GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268405932


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:58:52 -0500
References: <376447.73467.qm@web25904.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><4B992A34.6060104@san.rr.com><FCA563F0-DD03-4B1E-A5ED-D1751792324B@vizachero.com><00e201cac145$82fec7c0$5e82af48@Ken1><59b150b1003111148g536d80e5he4ebb561c9048fc0@mail.gmail.com><017901cac159$4e6c7020$5e82af48@Ken1><086F1093A566477B815995B401BB889C@HP><3480483d1003111821h356097c0k9398df8feee1aaf5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3480483d1003111821h356097c0k9398df8feee1aaf5@mail.gmail.com>


Aaron,

It is the traits (the SNPs) that are discovered (observed), not the groups. The
groups are defined by humans who establish the criteria for inclusion in the
groups, determine the polarity of the traits, deduce the logical appearance of
traits, and construct the tree. Neither the tree nor its included groups are
"discovered," they are human constructs used to represent the historical path of
an ongoing process.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Aaron Hill
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
>
> 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.
>
> -- Aaron
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen
> <>wrote:
>
> > 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
> > not
> > 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.
> >
> > Diana
> >
> > > -----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 ]]


This thread: