GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268410509


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:15:09 -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$5e82af48@Ken1><086F1093A566477B815995B401BB889C@HP><3480483d1003111821h356097c0k9398df8feee1aaf5@mail.gmail.com><3b2a446a1003112252j5c16c392lc9fbf52e805e9407@mail.gmail.com><000601cac1f5$b5338040$5e82af48@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <000601cac1f5$b5338040$5e82af48@Ken1>


The reason we keep having this discussion, year after year, Ken, is that you
persist in using the word "clade" inappropriately.

Yes, the word "clade" has both a lay definition, meaning simply "group," and a
technical definition, as used in cladistics, meaning a *monophyletic* group.
The Y-DNA haplotree is a cladogram, a product of cladistic analysis. Its
branches are, to the best of our current knowledge, monophyletic clades. In
these discussions, we should be using the technical definition of the word. The
word "group" is still available for other uses.

The minute you start using "demographic properties" in your analysis, you have
ceased doing biology and your clades have ceased to be phylogenetic. It is
perfectly valid to *group* people based on demographics, but it has nothing to
do with phylogeny.

You are also confusing the discovered fact with the tool. The "mutational tags"
are not the tools, they're the discovered facts. The tool is cladistics.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Ken Nordtvedt
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 10:07 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
>
>
> ----- 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: