is a subjective comprehension (actually acknowledging subjectivity in general), like Christianity and Islam, and thus only can be expressed by ambiguous concepts, like in the Bible and in the Koran, but unlike these, cladism is not only inconsistent, but also falsified by the fact that time is relative to space). Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And what are the independent, reliable sources that support this change? —C.Fred (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources? This change does not need support of any source at all, since all of us (that is, also cladists, see Martin above) acknowledge the fact that clade and holophyletic group are synonymous (that is, that clade and monophyletic group are not synonymous (as the article about clade presently erroneously states). An explanation of the confusion (i.e., cladistics), together with empirical support for the fact that it is a confusion, can be found in my article. You have to understand that I'm not claiming that cladistics is a confusion; I'm demonstrating that it is a confusion by falsifying its equalization of time and space. It means that Wikipedia can only order (straighten up) these concepts (i.e., mono-, holo- and paraphyletic group, and clade and cladistics) by introduction of this change. Not introducing it, instead means that the messes in the articles about clade and cladistics will remain per definition, because the comprehension behind the concepts is inconsistent, and also that the "messing" will spread into related concepts, like evolution, phylogenetics, Linnean classification, relativity theory, Heisenbergs uncertainty relation, science, and so on, because cladistics' inconsistency is, as I have explained, anti-scientific and anti-conceptualization. It is actually anti-encyclopedian.

No, the question is not "what (actually which) independent reliable sources that support this change?", but instead how long Wikipedia can afford to delay an introduction of the change? The route back to sense gets harder and harder for every moment cladistics is allowed to spread its confusion. When Plantsurfer or/and C.Fred realize(s) that I'm right, there will still be many cladists to drag out of the hole, and all of them will be just as difficult to drag out of it as Plantsurfer and C.Fred are. Cladistics only survives by being comprehended as "constructive", meaning solving the "problem" that reality is ambiguous, but it's actually destructive, since the reason for this ambiguity is that reality is distinct from our comprehension of it, that is, that reality exists. This "problem" can thus not be solved, but only overcomed, and this it is by the Linnean classification.

I can just repeat that the synonymization of the concepts clade and monophyletic group in this article is inconsistent (that is, self-contradictory) and empirically erroneous. This error as well as all other "phyletic" concepts are disambiguated by (1) merging this article (i.e., about the concept clade) with the article about the concept holophyletic group in the form of noting in passing that a holophyletic group also is synonymous to a clade, (2) defining the concept paraphyletic group as "a group consisting of an ancestor and some of its descendants, or 'all' descendants of a particular ancestor (that is, excluding the ancestor)", and (3) defining the concept monophyletic group as "holo- and paraphyletic groups". Not accepting this disambiguation, on the other hand, does in practice mean accepting ambiguation of concepts in general. There is, as I have tried to explain, no neutral ground to be found in this issue; ambiguate or disambiguate. Why not accept a consistent (and also final) solution (i.e., disambiguation) of this problem now instead of later? It is a fact independently of whether Wikipedia acknowledges it or not. The alternative is to dissolve. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(Ps If Wikipedia doesn't accept the change, it means that Wikipedia doesn't accept Aristotle's definition of definition as "a set of words that is one, not by conjunction, like the Iliad, but because it deals with one object", but instead defines definition as "a set of words that is one by conjunction, like the Iliad". This definition of definition is the contrary to objectivity, that is, subjectivity. ds) Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia dare to disambiguate the concept clade or not to?

Does Wikipedia dare to disambiguate the concept clade or not to? Both options have serious consequences for either biological systematics or Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia thus have to choose between making this choice or letting reality make the choice for it. The former allows Wikipedia to make the correct choice, whereas the latter leaves the choice to chance. And, as the definition of clade is presently expressed in Wikipedia, Wikipedia actually presently advocates ambiguation and thus the anti-encyclopedian choice. Leaving the choice to chance thus means that Wikipedia not only leaves the choice to chance, but furthermore advocates the anti-encyclopedian choice. It means that Wikipedia not only leaves its own destiny to chance, but furthermore digs its own grave. When will Wikipedia's editors realize that they have to take the battle to disambiguate the concept clade? The sooner the simpler; the later the harder. They are welcome to redirect complaints from leading cladists like, for example, Steve Farris, Gareth Nelson, Mikael Härlin, Kevin de Quieroz, Jim Carpenter, Per Sundberg and Kåre Bremer to me. Contrary to Ashlock, Simpson and Mayr, I understand their motives and behavior. I understand that the issue to them is not a scientific issue, but a struggle about power. Power over words is fundamental for power in general. I recommend (and fight for) a disambiguation of the concept clade. Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia dare ... ? To discover the answer you had best take the question to Wikipedia. To understand this, please disambiguate the terms editor and organsiation.Plantsurfer (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You claim that "the synonymization of the concepts clade and monophyletic group in this article is inconsistent (that is, self-contradictory) and empirically erroneous". Please provide examples of empirical data in support, that is data that produced by experiment or observation.Plantsurfer (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your definitions above state that monophyletic group consists of ancestor and (unqualified) descendants. However, if not all descendants are included the group becomes paraphyletic per definition. Consequently, holophyletic and monophyletic cannot be distinguished by your definition, i.e. are synonymous.Plantsurfer (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your sausage analogy is biological crap. Species do not disappear when a speciation event occurs in a subset of their members. If that did happen, then biodiversity would be impossible.Plantsurfer (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to merge clade with holophyletic group, since they are synonymous (which the cladist Martin also agrees about). The article about clade, however, instead synonymizes clade with monophyletic group. Now, if both these statements are correct, then Wikipedia can merge all three concepts. This is, however, not possible, since they, in fact, are not synonymous. The error resides in that clade is not synonymous to monophyletic group (which the article about it thus erroneously presently states). I'm patiently trying to explain that the conceptual messes in the articles about clade and cladistics, presently spreading out into related concepts, are resolved by my suggested changes above. Which concept of monophyletic group or holophyletic group does Plantsurfer consider to be synonymous to clade? Mats, presently at 83.254.21.226 (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Clade is synonymous with holophyletic group

Mats, as you have argued it in your paper, your case that clade means holophyletic group makes perfect sense. The distinction you make there between holophyletic group and monophyletic group is also completely clear, as is your explanation that a paraphyletic group is in fact monophyletic, since it consists of an ancestor and an unspecified proportion (but not all) of its descendents. What we are left with is two problems, neither insuperable, but still needing solutions. The first is that most of your explanation above is insufficiently clear to be useful in the article. We need statements of the clarity that appear in the paper, where the points come across transparently. The second problem is that if we simply change the article to convert the word monophyletic into holophyletic it will appear to be wrong for everyone using the conventional terminology, and the effort will immediately be undone. I think for some time it may have to contain a conventional statement and a section providing the disambiguation. I am sorry it has taken so long to reach this point, but your message seemed clouded by issues with the various possible meanings of words, and also earlier by the original perception of you as an IP-vandal. I also think we should try to get you unblocked, but I don't know how to go about this. Any suggestions would be gratefully received. Plantsurfer (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Envall has been a consistently disruptive editor on both this Wikipedia and Swedish Wikipedia (where incidentally his edits are equally incoherently phrased), with little indication that he is able to listen to reason or is in the least interested in creating an encyclopedia. He repeats his behaviour on other sites, such as these: [1] [2] [3]. He has in fact clearly stated that his only ambition is to promote his own views, which means that his ambition is to disregard Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and so on. Unblocking him would be very ill-guided. Tomas e (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (see below), but I had hoped it would be otherwise. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm looking at Mats Envall's paper ""On the difference between mono-, holo-, and paraphyletic groups: a consistent distinction of process and pattern" right now and it makes little sense to me:

Whether one calls an ancestor and all its descendants "monophyletic" or "holophyletic" doesn't really matter, provided we know the definitions of the terms. It's no more significant than labelling variables in an equation x and y or p and q. OK, it's nice if the etymology of the term used summarises the definition, but the biological sciences have many examples where terms embody misconceptions and are still used, e.g. birds are descended from saurischian dinos, not from ornithischians.
One could defend Hennig's choice of "monophyletic" by noting that he also wanted to specify a group descended from one ancestor that was itself a member of the group. So for example dinosaurs and arthropods used to be considered not monophyletic (theories of separate origins of saurishcians and ornithischians 1887 to about 1970; Sidnie Manton's theories about arthropods).
"It is impossible to exclude paraphyletic groups from holophyletic groups because holophyletic groups include paraphyletic groups" looks like total nonsense. The fact that all members of set A are members of set B does not means that the definitions of set A and B are identical or even logically related in any way. For example my current car is the sole member of the set cars that I own and also a member of the very large set of blue things. As a more relevant example, sauropsida is considered a monophyletic (and holophyletic) group, while the popular notion of "fish" is paraphyletic as it excludes humans and other amniotes.
"Process is real in light of things, and things are real in light of process, and holo- and paraphyletic processes are thus real in light of monophyletic groups of things, whereas monophyletic groups of things are real in light of holo- and paraphyletic processes" is meaningless to me. The paper does not define "holophyletic process", "monophyletic process" or "paraphyletic process". If we consider cladistics purely as a classification technique regardless of the types of things being classified, "holophyletic", "monophyletic" and "paraphyletic" (and "polyphyletic") are simply ways of describing sets of items in terms of their topological relationships in a hierarchical tree structure. When cladistics is applied evolutionary biology only one process is assumed, namely evolution.
"Monophyletic groups are ‘natural’ groups (i.e. existing, historically cohesive groups) that can change (i.e. evolve) and, similar to single things, they are thereby patterns in time, whereas para- and holophyletic ‘groups’ are such groups over time before and after change" is equally meaningless to me. Once again I see no definition of "holophyletic", "monophyletic" or "paraphyletic" that explains why the same operations cannot be applied to all three. In addition I suspect the use of "evolve" for any taxonomic level about species is incorrect, since evolution is a combination of natural selection plus inheritance with variation, and biological inheritance assumes the biological species concept, which is based on reproductive isolation. In practice one can use higher-level taxa as as shorthand for e.g. "all species within the higher-level taxon" or "many species within the higher-level taxon" or "an unknown species within the higher-level taxon". The first of these shorthands is sometimes clear enough, e.g. "ammonties became extcint at the end of the Cretaceous". But others, e.g. "the maniraptorans evolved into birds", can mislead newcomers to the subject and I would prefer to avoid such shorthand in Wikipedia.
Mats Envall's paper simply states at the beginning and end that Linnean taxonomy is superior to cladistics, without giving any reasoning or even a few examples of why readers should accept this.
The bits about the relativity of time ("i.e. to vary with speed in space") are irrelevant at best, as time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity only have practically significant effects when relative velocities are significant fractions of the speed of light, since the conversion factor in Special Relativity is sqrt(1 - (v²÷c²)), and thus to achieve a 1% time dilation the relative velocity must be 0.1c, a condition that has not been attained by any pair of organisms that originated on Earth.
Mats Enval's paper misses the point. The real difficulty with cladistics in evolutionary biology is that its hierarchical structure relies on the biological species concept, and breaks down when reproductive isolation breaks down. One can simply ignore limited breakdowns of reproductive isolation, for example the retroviruses that allegedly make placental mammals possible, but cladistics cannot cope with large-scale, long-term horizontal gene transfer, and the horizontal promiscuity of at least some plants appears to be why some botanists are less enthusiatic about cladistics than most zoologists and paleontologists. However Linnean taxonomy has equal problems with horizontal gene transfer as it struggles with continuous ranges of intermediate forms. At least cladistics is comfortable with continuous ranges of intermediate forms provided they follow the pattern of species-based evolution. --Philcha (talk)

I'm glad to see that Plantsurfer has understood the problem and think that his solution is OK. (Although I hesitate to leave the error as a sour dough. Why not just eradicate it?) Philcha's making the mistake of concretizing the problem. This problem concerns conceptualization itself. Talking about "saurischian dinos" or any other kind of thing requires definition of this thing, and a circular kind of definition like the cladistic "an ancestor and all its descendants" is inconsistent simply because circular definitions (i.e., by conjunction) are inconsistent. This fact did already the ancient Greeks discover about 2,500 years ago in their discussions exemplified by Parmenides' and Heracleitos' approaches, and also solve by Aristotle's conceptualization using generics, specifics and specific differences. This may be regarded as "pure semantics" by cladists (which both Wittgestein and I have explained is wrong), but "pure semantics" is in itself a sufficient reason for an encyclopedia to consider it. Articles like those about clade and cladistics is a shame for an encyclopedia. Anyone with clear eyes can see the definitional confusion in the first couple of lines, and the conceptual mess that follows it. I ask Tomas and Philcha the same question as I asked Plantsurfer: which concept of holo- or monophyletic groups is the concept clade synonymous to? This question must be acknowledged and answered before the article about clade can be disambiguated. Mats, presently at 83.254.20.29 (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not signed up to all of your thesis - there are still many points on which I disagree with you profoundly - so please don't use me in advertising as your advocate. I accept a single point - your analysis that clade = holophyletic group (i.e. is a thing in your terminology) and that monophyletic group can be one of several possible things, including a paraphyletic group, and is therefore not a single thing but a kind of things. As you point out, holophyletic group is a specific, while monophyletic group is a generic, so they do not have the same taxonomic status. What don't I accept? Well, some examples include the sausage nonsense, the denial that families are clades, the circular argument proposition above, the issue of the relativity of time and space, etc, and the assertion that this all represents a black hole by which science and Wikipedia will ultimately be consumed. Crap. Give us all a break. I am also disappointed that you thought it appropriate to make ill-considered edits to Clade and Holophyly without consulting with other editors. Considering your position as a blocked editor and their controversial nature, the reversion of those edits was inevitable. We, WP editors, are not ready for revolutionary change by a banned loose-cannon editor. Step by step negotiation of the introduction of single ideas argued with crystal clarity might be feasible. On balance it is probably for the best that you stay blocked, since yesterday's evidence says you can't be trusted. Above all you need to consider, learn and observe the rules by which this encyclopedia operates, and operate within that framework. Plantsurfer (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

rvv. 1) Wikipedia is not a scientific battlefield. Please take up your personal scientific crusade in the domain of professional science using the tools professional scientists use - research and dissemination of findings in the scientific literature. 2) Personal criticism of living named persons in a public medium such as this is unacceptable. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Plantsurfer obviously continues to believe that this issue is a scientific matter. It isn't. It is actually a matter of cladism being internally inconsistent, that is, self-contradictory, by using deduced conclusions to formulate definitions that are incompatible with its axiomatic assumptions, thereby implying (an)other axiomatic assumption(s) than what it actually rests on (in Swedish it is called "cutting the branch you sit on"). It is cladists refusal to admit this semantic fact that have forced me to use real facts (i.e., time's relativity to space) to falsify cladism's internal inconsistency. The problem with cladism is not a scientific matter at all, it is actually a matter of a belief (cladism) claiming to be scientific. It is a matter of a wolf being dressed in sheep clothes. I'm trying to explain that if Wikipedia does not succeed to disambiguate the concept clade, then cladists will instead ambiguate all concepts they can reach. There is no neutral ground to be found between science and cladism; they are each others contraries. What science conceptualizes does cladism deconceptualize, and the problem with non- or deconceptualization is that it is inconsistent (that is, self-contradictorty) and empirically erroneous. I just demand that the persons that dragged cladism through the kitchen door into biological systematics (i.e., Farris and Nelson), and those that enforced it within biological systematics (i.e. Sundberg, Härlin, de Quieroz, Carpenter, Lipscomb and others) ought to defend cladism when I disqualify it. It is thus not a "scientific battlefield" (as Plantsurfer calls it), but a battlefield about the definitions of concepts, or ultimately over ambiguation or disambiguation (i.e., holism or reductionism) of concepts. The issue is more extensive generically than Plansurfer admits it is. I'm simply saying that reductionism is consistent and correct (using Aristotle's conceptualization) and that holism is inconsistent (i.e., self-contradictory) and wrong. Plantsurfer has taken the same side as me in this fundamental controversy, although he does not appear willing to take the consequences of it, but the alternative is the other side. Why fight me, when our shared enemy is holism? Reductionism contains several different opinions per definition, which holism does not. The issue is not the battle; the battle is about the issue. Invite leading cladists to discuss the definition of the concept clade with me! Mats, presently at 83.254.20.29 (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(I have to add that I can't be wrong, because it would mean that multidimensional analysis also would be wrong, and thus that mathematics also would be wrong, and thereby that the fundamental axiom that 1=1 also would be wrong. Cladism's "natural" approach is, obviously, difficult to argue for). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.20.29 (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, my "disrutive editing" "not being able to listen to reason or the least interested in creating an encyclopedia" as Tomas above accuses me for is, of course, totally wrong. I am, on the contrary, straightening out the concept that this discussion page discusses, that is, clade. I'm explaining that clade is a confusion of the concept monophyletic group with the concept holophyletic group, whereof the former is a generic concept for the latter. Can it be said clearer? What Tomas calls "reason" does, obviously, not agree with the definition of the concept reason. He probably refers to Hennig's "natural" interpretation of reason. Reason is normally not being comprehended as acknowledging things that do not exist and denying things that do exist, but, on the contrary, of acknowledging things that do exist, and denying that things that do not exist. Self-evident facts may, obviously, protrude as "unnatural" to cladists. Mats, presently at 83.254.20.29 (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're proud of being a cladist, then maybe you should rethink. Mats, presently at 83.254.20.29 (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)