GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268360469
From: Aaron Hill <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:21:09 -0800
I have to side with Ken on this one. These groups are discovered. They are
not 'defined' by anyone except nature and human history. It is clear that
many people making the 'definitions' make mistakes, as in I1a being
reclassified I1 after some discoveries.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen
> Yes, haplogroups are defined because haplogroups are clades, and clades are
> defined, not discovered. They're defined by the researcher building the
> cladogram who decides on the traits to be included and makes the polarity
> determinations for those traits. It's SNPs that are discovered, and I'm
> aware of any "hobbyist" ever discovering one.
> There are no Jewish "clades" (beyond individual families) any more than
> there is
> a Jewish "race," unless you want to completely divorce the word "clade"
> from its
> cladistic meaning, which destroys its usefulness as a scientific term.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: On Behalf Of Ken Nordtvedt
> > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:28 PM
> > To: ;
> > Subject: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "bbailey.lowedna" <>
> > > FTDNA with more markers (and SNPs) tested from their
> > > customers has been able to continue defining more and
> > > more subclades.
> > [[ Clades are discovered, not defined.
> > Most all clades have been discovered by hobbyists and some
> > academic papers, not FTDNA. The latter are really not
> > interested in finding clades, except perhaps some of the
> > executives who have a special personal interest in
> > Jewish clades. You can say haplogroups are defined,
> > however. Ken ]]
|Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA by Aaron Hill <>|