Ancient DNA of Father Abraham

[Yaffa]

Was your family sephardi, ashkenaz, mizrahi?

Askenazi and Mizrahi.

[507]

How can scientists get DNA from a 10,000 year old mastadon bone but not from a 4,000 year old human bone ?

[M.O'Connor]

a people are not of one single genetic group.

[507]

a people are not of one single genetic group.

I think they mean just YDNA. Just there ancient male ancestor Abraham. NOt the other branches. And he has a LOT of descendants.

[Yaffa]

I think they mean just YDNA. Just there ancient male ancestor Abraham. NOt the other branches. And he has a LOT of descendants.

Y DNA does not prove paternity only that men are related to that Y Line. Meaning no one can prove they descend directly from Abraham without paper trail to Abraham.

Read up on Thomas Jefferson and Y-DNA

http://www.familytreedna.com/landing/matching-jefferson.aspx

[vinnie]

How can scientists get DNA from a 10,000 year old mastadon bone but not from a 4,000 year old human bone ?

There are different types of DNA and each one has its own longevity after the organism has died. This is further complicated by how/in what environment the remains were preserved, among other factors. Scientists have isolated DNA from Egyptian mummies and ancient Europeans.

[507]

Y DNA does not prove paternity only that men are related to that Y Line. Meaning no one can prove they descend directly from Abraham without paper trail to Abraham.

Read up on Thomas Jefferson and Y-DNA
http://www.familytreedna.com/landing...jefferson.aspx

I thought the Bible was the paper trail ?

[Yaffa]

I thought the Bible was the paper trail ?

You need solid paper trail from a living person to the bible and have Y-DNA match that paper trial. This will never happen considering the Jewish people have been killed since Constantine, The Crusades, The Spanish inquisition, The Holocaust ect. Many temple records destroyed for a LONG TIME. Most living people who are practicing Jews can not trace their ancestors more than 2 or 3 generations back. My family in the Holocaust cant. All records destroyed.

[purple flowers]

How can scientists get DNA from a 10,000 year old mastadon bone but not from a 4,000 year old human bone ?

oh yes I like that !!

and wasn't there one of those million++ year old
( with like A baby "chicken" like dna )/ a pre- proto tranysaurus rex OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT , JUST because it was little they created a Proto-rex , can you imagine dna of chicken lasting or somehow preserved for millions and millions of years with no explanations as to why it did that ? it was a baby rex .. so they whipped up a proto-rex right out of thin air! chicken sh....... there for sure.
and like you said " not from a 4,000 year old human bone"
but that is what they tried to tell the world, and sadiest is most of the world believes this stuff.
When that
transtional proto-rex was found all the evolutionist were talking about "Miracles" ..
you see problem is they didn't think that out too good. but they had me and all of mine rolling on the floor for sure!!! you see they don't have a Miracle worker that will do 60,000,000 year old proto-rex miracles for them ..
but we do have a miracle worker he can create an eye with spit and dirt that looks like they had always been there in the man head forever ... so he sure can preserves 6000 year old baby rex's and other flood victims dna just for them!
nope they didn't think about that though.

[girlperson1]

The same way jews have married jews for centuries, catholics also have married catholics for centuries and yet there is no trace of a "catholic DNA".

This mixing of science and religion is dangerous to say the least.

While DNA is helpful in finding ancestors, relatives, disease markers etc., it should not be used as a de facto standard in determining your religious history. All religions have converts, ALL OF THEM and therefore it would be impossible to say "you are Haplogroup _____ and therefore you are/are not a member of our religion/race/country/political party....there's too much room for abuse.

[katerennie4]

The same way jews have married jews for centuries, catholics also have married catholics for centuries and yet there is no trace of a "catholic DNA".

This mixing of science and religion is dangerous to say the least.

While DNA is helpful in finding ancestors, relatives, disease markers etc., it should not be used as a de facto standard in determining your religious history. All religions have converts, ALL OF THEM and therefore it would be impossible to say "you are Haplogroup _____ and therefore you are/are not a member of our religion/race/country/political party....there's too much room for abuse.

That's a little bit different. There has historically (say, the last 1000-1500 years) been many more Catholics around than Jews. More ppl to choose from = more diversity in the gene pool.

[girlperson1]

That's a little bit different. There has historically (say, the last 1000-1500 years) been many more Catholics around than Jews. More ppl to choose from = more diversity in the gene pool.

Actually, the original christians were jews so the DNA would have continued regardless.

[katerennie4]

Actually, the original christians were jews so the DNA would have continued regardless.

Not all Catholics are descended from the original Christians. Most were converts; mainly the so called "barbarians" of the North.

[MMaddi]

Actually, the original christians were jews so the DNA would have continued regardless.

But Christianity is a religion that emphasizes proselytizing and converting others more than Judaism does. For instance, although the original Christians were Jewish, eventually the Celtic and Germanic populations of Europe were converted to Christianity. So their genetic diversity was added to the original pool of Christians from the Holy Land.

This backs up katerennie4's point about the larger genetic pool among Christians compared to Jews. Also, a factor is that the Jews mainly married within their own relatively small community for hundreds of years. This produces a very distinct genetic signature that is picked up by Population Finder.

So, although Jews are not a race, I would consider them a very recognizable ethnic group, as far as population genetics goes. Ironically, the marriage of Jews outside their community has mainly taken place in the Mediterranean area in the period up to the Middle Ages, which makes it difficult to distinguish Sicilians/southern Italians from Jews - see my posting at http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...5&postcount=68 This also relates to the fact that the deep ancestry of both Jews and Sicilians/southern Italians is the same - the Near East.

[girlperson1]

Not all Catholics are descended from the original Christians. Most were converts; mainly the so called "barbarians" of the North.

Yes, there were many converts, but Catholics originally mixed with Pagans, which is exactly what Jews were before they were Jews.