BIC made 2 points:

1. I have "taken back that statement that Hennig and cladists 'misunderstand evolution'".

2. My tolerance of paraphyly is not widely held among systematists.

I do agree with BIC that intolerance of paraphyletic taxa is fashionable and popular among many practicing systematists. Of course, that does not mean that such intolerance has any scientific basis. As I pointed out in my original post, Mayr and Ashlock have pointed out that the cladists' disqualification of paraphyletic taxa is impractical, destructive and scientifically untenable. BIC does not disagree and offers no rebuttal to Mayr and Ashlock's claim. So, if it is fashionable to be impractical, destructive and scientifically untenable, then the cladists will do it. What does that say about the cladists, or those systematists who adhere to cladistic ideology even if they are not cladists? I would say that they are like Galileo's proverbial starlings, who flock and great numbers but befoul the taxonomic literature with impractical, destructive and scientifically untenable taxnomic proposals.

As to whether or not Hennig and his followers understand evolution. It is difficult to ascertain. Their taxnomic practice suggests that they do not. Although if they are reasonably educated, they should know that budding evolution is the most frequent means by which new species evolve. They should also know that budding evolution results in paraphyletic groups and thus their intolerance of paraphyly is irrational. Hence there is a real conflict between scientific fact and cladistic ideology. The cladists have decided that they should side with ideology and ignore scientific fact. And judging by the number of systematists who are doing that, it is simply unsettling to know how many practicing systematists will ignore scientific fact. They are even so arrogant to suggest that they must be correct because so many people are practicing the same ideology.

If Hennig hadn't openly admitted that he ignored scientific facts, then would we have known that he actually knew what he has been ignoring? Is there a real difference between those who do not understand evolution and those who do understand evolution but ignores what they know about it?

After much contemplation, I would maintain that if the cladists act as though they do not understand evolution in their taxonomic practices, then they really do not understand evolution.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]