Talk:Clade

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)

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)

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)

Further reading on clades and cladism

Since my correct contributions on clades and cladism is not included in the articles about these concepts, but instead consistently deleted from them, and also from their discussion pages, I would like to inform readers that I have opened two blogs (http://evolutionaryscience.blogs.se/ and http://menvall.wordpress.com/) discussing the subject. There, I also discuss Wikipedias' credibility. I will continue opening as many blogs as I can, and also continue publishing my contributions on Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. Consistent, presently at 83.254.20.59 (talk) 00:44, 10 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)

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 (not WP:SPS!) about the issue, 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) --Philcha (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Incongruence between cladistic and taxonomic systems (2003) - a botanist criticises cladistics; tons of internal refs to follow up.