Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israel, DNA, Jews and the Alpha Male

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Race

    Originally posted by TimeKiller
    Bob

    Also arabs speak a semitic language also the ahmaric peoples all j1 people. Why isn't language and race related again?
    I think the term race comes with a lot of cultural baggage. For example, one thing we know from genetics is that the average European person, commonly a member of haplogroup R is paternally more closely related to the average East Indian, Chinese and Native Americans than J1 and J2 (Jew/Arab), I (Scandanavian) and J2 (Italian).

    regards,

    bob

    Comment


    • #62
      J and J1

      Originally posted by TimeKiller
      Bob

      ... Also how do you propose that j and j1 got into the jewish population?
      As I stated earlier, in my opinion, the patriarch Abraham was probably a J1 or J2. In addition, I think Canaanite, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian and Egyptian conversion to Judaism may also have contributed to the Jewish population. What do you think?

      regards,

      bob
      Last edited by bob_chasm; 12 February 2007, 05:24 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by bob_chasm
        As I stated earlier, in my opinion, the patriarch Abraham was probably a J1 or J2. In addition, I think Canaanite, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian and Egyptian conversion to Judaism may also have contributed to the Jewish population. What do you think?

        regards,

        bob

        I think that there is a good chance that Abraham (if he really was real) I hope I do not offend anyone by saying that was J1 or J2. He could have been part of another haplogroup though it is really hard to say.

        I do think though as you mention here many other groups of people have contributed to the Jewish gene pool.


        Y-DNA: J2a*

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by bob_chasm
          I think the term race comes with a lot of cultural baggage. For example, one thing we know from genetics is that the average European person, commonly a member of haplogroup R is paternally more closely related to the average East Indian, Chinese and Native Americans than J1 and J2 (Jew/Arab), I (Scandanavian) and J2 (Italian).

          regards,

          bob

          That's not true. You can't make such statements based on one gene on the Y-chromosome. Population structure needs thousands of markers to be understood.

          Europeans are far closer genetically to each other than to East Indians or Chinese.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by bob_chasm
            I think the term race comes with a lot of cultural baggage. For example, one thing we know from genetics is that the average European person, commonly a member of haplogroup R is paternally more closely related to the average East Indian, Chinese and Native Americans than J1 and J2 (Jew/Arab), I (Scandanavian) and J2 (Italian).

            regards,

            bob
            It would be more correct to say; the majority of male Europeans (Haplogroup R1b) have a Y chromosome more closely related to East Indian, Chinese and Native Americans than to the base Y chromosome type of many Semites, Scandanavians and Italians. The autosomnal DNA among, say, Scandinavian I1as for example, would be as close to R1bs as can be, and definitely far from what J1 Cohanim would be comprised of.

            Comment


            • #66
              True and False.

              Originally Posted by bob_chasm
              I think the term race comes with a lot of cultural baggage. For example, one thing we know from genetics is that the average European person, commonly a member of haplogroup R is paternally more closely related to the average East Indian, Chinese and Native Americans than J1 and J2 (Jew/Arab), I (Scandanavian) and J2 (Italian).

              Originally posted by MrHappy
              That's not true. You can't make such statements based on one gene on the Y-chromosome. Population structure needs thousands of markers to be understood.

              Europeans are far closer genetically to each other than to East Indians or Chinese.
              Please read my statement again. I am speaking about paternally related, i.e. related in terms of sharing a most recent common paternal ancestor. If you still disagree, then lets talk.

              regards,

              bob

              Comment


              • #67
                Race

                Originally posted by Nagelfar
                The autosomnal DNA among, say, Scandinavian I1as for example, would be as close to R1bs as can be, and definitely far from what J1 Cohanim would be comprised of.
                Geneticists tell us that there are many groups that share a more recent male ancestor with R1b than those who belong to haplogroup I. For example, M124 (haplogroup R2 found among East Indians and Gypsies) , M17 (R1a1 found among Russians and East Indians), M3 (haplogroup Q found among Native Americans, M45 (haplogroup P found in Central Asians and Native Americans) M168 (haplogroup M found among Indonesians and Melenisians) and M70 (haplogroup K) all share a more recent common male ancestor with M343 (haplogroup R1b found most commonly among Europoeans) than I1a.

                Haplogroup I actually shares a more recent common ancestor with J than with R1b. Both J and I share IJ (S2, S22) as an ancestor that R1b does not.

                regards,

                bob
                Last edited by bob_chasm; 13 February 2007, 01:20 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Good point

                  Originally posted by bob_chasm
                  As I stated earlier, in my opinion, the patriarch Abraham was probably a J1 or J2. In addition, I think Canaanite, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian and Egyptian conversion to Judaism may also have contributed to the Jewish population. What do you think?

                  regards,

                  bob

                  That sounds about right with them contributing.Is it true that when they find bones in ancient sites they can only check the mt dna? Or none at all because of the decomposition?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    dead bones

                    Originally posted by TimeKiller
                    That sounds about right with them contributing. Is it true that when they find bones in ancient sites they can only check the mt dna? Or none at all because of the decomposition?
                    TK, I think, the absence of the Adam marker in dna derived from a Neandertal skeleton suggested it didnt descend from the 50-90 thousand year old ancestor of all human beings. So, I suppose, well preserved male bones can provide dna information.

                    I also think that by knowing the time that Israelite populations separated from each other and the absence/ existence, and the frequency and percentage of certain markers among Israelite populations, such as Ash, Sephardi, Cohen, lay, Samaritan, Beni Israelite etc, we can identify some non Israelite contributors to the Jewish population. For those searching for the Lost Tribes, we can also identify unlikely candidates among the non Jewish population.

                    How about yourself, have you been tested yet?

                    regards,

                    bob

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by bob_chasm
                      Please read my statement again. I am speaking about paternally related, i.e. related in terms of sharing a most recent common paternal ancestor. If you still disagree, then lets talk.

                      regards,

                      bob

                      Most recent, huh?

                      Not sure how good you are with statistics, but the Y chromosome shows only one of your paternal ancestors from the past. One out of quite a few who may have carried different markers.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by MrHappy
                        Most recent, huh?

                        Not sure how good you are with statistics, but the Y chromosome shows only one of your paternal ancestors from the past. One out of quite a few who may have carried different markers.

                        Yes Bob is just talking about paternal Y-chromosomal ancestry. Since it is the most effective way of tracing ancestry it can show how males around the world are related and how closely related different individuals are to each other.



                        Y-DNA: J2a*

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by bob_chasm
                          Geneticists tell us that there are many groups that share a more recent male ancestor with R1b than those who belong to haplogroup I. For example, M124 (haplogroup R2 found among East Indians and Gypsies) , M17 (R1a1 found among Russians and East Indians), M3 (haplogroup Q found among Native Americans, M45 (haplogroup P found in Central Asians and Native Americans) M168 (haplogroup M found among Indonesians and Melenisians) and M70 (haplogroup K) all share a more recent common male ancestor with M343 (haplogroup R1b found most commonly among Europoeans) than I1a.

                          Haplogroup I actually shares a more recent common ancestor with J than with R1b. Both J and I share IJ (S2, S22) as an ancestor that R1b does not.

                          regards,

                          bob
                          Yes that's what I said, but that has nothing to do with autosomal DNA related closeness. Which is obviously much closer than one chromosome, the Y DNA.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Autosomal relatedness

                            Originally posted by Nagelfar
                            Yes that's what I said, but that has nothing to do with autosomal DNA related closeness. Which is obviously much closer than one chromosome, the Y DNA.

                            I think you are right haplogroups dont speak to autosomal DNA relatedness. Afterall, two brothers can have a bigger difference in genetic intelligence, emotional maturity, physical coordination, features etc than two people who do not appear as closely related. Spencer Wells seems to suggest in his book that since we all share a common male ancestor about 60,000 ago and a female ancestor about 150 thousand years ago, genetic diversity between human populations is not that huge, perhaps 15%.

                            regards,

                            bob

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Mr. Happy Statistics

                              Originally posted by MrHappy
                              Most recent, huh?

                              Not sure how good you are with statistics, but the Y chromosome shows only one of your paternal ancestors from the past. One out of quite a few who may have carried different markers.
                              How many paternal ancestors do you have? I had one, my father, who had one, his father, who had one, his father.

                              regards,

                              bob

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Paternal Ancestors?

                                Originally posted by bob_chasm
                                How many paternal ancestors do you have? I had one, my father, who had one, his father, who had one, his father.

                                regards,

                                bob
                                Bob,

                                I think he's referring to (all) the ancestors on the paternal side. For example, if you go back ten generations, you have 1024 different ancestors, of which 512 are paternal ancestors (or ancestors on the paternal side, if you want to put it that way).

                                Beth Long

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X