Is there any such thing as being a "race traitor"?

[John_Mace]

I’m saying a bit more than that. I’m saying there are many people who are in the same “clade” with the people who are designated as, say, the “Tuscan clade” but who would not exhibit the genetic fingerprint that is allegedly a marker for being in that “clade”. The “clade” is much bigger than the genetic test will show, and so the test is not a good measure of the “clade”.

[John_Mace]

BTW, let me quote from the SciAm article:

Genetic literacy will let a term like “Asian” or “Chinese” be replaced by more subtle classifications based on the differences in ancestral genetic makeup found in recent genome-wide scans, such as the distinction between China’s southern and northern Han groups. “There is no race,” Quintana-Murci says. “What we see [from the standpoint of genetics] is geographical gradients. There are no sharp differences between Europeans and Asians. From Ireland to Japan, there is no sharp boundary where something has changed completely.”

Emphasis added.

[Pleonast]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m saying a bit more than that. I’m saying there are many people who are in the same “clade” with the people who are designated as, say, the “Tuscan clade” but who would not exhibit the genetic fingerprint that is allegedly a marker for being in that “clade”. The “clade” is much bigger than the genetic test will show, and so the test is not a good measure of the “clade”.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Just another way of saying it’s statistical difference between the groups, not a definitive statement about any individual’s genes.

While the authors say there is no “race”, they suggest replacing it with “more subtle classifications based on the differences in ancestral genetic makeup”, so they believe that cladistic distinctions can be made. At least that phrase sure sounds like a reference to clades to me. It’s six versus half a dozen.

[John_Mace]

Well, I just took its pulse, and I’m ready to declare this horse dead.

[Indistinguishable]

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
Uh, where are getting the closure requirement? From your cite: “A clade is a taxonomic group comprising a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor.” No mention of closure. As long as the clade contains all descendants from the clade’s ancestor, then it’s a proper clade.
[/QUOTE]

All and only the descendants of some particular ancestor. Yes, that’s the “closure” requirement I mentioned (if possibly worded in a different, but essentially mathematically equivalent way). The clade has to be “closed under” MRCAs and descendants. What’d you think I was saying?

I was suggesting that the groups you were discussing (and proposing as the basis of a classification system) are probably not clades, in that they are probably not the collection of all and only the descendants of some particular ancestor.