Which came first the chicken or the egg ? Obviously the dinosaur and Gawd knows what other creatures were laying eggs long before the chicken and the so-called mis-named cohenim gene evolved tens of thousands of years before any Hebrew or Jewish priests or witch doctors or Abraham hallucinated a command from Gawd to kill his son and rape the maid.......
Another real bright bulb at Albert Einstein U with the same last name as Israeli government mass murderer and money launderer Menachem Atzmon of ICTS International holds to the theory that something called a 'cohenim gene' exists and has been passed on to all Jewish priests since Methusaleh or something like that but the geneticists of India hold to the fact that Dr.Atzmon is farting against the wind and that long before any Non Semitic Caucasians of his ancestry became white from Vitamin D Deficiency by taking grains from the Tigris Euphrates up north towards the Ukraine,in fact even before the Hebrew priest Aaron's sons pissed off Gawd and led to Gawd assassinating his sons,there were groups of male Non Jewish dark complected Caucasians making their way east from that general area into what would become India who were far from 'Jewish' whether of the original dark Jewish complexion or the later Vitamin D deficiency lighter model,(who were converts and thus never really real 'Jews' in the first place),created by that great northern agrarian migration into the Ukraine and points further north and west.
The truth is that what the egotitistal Jewish Nazi Gil Menachem of Albert Einstein Medical Center identifies as the 'cohenim gene' predates any 'cohenims' ,or Jewish witch doctors,by about 40,000 years !
And of course those whites who later converted to Judaism after getting white from Vitamin D deficiency, such as the mad mass murdering Atzmons, were never Jews in any real sense of historic or genetic lineage but only in their delusions,located in what I term the 'psycho-molecular code',doo,doo,doo,do, dooo,doo, do...
In my opinion neither Albert Einstein U's 'Dr,'Rima E. Laibow nor Gil Atzmon would qualify for Ronald McDonald's hamburger college and if Gil Atzmon is anything like his Hungarian origened relative, Menachem Atzmon, I'd be afraid any hamburgers he made might end up mixed with human body parts.No Joke !
- Maybe as soon as Connecticut medical examiner locates Adam Lanza'a 'evil gene' he can find that big fat evil gene in the Atzmons, particularly that of Israeli ICTS International 9/11 mass murderer Menachem Atzmon.If he can find the evil gene in Adam Lanza he shouldn't be able to miss the one in Menachem Atzmon and probably in his relative Gil Atzmon at Albert Einstein University.Maybe Adam Lanza had the Cohenim gene to boot.Ha.
Adam Lanza and the "Evil Gene"
alt-market.com/.../general.../11125-adam-lanza-and-the-qevil-geneqAdam Lanza, the young man accused of carrying out the Sandy Hook massacre, will have his DNA searched for the “evil gene.” ... None other than Connecticut Medical Examiner, Wayne Carver, who debuted at his previous press conference ...
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=146502
Doctor finds fault in the contentions that the "Cohen modal haplotype"
designates Israelites and that most Sephardic Cohens are related to
Ashkenazic Cohens
27 February 2001
A study by Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin, of the Department of Haematology and
Genetic Pathology, School of Medicine, Flinders University of South Australia,
"Are today's Jewish priests descended from the old ones?", has recently
been published in the German journal "HOMO: Journal of Comparative Human
Biology - Zeitschrift fuer vergleichende Biologie des Menschen" (volume
51, no. 2-3, 2000, pp. 156-162). Zoossmann's study casts doubt on the
hypothesis expounded by Michael F. Hammer, Karl Skorecki, and their
colleagues in their January 2, 1997 paper in Nature volume 385 entitled
"Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests" and that of Karl Skorecki, David
Goldstein, et al. in Nature volume 394 entitled "Origins of Old Testament
Priests" as well as the related studies with the Lemba tribe of South
Africa (American Journal of Human Genetics volume 66) and Jewish
populations around the world (PNAS volume 97 issue 12). These studies
asserted that Ashkenazic Cohens are strongly related to Sephardic Cohens
and that therefore divergent Jewish communities have strong DNA relations.
Zoossmann concludes that the existing studies of Jewish priests are
problematic and arrive at conclusions that are not supported by all
available data.
In Zoossmann-Diskin's summary, he writes that "Careful examination of
their [Skorecki's and Thomas's] works reveals many faults that lead to the
inevitable conclusion that their claim [that most Cohenim share a common
origin] has not been proven. The faults are: the definition of the studied
communities, significant differences between three samples of Jewish
priests, failure to use enough suitable markers to construct the
Unique-Event-polymorphisms haplotypes, problematic method of calculating
coalescence time and underestimating the mutation rate of Y chromosome
microsatellites. The suggestion that the 'Cohen modal haplotype' is a
signature haplotype for the ancient Hebrew population is also not
supported by data from other populations." (p. 156)
Specifically, Zoossmann explains that:
* The studies of the Cohens merge together the Sephardic peoples
even though they are too diverse to be considered one unit.
Even the North African Jewish communities have genetic differences,
as Batsheva Bonne-Tamir et al. noted in a study in 1978 that is cited
in Zoossmann's paper.
* The SRY4064, SRY 465, Tat, and sY81 polymorphisms were
useless for the purposes of the studies.
* Some useful markers were not used in the studies that should have
been.
* The Cohen modal haplotype is the most common haplotype among
Southern Italians*1, Central Italians*2, Hungarians*3, and Iraqi
Kurds*4, and is also found among many Armenians*5 and South African
Lembas*6. This calls into question the notion that the haplotype
originated with the ancient Israelites and that it was found mostly
among ancient Jewish priests.
Many lines of historical and archaeological evidence, as summarized in the
book "The Jews of Khazaria" by Kevin Alan Brook (Jason Aronson Inc.,
Northvale, N.J., 1999), indicate that Jewish populations around the world
descend from a variety of maternal and paternal origins, including not
only Israelites but also Berbers, Arabs, Khazars, Romans, Hittites,
Idumeans, Persians, Ethiopians, Abayudayans, Germans, Slavs, and other
groups.
Preliminary genetic studies of mtDNA (from maternal ancestries) have
already demonstrated the connections between Jewish populations and
non-Jewish populations.
There are additionally many hundreds of thousands of converts to Judaism
living in the present time. The only common denominator binding all
Jewish groups and individuals together is religion. Separately,
legitimate doubts have been raised about the conclusions of Ariella
Oppenheim et al. and Harry Ostrer et al. that Jews are most closely
related to populations like the Palestinians and Lebanese and that they
have only small amounts of descent from conversions and intermarriages.
Historical, anthropological, ethnographic, and genetic evidence does not
support the contention that Jews are a homogeneous ethnicity. It is hoped
that additional studies will help to clarify these questions and to
provide a more objective and accurate analysis of Jewish ethnogenesis.
Zoossmann's study contains detailed statistical information, charts, and
19 references.
Full citation:
Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin
"Are today's Jewish priests descended from the old ones?"
HOMO: Journal of Comparative Human Biology - Zeitschrift fuer
vergleichende Biologie des Menschen
51:2-3 (Urban & Fischer Verlag, 2000): 156-162.
News release footnotes:
*1,2: A. Cagli et al., "Increased forensic efficiency of a STR-based
Y-specific haplotype by addition of the highly polymorphic DYS385 locus."
Int J Leg Med 111 (1998): 142-146.
*3 S. Fredi et al., "Y-STR haplotyping in two Hungarian populations." Int
J Leg Med 113 (1999): 38-42.
*4 C. Brinkmann et al., "Human Y-chromosomal STR haplotypes in a Kurdish
population sample." Int J Leg Med 112 (1999): 181-183.
*5 Levon Yepiskoposyan, Dr.Sc., Head of the Institute of Man,
President of the Armenian Anthropological Society.
*6 M. G. Thomas et al., "Y chromosomes travelling south: the Cohen modal
haplotype and the origins of the Lemba - the 'Black Jews of Southern
Africa'." Am J Hum Genet 66 (2000): 674-686.
Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik, Ph.D., that is article shows proved European Jews are predominantly the descendants of converted Khazars from the Caucasus http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/61, also spoke on this issue:
http://eelhaik.aravindachakravartilab.org/writingMissingLink.html
Quote:
Most troubling is that papers that were refuted like the Levite and Cohnim genes (Zoossmann-Diskin 2006, Zoossmann-Diskin 2000) are still being disucssed as if nothing happened. This particular practice of ignoring "Negative" papers was also mentioned in Kirsh (2003). My study can therefore expects a similar faith, but I hope one day someone will study the huge cost both in tax-payers dollars and health that the adoption of Zionist narrative (Rhineland hypothesis) cost the American people.
Myths and religions of any kind are better left outside of science.
Similar/related paper on Zoossmann-Diskin http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/01/criticism-on-papers-regarding-jewish.html
Wed 27 Feb 2013, 15:48vikingsfan4 wrote:
These "Cohanim" claims were thoroughly debunked long ago by Geneticist Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin, Ph.D. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-avshalom-zoossmann-diskin/17/a27/6a4 in his article "Are today's Jewish priests descended from the old ones?" published in the German journal "HOMO: Journal of Comparative Human Biology - Zeitschrift fuer vergleichende Biologie des Menschen" (volume 51, no. 2-3, 2000, pp. 156-162).
There were some sampling errors in the original study done on the subject (Skorecki K, Selig S, Blazer S, et al., 1997) but another study (Hammer and Behar et al., 2009) confirmed that the current Cohen descended from a small number of paternal ancestors, finding that J-P58* (or J1E) accounts for 46.1% of the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) and the second major haplogroup, J-M410 or J2am accounts for 14.4% and the obscure German geneticist is known for publishing questionable papers and his latest study on Eastern European Jews was heavily criticised by the reviewers for drawing an absurd conclusion which contradicted data he used.
Quote:
It has been known for over a decade that a majority of men who self report as members of the Jewish priesthood (Cohanim) carry a characteristic Y chromosome haplotype termed the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). The CMH has since been used to trace putative Jewish ancestral origins of various populations. However, the limited number of binary and STR Y chromosome markers used previously did not provide the phylogenetic resolution needed to infer the number of independent paternal lineages that are encompassed within the Cohanim or their coalescence times. Accordingly, we have genotyped 75 binary markers and 12 Y-STRs in a sample of 215 Cohanim from diverse Jewish communities, 1,575 Jewish men from across the range of the Jewish Diaspora, and 2,099 non-Jewish men from the Near East, Europe, Central Asia, and India. While Cohanim from diverse backgrounds carry a total of 21 Y chromosome haplogroups, 5 haplogroups account for 79.5% of Cohanim Y chromosomes. The most frequent Cohanim lineage (46.1%) is marked by the recently reported P58 T->C mutation, which is prevalent in the Near East. Based on genotypes at 12 Y-STRs, we identify an extended CMH on the J-P58* background that predominates in both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is remarkably absent in non-Jews. The estimated divergence time of this lineage based on 17 STRs is 3,190 ± 1,090 years. Notably, the second most frequent Cohanim lineage (J-M410*, 14.4%) contains an extended modal haplotype that is also limited to Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is estimated to be 4.2 ± 1.3 ky old. These results support the hypothesis of a common origin of the CMH in the Near East well before the dispersion of the Jewish people into separate communities, and indicate that the majority of contemporary Jewish priests descend from a limited number of paternal lineages.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771134/
Quote:
North African Jews constitute the second largest Jewish Diaspora group. However, their relatedness to each other; to European, Middle Eastern, and other Jewish Diaspora groups; and to their former North African non-Jewish neighbors has not been well defined. Here, genome-wide analysis of five North African Jewish groups (Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Djerban, and Libyan) and comparison with other Jewish and non-Jewish groups demonstrated distinctive North African Jewish population clusters with proximity to other Jewish populations and variable degrees of Middle Eastern, European, and North African admixture. Two major subgroups were identified by principal component, neighbor joining tree, and identity-by-descent analysis—Moroccan/Algerian and Djerban/Libyan—that varied in their degree of European admixture. These populations showed a high degree of endogamy and were part of a larger Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish group. By principal component analysis, these North African groups were orthogonal to contemporary populations from North and South Morocco, Western Sahara, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Thus, this study is compatible with the history of North African Jews—founding during Classical Antiquity with proselytism of local populations, followed by genetic isolation with the rise of Christianity and then Islam, and admixture following the emigration of Sephardic Jews during the Inquisition.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/34/13865.full?sid=1e36b837-72c9-4898-91ae-5d0a199df534
So I'm just minding my own business, making a sandwich before rehearsals, and I get a call that Red is platinum in the UK. I LOVE you guys.
Thu 28 Feb 2013, 15:19
Again the Johns Hopkins University geneticist (Dr. Eran Elhaik, Ph.D.) whose 2012-2013 study this thread was started abouthttp://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/61.abstract and
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJN90t2gN6hxGiFQuBv-gYQE060w?docId=CNG.52483183e4e0f60d963361c17572c848.81
Writes in 2012-2013 on his Johns Hopkins University genetics page: http://eelhaik.aravindachakravartilab.org/writingMissingLink.html
"Most troubling is that papers that were refuted like the Levite and Cohnim genes (Zoossmann-Diskin 2006, Zoossmann-Diskin 2000) are still being disucssed as if nothing happened. This particular practice of ignoring "Negative" papers was also mentioned in Kirsh (2003). My study can therefore expects a similar faith, but I hope one day someone will study the huge cost both in tax-payers dollars and health that the adoption of Zionist narrative (Rhineland hypothesis) cost the American people."
Myths and religions of any kind are better left outside of science."
Again the original Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-avshalom-zoossmann-diskin/17/a27/6a4) paper being shown:http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2001-02/0983324803
And then also of note on the topic we are discussing here:
Sergio Tofanelli (of the University of Pisa in Italy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pisa) et al. 2009http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/full/ejhg200958a.html
"Furthermore, J1 STR motifs previously used to trace Arab or Jewish ancestries were shown unsuitable as diagnostic markers for ethnicity.
...
Frequency peaks over 50% of the whole binary variation are present in Arabia (Yemen, Qatar), Northern Caucasus (Dagestan), Sudan and in Negev Bedouins (Supplementary Table S1).
...
With the exception of the rare Palestinian modal haplotype,10 none of the previously described STR motifs resulted equal by descent, as they were found across ethnic groups with different cultural or geographic affiliation and in other lineages (J2, I*) than J1. Such results make their use to trace ancestries of individuals or communities (ie, Arab or Jewish) inconclusive. Calculations under the coalescent model for J1 haplotypes bearing the Cohanim motif gave time estimates that place the origin of this genealogy around 6.2 Kybp (95% CI: 4.5–8.6 Kybp), earlier than previously thought,4 and well before the origin of Judaism (David Kingdom, ~2.0 Kybp)."
Jacques Chiaroni et al. 2010 link: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/full/ejhg2009166a.html
And also geneticist/scholar Anatole A. Klyosov http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0739-1 A comment on the paper: Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood by M.F. Hammer, D.M. Behar, T.M. Karafet, F.L. Mendez, B. Hallmark, T. Erez, L.A. Zhivotovsky, S. Rosset, K. Skorecki, Hum Genet, published online 8 August 2009
Discussed here as well: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/criticism-of-jewish-priesthood-paper.html
"In conclusion: Klyosov is right to criticize Hammer et al. for using the evolutionary mutation rate. However, his methods do not warrant the strong conclusion that Cohanim J-P58's share a common origin in the last 1,000 years. See my own post on the Hammer et al. paper for my thoughts on the matter."
One of the commenters there http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/criticism-of-jewish-priesthood-paper.html named "Ponto" notes:
"The time calculation by Hammer et al is influenced by religious belief not by any reality. It should be taken with a large grain of salt."
And from: http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-cohen-levite.html
"Based on surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones, priests represent approximately 5% of the estimated total male world Jewish population of roughly 7 million
...
in view of the pronounced genetic diversity displayed between the two [Sephardic and Ashkenazic] communities.
...
Only about half, or less (40-45%), of Ashkenazi Jewish Cohens have the so-called "Kohen gene". A somewhat greater percentage of Sephardic Cohens have the gene. But it doesn't approach 100 percent. Tell that to the staff of Karl Skorecki's institution, Technion University, who claim here "Professor Karl Skorecki discovered genetic proof that all Jews belonging to the Cohen family are descendents of the biblical high priest Aaron Hacohen." If that's not misrepresentation I don't know what is. [Dr. Skorecki himself does not approve of the university's use of the word "all" and has asked them to fix their description of his research.]"
