Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where can I find explanations about my results?

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

  • Jim Denning
    replied
    Originally posted by derinos
    So despite the attempt under an ancient concept of "pure blood" to maintain tribal and family continuity, it has not been genetically satisfactory. Not bad, despite all the displacements, but no cigar.
    the tribe can continue but no where does it say in the bible that the hebrews are of pure blood. I t talks about people that were assimulated into the mass.
    moses was an royal eygptian until he killed the slave master.
    in a society where the mother determines tribal membership i wouldnt expect ydna compliance

    Leave a comment:


  • Victor
    replied
    Originally posted by derinos
    The way I see it, deschwartz, if you define a genepool biologically, it is a cross-section of a particular regional sub-population of a species at a given time. Timing defines.
    Your quest could be characterised as tracing the continuity between that genepool in 2000 BCE, the Abrahamic date, and the same genepool today.
    Unlikely to satisfy, because no present gene pool can have really valid continuity with a past genepool, due to the reversed merging multiple between individual and ancestors, and the radiation of genomic differences.

    Taking the para-Abrahamic genepool, what happened genetically to its collective component individuals in between then and now? There were gene-dropouts and gene-joiners, population expansions and contractions, subjections and dominations, hardening or softening of genetic mixing restrictions, civic or military alliances or conflicts with other groups and sometimes internally. So despite the attempt under an ancient concept of "pure blood" to maintain tribal and family continuity, it has not been genetically satisfactory. Not bad, despite all the displacements, but no cigar.

    BUT, sociobiologically, for the term "Jewish", there was always the one abiding central basis. Not genes, but a meme.
    Jwh monotheism, the Shemot. That is the real continuity. And it exists independently of and supervenes other variables like those of the genome.
    Excelent summary, derinos. The diversity of that original genepool is unknown but it is expected that it would vary depending where exactly in the chronological scale of events we place the birth of the "Jewish identity".

    All the dynamic influences that you describe from within and from the outside that shape, mold and alter a specific genepool, as you describe above, apply more or less to all peoples in the world, although we see that the Jewish people in particular, voluntarily or involuntarily, have had one of the greatest displacements in history and as a consequence a more prolonged and widespread contact with other peoples.

    Leave a comment:


  • derinos
    replied
    derinos

    The way I see it, deschwartz, if you define a genepool biologically, it is a cross-section of a particular regional sub-population of a species at a given time. Timing defines.
    Your quest could be characterised as tracing the continuity between that genepool in 2000 BCE, the Abrahamic date, and the same genepool today.
    Unlikely to satisfy, because no present gene pool can have really valid continuity with a past genepool, due to the reversed merging multiple between individual and ancestors, and the radiation of genomic differences.

    Taking the para-Abrahamic genepool, what happened genetically to its collective component individuals in between then and now? There were gene-dropouts and gene-joiners, population expansions and contractions, subjections and dominations, hardening or softening of genetic mixing restrictions, civic or military alliances or conflicts with other groups and sometimes internally. So despite the attempt under an ancient concept of "pure blood" to maintain tribal and family continuity, it has not been genetically satisfactory. Not bad, despite all the displacements, but no cigar.

    BUT, sociobiologically, for the term "Jewish", there was always the one abiding central basis. Not genes, but a meme.
    Jwh monotheism, the Shemot. That is the real continuity. And it exists independently of and supervenes other variables like those of the genome.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcschwartz
    Guest replied
    Derinos,
    Perhaps this will clarify the question we are seeking:


    All the studies that I have read have said that languages spread quicker than genes. That is, today's Turks from Turkey are probably more Greek/Persian than Turkic due to this fact. The same has been proven for North Africans who show considerable differences from Arabs from the Arabian Penn. Also, Northern Indians show fewer differences between them and Southern Indians than previously thought.

    So, to lay this out logically:
    IF Jews have multiple haplogroups
    AND Jews are related to Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians (Semitic languages)
    AND Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians are all genetically distinct from Arabs from the Arabian Penn. (meaning that they are likely mostly descended from the original Semitic inhabitants of the Middle East plus some Arabic influx)
    AND Jews are also related to Turks (from Turkey), Kurds, and Armenians (Altaic & Indo-European languages)

    THEN we can conclude that languages spread in the middle east quicker than genes. This is purely my conjecture, but how else can a supposedly Semitic people be related to an IndoEuropean people AND a Semitic people? What the one study I presented before hypothesyzed is that the entire MidEast was more integrated and the groups all similar prior to the introduction of the Semitic, IndoEuropean, and Altaic languages.

    Perhaps this can account for the multiple haplogroups found in Jewish DNA. The truth is that we simply don't know if ancient Jews were genetically homogenous or heterogenous. All we know is that by 3000-4000 years ago, there were Jewish kingdoms and a Jewish nationality. The studies I have presented show a continuity between ancient Jews and modern Jews.

    SO,
    Where the different haplogroups came from is a matter of conjecture since it seems that the studies we have available to us do not have the ability to know at this point in time.

    BUT,
    even if ancient Jews began as a relativly heterogenous population which gathered haplogroups from all the different tribes of the Middle East, nationalism likely cemented an identity and a homogenous DNA grouping. If they were heterogenous to begin with, it is inconsequential because they became a homogenous group in that they intermixed and formed a nation.

    Am I making any sense? This is just the most logical conclusion by my view.
    Last edited by ; 17 February 2006, 09:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • derinos
    replied
    Please, deschwartz, don't just end it here! What you raised is of applicable interest to all, as to origins and journeys towards today's identifiable DNA groupings. And you just clarified the background of what the research is laboring in.

    The way I see it, the era of the archaeologic-reported Semite (a linguistic classification remember ! ) migration into the fertile crescent (ca 6000 +-) ybp was well on into the 30,000 or more years of our HSS common presence outside Africa in that geographical area.
    A Black Sea flood apparently demarcated that general era from a long previous story of multitribal ebb and flow (hinted at without time clues, in Genesis).
    So the Jewish DNA identity establishment, the demarcation of a local gene-pool, if you will, is a temporal event. The recovery of that timing using the DNA clock
    is a work very much in progress. Keep us informed of your synthesis, please.

    Leave a comment:


  • derinos
    replied
    Please, deschwartz, don't just end it here! What you raised is of applicable interest to all, as to origins and journeys towards today's identifiable DNA groupings. And you just clarified the background of what the research is laboring in.

    The way I see it, the era of the archaeologic-reported Semite (a linguistic classification remember ! ) migration into the fertile crescent (ca 6000 +-) ybp was well on into the 30,000 or more years of our HSS common presence outside Africa in that geographical area.
    A Black Sea flood apparently demarcated that general era from a long previous story of multitribal ebb and flow (hinted at without time clues, in Genesis).
    So the Jewish DNA identity establishment, the demarcation of a local gene-pool, if you will, is a temporal event. The recovery of that timing using the DNA clock
    is a work very much in progress. Keep us informed of your synthesis, please.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcschwartz
    Guest replied
    Ok, I'll agree to end it here.
    The questions that must be answered are:

    1) How much diversity was there pre-Judaism? i.e. was the group that came from the Northern Fertile Crescent and then travelled to Canaan, Egypt and then Canaan again (to use the Genesis story route) genetically homogenous or was it genetically heterogenous?

    2) How much genetic inflow was there once the Diaspora started?

    3) And finally, when did Jews gain all their haplogroups? Was it pre-Judaism, pre-Diaspora, or during the Diaspora?

    I think that if scientists can more specificaly answer all 3 questions, we will have a more complete answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    dc, my last comments on this topic since I think we have milked this as far as it can go. We agree that there is a historical connection between modern Jews and ancient Israel. We differ on the extent of genetic inflow beyond Israel. I mentioned the Coffman article specifically because it was aimed at a general audience. If you would like a more technical article with the same type of conclusion concerning Levites try the one by Behar, Thomas and colleagues (2003) in the FTdna Ydna library. Although the two groups of articles appear to be contradictory I am not aware of any scientific challenges to the Coffman article. Your use of Italy as an example actually illustrates my main point. Italy is very genetically diverse as its history would suggest. It has been invaded by Etruscans from Asia Minor, by Greeks, by Carthaginians, by Moslems from North Africa, by Germans at various points, by Normans, etc. As a rule national and ethnic populations are ever changing rather than static.

    I do not wish to end on a contentious note. We share not only an interest in history (mine is avocational) and a preference for empirical investigation but most importantly a desire to discover our origins.
    Last edited by josh w.; 17 February 2006, 10:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcschwartz
    Guest replied
    i'm not the scientist...

    I didnt ever claim that if you give someone a DNA test that they could be identified as Jewish. This all began because I wanted more information on my genographic test. I dont know anything about haplogroups or what it means when there are many haplogroups in a certain ethnic group's DNA.

    However, all of these articles say that A) modern jews (including Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, Indian Jews, Persian Jews and Kurdish Jews but excluding Ethiopian Jews and possibly Yemeni Jews) are "grouped" in that a sampling places them in a common region on the DNA map, B) this region is comparable to Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians, Turks, Armenians, and Kurds, C) Is different from Europeans, North Africans, and Sub-Saharan Africans, and and D) that the level of admixture was less than half a percent per generation while in the Diaspora.

    All of this evidence comes together to infer that modern jews are genetically descended from their ancient ancestors.

    I'm not saying anything about haplogroups AT ALL. In fact, I couldnt tell you ONE THING about Jewish haplogroups or any other haplogroups. I dont understand any of the science behind the studies which I quote. However, I do believe that as a recent history major graduate from a top level university, I am qualified to A) find out whether this source is reputable, B) read it and C) understand the analysis which, D) all point towards the exact same conclusion.


    I enjoy a debate as much as anyone, but without understanding the science behind what I'm arguing, I can only go so far. However, my evidence is solid and my reasoning is reasonable. Anything other than that is beyond my reach. I hope that within the next 5 years, scientists will have every single ethnic group analyzed so that human history becomes that much more interesting.

    I must pose this hypothetical (as my best try at being a scientist):
    Is it possible that these articles are right AND ancient Jews were genetically made up of many different haplogroups?

    Is this any different from any other modern ethnic group?
    Perhaps Italians (just hypothetical) are made up of many different haplogroups AND a sampling of Italians places them within a comparable genetic map. Would this situation then be similar to Jews?
    Perhaps it is possible that these articles are correct AND there are many different haplogroups, none of which Italians form the majority.
    MAYBE we're both right and we just dont know it OR maybe we just dont know enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    Lets ignore Coffman. None of the studies you mention makes the claim that there are Y dna genetic branches (haplogroups, subclades or haplotypes) that are unique to Jews or where Jews are in the majority. If that is the case, how could one identify Jews based on dna tests. All that can be done is to identify branches common in Jewish populations but where most of the members of the branch are not Jewish.
    Last edited by josh w.; 16 February 2006, 10:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcschwartz
    Guest replied
    respectability

    Now I know I said that I would read the article (I didn't lie, I still will), but when we have two articles which have radically different conclusions, we must look at which is more reliable or respectable. I know I already said this, but....

    I just looked at the source of this article that you have recommended that I read and it is from a purely online journal with no library publication and no independent peer-review or oversight (not to mention there are only 2 issues). Now i'm not saying that what this journal says is not respectable, but it seems as if this is little more than a sophisticated blog who wish to analyze work done by other people.

    Now, this is all fine and good, but....

    the articles that I've submitted, which I must point out that you called "simplistic," were published by the American Journal of Human Genetics, a respectable and long-standing Genetics journal with all the caveats that come with it such as independent peer-review and widespread library publication, the New York Times, and Jared Diamond, one of, maybe the most, well-known and respected historians of our time.

    Surely, if what this person says in this journal is true, then it can't be the only journal to publish these results, right? Perhaps, I would be more willing to take what this journal says as true if these results were replicated by other modern authors, much like the results of my position.

    Leave a comment:


  • derinos
    replied
    derinos

    Regarding the "genetic Jewish" question, it can be noted from scripture that there was no such ethno-religious identity before about 4000 years BP, the Abrahamic date. At that time the (already well-established) haplogroup distribution of the population from which the founder converts came was unlikely to differ from the Semitic-language majority people of the region and period. Any cultural isolation from then on might mitigate added HG diversity, but not materially "purify" it. The Cohan family made a worthy attempt.
    Remembering too that only some 1% of the genome is being scrutinised for markers.
    So Pax on the genomic racism. Personal genomic (religious) Jewishness, while of poignant interest for some, is today no more approachable, than Indo-European or Aryan (linguistic) personal genomic identity is for certain others.
    Not to say that we should give up researching!

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    Thanks for your openness. Coffman's emphasis was not on Khazars or necessarily on recent European host nations as far as Ydna is concerned (Mitrochondrial dna does show a significant host country influence). One of her points was that ancient Israel was genetically heterogenious. Another point was that it is not clear if haplogroups associated with the Near East such as J2 and E3b entered a particular Jewish line while still in Israel or in other locations after biblical times. Thus, it is not possible to look at an individual's Y dna results an conclude that not only is the person Jewish but that their ancestors came from ancient Israel. Indeed it is not possible to conclude that they are of Jewish ancestry at all. (There may be an exception to the latter conclusion for a minority of Jews from mitrochondrial subclades of haplogroups K and N, but there as of yet there is no parallel for Y dna). Finally, even if one could make such genetic identifications, it would only mean that less than 1% of a persons genetic makeup had such origins.

    I am not trying to suggest that there is a lack of continuity with ancient Israel. There is also evidence that Jews may show less Ydna and Mtdna heterogeneity than comparible groups. However there is also evidence of significant genetic inflow beyond Israel and complexity within Israel.
    Last edited by josh w.; 15 February 2006, 09:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcschwartz
    Guest replied
    yes but

    Yes, there may have been genetic inflow from any number of sources. But the question is, how much genetic inflow?
    The article's main points are as follows:

    "On the assumption that there have been 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, Dr. Hammer and colleagues calculate that the rate of genetic admixture with Europeans has been less than half a percent per generation."

    "The analysis provides genetic witness that these communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries. "

    Newer genetic studies
    "refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism"


    So, if we have two different sets of information, we must choose which is more reliable. While I do not claim that your article is unreliable, I must point out that all recent articles and studies on Jewish genetics, including those by Jared Diamond, the author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, have argued what I am arguing and have discounted the type of study done in your article.

    I will read through your article again for the sake of research, but I am certainly more convinced by the multitude of recent articles which have all come out against the theory that modern Jews are descended mostly from Khazars or other host populations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Denning
    replied
    Originally posted by dcschwartz
    Thank you for all your explanations. I guess I thought I knew more about DNA than I actually did. I have plenty of research to do.

    However, I would like to share certain points of information which I believe a majority of you have incorrect:

    It was stated in this thread when talking about Jews that it is only a religion. This, according to the evidence, is incorrect. It is both a non-missionary religion and an enthic group.

    Assuming that the original Hebrews, Israelites, Judeans, or Jews, regardless of what you want to call them, were a single homogenous population or a semi-diverse tribe of Semites (or whatever you want to call it) with a common religion, they would have only married into their own ethnic group/religion in Biblical times. During the Diaspora, if they have intermarried with the groups with whom they came into contact, then they would have ceased to remain an ethnic group and would have become only a religion, albeit different from other religions which sought out converts. (Judaism actually makes it difficult for people to convert. Even in ancient times, it was a closed religion.)

    Yet, genetic testing (which I will include below) has proven that the rate of intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews throughout the Diaspora was very low and Jews have managed to keep their DNA distinct from their host populations.

    Other Genetic testings have found that the difference between Ashkenazi jews and Sephardic or Mizrahi Jews is minimal, meaning that very little genetic drift took place during the Diaspora and most Jews are genetically related. However, this does not mean that Ethiopian Jews and certain populations of Indian Jews are genetically Jewish since they were found to have converted sometime in the recent past.

    Genetic testing also places Jews within the fertile crescent: Genetic tests have shown that Jews are related to Lebanese, Syrians, and Palestinians. More recent tests have shown this to be true, but have found that Jews are MORE CLOSELY related to Turks (from Turkey), Armenians, and Kurds.

    So, while the rate of intermarriage in America is relatively high, up until now, Jews were both a closed religion and an ethnic group. The existence of non-genetically Jewish Jews does not change the fact that genetic testing has found this to be true.

    As for the physical differences between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews, this can be explained by the process of evolution. Please see the attached files for proof of all that I have said. For those interested in this point, please see Jared Diamond's article "Who are the Jews?" This is not available online, but if someone were genuinely interested, I can scan the article and upload it later.
    Thanks for listening, haha!
    Judah lived in the land bridge between the powerful armies of the area and time . Having the 101st comming thru the front yard every year was a drag.
    So it would be natural for them to migrate.
    the house of Judah and the hose of israel when taking the promised land did incorperate tribes . and ballem did tell the enemy to send his women to marry them with idols, so they werent the son of their father .
    now 11 of the tribes moved on never returning from assyrian ownership , these people would also have the basic dna of the main body even though they were 80%,They settled europe and the askenazis simply were part of them.
    An Egyptian Rabbi lead his people to spain from north africa these were the decendents of geale and became the gauls.
    well all this said why are people surprized so many europeans match askenazis..

    What a tangled web we weave. augh but dna will shine the light on stuff in the past . the questions is will we be open to what it tells us. my daughters reaction to hey "I COME FROM SOMALIA" E3b That was accompanied by a stare
    then " hey i might be jewish" It was days before she looked at me assuming i was completely nuts

    that can be the same reaction i bet some of you have had. tring to explain i only match jews didnt help alot. much as oprah was dismayed at not being zulu. and quincy jones asked if he was qualified to sing the blues at more then 40% white.
    one thing i have learned is how much these people actually traveled. we have this picture of who these people were. most dont understand how much the pheonecians traveled and you know sailors.

    all this started with askenazis ,native americans, and levites from somalia. I always think what about those nubain slaves of moses adopted mother. which tribes would they have been moses and arron were levites

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X