Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ancient DNA of Father Abraham

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by girlperson1 View Post
    Yes, there were many converts, but Catholics originally mixed with Pagans, which is exactly what Jews were before they were Jews.
    It's not the same. You're assuming that all Pagans at the time were genetically the same ethnic group, and that's not the case. Catholics converted in large numbers from many different groups. Jews have been more genetically secluded over the years.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
      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.

      They are not an ethic group. They are related and the autosomal DNA belongs with genetic medicine not genealogy. They are related because they inter-marry each other. In general people who have certain beliefs tend to marry someone who has same beliefs. Its much easier when married people agree on how to raise their children. You will find this in all groups of people whether it be religion or politics. I would not marry someone who does not share same beliefs as I do. It only makes for more problems in a relationship.

      The Jews do not force conversion like other religion but do require conversion if someone is not born to a Jewish mother. What that means is and I will use me as an example. I was converted at birth ( Micvah which is a religious conversion ritual like baptism ritual). I am now considered Jewish so my son is now born to a Jewish mother because I was already converted. My son is now born a Jew. Torah meas the law. Jews have their own laws in their religion that need to be followed. Now even though I am Jewish all related to my mother line are not Jewish. Girlperson.1 is correct in saying that DNA can not prove religious practice/politics practice ect. All religions allow for conversion and just have different religious rituals for conversion.. I know Jews that have covered to being Muslim or Christian. I know Christian that have converted to being Jewish or Muslim. ect. The list goes on. DNA can not prove these conversions.

      This whole Jewish DNA issue has become a big issue with exploiting the Jewish people and who they are. More than you know. Now there are fake Indian tribes who are claiming to be Jews as a race of people. They are exploiting both the Indian Nations and the Jewish people

      Here is another issue. I have met many people who claim they have Jewish in their background when they dont. They claim it because of the "Chosen people of G-d " issue in the bible so they want to be Jews even though they practice a different religion and always have per paper. How many of these people have sent their DNA into projects claiming they are Jewish. Is anyone asking for proof of Jewish religious practices on paper for those who are testing? When my father did his DNA he did it to trace out to see if any family in Europe survived the holocaust. Not to find his Jewishness.
      Last edited by Yaffa; 25 July 2011, 10:44 AM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by katerennie4 View Post
        It's not the same. You're assuming that all Pagans at the time were genetically the same ethnic group, and that's not the case. Catholics converted in large numbers from many different groups. Jews have been more genetically secluded over the years.
        I'm not assuming that all pagans were genetically the same ethnic group. Paganism spans back to the days of the neaderthals, and probably further into our past than we really know, so as a religion it is very old indeed. What I'm trying to point out is that religion has nothing to do with population genetics. While jews do have a few "hot spots" of genetic signatures, they are for the most part as diverse as their neighbors and trying to identify a group by their genetic signature is dangerous.

        Hitler did the same nonsense when he was trying to find the jews. He had his less than brilliant scientists look at blood type. I believe they "discovered" that the so-called "jewish blood type" was B??? We now know that this is not the case but look at all the people who were murdered by that maniac and his insane buddies over this "scientific finding".

        Comment


        • #79
          Population Finder

          Mike, Population Finder needs a lot of work. My PF results are far different than what McDonald has read on my Raw data. Population finder seriously is having problems with designating Middle Eastern in general. My uncle got 18-19% ME Jewish on PF and per McDonald my uncle has no ME worthy of any ME % at all and they are not or have ever been Jewish.. That also goes with myself. I was given 8-9% ME and again McDonald found no ME worthy of giving me a %. I would not rely on PF and the Jewish issue. Being related on Family Finder is something else and still even if you match someone who is a practicing Jew does not make you or your ancestors Jewish. It is a religion.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Yaffa View Post
            Mike, Population Finder needs a lot of work. My PF results are far different than what McDonald has read on my Raw data. Population finder seriously is having problems with designating Middle Eastern in general. My uncle got 18-19% ME Jewish on PF and per McDonald my uncle has no ME worthy of any ME % at all and they are not or have ever been Jewish.. That also goes with myself. I was given 8-9% ME and again McDonald found no ME worthy of giving me a %. I would not rely on PF and the Jewish issue. Being related on Family Finder is something else and still even if you match someone who is a practicing Jew does not make you or your ancestors Jewish. It is a religion.
            I agree with you that there are problems with Population Finder, which is still in beta. The biggest problem I know about is that it tends to give significant readings of Jewish for people who have no known Jewish ancestry. In the Sicily Project, there are several members who have been given 100% Jewish in PF. I would be shocked if any of them had even one Jewish great-grandparent, yet they are told all their ancestry is Jewish. This is obviously wrong.

            I also know that many people with northern European ancestry are being given 8-12% Middle Eastern ancestry. Others have none. I have seen this in the R1b-U106 Project, of which I'm a co-administrator. In my mind this relates to ancestry from perhaps Central Europe or the Balkans which might relate to deep ancestry in those areas from the Middle East.

            Read my posting at http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...5&postcount=68 to get an idea of one reason that people from the Mediterranean, including Sicilians/southern Italians, get easily confused in BGA analysis with people with Jewish ancestry. The fact is that people of the Mediterranean, including Jews, have a lot of genetic similarity, as far as BGA goes.

            However, my posting shows that the Dodecad Project, which has a good representation of samples from the area of South Asia, through the Middle East and various ethnic/geographic areas of Europe, gets my admixture right. There's no confusion with Jewish ancestry in its admixture analysis for me, even though the list of populations that show my affinity have Sephardic or Ashkenazi samples in 3 of my top 10 positions. That shows you how good BGA analysis can be when you have a good representation of samples. FTDNA just doesn't have a wide enough range of population samples to use in PF.

            I do intend to write Bennett Greenspan with these points and see if he can at least revise the FAQs for Population Finder so that people are not confused when they see significant Jewish or Middle Eastern percentages that can't be explained.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
              I do intend to write Bennett Greenspan with these points and see if he can at least revise the FAQs for Population Finder so that people are not confused when they see significant Jewish or Middle Eastern percentages that can't be explained.
              Please do.

              I agree that the reference set used by everybody in this PF game is too limited, however as we have seen from PF-type reports produced by private individuals, adjusting of the parameters of the matching algorithms produces varying results -- in other words setting bias can creep in.

              I've been told that FTDNA received complaints that the PF results based on the old Affy data didn't show enough Jewishness. It seems with the Illumina-based results they have overcompensated for that.

              Meanwhile, I still regard this PF stuff as glorified tea leaf reading. It may get better with larger, more globally representative reference sets, but only time will tell.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by gtc View Post
                Please do.

                I agree that the reference set used by everybody in this PF game is too limited, however as we have seen from PF-type reports produced by private individuals, adjusting of the parameters of the matching algorithms produces varying results -- in other words setting bias can creep in.

                I've been told that FTDNA received complaints that the PF results based on the old Affy data didn't show enough Jewishness. It seems with the Illumina-based results they have overcompensated for that.

                Meanwhile, I still regard this PF stuff as glorified tea leaf reading. It may get better with larger, more globally representative reference sets, but only time will tell.
                I called FTDNA recently and asked if their was going to be any changes to PF any time soon. The person said, not that they know of. Time will tell, But I'm thinking It's going to be a long wait. As far as overcompensating, I wouldn't agree with that. It says I'm less "Jewish" in my PF than other places that have analyzed my Data.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Taz85 View Post
                  As far as overcompensating, I wouldn't agree with that. It says I'm less "Jewish" in my PF than other places that have analyzed my Data.
                  You can have my allocation.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Good thing their are other people out there who can analyze our data, because I don't think PF is very reliable yet. What can one expect for something in it's Beta phase though?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Taz85 View Post
                      Good thing their are other people out there who can analyze our data, because I don't think PF is very reliable yet. What can one expect for something in it's Beta phase though?
                      The question to FTDNA is: "beta version for how long?".

                      I don't get the impression that any effort has been spent on PF since the first weeks of its "second coming" and I don't get the impression that FTDNA has budgeted any more time on it either.

                      In fact, without a new and wider reliable reference data set to draw its conclusions from, I don't know what else FTDNA (or any of the independents) can do to improve the status quo anyway. Fiddle a parameter here or there, perhaps, and make us all look more or less Jewish in the attempt.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by gtc View Post
                        The question to FTDNA is: "beta version for how long?".

                        I don't get the impression that any effort has been spent on PF since the first weeks of its "second coming" and I don't get the impression that FTDNA has budgeted any more time on it either.

                        In fact, without a new and wider reliable reference data set to draw its conclusions from, I don't know what else FTDNA (or any of the independents) can do to improve the status quo anyway. Fiddle a parameter here or there, perhaps, and make us all look more or less Jewish in the attempt.


                        The Independents do not use the same Data set as FTDNA, That's the point.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Taz85 View Post
                          The Independents do not use the same Data set as FTDNA, That's the point.
                          I include the independents because I consider all PF type efforts at this stage of the "science" to be a glorified form of tea leaf reading.

                          At present, there's only so much reference data out there for anybody to use. Some of it is private -- clung onto by academics -- and some (perhaps more) of it is accessible to any researcher.

                          Whatever reference data FTDNA is using, and/or whatever parameter settings they have chosen to use for their matching algorithms, as per MMaddi's post they have suddenly created Jewish associations for a lot of people who simply can't swallow that conclusion.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by gtc View Post
                            I include the independents because I consider all PF type efforts at this stage of the "science" to be a glorified form of tea leaf reading.

                            At present, there's only so much reference data out there for anybody to use. Some of it is private -- clung onto by academics -- and some (perhaps more) of it is accessible to any researcher.

                            Whatever reference data FTDNA is using, and/or whatever parameter settings they have chosen to use for their matching algorithms, as per MMaddi's post they have suddenly created Jewish associations for a lot of people who simply can't swallow that conclusion.
                            Genetic Genealogy itself is a new science.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Taz85 View Post
                              Genetic Genealogy itself is a new science.
                              Yes, but with the regular forms of testing -- STRs and SNPs -- we can see how our own data lines up with that of others and consider what that may mean.

                              With PF and the like, your data goes behind a curtain, the wizard pulls a few levers, and out rolls his hypothesis. What the wizard does behind the curtain remains a magical mystery and cannot be questioned.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                In fact, without a new and wider reliable reference data set to draw its conclusions from, I don't know what else FTDNA (or any of the independents) can do to improve the status quo anyway."
                                The independant use their participants as references. Wich is, why most of these projects limits their participants to people who have all 4 Grandparents from one country (such people increase the reference set and improve the overall quality of the project) while mixed people can not be used as a reference and possibly even have a negative influence on the results of others. they for sure have an negative impact on the calculation durations.

                                So, the indepentant DONT all use the same references, except they all have the same people as participants. Because the participants are meanwhile the core of the references they use.

                                Thats why PF tells me I am 92% Orcadian and 8% Middle Eastern.

                                While dodecad oracles that my results could be expained if I would be 98% German and 2% Middle Eastern. Or if I would be 95% German and 5% of either Polish, Lithuanian or Russian. Wich resembles my family lore (1 Great Great Grandmother was Lithuanian)
                                Last edited by Daniel72; 26 July 2011, 03:45 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X