The problem with the concept "clade" is thqt groups of "animals or other organisms derived from a common ancestor species" (the first definition above) are not consistent with groups of"animals that share features inherited from a common ancestor" (the third definition above). The problem is thus that the concept "clade" is internally inconsistent, that is, contradictory. Such things simply can't be found (non-contradictory).
The concept "paraphyletic" terms everything except the cladistic confusion of "now" and "then", that is, everything EXCEPT the inconsistent cladistic belief that history can be described unambiguously. It thus terms everything that is not cladistic, that is, everything that does not rest on cladistics' erroneous axiom that classes are real (i.e., typology). It is a generic term for what the ancient Greeks called "barbarians" in their differentiation of "Greeks" and "barbarians" (thus also including aryans in their version of cladistics). It terms a generic denial of everything except cladistics, especially of objectivity (which empirical science rests on). It does, fundamentally, represent a claim that all achievements of empirical science, including Einstein's theory of the relativity of time, is wrong ("unnatural") - that empirical science has got everything up-side-down. It actually represents a revolution against empirical science (i.e., objectivity) resting on the erroneous axiom that classes are real. It is thus, fundamentally, a typological concept of "non-cladistic". Accepting it thus turns you into a cladist. (Fact is that both "para"- and "holophyletic" are "monophyletic" (per definition), and that we have no practical possibility to tell them apart. The cladistic distinction of them can never become anything else than a brain-ghost).
Comments by 1541993697
1541993697 commented on the word clade
The problem with the concept "clade" is thqt groups of "animals or other organisms derived from a common ancestor species" (the first definition above) are not consistent with groups of"animals that share features inherited from a common ancestor" (the third definition above). The problem is thus that the concept "clade" is internally inconsistent, that is, contradictory. Such things simply can't be found (non-contradictory).
November 19, 2011
1541993697 commented on the word cladistics
Cladistics is applied set theory searching for Russell's paradox.
July 12, 2011
1541993697 commented on the word paraphyletic
The concept "paraphyletic" terms everything except the cladistic confusion of "now" and "then", that is, everything EXCEPT the inconsistent cladistic belief that history can be described unambiguously. It thus terms everything that is not cladistic, that is, everything that does not rest on cladistics' erroneous axiom that classes are real (i.e., typology). It is a generic term for what the ancient Greeks called "barbarians" in their differentiation of "Greeks" and "barbarians" (thus also including aryans in their version of cladistics). It terms a generic denial of everything except cladistics, especially of objectivity (which empirical science rests on). It does, fundamentally, represent a claim that all achievements of empirical science, including Einstein's theory of the relativity of time, is wrong ("unnatural") - that empirical science has got everything up-side-down. It actually represents a revolution against empirical science (i.e., objectivity) resting on the erroneous axiom that classes are real. It is thus, fundamentally, a typological concept of "non-cladistic". Accepting it thus turns you into a cladist. (Fact is that both "para"- and "holophyletic" are "monophyletic" (per definition), and that we have no practical possibility to tell them apart. The cladistic distinction of them can never become anything else than a brain-ghost).
May 1, 2011