Talk:Holophyletic group
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
About improving this article by expanding it
[edit]This article begs for improving it by expanding it. It is, however, practically impossible, since every expansion is deleted by proponents for the approach that is called cladistics, which I prefer to call cladism (since it is a belief in an abstraction similar to other -isms). The reason is that the defintion of holophyletic group is identical to the definition of clade, the concepts thus being synonymous, although the article about clade at the same time synonymizes the concept clade with the concept monophyletic group. The article about clade does thus confuse holophyletic group with monophyletic group using a definitional confusion. This confusion is actually a confusion of one generic term (i.e., monophyletic group) with one of its specific terms (i.e., holophyletic group), where the other specific term is paraphyletic group. The factual situation is thus that mono- and holophyletic group are not synonymous, but that holo- and paraphyletic group instead are different specific kinds of monophyletic group. The problem with cladistics is not that it acknowledges an abstraction (i.e., holophyletic group), but that it denies the concrete (i.e., reality), by denying the other aspect of monophyletic group (i.e., paraphyletic group). It simply turns pattern and process conceptually up-side-down, thereby defining two kinds of pattern, that is, both pattern and process, which are inconsistent (i.e., opposites) within one concept (i.e., clade), meaning that cladistics is internally inconsistent (i.e., self-contradictory), and also falsified by facts (see the talk page for clade).
This could I explain more extensive in the articles about mono- holo- and paraphyletic group, and clade and cladistics, but it is stopped by cladists by all possible means. One is the argument that straightening out the confusion would create confusion. Much does one have to hear before one's ears fall off. Mats, presently at 83.254.23.241 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)