Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268506854

From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:00:54 -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: <>

I can only take Ken at his word:

> "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."

He said "tags" (genetic mutations) do not make the clades, that demographic
events make (define) the clades. I don't know how much clearer (and wrong) he
could have been.

I find your statements re: cladistics v. phylogenetics nothing short of odd,
especially the ad hominem aspersions (being dismissive is a sign you haven't
something concrete to say). So, to be concrete, cladistics is a method, not a
field of science, and it's the main method currently in use for the kind of
research we're discussing:

If you want to haggle over the differences between cladistics and phylogenetics,
please find someone else to engage in that debate. The Y-DNA haplotree is a
cladogram, that's all I find relevant here.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Vincent Vizachero
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 12:27 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
> 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.
> VV

This thread: