Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268700379

From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Clades, Definitions, Discoveries, FTDNA
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:46:19 -0400
References: <><><><1072FC26160F4735BC62506A750D877D@HP><><002001cac47e$02c94a30$5e82af48@Ken1><FFB22BF095AB49C2B13C1074856ED837@HP><><2B7C4F4BC5414C03813524EA35560F2D@HP><><6912372CC8BF4A979973128658A10C79@HP>
In-Reply-To: <6912372CC8BF4A979973128658A10C79@HP>

As much as it hurts for the world of science to move past your comfort
zone, I'm afraid that's the state of affairs in genetics.

And, honestly, there are people who should know a lot about
phylogenetics (e.g. Spencer Wells) who have published the same kind of
mindless drivel we see here on this list from time to time.

The YCC and ISOGG trees are conceits, fashioned by committee with all
the glory and gore that entails. At their best moments, they
accurately reflect a snapshot of our understanding about the Y-
chromosome phylogeny. But they suffer from some conventions that
confuse many people who use them.

It IS important to understand that the Y-chromosome phylogeny exists
as a natural entity and that the YCC and ISOGG trees are merely human
constructs. A person who remembers this will have a more intuitive
sense that clades can exist without a SNP yet discovered to define it
(or, indeed, without a SNP in existence at all). And that SNPs can be
derived in more than one clade. And so on.

You can defend the ISOGG tree all you want, but know that's really
outside the core of the discussion you interrupted.


On Mar 15, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:

> Now you can go look up "rhetorical question":

This thread: