Dr Elhaik has new theories on Ashkenas

[Petra]

This I just found:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a6992076.html

[josh w.]

Originally Posted by Petra

This I just found:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a6992076.html

Sorry, but his work has been discredited. Except for Elhayk, no other study has found Jewish origins outside of Israel- see Wikipedia on Jewish Genetics. Behar and others have noted serious flaws in the research design of his earlier study. Just check Eurogenes spreadsheet at Gedmatch. Ashkenazis have a much larger East Med (Levantine) component than a West Asia component. DNA Land also found an Ashkenazi component related to the Levant.

[josh w.]

Originally Posted by Petra

This I just found:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a6992076.html

Sorry, but his work has been discredited. Except for Elhaik, no other study has found Jewish origins outside of Israel- see Wikipedia on Jewish Genetics. Behar and others have noted serious flaws in the research design of his earlier study. Just check Eurogenes spreadsheet at Gedmatch. Ashkenazis have a much larger East Med (Levantine) component than a West Asia component. DNA Land also found an Ashkenazi component related to the Levant.

[josh w.]

Originally Posted by josh w.

Sorry, but his work has been discredited. Except for Elhaik, no other study has found Jewish origins outside of Israel- see Wikipedia on Jewish Genetics. Behar and others have noted serious flaws in the research design of his earlier study. Just check Eurogenes spreadsheet at Gedmatch. Ashkenazis have a much larger East Med (Levantine) component than a West Asia component. DNA Land also found an Ashkenazi component related to the Levant.

I wish I could see Elhaik's research paper, but it apparently fails to note that for the past thousand years, 'Ashkenazi' has been used figuratively rather than literally. It is true that the original Ashkenaz was in the area that Elhaik mentions. However, for a thousand years European Jews in Rome and Germany did not call themselves Ashkenazi. It was re-introduced about a thousand years ago without any demonstrated connection to ancient Ashkenaz- it was a 'poetic' attempt to connect the present with the past. The same thing happened to Sephardic Jews. Ancient Serafad was in the Near East rather than Spain.

[josh w.]

Originally Posted by josh w.

I wish I could see Elhaik's research paper, but it apparently fails to note that for the past thousand years, 'Ashkenazi' has been used figuratively rather than literally. It is true that the original Ashkenaz was in the area that Elhaik mentions. However, for a thousand years European Jews in Rome and Germany did not call themselves Ashkenazi. It was re-introduced about a thousand years ago without any demonstrated connection to ancient Ashkenaz- it was a 'poetic' attempt to connect the present with the past. The same thing happened to Sephardic Jews. Ancient Serafad was in the Near East rather than Spain.

Finally, does Elhaik's Admixture program have a distinct Levantine reference group. Some programs such as My Origins fail to distinguish between the Levant and West Asia (Turkey-Caucasus).
Other programs such as Eurogenes and DNA Land have distinct Levantine components which can separate the Levant from West Asia. On the latter programs, Jews have a minor West Asia component, but the Levantine component is much larger.

At MO , the geographic AIMs for Ashkenazis are not idenified. However some with Sephardic ancestry have an Asia Minor component since there is no Levantine component.

[Petra]

Hallo Josh,

I knew, that Dr. Elhaik was critizised from a lot of scientists before, for example, with his Khazar DNA theory possibly relating to the theories of to S. Sand. Therefor I posted the link without commentary just for information.

Perhaps I should have posted the link in the "recreation corner" ;-), but I wanted to stay neutral, as I am always curious towards new theories (except conspiracy stuff). And I think, that eager Elhaik does not belong to this conspiracy corner, as long as I am able to understand all that I´ve read from him... Besides my English is not my mother tongue and I am not a professional DNA scientist ;-)

We will not know, what new, suprising or strange results science will offer us in the next years... and I do not have sufficient insight to understand some motivations in the battle of scientists.

[MMaddi]

Originally Posted by josh w.

Finally, does Elhaik's Admixture program have a distinct Levantine reference group. Some programs such as My Origins fail to distinguish between the Levant and West Asia (Turkey-Caucasus).
Other programs such as Eurogenes and DNA Land have distinct Levantine components which can separate the Levant from West Asia. On the latter programs, Jews have a minor West Asia component, but the Levantine component is much larger.

At MO , the geographic AIMs for Ashkenazis are not idenified. However some with Sephardic ancestry have an Asia Minor component since there is no Levantine component.

I too have reservations about Elhaik's work. It's fairly clear that his theory about Khazar origin for Jewish people is not well-regarded by his fellow scientists. I get the impression that he has some sort of agenda that drives his work.

However, I have to comment on your statement above about myOrigins and its supposed inability to distinguish between the Levant and West Asia. There are three sub-categories under Middle Eastern in myOrigins - Asia Minor, Eastern Middle East and North Africa. It seems to me that Asia Minor corresponds to West Asia (Turkey-Caucasus) and Eastern Middle East roughly corresponds to the Levant.

Why don't you think those sub-categories are providing the necessary ability to drill down meaningfully into Middle Eastern admixture?

[josh w.]

Originally Posted by MMaddi

I too have reservations about Elhaik's work. It's fairly clear that his theory about Khazar origin for Jewish people is not well-regarded by his fellow scientists. I get the impression that he has some sort of agenda that drives his work.

However, I have to comment on your statement above about myOrigins and its supposed inability to distinguish between the Levant and West Asia. There are three sub-categories under Middle Eastern in myOrigins - Asia Minor, Eastern Middle East and North Africa. It seems to me that Asia Minor corresponds to West Asia (Turkey-Caucasus) and Eastern Middle East roughly corresponds to the Levant.

Why don't you think those sub-categories are providing the necessary ability to drill down meaningfully into Middle Eastern admixture?

I think the categories are quite helpful. They are just not helpful for Jews who want to know about Asian origins.(The reference groups for EME are from Eastern Arabia and Iraq, not the Levant) MO does not even indicate if Ashkenazis have any Asian origins at all.

Gee, Elhaik's admixture program does not contain a Levantine component. The study is not relevant to Elhaik's theory. In the past, the program was challenged for unsupported claims.

Agenda? If most modern Jews do not have a historical claim to Israel...

[josh w.]

Originally Posted by josh w.

I think the categories are quite helpful. They are just not helpful for Jews who want to know about Asian origins.(The reference groups for EME are from Eastern Arabia and Iraq, not the Levant) MO does not even indicate if Ashkenazis have any Asian origins at all.

Gee, Elhaik's admixture program does not contain a Levantine component. The study is not relevant to Elhaik's theory. In the past, the program was challenged for unsupported claims.

Agenda? If most modern Jews do not have a historical claim to Israel...

I meant that Elhaik was challenged for claiming that the program's admixture profile could predict where a person lived.

If ELhaik wanted to demonstrate that Jews are from Turkey, why didn't he just use an admixture program with a Levantine component. I would be willing to accept his theory if modern Jews had a primary component in West Asia rather than the Levant.

[Petra]

http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten...vw046.full.pdf

Here is the study to the article. As I said, I do not really have the insight into deep DNA science, I am happy to learn from your discussion about it.