Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268423473

From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:51:13 -0500
References: <><><><00e201cac145$82fec7c0$5e82af48@Ken1><><017901cac159$4e6c7020$5e82af48@Ken1><086F1093A566477B815995B401BB889C@HP><><><000601cac1f5$b5338040$5e82af48@Ken1><294168F50E07487A812B78EBD02BCBF4@HP><><BCC91D9EA86E43FCBF0F1AEAFB5CD7A7@HP><011b01cac212$8b6e9340$5e82af48@Ken1><65609D4617B84F15B9653A789115A218@HP>
In-Reply-To: <65609D4617B84F15B9653A789115A218@HP>

With all due respect, Diana, I don't think you really understand the
thing you are criticizing here.

A clade is defined (or choose your preferred term) entirely by
demographics. A clade exists whenever someone or something has
descendants. The set which includes that MRCA and his/her/its
descendants is a clade. That's pretty simple, but its an accurate

Ken's point is that whether or not a clade comes into being is largely
down to demographic factors: population sizes, population growth
rates, and so on. If the right demographic conditions manifest, clade
creation happens. If the right conditions don't manifest, no clades.

So these clades exist, whether or not someone clever comes along to
"discover" them or not. And they exist whether or not someone is
clever enough to find a SNP to "define" them or not.

It just so happens that, among western Eurasians in historic times,
Jews (especially Ashkenazi Jews) have been characterized by
demographics that made it more likely that easily defined clades came
into existence.


On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:54 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:

> So defined, these are not phylogenetic clades, nor is the process
> cladistics.
> It's cultural anthropology.

This thread: