Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268501234

From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:27:14 -0500
References: <><><><00e201cac145$82fec7c0$5e82af48@Ken1><><017901cac159$4e6c7020$5e82af48@Ken1><086F1093A566477B815995B401BB889C@HP><><><000601cac1f5$b5338040$5e82af48@Ken1><294168F50E07487A812B78EBD02BCBF4@HP><><BCC91D9EA86E43FCBF0F1AEAFB5CD7A7@HP><011b01cac212$8b6e9340$5e82af48@Ken1><65609D4617B84F15B9653A789115A218@HP><013801cac216$a3a77450$5e82af48@Ken1><D7C366EF2B1D47A89D465B482BD0B343@HP>
In-Reply-To: <D7C366EF2B1D47A89D465B482BD0B343@HP>

Good grief! Is this "strawman week" somewhere?

Diana, if you think Ken is using the term "clade" wrong then you
simply haven't comprehended what he is saying.

And, by the way, some of us willfully eschew the term "cladistics"
because of our dissatisfaction with the beliefs and methods that
people who self-identify with that field seem prone to exhibit. In
biology, at least, you'll modern practitioners more likely to use the
term "phylogenetics". The idea being that cladistics is more a school
of thought - and a possibly archaic one - rather than a useful science.


On Mar 13, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:

> You've given your idiosyncratic, personal definition to a technical
> term that
> has a precise -- and quite different -- meaning, to the obfuscation
> of those who
> don't realize what you're doing.

This thread: