Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israel, DNA, Jews and the Alpha Male

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

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The Caggegi Family: from Haggi, the family of the Haggites

    The Caggegi Family: from Haggi, the family of the Haggites - The children of Gad.

    The Gadites were assigned the lands of Jazer and of Gilead (Jordan).

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The Merovingian kings DNA - Salian Franks DNA - Gauls DNA.

    I believe - there are strong connections with The Merovingian kings, Salian Franks, Gauls, Saxons and Longobards / Lombards. These various Germanic peoples were from the Rhine delta area. The DNA is 6% exact with Wales - Galles (in Italian) Galles, Gallic, Gauls... The DNA is 2% exact with Gallo-Roman/Norman/Lombard Sicilians. It has been has to tell the difference between Franks, Saxons and Lombards. I'm starting to think it going to take some time before we can. I know that The Merovingian kings were R1b1c Atlantic Modal Haplotype (AMH). They were not Semitic in origin like history tells... or were they the lost ten tribes?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Sephardi Jews

    I would like to know if the Caggegi/Haggadah family were Sephardi Jews originating in the Iberian Peninsula?

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    Autosomal dna closeness

    I think both the books, Journey of Man and The Genographic Project by Spencer Wells address this issue with more clarity and depth than I can present in a post. I highly recommend reading his work. Some of the ideas I took away were:

    Two siblings may have less autosomal dna closeness, in for example intelligence, than two people who havent shared a parent, since all humanbeings are so closely related. The discovery of the Adam and Eve gene and subsequent haplogroups suggests that humans havent had the time to develop significant evolutionary differences that take hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to develop. Traits such as skin color and skin folds over eyes etc are simple single gene mutations, the result of a need for geographical adaptation and such. Individual mobility and mixing, as we see it today was uncommon. People lived in tribes. Haplogroup studies help us in understanding their journey.

    regards,

    bob
    Last edited by bob_chasm; 15 February 2007, 09:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    People from the same y dna or mtdna haplogroups will tend to have similar autosomal gene lines provided they always lived in a confined geographical space where the autosomal lines were present. Y dna haplogroups such as R will show less autosomal similarity because of the great range of migration for haplogroup R. The same goes for mtdna haplogroup H.

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    Originally posted by Beth Long
    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
    I think youre right, but more fundamentally, he is referring to autosomal dna closeness, while I am speaking about paternal tribal identity.

    As far as automsomal closeness is concerned, I dont think one can say all Europeans are genetically closer to each other than to non Europeans. Humanbeings share such recent common ancestors that there hasnt been enough time for significant divergences to develop between populations. If there were divergences, then Italians, who live in populations with J2 and without R1a would be genetically different than Scandanavians that have R1a, but almost no J2 haplogroup. In such a case, it wouldnt matter how many ancestors one accumulated in ten generations. On the other hand, a population like that of Iran with significant numbers of both J2, R1a and R1b would be genetically closer to both these populations.

    European history is replete with tribal, religious and linguistic differences, because people lived in isolated groups. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that individuals had the mobility to travel across the continent as they do now and mix. The European Union and the airplane/ automobile culture is a recent development. Just because Europeans generally have light complexion doesnt make them genetically closely related to each other. Japanese and Chinese also have light complexions, but its not because they are more closely related to Europeans. Jews, Arabs and Ethiopians have caucasian features, but again it is not because they share a recent common ancestor with Europeans.

    regards,

    bob

    Leave a comment:


  • vineviz
    replied
    Originally posted by Nagelfar
    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.
    Well, R1b1c is the most common haplogroup in Italy but I think your point is still valid: you cannot deduce how closely related two people are based soley on one single genetic locus (i.e. the y-chromosome).

    Two men in haplogroup K2 are not necessarily more closely related to each other than someone in haplogroup E3b is to someone in R1b1c.

    Their y-chromosomes are more more closely related, but the men are not necessarily more closely related.

    Leave a comment:


  • Beth Long
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Nagelfar
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • J Man
    replied
    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*

    Leave a comment:


  • MrHappy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bob_chasm
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • TimeKiller
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X