logo4 Evolution is progress—                          
progress is creativity.        
vline

Fauceir Cladogram

We know cladograms from taxonomy. Zoological systematics and botanical systematics deal with it. The cladograms in Zoology and Botany are based on evolution, so it comes as no surprise that as Fauceir Evolution deals with the evolution of the whole universe, Fauceir Cladograms include the whole univers. At least the portion that is visible to our instruments.

Problem

As with all hierarchical structure, the dispute is about what has to be put on top and what is the rule of decent.

Firstly, there was little discussion about whom to put at the top of the hierarchical pyramid of biological life forms. Anthropocentrism is common among almost all cultures on this planet, so Haeckel saw no problems in putting humans at the top of his tree-of-life, and the scientific community readilly accepted. The subject of hierarchy becomes more controversial if the hierarchy of religions is considered. Everybody is cetainly inclined to put the own religion on top of the others. As with religions in particular, it is with all fauceirs in general. For instance, we may sort our hierarchy beginning from elementary particles and proceed through all the fauceirs with more complexity all the way up to the universe. The opposite way to construct a systematic is to put the universe, the container of all yet known fauceirs, on top. We use the latter approach here.

Secondly, an other question when systematically unraveling the universe is the rule of decent. Of course, I would prefer to construct a hierarchy clearly as a chain of causation and evolution. But it, in fact, is not as easy. For instance, it poses great difficulties to explain social fauceirs by the help of elementary particles, chemical elements, or molecules (although some of the latter played a significant role in social evolution, alcohol for instance). Besides the same problem becomes more and more obvious in biogical evolution, too, where horizontal gene transfer disturbes the true hierarchical structure and rather implies a network of evolution. The rule underlying the fauceir cladogram is that fauceirs are grouped together by their content in element fauceirs (at least the most important ones).

Practical Issues

A cladogram presumes a true hierarchical structure. Such a hierarchy can be easily constructed if we consider a small portion of our universe, a certain subset of fauceirs. For instance, we have no problem to consider the hierarchy from galaxy, solar system, planet to the moon. The same is basically true within the class of mammals. Nobody probably questions the primates and especially us humans at the top of that hierarchy. Finally to name some linguistic fauceirs the hierarchy is obvious from essay, chapter, paragraph, sentence, word to phoneme and from constitution, law to work procedures and instructions.

But even in these "obvious" examples some experts may argue is no true hierarchy. For instance, where do the comets fit into our stellar hierarchy. In biology the hierarchy my be easily constructed among higher organisms, but what about bacteria. Our judicial system is hierarchical, but what about fringe groups that have their own rules, the mafia for instance. When analyzing an essay fauceirs, one can follow the route mentioned above, but isn't it equally possible to go from theory through concept all the way to ideas.

Conclusively, a cladogram of the whole universe remains imperfect and highly disputable. Despite this inherent imperfection I use cladograms for didactic purposes. By hierarchy we humans learned to understand the world since the time when hierarchical social structures evolved, so we owe our hierarchical understanding of the universe to our animal ancestors. If you understand this truth you are on the right way to understand Fauceir Theory and your mind opens to the broad spectrum of ways to understand the universe.

For the moment though, we cling to fauceir hierarchy as it is the route to proper understanding of the core theory.

 
   

(c) Mato Nagel, Weißwasser 2004-2013, Disclaimer