On that first quote again "Based on surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones, priests represent approximately 5% of the estimated total male world Jewish population of roughly 7 million" author/historian Professor Shlomo Sand, Ph.D. makes the following point on pages 278-279 of his acclaimed, bestselling, and award winning 2009 book "The Invention of the Jewish People" regarding this whole issue in general
http://www.rafapal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Shlomo-Sand-The-Invention-of-the-Jewish-People-2009.pdf
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJN90t2gN6hxGiFQuBv-gYQE060w?docId=CNG.52483183e4e0f60d963361c17572c848.81
Writes in 2012-2013 on his Johns Hopkins University genetics page: http://eelhaik.aravindachakravartilab.org/writingMissingLink.html
"Most troubling is that papers that were refuted like the Levite and Cohnim genes (Zoossmann-Diskin 2006, Zoossmann-Diskin 2000) are still being disucssed as if nothing happened. This particular practice of ignoring "Negative" papers was also mentioned in Kirsh (2003). My study can therefore expects a similar faith, but I hope one day someone will study the huge cost both in tax-payers dollars and health that the adoption of Zionist narrative (Rhineland hypothesis) cost the American people."
Myths and religions of any kind are better left outside of science."
Again the original Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-avshalom-zoossmann-diskin/17/a27/6a4) paper being shown:http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2001-02/0983324803
And then also of note on the topic we are discussing here:
Sergio Tofanelli (of the University of Pisa in Italy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pisa) et al. 2009http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/full/ejhg200958a.html
"Furthermore, J1 STR motifs previously used to trace Arab or Jewish ancestries were shown unsuitable as diagnostic markers for ethnicity.
...
Frequency peaks over 50% of the whole binary variation are present in Arabia (Yemen, Qatar), Northern Caucasus (Dagestan), Sudan and in Negev Bedouins (Supplementary Table S1).
...
With the exception of the rare Palestinian modal haplotype,10 none of the previously described STR motifs resulted equal by descent, as they were found across ethnic groups with different cultural or geographic affiliation and in other lineages (J2, I*) than J1. Such results make their use to trace ancestries of individuals or communities (ie, Arab or Jewish) inconclusive. Calculations under the coalescent model for J1 haplotypes bearing the Cohanim motif gave time estimates that place the origin of this genealogy around 6.2 Kybp (95% CI: 4.5–8.6 Kybp), earlier than previously thought,4 and well before the origin of Judaism (David Kingdom, ~2.0 Kybp)."
Jacques Chiaroni et al. 2010 link: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/full/ejhg2009166a.html
And also geneticist/scholar Anatole A. Klyosov http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0739-1 A comment on the paper: Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish Priesthood by M.F. Hammer, D.M. Behar, T.M. Karafet, F.L. Mendez, B. Hallmark, T. Erez, L.A. Zhivotovsky, S. Rosset, K. Skorecki, Hum Genet, published online 8 August 2009
Discussed here as well: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/criticism-of-jewish-priesthood-paper.html
"In conclusion: Klyosov is right to criticize Hammer et al. for using the evolutionary mutation rate. However, his methods do not warrant the strong conclusion that Cohanim J-P58's share a common origin in the last 1,000 years. See my own post on the Hammer et al. paper for my thoughts on the matter."
One of the commenters there http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/criticism-of-jewish-priesthood-paper.html named "Ponto" notes:
"The time calculation by Hammer et al is influenced by religious belief not by any reality. It should be taken with a large grain of salt."
And from: http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-cohen-levite.html
"Based on surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones, priests represent approximately 5% of the estimated total male world Jewish population of roughly 7 million
...
in view of the pronounced genetic diversity displayed between the two [Sephardic and Ashkenazic] communities.
...
Only about half, or less (40-45%), of Ashkenazi Jewish Cohens have the so-called "Kohen gene". A somewhat greater percentage of Sephardic Cohens have the gene. But it doesn't approach 100 percent. Tell that to the staff of Karl Skorecki's institution, Technion University, who claim here "Professor Karl Skorecki discovered genetic proof that all Jews belonging to the Cohen family are descendents of the biblical high priest Aaron Hacohen." If that's not misrepresentation I don't know what is. [Dr. Skorecki himself does not approve of the university's use of the word "all" and has asked them to fix their description of his research.]"
On that first quote again "Based on surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones, priests represent approximately 5% of the estimated total male world Jewish population of roughly 7 million" author/historian Professor Shlomo Sand, Ph.D. makes the following point on pages 278-279 of his acclaimed, bestselling, and award winning 2009 book "The Invention of the Jewish People" regarding this whole issue in general
http://www.rafapal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Shlomo-Sand-The-Invention-of-the-Jewish-People-2009.pdf
Quote:
The amusing aspect of this story is that the "priestly gene" could just as easily be a "non-Jewish gene." Judaism is inherited from the mother, so it would not be far-fetched to assume that since the nineteenth century a good many nonbelieving cohanim have married "gentile" women, although the Halakhah forbids them to do so. These men may well have fathered "non-Jewish" offspring, who, according to Skorecki's research, would bear the "genetic seal" of the cohanim. But Jewish scientists are not expected to consider minor details, especially as God is no longer involved—in this era of enlightened rationalism, pure Jewish science has replaced the ancient Jewish faith, with its burden of prejudices.
While the media celebrated the discovery and overlooked the potential contradiction in the thesis of the Jewish priestly gene, nobody asked why a costly biological investigation was devoted to the search for a hereditary religious caste. Similarly, no newspaper bothered to publish the findings of Professor Uzi Ritte, of the Department of Genetics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who had examined those same priestly haplotypes on the Y-chromosome and found nothing distinctive about them.46
Thu 28 Feb 2013, 15:35
The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) is not limited to Cohens or Jews and it could be found in the general populations of haplogroups J1 and J2 throughout the Middle East but the CMH is notably frequent amongst Cohens, which proves that the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as Kohanim descended from a common ancestral group originated in the Middle East around 5,000-3,000 years ago. The rate of genetic similarity of today’s Kohanim is the highest “paternity-certainty” rate ever recorded in population genetics studies and the Cohen family typically represents Jewishness as a priestly family that is closely associated with Judaism.
So I'm just minding my own business, making a sandwich before rehearsals, and I get a call that Red is platinum in the UK. I LOVE you guys.
Thu 28 Feb 2013, 16:57ThirdTerm wrote:
The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) is not limited to Cohens or Jews and it could be found in the general populations of haplogroups J1 and J2 throughout the Middle East but the CMH is notably frequent amongst Cohens, which proves that the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as Kohanim descended from a common ancestral group originated in the Middle East around 5,000-3,000 years ago and the rate of genetic similarity of today’s Kohanim is the highest “paternity-certainty” rate ever recorded in population genetics studies.
I'm not exactly sure why you even started posting about these "Cohanim" claims in this thread to begin with. As this thread was obviously discussing the new genetic study supporting the Khazarian hypothesis conducted again by Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik, Ph.D. http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/61and
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJN90t2gN6hxGiFQuBv-gYQE060w?docId=CNG.52483183e4e0f60d963361c17572c848.81
That saw Dr. Eran Elhaik (http://eelhaik.aravindachakravartilab.org/ and http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-gZa-KkAAAAJ&hl=en) again conclude:
"We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaized Khazars, Greco–Roman Jews, Mesopotamian Jews, and Judeans and that their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan."
And Dr. Elhaik says again: http://eelhaik.aravindachakravartilab.org/writingMissingLink.html
"With time, the bad science practices (i.e., lies and misconception) became more sophisticated (it took me months to figure it all out) but with time the amount of data grew rapidly and the lies became harder to conceive. Kirsh (2003) filled two pages with the bad practices of Israeli and Jews geneticists in their attempt to manipulate the data and the results so they will not conflict with the Zionist narrative. I didn't find it necessary to do a similar project because then I would run out of space. Instead, I focused on the supernatural element of the Rhineland Hypothesis and the fact that it was completely made up to support the narrative.
Most troubling is that papers that were refuted like the Levite and Cohnim genes (Zoossmann-Diskin 2006, Zoossmann-Diskin 2000) are still being disucssed as if nothing happened. This particular practice of ignoring "Negative" papers was also mentioned in Kirsh (2003). My study can therefore expects a similar faith, but I hope one day someone will study the huge cost both in tax-payers dollars and health that the adoption of Zionist narrative (Rhineland hypothesis) cost the American people.
Myths and religions of any kind are better left outside of science."
And as for the issue of "Cohanim" studies (with even the studies obviously noting calling any gene a supposed "Cohen" gene is of course only a purely jocular labelinghttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/jocularly) they are only dealing with a question regarding a very small amount of individuals (in this case men) who are again estimated by "surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones" to be only around a miniscule 5% of the total "male world Jewish population" which some estimates have placed at around 7 million men in total. So 5% of 7 million men is only going to be 350,000 men to start with; and then using even the "46%" figure within that which even you noted we are only talking about roughly 161,000 men or about only 2.3% of all the "Jewish males" of the world (meaning thus around 97.7% of all the "Jewish men" in the world are not even coming up or involved at all in these "Cohanim" claims to begin with). So again I don't see why you brought up this very small claim/issue in regards to Dr. Elhaik's Khazar study: http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/75.full
And as for the small "Cohanim" debate, I again posted the links of Zoossmann-Diskin, Tofanelli et al. 2009, Chiaroni et al. 2010, Anatole Alex Klyosov work, etc. etc.
Again:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2001-02/0983324803 Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dr-avshalom-zoossmann-diskin/17/a27/6a4
Tofanelli et al. 2009 http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n11/full/ejhg200958a.html
Chiaroni et al. 2010 http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/full/ejhg2009166a.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/01/criticism-on-papers-regarding-jewish.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/criticism-of-jewish-priesthood-paper.html
"In conclusion: Klyosov is right to criticize Hammer et al. for using the evolutionary mutation rate. However, his methods do not warrant the strong conclusion that Cohanim J-P58's share a common origin in the last 1,000 years. See my own post on the Hammer et al. paper for my thoughts on the matter.
...
The time calculation by Hammer et al is influenced by religious belief not by any reality. It should be taken with a large grain of salt."
and http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0739-1 of http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net/~aklyosov/ again
So with all these sources in mind I don't know were your getting your claim about supposed "certainty" even on this small, largely off-topic issue that you raised in a thread discussing Dr. Elhaik's work http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/61.full
And finally as far as the jocularly named "Cohen marker" claims even go; they are at the start not only claims regarding a very small and miniscule segment of themales within the world "Jewish population" but also actually in contradiction with certain things often stated within the religion of Judaism today as well (regarding having a "Jewish mother" being what matters to supposedly be considered "ethnically Jewish" which is farcical from the start as Judaism is only a religion) as Shlomo Sand, Ph.D. notes once again: http://www.rafapal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Shlomo-Sand-The-Invention-of-the-Jewish-People-2009.pdf
pages 278-279 of "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Shlomo Sand http://www.versobooks.com/books/468-the-invention-of-the-jewish-people
Quote:
The amusing aspect of this story is that the "priestly gene" could just as easily be a "non-Jewish gene." Judaism is inherited from the mother, so it would not be far-fetched to assume that since the nineteenth century a good many nonbelieving cohanim have married "gentile" women, although the Halakhah forbids them to do so. These men may well have fathered "non-Jewish" offspring, who, according to Skorecki's research, would bear the "genetic seal" of the cohanim. But Jewish scientists are not expected to consider minor details, especially as God is no longer involved—in this era of enlightened rationalism, pure Jewish science has replaced the ancient Jewish faith, with its burden of prejudices.
While the media celebrated the discovery and overlooked the potential contradiction in the thesis of the Jewish priestly gene, nobody asked why a
costly biological investigation was devoted to the search for a hereditary religious caste. Similarly, no newspaper bothered to publish the findings of
Professor Uzi Ritte, of the Department of Genetics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who had examined those same priestly haplotypes on the Y-chromosome and found nothing distinctive about them.46
Thu 28 Feb 2013, 18:44
The debate between ThirdTerm and Vikingsfan4 illustrates the quixotic nature of any discussion about ethnicity and biology. I would venture to say one could do similar DNA studies of nordic peoples and wind up with similarly inconclusive results.
The truth is it doesn't really matter. Ethnic ties are far more about a common cultural heritage and family relationships than they are about dubious biological markers.
The truth is it doesn't really matter. Ethnic ties are far more about a common cultural heritage and family relationships than they are about dubious biological markers.
Thu 28 Feb 2013, 19:15quetzalcoatl wrote:
The debate between ThirdTerm and Vikingsfan4 illustrates the quixotic nature of any discussion about ethnicity and biology. I would venture to say one could do similar DNA studies of nordic peoples and wind up with similarly inconclusive results.
The truth is it doesn't really matter. Ethnic ties are far more about a common cultural heritage and family relationships than they are about dubious biological markers.
ThirdTerm was randomly bring up a very small side issue, when this thread was started about Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik's new studyhttp://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/61
As for having different results, Dr. Elhaik has argued very forcefully how some of the earlier "results" came about: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december302012/jewish-gene-oa.php
Quote:
Elhaik, who disputes Ostrer's study, claims that previous research on the subject "has no empirical basis, sometimes even contradicts itself and offers conclusions that are simply not convincing."
"It is my impression," he adds, "that their results were written before they began the research. First they shot their arrow - and then they painted the bull's-eye around it."
And also this Jewish website discussed Elhaik's paper with a very interesting headline: http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2012/12/new-study-shows-yu-researcher-others-appear-to-have-cooked-the-genetic-books-to-prove-middle-eastern-789.html
As for the results geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik, Ph.D. of Johns Hopkins University has come to (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJN90t2gN6hxGiFQuBv-gYQE060w?docId=CNG.52483183e4e0f60d963361c17572c848.81) they have illuminated much and pointed out some very clear things that need explaining whether one wants to accept the Khazarian Hypothesis as Dr. Eran Elhaik says is the conclusion he comes to from his own study or still attempt to reject the Khazar/Khazarian hypothesis as some Zionist ideologue are humorously still doing even now after Elhaik's groundbreaking study was published. These two main points Dr. Eran Elhaik's genetic study brings to the forefront are clearly: 1) the majority of European Jews clusternot with any Middle Eastern populations at all, but rather with Caucasus populations (which Elhaik says is best explained by European Jews mostly descending from Khazar/Khazarian converts to the religion of Judaism, who then later fled out of the Caucasus in this case the Khazar Empire aka Khazaria; into Eastern Europe) and 2) the demographics alone argue strongly in favor of the Khazarian hypothesis and against what is often termed the "Rhineland Hypothesis". So much so that supporters of the "Rhineland Hypothesis" have actually advanced claims about "miracles" in regards to the demographics! As the demographics are so strongly against their theory (the "Rhineland Hypothesis" that is again).
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/61.full
Quote:
A major difficulty with the Rhineland hypothesis, in addition to the lack of historical and anthropological evidence to the multimigration waves from Palestine to Europe (Straten 2003; Sand 2009), is to explain the vast population expansion of Eastern European Jews from fifty thousand (15th century) to eight million (20th century). The annual growth rate that accounts for this population expansion was estimated at 1.7–2%, one order of magnitude larger than that of Eastern European non-Jews in the 15th–17th centuries, prior to the industrial revolution (Straten 2007). This growth could not possibly be the product of natural population expansion, particularly one subjected to severe economic restrictions, slavery, assimilation, the Black Death and other plagues, forced and voluntary conversions, persecutions, kidnappings, rapes, exiles, wars, massacres, and pogroms (Koestler 1976; Straten 2003; Sand 2009). Because such an unnatural growth rate, over half a millennium and affecting only Jews residing in Eastern Europe, is implausible—it is explained by a miracle (Atzmon et al. 2010; Ostrer 2012).Unfortunately, this divine intervention explanation poses a new kind of problem—it is not science. The question of how the Rhineland hypothesis, so deeply rooted in supernatural reasoning, became the dominant scientific narrative is debated among scholars (Sand 2009).
This is very detailed and very useful.
ReplyDelete- Aangirfan