GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268513205


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:46:45 -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><294168F50E07487A812B78EBD02BCBF4@HP><97305A05-75B3-44B6-8433-84FDB790890F@vizachero.com><BCC91D9EA86E43FCBF0F1AEAFB5CD7A7@HP><011b01cac212$8b6e9340$5e82af48@Ken1><65609D4617B84F15B9653A789115A218@HP><EB0C735B-E85F-4F51-BA57-737D0C92050B@vizachero.com><6D9FD7E250D74B4B8D0B779135D3520B@HP><06F1FE2D-B6E4-4982-9682-254173A23AA6@vizachero.com><F0C959169F764CED8905257BD698D173@HP><006201cac2dc$6d17a420$5e82af48@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <006201cac2dc$6d17a420$5e82af48@Ken1>


Ken,

The way you backquote makes it very difficult to separate what you're saying
from what you're backquoting, especially when you seem to refer to yourself in
the third person. So, if I mis-interpret your message, sorry, but you didn't
make it easy to decipher.

I have no disagreement with you that there is an objective reality that exists
regardless of whether we are aware of it or not. I would also submit that there
is an evolutionary path that every living creature followed, one that has
objective reality, whether we can see it, or not. I don't think we need argue
either of these points.

The sticking point is, as it always has been, your use of the word, "clade."

With regard to human evolution, the objective reality we are viewing is the
*present* state of our species. With the exception of a brief recorded history,
everything we know about the path of human evolution has been *deduced* from one
form of evidence or another. One of the most powerful tools that can be applied
to analyzing the evidence for the evolution of a species -- or group of species
or all of life -- is cladistic analysis, which produces a cladogram, which
defines clades, which by definition must be monophyletic (i.e., have a common
ancestor and include all descendants).

The path of evolution has objective reality, but the cladogram and the clades
are human constructs, used by us to help bring order to what is an incredibly
complicated process with a long, complicated history. We are arbitrarily
picking traits to plug into a cladogram to create arbitrary clades. I didn't
say clades weren't real, I said they were *arbitrary* and thus, defined, not
discovered.

Whether clades are defined or discovered is, however, not the important issue
her. The real problem, IMO, is your persistence in calling your demographic
groups, "clades," when they are "populations" -- or "ethnic groups," if you
prefer. Haplogroup R1b is a monophyletic clade, regardless of when and where
it's members are found, what they're doing, or with whom they are associated
(i.e., regardless of their "demographic properties"). R1b shows up in many
ethnic groups and regional populations, and it is defined by none of the
demographic properties of these groups. Jews are a polyphyletic ethnic group,
not an evolutionary clade, because Jews come in many haplogroups and its
haplogroups contain non-Jews -- even the Cohen Modal Haplotype is possessed by
non-Jews.

Diana





> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Ken Nordtvedt
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:39 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 11:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
>
>
> > Ken said they were (defined by demographic properties): [[[
> No he didn't,
> > because Ken knows clades are not defined. They are! They
> exist! They
> > are the demographic properties of the y tree --- to be
> discovered by
> > investigation to whatever precision or quality data permits. ]]]
> >
> >> "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."
>
>
>
>


This thread: