Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268409023

From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:50:23 -0500
References: <> <> <> <00e201cac145$82fec7c0$5e82af48@Ken1><><006701cac158$23a243c0$6ae6cb40$><017901cac159$4e6c7020$5e82af48@Ken1><086F1093A566477B815995B401BB889C@HP><024e01cac187$7599f450$5e82af48@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <024e01cac187$7599f450$5e82af48@Ken1>

I agree, properties of nature (facts) exist independent of us are there to be
discovered. In the case of the human Y-DNA haplotree, the properties of nature
selected for defining it are SNPs. And thank you for making the point about
math because, just as in math, clades are defined by logical deduction.

You will not "discover" a clade or a tree in nature. You cannot find one in a
fossil dig or under a microscope. Clades and trees are human constructs used to
describe the history of a process. We hope our constructs represent a true
phylogeny, but we have deduced the phylogeny, not discovered it.

I balked at your use of "Jewish" clade in the same way that I would balk if you
said I belonged to a "Christian" clade. Sounds funny when you say the latter,
doesn't it? Well, it should sound just as funny when you say "Jewish" clade.
"Jewish" is not a clade any more than "Christian" is a clade or any more than
"Jewish" is a race or "Christian" is a race. These are cultures, not
phylogenetic clades (beyond the family level in genealogical time).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Ken Nordtvedt
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:58 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
> and clades are
> > defined, not discovered. [[Wrong; the clades that have
> been discovered
> > are there in nature as property of the y tree whether we
> happened to
> > discover them or not. Properties of nature that exist
> independent of us
> > are to be discovered. Things in math and logic are more
> the subject
> > matter of definitions. Ken ]]
> >
> > There are no Jewish "clades" (beyond individual families)
> any more than
> > there is
> > a Jewish "race
> [[[ Jewish ydna clades exist at a number of places in the y
> tree. These are
> clades made up of extended haplotypes heavily populated by
> self-identified
> Jewish males but varying surnames and often having similar
> geographical
> places of origin as well. The clades are strong evidence of
> common descent
> from Jewish males at various lengths of time in the past.
> There was nothing in the message you responded to about
> Jewish "race", so
> what brought you to drag that in? Ken ]]]

This thread: