GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268406436


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:07:16 -0700
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><3b2a446a1003112252j5c16c392lc9fbf52e805e9407@mail.gmail.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sasson Margaliot" <>

> These groups are defined. SNPs are discovered,


[[ When I said clades were properties of the y tree (part of independently
existing nature) whether or not yet discovered by any of us, I forgot to add
that the clades were demographic properties of the y tree with or without
(independent of) any mutational tags (STRs, SNPs, etc.) we had as tools to
find the clades. The tags do not make the clades; the demographic events
collectively make the clades.

Or I'll try to say it a third way: the y tree exists in nature independent
of us (albeit slowly changing as males are born and die today). Our glimpse
or representation of it is constantly unfolding (hopefully in an improved
direction) as more data is collected and more tools like mutational markers
become available. (Haplogroups are only specifc, but not exhaustive, cases
of clades.) Ken ]]

[[ This outbreak of disagreement has occurred now for years on these forums.
And I'm sure further outbreaks about this will occur in the future. But in
the meantime, let us say some folks are defining things and other folks are
discovering things. ]]



This thread: