Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268518311

From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:11:51 -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><><0AAEE7A9F5B949C68C94CFFDA0716573@HP><><24C7C69E735341B1B6B5ABAE63842C42@HP>
In-Reply-To: <24C7C69E735341B1B6B5ABAE63842C42@HP>

Again, good grief.

You have, repeatedly, invoked the polarity of markers as a defining
characteristic of clades. For example, you wrote: "Y-DNA haplogroups
(clades) are not defined by their demographic properties, they are
defined by the polarity of their SNP mutations."

As we both now (it seems) agree, this statement is not true. Clades
are not defined by the "polarity of their SNP mutations" but rather by
the shared ancestry of their members.

Subsequently you paraphrased Ken as saying that ""tags" (genetic
mutations) do not make the clades. . . " and proceeded to accuse him
of being wrong.

If I've made the point that HE wasn't wrong, then I have accomplished


On Mar 13, 2010, at 4:32 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:

> If you're going to give my messages such a cursory read, please stop
> responding
> because this last interchange accomplishes absolutely nothing.

This thread: