On Jul 20, 2:50 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course neandertal and sapiens share most of their genes. According
> to Svante P bo and his group, they are at least 90% identical, and
> there is less than 1% difference among all living humans. IIRC human
> share at least 95% of their genes with chimpanzees. It is a miracle
> of modern genetics that science can reliably and authoritvely support
> those numbers. But I don't see their relevance here. When discussing
> the identification of different groups, ISTM the important thing is to
> focus on differences, not similarities.
> As for discussing "a Jewish gene" I already dismissed that straw man
> in a previous post. This topic necessarily deals with correlated
> groups of genetic differences.
I think there are grounds for saying, in a weak sense, that there are
'Jewish genes'. That weak sense would mean genes that most Jewish
populations share, even if possessed in common with many Palestinians.
There are genetic diseases common to only Jewish populations, are
there not?
> > "If one kind of superiority comes at the price of another kind of
inferiority,
> > and if the transmission of Jewish values drives the transmission of Jewish
> > genes, does that make the genetics and the superiority easier to swallow?
> > Apparently
> Ok, let's say that expressions such as "Jewish genes" or "Jewish
> genome" are not appropriate.
Let's say you were wrong and full of bullshit.
> Moreover I don't think relevant to use such terms as "genome" or
> "genes" when studying genetic variations between different groups of
> people with the methodology of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP).
> For instance "allele sharing distances" are used for measuring genetic
> distances between the groups, this is a relative and probabilistic
> methodology.
>>>> >>>> >> >>news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
>>>> >bfb6-35754527f...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...>
>>>> >>>> >> >>On Jul 19, 12:13 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>> >> >> > > I would claim that it is not possible: not for my
>>>> >>>> >> >> > > grandmother, nor for Netanyahu, nor for Hitler, nor for
>>>> >>>> >> >> > > my cat. That's the point I wish to discuss.- Hide quoted
>>>> >>>> >> >> > > text -
>>>> >>>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>>> >>>> >> >> > Actually, according to me, there are two issues in the
>>>> >>>> >> >> > expression "Jewish genes":
>>>> >>>> >> >> > 1) Is the concept of gene scientifically valid?
>>>> >>>> >> >> > 2) Is the qualifier "Jewish" relevant as a genetic, or at
>>>> >>>> >> >> > least ethnic, sub-population of homo sapiens (the same for
>>>> >>>> >> >> > the qualifier "black")?
>>>> >>>> >> >> > My own answer is "no" to both questions.
>>>> >>>> >> >> Perhaps a quote from a reference Atilla provided may cause
>>>> >>>> >> >> you to consider the possibility
>>>> >>>> >> >> "Ashkenazi Jews are genetically
>>>> >>>> >> >I read the Nature paper "The genome-wide structure of the
>>>> >>>> >> >Jewish people" by Behar et al. (2010;466:238-42).
>>>> >>>> >> Any chance you would provide a free-access URL to that paper?
>>>> >>>> >I can only send it to you to your email address if you like.
>>>> >>>> Yes, I would like. You already have my email. Thanks in advance.
>>>> >>>Well, Glenn gave everyone the link.
>>>> >>>> >The issue, as already pointed out by Attila is: how defining the
>>>> >>>> >group of people called "Jews"?
>>>> >>>> The above doesn't parse. I have no idea which of Attila's many
>>>> >>>> points you're referring to.
>>>> >>>I am just pointing out the issue of the definition of "Jews", as
>>>> >>>Attila did.
>>>> >> Which is...????
>>>> Still no answer...
>> And still no answer. Why are you being so coy?
>>>> >>>> >> It's not expected that religious Jews of different ethnic
>>>> >>>> >> origins will have similar genomes. It is expected that some
>>>> >>>> >> ethnic Jews will have similar genomes compared to their
>>>> >>>> >> neighboring autochthonous non-Jewish populations, since that is
>>>> >>>> >> the origin of those ethnic Jews' populations. However, ethnic
>>>> >>>> >> Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews are exceptions, as they did not
>>>> >>>> >> originate within their neighboring autochthonous non-Jewish
>>>> >>>> >> populations, and historic external and internal pressures
>>>> >>>> >> limited the interbreeding between them. Also, Ashkenazim and
>>>> >>>> >> Sephardim Jews have distinct genetic differences compared to
>>>> >>>> >> each other, although I don't know if that qualifies them as
>>>> >>>> >> having separate genomes.
>>>> >>>> >You speak of "ethnic Jews". Actually when considering such groups
>>>> >>>> >the important point (regarding the genetic point of view) is the
>>>> >>>> >ethnic group to whom this people belong to and not the fact that
>>>> >>>> >they are considered (or they considered themselves) as "Jews".
>>>> >>>> >In the paper it is mentioned that "the tight cluster comprising
>>>> >>>> >the Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian), Middle Eastern
>>>> >>>> >(Iranian and Iracqi), North African (Moroccan) and Sephardi
>>>> >>>> >(Bulgarian and Turkish) Jewish communities, as well as Samaritans,
>>>> >>>> >strongly overlaps Israeli Druze and is centrally located on the
>>>> >>>> >principal component analysis plot when compared with Middle
>>>> >>>> >Eastern, European Mediterranean, Anatolian and Caucasan non-Jewish
>>>> >>>> >populations".
>>>> >>>> I already agreed that ethnic Jewish groups are parts of larger
>>>> >>>> ethnic non-Jewish groups. Just as there are separate ethnic
>>>> >>>> populations in Africa, yet nobody complains about Svante P��bo's
>>>> >>>> papers because they mention African and non-African genomes.
>>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say that when talking
>>>> >>>> about a genome characteristic of Ashkenazi Jews, that we have to
>>>> >>>> call it the "Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian), Middle
>>>> >>>> Eastern (Iranian and Iracqi), North African (Moroccan) and Sephardi
>>>> >>>> (Bulgarian and Turkish) Jewish communities, as well as Samaritans,
>>>> >>>> strongly overlaps Israeli Druze and is centrally located on the
>>>> >>>> principal component analysis plot when compared with Middle
>>>> >>>> Eastern, European Mediterranean, Anatolian and Caucasan non-Jewish
>>>> >>>> populations" genome. But that's what you seem to be saying. >>>> >>>> Perhaps you can suggest a shorter label, if only to avoid doubling
>>>> >>>> the length of the scientific papers that discuss it.
>>>> >>>The authors concluded that their analyses "are concordant in
>>>> >>>revealing a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and
>>>> >>>non-Jews populations from the Levant. The most parsimonious
>>>> >>>explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which
>>>> >>>is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as
>>>> >>>descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the
>>>> >>>Levant".
>>>> >> And so do you have a suggestion for a shorter way to label the
>>>> >> genome(s) in question?
>>>> >In a comparison of this sort you have to decide who is "Jewish" and who
>>>> >isn't. How is this done?
>>>> Comparison of which sort? The specific paper identifies a specific
>>>> group, without comparing it to other groups.
>>>I am sorry but you are fully wrong: if you read the paper you will see
>>>that the methodology of the analyses is based on comparisons between
>>>several groups, of course!
>> I read the paper. My problem is not the paper. My problem is your
>> interpretation of it. Sometimes you seem to be referring to a single
>> uber-ethnic community of Jews and non-Jews who share a common genetic
>> heritage. Other times you seem to be referring to the individual
>> sub-groups which make up larger group. The paper refers to both.
>> Please let me know which one you think relates to this topic. And
>> also what you think this topic actually is. Perhaps then we can go on
>> from there.
>>>> That group by any other
>>>> name would smell as sweet.
>If your are trying to correlate some form of genetic marker with members of >a given group, then you are comparing people who are in that group with >those who are not in that group. I would think that you would want to keep >the values of all other potentially relevant (to genetic markers) variables >as close as possible across the two groups. For example, if you are >comparing a sample of Litvaks (Ashkenazi from Lithuania) then it might be >more useful to comapare them to non-Litvak Lithuanians than say, non-Litvak >Thais.
>It would be helpful to make explicit the criteria used for making an in-
>group out-group division (Litvaks versus non-Litvaks). In the article "The >genome-wide structure of the Jewish people" by Behar et al." mentioned by >Glenn this is done by self-selection. I think there are inherent problems >with that method but I won't persue that now.
>The main problem is postulating a relationship among the disparate groups >labelling themselves "Jewish". There is clearly a basis for this among those >who practice Judaism but the problem arises among non-practicing groups >labelling themselves as "Jewish". Do these groups (say secular Litvaks and >secular Sephardi from Istanbul) have anything in common? When I worked in >Istanbul I had occasion to meet a number of such women. There were easily >identifiable by their names. For reasons I don't know, they all had (all the >ones I met) French first names rather than Turkish names. They were >absolutely nice and pleasant but ... I had no more in common with them than >with the equally nice and pleasant non-Sephardi women from Istanbul.
>Even if we restrict ourselves to the Ashkenazi, I could make the same point >about the Litvaks and the Ashkenazi from Germany. Among the non-religious I >am unaware of any common cultural traits: not language, not food, not music, >etc. If I didn't know them personally and know their family history, they >would be indistinguishable from the other Germans. I can say the same for >the French. So my question is, what is the basis for claiming they belong to >the same group?
>This is about as clear as I can make it.
IIUC you describe different groups who all say they are Jewish but
their behavior and appearance are substantially different,
particularly among non-practicing individuals. And I agree with your
conclusion. If you were to observe
...
> On Jul 20, 2:02 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>> (in article
>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-40df-9a6a-4104b18c8...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
>>> On Jul 20, 10:29 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:59:23 -0400, UC wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <uranium-dfd6743d-b7d7-443f-8b7a-b5ef9f0d3...@p1g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>>>> ):
>>>>> On Jul 20, 2:55 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 20, 7:17 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> You're all washed up with your attempt to make "Jewish and African >>>>>>> genes"
>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>> racial slur.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> This is not a racial slur, this is stupid racism.
>>>>> I read somewhere that none or few of today's Jews are related to the
>>>>> old Israelites, that today's Jews are descended from a completely
>>>>> different group that converted en masse, after the destruction of
>>>>> Judea by the Romans. Anyone familiar with this account?
>>>> Oh, we're familiar with it. And it's not at all surprising that you would
>>>> pick it up. After all, you're you.
>>>> --
>>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>>> Why do you say that? I am simply ASKING about something that may or
>>> may not be true.
>> And Mr Language Guy again shows his ignorance of history. Hint: certain
>> parties use that 'idea' for very specific reasons. Reasons which may be
>> familiar to you, you perverted baby killer.
>> --
>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
> How would I know a priori?
Google is your friend.
> Are you omniscient?
Nah. I have, however, a degree in history and an interest in the subject.
>> On Jul 20, 10:29 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:59:23 -0400, UC wrote
>>> (in article
>>> <uranium-dfd6743d-b7d7-443f-8b7a-b5ef9f0d3...@p1g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
>>>> On Jul 20, 2:55 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 20, 7:17 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> You're all washed up with your attempt to make "Jewish and African genes"
>>>>>> into a
>>>>>> racial slur.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> This is not a racial slur, this is stupid racism.
>>>> I read somewhere that none or few of today's Jews are related to the
>>>> old Israelites, that today's Jews are descended from a completely
>>>> different group that converted en masse, after the destruction of
>>>> Judea by the Romans. Anyone familiar with this account?
>>> Oh, we're familiar with it. And it's not at all surprising that you would
>>> pick it up. After all, you're you.
>>> --
>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>> Why do you say that? I am simply ASKING about something that may or
>> may not be true.
>And Mr Language Guy again shows his ignorance of history. Hint: certain >parties use that 'idea' for very specific reasons. Reasons which may be >familiar to you, you perverted baby killer.
Sorry, you are quite wrong about UC. He is a stubborn ass about
language usage and totally fixated on his notions of semiotics and of
his notion of translation of German philosophers but other than that
he is quite innocuous.
One source UC might be thinking of is "The Invention of the Jewish
People" by Schlomo Sand, a professor of history at Tel Aviv
University. It is not without some controversy, to say the least. My
impression is that most genetic studies contradict this but,
nonetheless, the idea is out there as a serious historical study with
no antisemitic bias in its presentation.
>I have also read that there was no Israelite captivity in Egypt, that
>there is no mention of it in Egyptian sources at all.
>Comment?
That is correct. There is no anthropological or historical record of
anything that happened in the Old Testament until the time of David
and even that is up to some question. Certainly the "great kingdom"
of David didn't really exist. And the pyramids were not built by
slaves of any kind.
My impression from limited reading is that there is no evidence that
the ancient Israelites and Canaanites derived from nomadic peoples at
all, let alone ones who escaped from slavery in Egypt. Instead they
were a consolidation of peoples who had always lived in the region who
then invented a grand history of their origin some many centuries
after the fact.
>> Of course neandertal and sapiens share most of their genes. According
>> to Svante P bo and his group, they are at least 90% identical, and
>> there is less than 1% difference among all living humans. IIRC human
>> share at least 95% of their genes with chimpanzees. It is a miracle
>> of modern genetics that science can reliably and authoritvely support
>> those numbers. But I don't see their relevance here. When discussing
>> the identification of different groups, ISTM the important thing is to
>> focus on differences, not similarities.
>> As for discussing "a Jewish gene" I already dismissed that straw man
>> in a previous post. This topic necessarily deals with correlated
>> groups of genetic differences.
>I think there are grounds for saying, in a weak sense, that there are
>'Jewish genes'. That weak sense would mean genes that most Jewish
>populations share, even if possessed in common with many Palestinians.
>There are genetic diseases common to only Jewish populations, are
>there not?
There is very good reason to say that there are genes that are common
in many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups. My
impression is that there is no good reason to say that there are genes
that are unique to Jews that can then be used to "define" Jews or
characterize them. For example, the Haplogroup E1B1B in the subject
line of this thread is most common in the horn of Africa and has its
greatest expression in Somalia and Morocco.
http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/E1b1b1_Y-DNA.htm
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>> (in article >> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-40df-9a6a-4104b18c8...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
>>> On Jul 20, 10:29 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:59:23 -0400, UC wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <uranium-dfd6743d-b7d7-443f-8b7a-b5ef9f0d3...@p1g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>>>> ):
>>>>> On Jul 20, 2:55 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 20, 7:17 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> You're all washed up with your attempt to make "Jewish and African >>>>>>> genes"
>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>> racial slur.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> This is not a racial slur, this is stupid racism.
>>>>> I read somewhere that none or few of today's Jews are related to the
>>>>> old Israelites, that today's Jews are descended from a completely
>>>>> different group that converted en masse, after the destruction of
>>>>> Judea by the Romans. Anyone familiar with this account?
>>>> Oh, we're familiar with it. And it's not at all surprising that you would
>>>> pick it up. After all, you're you.
>>>> --
>>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>>> Why do you say that? I am simply ASKING about something that may or
>>> may not be true.
>> And Mr Language Guy again shows his ignorance of history. Hint: certain >> parties use that 'idea' for very specific reasons. Reasons which may be >> familiar to you, you perverted baby killer.
> Sorry, you are quite wrong about UC.
This remains to be seen.
> He is a stubborn ass about
> language usage and totally fixated on his notions of semiotics and of
> his notion of translation of German philosophers but other than that
> he is quite innocuous.
No comment.
> One source UC might be thinking of is "The Invention of the Jewish
> People" by Schlomo Sand, a professor of history at Tel Aviv
> University. It is not without some controversy, to say the least. My
> impression is that most genetic studies contradict this but,
> nonetheless, the idea is out there as a serious historical study with
> no antisemitic bias in its presentation.
Yeah, but that's not the way that _most_ of those who sprout that stuff do it. The majority are like the guy who's been posting 'Jews did 9/11' stuff to lots and lots of newsgroups (including this one) for a while now.
> >> Of course neandertal and sapiens share most of their genes. According
> >> to Svante P bo and his group, they are at least 90% identical, and
> >> there is less than 1% difference among all living humans. IIRC human
> >> share at least 95% of their genes with chimpanzees. It is a miracle
> >> of modern genetics that science can reliably and authoritvely support
> >> those numbers. But I don't see their relevance here. When discussing
> >> the identification of different groups, ISTM the important thing is to
> >> focus on differences, not similarities.
> >> As for discussing "a Jewish gene" I already dismissed that straw man
> >> in a previous post. This topic necessarily deals with correlated
> >> groups of genetic differences.
> >I think there are grounds for saying, in a weak sense, that there are
> >'Jewish genes'. That weak sense would mean genes that most Jewish
> >populations share, even if possessed in common with many Palestinians.
> >There are genetic diseases common to only Jewish populations, are
> >there not?
> There is very good reason to say that there are genes that are common
> in many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups. My
> impression is that there is no good reason to say that there are genes
> that are unique to Jews that can then be used to "define" Jews or
> characterize them. For example, the Haplogroup E1B1B in the subject
> line of this thread is most common in the horn of Africa and has its
> greatest expression in Somalia and Morocco.
> http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/E1b1b1_Y-DNA.htm
>> >> Of course neandertal and sapiens share most of their genes. According
>> >> to Svante P bo and his group, they are at least 90% identical, and
>> >> there is less than 1% difference among all living humans. IIRC human
>> >> share at least 95% of their genes with chimpanzees. It is a miracle
>> >> of modern genetics that science can reliably and authoritvely support
>> >> those numbers. But I don't see their relevance here. When discussing
>> >> the identification of different groups, ISTM the important thing is to
>> >> focus on differences, not similarities.
>> >> As for discussing "a Jewish gene" I already dismissed that straw man
>> >> in a previous post. This topic necessarily deals with correlated
>> >> groups of genetic differences.
>> >I think there are grounds for saying, in a weak sense, that there are
>> >'Jewish genes'. That weak sense would mean genes that most Jewish
>> >populations share, even if possessed in common with many Palestinians.
>> >There are genetic diseases common to only Jewish populations, are
>> >there not?
>> There is very good reason to say that there are genes that are common
>> in many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups. My
>> impression is that there is no good reason to say that there are genes
>> that are unique to Jews that can then be used to "define" Jews or
>> characterize them. For example, the Haplogroup E1B1B in the subject
>> line of this thread is most common in the horn of Africa and has its
>> greatest expression in Somalia and Morocco.
>> http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/E1b1b1_Y-DNA.htm
>Does this gene carry any special properties?
No. I don't think it is even a gene, just a location on the Y
chromosome with a particular mutation in a base pair that can be
identified and therefore tracked in different populations.
>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>>> (in article >>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-40df-9a6a-4104b18c8...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
>>>> On Jul 20, 10:29 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:59:23 -0400, UC wrote
>>>>> (in article
>>>>> <uranium-dfd6743d-b7d7-443f-8b7a-b5ef9f0d3...@p1g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>>>>> ):
>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2:55 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 7:17 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> You're all washed up with your attempt to make "Jewish and African >>>>>>>> genes"
>>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>>> racial slur.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> This is not a racial slur, this is stupid racism.
>>>>>> I read somewhere that none or few of today's Jews are related to the
>>>>>> old Israelites, that today's Jews are descended from a completely
>>>>>> different group that converted en masse, after the destruction of
>>>>>> Judea by the Romans. Anyone familiar with this account?
>>>>> Oh, we're familiar with it. And it's not at all surprising that you would
>>>>> pick it up. After all, you're you.
>>>>> --
>>>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>>>> Why do you say that? I am simply ASKING about something that may or
>>>> may not be true.
>>> And Mr Language Guy again shows his ignorance of history. Hint: certain >>> parties use that 'idea' for very specific reasons. Reasons which may be >>> familiar to you, you perverted baby killer.
>> Sorry, you are quite wrong about UC.
>This remains to be seen.
>> He is a stubborn ass about
>> language usage and totally fixated on his notions of semiotics and of
>> his notion of translation of German philosophers but other than that
>> he is quite innocuous.
>No comment.
>> One source UC might be thinking of is "The Invention of the Jewish
>> People" by Schlomo Sand, a professor of history at Tel Aviv
>> University. It is not without some controversy, to say the least. My
>> impression is that most genetic studies contradict this but,
>> nonetheless, the idea is out there as a serious historical study with
>> no antisemitic bias in its presentation.
>Yeah, but that's not the way that _most_ of those who sprout that stuff do >it. The majority are like the guy who's been posting 'Jews did 9/11' stuff to >lots and lots of newsgroups (including this one) for a while now.
> >>>>>> On Jul 20, 2:55 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 20, 7:17 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> You're all washed up with your attempt to make "Jewish and African
> >>>>>>>> genes"
> >>>>>>>> into a
> >>>>>>>> racial slur.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>> This is not a racial slur, this is stupid racism.
> >>>>>> I read somewhere that none or few of today's Jews are related to the
> >>>>>> old Israelites, that today's Jews are descended from a completely
> >>>>>> different group that converted en masse, after the destruction of
> >>>>>> Judea by the Romans. Anyone familiar with this account?
> >>>>> Oh, we're familiar with it. And it's not at all surprising that you
would
> >>>>> pick it up. After all, you're you.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
> >>>> Why do you say that? I am simply ASKING about something that may or
> >>>> may not be true.
> >>> And Mr Language Guy again shows his ignorance of history. Hint: certain
> >>> parties use that 'idea' for very specific reasons. Reasons which may be
> >>> familiar to you, you perverted baby killer.
> >> Sorry, you are quite wrong about UC.
> >This remains to be seen.
> >> He is a stubborn ass about
> >> language usage and totally fixated on his notions of semiotics and of
> >> his notion of translation of German philosophers but other than that
> >> he is quite innocuous.
> >No comment.
> >> One source UC might be thinking of is "The Invention of the Jewish
> >> People" by Schlomo Sand, a professor of history at Tel Aviv
> >> University. It is not without some controversy, to say the least. My
> >> impression is that most genetic studies contradict this but,
> >> nonetheless, the idea is out there as a serious historical study with
> >> no antisemitic bias in its presentation.
> >Yeah, but that's not the way that _most_ of those who sprout that stuff do
> >it. The majority are like the guy who's been posting 'Jews did 9/11' stuff to
> >lots and lots of newsgroups (including this one) for a while now.
Right in general about what? That most or the majority of anti-semite racists
are racists, or that most or the majority of those that claim a Jewish genetic
identity are racists?
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>>>> (in article >>>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-40df-9a6a-4104b18c8...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
>>>> ):
>>>>> On Jul 20, 10:29 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:59:23 -0400, UC wrote
>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>> <uranium-dfd6743d-b7d7-443f-8b7a-b5ef9f0d3...@p1g2000yqd.googlegroups.co
>>>>>> m>
>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2:55 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 7:17 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You're all washed up with your attempt to make "Jewish and African >>>>>>>>> genes"
>>>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>>>> racial slur.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>> This is not a racial slur, this is stupid racism.
>>>>>>> I read somewhere that none or few of today's Jews are related to the
>>>>>>> old Israelites, that today's Jews are descended from a completely
>>>>>>> different group that converted en masse, after the destruction of
>>>>>>> Judea by the Romans. Anyone familiar with this account?
>>>>>> Oh, we're familiar with it. And it's not at all surprising that you >>>>>> would
>>>>>> pick it up. After all, you're you.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>>>>> Why do you say that? I am simply ASKING about something that may or
>>>>> may not be true.
>>>> And Mr Language Guy again shows his ignorance of history. Hint: certain >>>> parties use that 'idea' for very specific reasons. Reasons which may be >>>> familiar to you, you perverted baby killer.
>>> Sorry, you are quite wrong about UC.
>> This remains to be seen.
>>> He is a stubborn ass about
>>> language usage and totally fixated on his notions of semiotics and of
>>> his notion of translation of German philosophers but other than that
>>> he is quite innocuous.
>> No comment.
>>> One source UC might be thinking of is "The Invention of the Jewish
>>> People" by Schlomo Sand, a professor of history at Tel Aviv
>>> University. It is not without some controversy, to say the least. My
>>> impression is that most genetic studies contradict this but,
>>> nonetheless, the idea is out there as a serious historical study with
>>> no antisemitic bias in its presentation.
>> Yeah, but that's not the way that _most_ of those who sprout that stuff do >> it. The majority are like the guy who's been posting 'Jews did 9/11' stuff >> to >> lots and lots of newsgroups (including this one) for a while now.
Could be. However, the Language Guy's past behavior can be interpreted to indicate otherwise. He's certainly indicated a certain mental attitude, heavy on the jackboots, towards those he opposes. I certainly find it... intriguing... that someone so breathtakingly arrogant on some subjects can be so utterly ignorant on others, including some which are directly related to the subjects he's arrogant about. he has, for example, made a really big thing about how the Nazis used certain words and phrases. It is... intriguing... that someone so well-informed on that has, if you believe him, never prior to this encountered this particular story. I've had a problem with his... interpretations... of certain events for some time. Message-ID: <uranium-60d1a770-5edc-4c14-bb47-b002d933c...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> and Message-ID: <uranium-754fc1a7-91be-4801-91b9-a0c4f75d5...@p6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> on the thread "Google the video "9/11 Missing Links". 9/11 was a Jew Job!" went a long way towards hardening my attitude on the matter. 'Deliberately ambiguous', he said. Yeah. Right.
> >> Of course neandertal and sapiens share most of their genes. According
> >> to Svante P bo and his group, they are at least 90% identical, and
> >> there is less than 1% difference among all living humans. IIRC human
> >> share at least 95% of their genes with chimpanzees. It is a miracle
> >> of modern genetics that science can reliably and authoritvely support
> >> those numbers. But I don't see their relevance here. When discussing
> >> the identification of different groups, ISTM the important thing is to
> >> focus on differences, not similarities.
> >> As for discussing "a Jewish gene" I already dismissed that straw man
> >> in a previous post. This topic necessarily deals with correlated
> >> groups of genetic differences.
> >I think there are grounds for saying, in a weak sense, that there are
> >'Jewish genes'. That weak sense would mean genes that most Jewish
> >populations share, even if possessed in common with many Palestinians.
> >There are genetic diseases common to only Jewish populations, are
> >there not?
> There is very good reason to say that there are genes that are common
> in many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups. My
> impression is that there is no good reason to say that there are genes
> that are unique to Jews that can then be used to "define" Jews or
> characterize them. For example, the Haplogroup E1B1B in the subject
> line of this thread is most common in the horn of Africa and has its
> greatest expression in Somalia and Morocco.
> http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/E1b1b1_Y-DNA.htm
When you say "that there are genes that are common in many Jewish
populations that are uncommon in European groups" I suppose you mean
""that there are some specific alleles of 'genes' that are common in
many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups?
What is your definition of a 'gene'?
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>>>>> (in article >>>>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-40df-9a6a-4104b18c8...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
>>>>> ):
>>>>>> On Jul 20, 10:29 am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:59:23 -0400, UC wrote
>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>> <uranium-dfd6743d-b7d7-443f-8b7a-b5ef9f0d3...@p1g2000yqd.googlegroups.co
>>>>>>> m>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2:55 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 7:17 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> You're all washed up with your attempt to make "Jewish and African >>>>>>>>>> genes"
>>>>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>>>>> racial slur.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> This is not a racial slur, this is stupid racism.
>>>>>>>> I read somewhere that none or few of today's Jews are related to the
>>>>>>>> old Israelites, that today's Jews are descended from a completely
>>>>>>>> different group that converted en masse, after the destruction of
>>>>>>>> Judea by the Romans. Anyone familiar with this account?
>>>>>>> Oh, we're familiar with it. And it's not at all surprising that you >>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> pick it up. After all, you're you.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
>>>>>> Why do you say that? I am simply ASKING about something that may or
>>>>>> may not be true.
>>>>> And Mr Language Guy again shows his ignorance of history. Hint: certain >>>>> parties use that 'idea' for very specific reasons. Reasons which may be >>>>> familiar to you, you perverted baby killer.
>>>> Sorry, you are quite wrong about UC.
>>> This remains to be seen.
>>>> He is a stubborn ass about
>>>> language usage and totally fixated on his notions of semiotics and of
>>>> his notion of translation of German philosophers but other than that
>>>> he is quite innocuous.
>>> No comment.
>>>> One source UC might be thinking of is "The Invention of the Jewish
>>>> People" by Schlomo Sand, a professor of history at Tel Aviv
>>>> University. It is not without some controversy, to say the least. My
>>>> impression is that most genetic studies contradict this but,
>>>> nonetheless, the idea is out there as a serious historical study with
>>>> no antisemitic bias in its presentation.
>>> Yeah, but that's not the way that _most_ of those who sprout that stuff do >>> it. The majority are like the guy who's been posting 'Jews did 9/11' stuff >>> to >>> lots and lots of newsgroups (including this one) for a while now.
>> You are right in general but not in particular.
>Could be. However, the Language Guy's past behavior can be interpreted to >indicate otherwise. He's certainly indicated a certain mental attitude, heavy >on the jackboots, towards those he opposes. I certainly find it... >intriguing... that someone so breathtakingly arrogant on some subjects can be >so utterly ignorant on others, including some which are directly related to >the subjects he's arrogant about. he has, for example, made a really big >thing about how the Nazis used certain words and phrases. It is... >intriguing... that someone so well-informed on that has, if you believe him, >never prior to this encountered this particular story. I've had a problem >with his... interpretations... of certain events for some time. Message-ID: ><uranium-60d1a770-5edc-4c14-bb47-b002d933c...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> >and Message-ID: ><uranium-754fc1a7-91be-4801-91b9-a0c4f75d5...@p6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> on >the thread "Google the video "9/11 Missing Links". 9/11 was a Jew Job!" went >a long way towards hardening my attitude on the matter. 'Deliberately >ambiguous', he said. Yeah. Right.
I only follow a select and small number of threads here so I don't see
most of what UC writes. However he does have a long past history here
and what I do see of him is his obsession about how words are used,
not what the words say. That "deliberately ambiguous" post you cite
is typical of his mode of arument and I bellieve his claim there that
his argument is not antisemitic but rather purely related to word
usagge. His proclaimed field is semiotics.
Still he is very much as you say, breathtakingly arrogant on
particular areas and utterly ignorant on much of what we consider
important here.
>> >> Of course neandertal and sapiens share most of their genes. According
>> >> to Svante P bo and his group, they are at least 90% identical, and
>> >> there is less than 1% difference among all living humans. IIRC human
>> >> share at least 95% of their genes with chimpanzees. It is a miracle
>> >> of modern genetics that science can reliably and authoritvely support
>> >> those numbers. But I don't see their relevance here. When discussing
>> >> the identification of different groups, ISTM the important thing is to
>> >> focus on differences, not similarities.
>> >> As for discussing "a Jewish gene" I already dismissed that straw man
>> >> in a previous post. This topic necessarily deals with correlated
>> >> groups of genetic differences.
>> >I think there are grounds for saying, in a weak sense, that there are
>> >'Jewish genes'. That weak sense would mean genes that most Jewish
>> >populations share, even if possessed in common with many Palestinians.
>> >There are genetic diseases common to only Jewish populations, are
>> >there not?
>> There is very good reason to say that there are genes that are common
>> in many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups. My
>> impression is that there is no good reason to say that there are genes
>> that are unique to Jews that can then be used to "define" Jews or
>> characterize them. For example, the Haplogroup E1B1B in the subject
>> line of this thread is most common in the horn of Africa and has its
>> greatest expression in Somalia and Morocco.
>> http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/E1b1b1_Y-DNA.htm
>When you say "that there are genes that are common in many Jewish
>populations that are uncommon in European groups" I suppose you mean
>""that there are some specific alleles of 'genes' that are common in
>many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups?
>What is your definition of a 'gene'?
I am not going to get into another discussion with you about
definitions. Yes, I careless said "gene" instead of "haplotype"
because that is the word bandied about here on this subject.
The definition of "gene" is as multiple and as fuzzy about the edges
as the definition of "life". Still it is useful to speak of genes
(and of life) in many contexts.
> >> >> Of course neandertal and sapiens share most of their genes. According
> >> >> to Svante P bo and his group, they are at least 90% identical, and
> >> >> there is less than 1% difference among all living humans. IIRC human
> >> >> share at least 95% of their genes with chimpanzees. It is a miracle
> >> >> of modern genetics that science can reliably and authoritvely support
> >> >> those numbers. But I don't see their relevance here. When discussing
> >> >> the identification of different groups, ISTM the important thing is to
> >> >> focus on differences, not similarities.
> >> >> As for discussing "a Jewish gene" I already dismissed that straw man
> >> >> in a previous post. This topic necessarily deals with correlated
> >> >> groups of genetic differences.
> >> >I think there are grounds for saying, in a weak sense, that there are
> >> >'Jewish genes'. That weak sense would mean genes that most Jewish
> >> >populations share, even if possessed in common with many Palestinians.
> >> >There are genetic diseases common to only Jewish populations, are
> >> >there not?
> >> There is very good reason to say that there are genes that are common
> >> in many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups. My
> >> impression is that there is no good reason to say that there are genes
> >> that are unique to Jews that can then be used to "define" Jews or
> >> characterize them. For example, the Haplogroup E1B1B in the subject
> >> line of this thread is most common in the horn of Africa and has its
> >> greatest expression in Somalia and Morocco.
> >> http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/E1b1b1_Y-DNA.htm
> >When you say "that there are genes that are common in many Jewish
> >populations that are uncommon in European groups" I suppose you mean
> >""that there are some specific alleles of 'genes' that are common in
> >many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups?
> >What is your definition of a 'gene'?
> I am not going to get into another discussion with you about
> definitions. Yes, I careless said "gene" instead of "haplotype"
> because that is the word bandied about here on this subject.
> The definition of "gene" is as multiple and as fuzzy about the edges
> as the definition of "life". Still it is useful to speak of genes
> (and of life) in many contexts.
For once I will not get too challenger about the concept of 'gene'.
However I recommend you the following paper which is quite instructive
(perhaps you already read it?):
http://genomebiology.com/2010/11/5/206 I would be grateful to have your comments.
>>>>> >>>> >> >>news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
>>>>> >bfb6-35754527f...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...>
>>>>> >>>> >> >>On Jul 19, 12:13 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > I would claim that it is not possible: not for my
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > grandmother, nor for Netanyahu, nor for Hitler, nor for
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > my cat. That's the point I wish to discuss.- Hide
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > quoted text -
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > Actually, according to me, there are two issues in the
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > expression "Jewish genes":
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > 1) Is the concept of gene scientifically valid?
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > 2) Is the qualifier "Jewish" relevant as a genetic, or at
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > least ethnic, sub-population of homo sapiens (the same
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > for the qualifier "black")?
>>>>> >>>> >> >> > My own answer is "no" to both questions.
>>>>> >>>> >> >> Perhaps a quote from a reference Atilla provided may cause
>>>>> >>>> >> >> you to consider the possibility
>>>>> >>>> >> >> "Ashkenazi Jews are genetically
>>>>> >>>> >> >I read the Nature paper "The genome-wide structure of the
>>>>> >>>> >> >Jewish people" by Behar et al. (2010;466:238-42).
>>>>> >>>> >> Any chance you would provide a free-access URL to that paper?
>>>>> >>>> >I can only send it to you to your email address if you like.
>>>>> >>>> Yes, I would like. You already have my email. Thanks in
>>>>> >>>> advance.
>>>>> >>>Well, Glenn gave everyone the link.
>>>>> >>>> >The issue, as already pointed out by Attila is: how defining the
>>>>> >>>> >group of people called "Jews"?
>>>>> >>>> The above doesn't parse. I have no idea which of Attila's many
>>>>> >>>> points you're referring to.
>>>>> >>>I am just pointing out the issue of the definition of "Jews", as
>>>>> >>>Attila did.
>>>>> >> Which is...????
>>>>> Still no answer...
>>> And still no answer. Why are you being so coy?
>>>>> >>>> >> It's not expected that religious Jews of different ethnic
>>>>> >>>> >> origins will have similar genomes. It is expected that some
>>>>> >>>> >> ethnic Jews will have similar genomes compared to their
>>>>> >>>> >> neighboring autochthonous non-Jewish populations, since that
>>>>> >>>> >> is
>>>>> >>>> >> the origin of those ethnic Jews' populations. However, ethnic
>>>>> >>>> >> Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews are exceptions, as they did not
>>>>> >>>> >> originate within their neighboring autochthonous non-Jewish
>>>>> >>>> >> populations, and historic external and internal pressures
>>>>> >>>> >> limited the interbreeding between them. Also, Ashkenazim and
>>>>> >>>> >> Sephardim Jews have distinct genetic differences compared to
>>>>> >>>> >> each other, although I don't know if that qualifies them as
>>>>> >>>> >> having separate genomes.
>>>>> >>>> >You speak of "ethnic Jews". Actually when considering such
>>>>> >>>> >groups the important point (regarding the genetic point of view)
>>>>> >>>> >is the ethnic group to whom this people belong to and not the
>>>>> >>>> >fact that they are considered (or they considered themselves) as
>>>>> >>>> >"Jews". In the paper it is mentioned that "the tight cluster
>>>>> >>>> >comprising the Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian),
>>>>> >>>> >Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iracqi), North African (Moroccan)
>>>>> >>>> >and Sephardi (Bulgarian and Turkish) Jewish communities, as well
>>>>> >>>> >as Samaritans, strongly overlaps Israeli Druze and is centrally
>>>>> >>>> >located on the principal component analysis plot when compared
>>>>> >>>> >with Middle Eastern, European Mediterranean, Anatolian and
>>>>> >>>> >Caucasan non-Jewish populations".
>>>>> >>>> I already agreed that ethnic Jewish groups are parts of larger
>>>>> >>>> ethnic non-Jewish groups. Just as there are separate ethnic
>>>>> >>>> populations in Africa, yet nobody complains about Svante Pääbo's
>>>>> >>>> papers because they mention African and non-African genomes.
>>>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say that when talking
>>>>> >>>> about a genome characteristic of Ashkenazi Jews, that we have to
>>>>> >>>> call it the "Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian),
>>>>> >>>> Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iracqi), North African (Moroccan) and
>>>>> >>>> Sephardi (Bulgarian and Turkish) Jewish communities, as well as
>>>>> >>>> Samaritans, strongly overlaps Israeli Druze and is centrally
>>>>> >>>> located on the principal component analysis plot when compared
>>>>> >>>> with Middle Eastern, European Mediterranean, Anatolian and
>>>>> >>>> Caucasan non-Jewish populations" genome. But that's what you seem
>>>>> >>>> to be saying. Perhaps you can suggest a shorter label, if only to
>>>>> >>>> avoid doubling the length of the scientific papers that discuss
>>>>> >>>> it.
>>>>> >>>The authors concluded that their analyses "are concordant in
>>>>> >>>revealing a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and
>>>>> >>>non-Jews populations from the Levant. The most parsimonious
>>>>> >>>explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin,
>>>>> >>>which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish
>>>>> >>>people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of
>>>>> >>>the Levant".
>>>>> >> And so do you have a suggestion for a shorter way to label the
>>>>> >> genome(s) in question?
>>>>> >In a comparison of this sort you have to decide who is "Jewish" and
>>>>> >who isn't. How is this done?
>>>>> Comparison of which sort? The specific paper identifies a specific
>>>>> group, without comparing it to other groups.
>>>>I am sorry but you are fully wrong: if you read the paper you will see
>>>>that the methodology of the analyses is based on comparisons between
>>>>several groups, of course!
>>> I read the paper. My problem is not the paper. My problem is your
>>> interpretation of it. Sometimes you seem to be referring to a single
>>> uber-ethnic community of Jews and non-Jews who share a common genetic
>>> heritage. Other times you seem to be referring to the individual
>>> sub-groups which make up larger group. The paper refers to both.
>>> Please let me know which one you think relates to this topic. And
>>> also what you think this topic actually is. Perhaps then we can go on
>>> from there.
>>>>> That group by any other
>>>>> name would smell as sweet.
>>If your are trying to correlate some form of genetic marker with members
>>of a given group, then you are comparing people who are in that group with
>>those who are not in that group. I would think that you would want to keep
>>the values of all other potentially relevant (to genetic markers)
>>variables as close as possible across the two groups. For example, if you
>>are comparing a sample of Litvaks (Ashkenazi from Lithuania) then it might
>>be more useful to comapare them to non-Litvak Lithuanians than say,
>>non-Litvak Thais.
>>It would be helpful to make explicit the criteria used for making an in-
>>group out-group division (Litvaks versus non-Litvaks). In the article "The
>>genome-wide structure of the Jewish people" by Behar et al." mentioned by
>>Glenn this is done by self-selection. I think there are inherent problems
>>with that method but I won't persue that now.
>>The main problem is postulating a relationship among the disparate groups
>>labelling themselves "Jewish". There is clearly a basis for this among
>>those who practice Judaism but the problem arises among non-practicing
>>groups labelling themselves as "Jewish". Do these groups (say secular
>>Litvaks and secular Sephardi from Istanbul) have anything in common? When
>>I worked in Istanbul I had occasion to meet a number of such women. There
>>were easily identifiable by their names. For reasons I don't know, they
>>all had (all the ones I met) French first names rather than Turkish names.
>>They were absolutely nice and pleasant but ... I had no more in common
>>with them than with the equally nice and pleasant non-Sephardi women from
>>Istanbul.
>>Even if we restrict ourselves to the Ashkenazi, I could make the same
>>point about the Litvaks and the Ashkenazi from Germany. Among the
>>non-religious I am unaware of any common cultural traits: not language,
>>not food, not music, etc. If I didn't know them personally and know their
>>family history, they would be indistinguishable from the other Germans. I
>>can say the same for the French. So my question is, what is the basis for
>>claiming they belong to the same group?
>> >> >> Of course neandertal and sapiens share most of their genes. According
>> >> >> to Svante P bo and his group, they are at least 90% identical, and
>> >> >> there is less than 1% difference among all living humans. IIRC human
>> >> >> share at least 95% of their genes with chimpanzees. It is a miracle
>> >> >> of modern genetics that science can reliably and authoritvely support
>> >> >> those numbers. But I don't see their relevance here. When discussing
>> >> >> the identification of different groups, ISTM the important thing is to
>> >> >> focus on differences, not similarities.
>> >> >> As for discussing "a Jewish gene" I already dismissed that straw man
>> >> >> in a previous post. This topic necessarily deals with correlated
>> >> >> groups of genetic differences.
>> >> >I think there are grounds for saying, in a weak sense, that there are
>> >> >'Jewish genes'. That weak sense would mean genes that most Jewish
>> >> >populations share, even if possessed in common with many Palestinians.
>> >> >There are genetic diseases common to only Jewish populations, are
>> >> >there not?
>> >> There is very good reason to say that there are genes that are common
>> >> in many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups. My
>> >> impression is that there is no good reason to say that there are genes
>> >> that are unique to Jews that can then be used to "define" Jews or
>> >> characterize them. For example, the Haplogroup E1B1B in the subject
>> >> line of this thread is most common in the horn of Africa and has its
>> >> greatest expression in Somalia and Morocco.
>> >> http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/E1b1b1_Y-DNA.htm
>> >When you say "that there are genes that are common in many Jewish
>> >populations that are uncommon in European groups" I suppose you mean
>> >""that there are some specific alleles of 'genes' that are common in
>> >many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups?
>> >What is your definition of a 'gene'?
>> I am not going to get into another discussion with you about
>> definitions. Yes, I careless said "gene" instead of "haplotype"
>> because that is the word bandied about here on this subject.
>> The definition of "gene" is as multiple and as fuzzy about the edges
>> as the definition of "life". Still it is useful to speak of genes
>> (and of life) in many contexts.
>For once I will not get too challenger about the concept of 'gene'.
>However I recommend you the following paper which is quite instructive
>(perhaps you already read it?):
>http://genomebiology.com/2010/11/5/206 >I would be grateful to have your comments.
Once again, I find you asking for comments or having questions without
providing any comments or thoughts of your own. That paper discusses
the notion of "gene" counts but provides, for the purposes of that
discussion, a very precise definition: "For our discussion, we will
restrict the definition of gene to a region of the genome that is
transcribed into messenger RNA and translated into one or more
proteins." That is a suitable definition for this stated purpose.
Of course that particular definition omits the genes that code for
functional RNAs rather than RNA transcribed into protein. That just
makes the definition awkward and bloated because everything in biology
has messy special cases and exceptions. Gene counting is a good
example. You count the basic items and discuss the outliers
separately, some people lumping them into the basic count and others
splitting them away so there is no one definitive number.
>>> Of course neandertal and sapiens share most of their genes. According
>>> to Svante P bo and his group, they are at least 90% identical, and
>>> there is less than 1% difference among all living humans. IIRC human
>>> share at least 95% of their genes with chimpanzees. It is a miracle
>>> of modern genetics that science can reliably and authoritvely support
>>> those numbers. But I don't see their relevance here. When discussing
>>> the identification of different groups, ISTM the important thing is to
>>> focus on differences, not similarities.
>>> As for discussing "a Jewish gene" I already dismissed that straw man
>>> in a previous post. This topic necessarily deals with correlated
>>> groups of genetic differences.
>>I think there are grounds for saying, in a weak sense, that there are
>>'Jewish genes'. That weak sense would mean genes that most Jewish
>>populations share, even if possessed in common with many Palestinians.
>>There are genetic diseases common to only Jewish populations, are
>>there not?
>There is very good reason to say that there are genes that are common
>in many Jewish populations that are uncommon in European groups. My
>impression is that there is no good reason to say that there are genes
>that are unique to Jews that can then be used to "define" Jews or
>characterize them.
>For example, the Haplogroup E1B1B in the subject
>line of this thread is most common in the horn of Africa and has its
>greatest expression in Somalia and Morocco.
> http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/E1b1b1_Y-DNA.htm
>>>>>> >>>> >> >>news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
>>>>>> >bfb6-35754527f...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...>
>>>>>> >>>> >> >>On Jul 19, 12:13 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > I would claim that it is not possible: not for my
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > grandmother, nor for Netanyahu, nor for Hitler, nor for
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > my cat. That's the point I wish to discuss.- Hide
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > quoted text -
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > Actually, according to me, there are two issues in the
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > expression "Jewish genes":
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > 1) Is the concept of gene scientifically valid?
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > 2) Is the qualifier "Jewish" relevant as a genetic, or at
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > least ethnic, sub-population of homo sapiens (the same
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > for the qualifier "black")?
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > My own answer is "no" to both questions.
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> Perhaps a quote from a reference Atilla provided may cause
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> you to consider the possibility
>>>>>> >>>> >> >> "Ashkenazi Jews are genetically
>>>>>> >>>> >> >I read the Nature paper "The genome-wide structure of the
>>>>>> >>>> >> >Jewish people" by Behar et al. (2010;466:238-42).
>>>>>> >>>> >> Any chance you would provide a free-access URL to that paper?
>>>>>> >>>> >I can only send it to you to your email address if you like.
>>>>>> >>>> Yes, I would like. You already have my email. Thanks in
>>>>>> >>>> advance.
>>>>>> >>>Well, Glenn gave everyone the link.
>>>>>> >>>> >The issue, as already pointed out by Attila is: how defining the
>>>>>> >>>> >group of people called "Jews"?
>>>>>> >>>> The above doesn't parse. I have no idea which of Attila's many
>>>>>> >>>> points you're referring to.
>>>>>> >>>I am just pointing out the issue of the definition of "Jews", as
>>>>>> >>>Attila did.
>>>>>> >> Which is...????
>>>>>> Still no answer...
>>>> And still no answer. Why are you being so coy?
>>>>>> >>>> >> It's not expected that religious Jews of different ethnic
>>>>>> >>>> >> origins will have similar genomes. It is expected that some
>>>>>> >>>> >> ethnic Jews will have similar genomes compared to their
>>>>>> >>>> >> neighboring autochthonous non-Jewish populations, since that
>>>>>> >>>> >> is
>>>>>> >>>> >> the origin of those ethnic Jews' populations. However, ethnic
>>>>>> >>>> >> Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews are exceptions, as they did not
>>>>>> >>>> >> originate within their neighboring autochthonous non-Jewish
>>>>>> >>>> >> populations, and historic external and internal pressures
>>>>>> >>>> >> limited the interbreeding between them. Also, Ashkenazim and
>>>>>> >>>> >> Sephardim Jews have distinct genetic differences compared to
>>>>>> >>>> >> each other, although I don't know if that qualifies them as
>>>>>> >>>> >> having separate genomes.
>>>>>> >>>> >You speak of "ethnic Jews". Actually when considering such
>>>>>> >>>> >groups the important point (regarding the genetic point of view)
>>>>>> >>>> >is the ethnic group to whom this people belong to and not the
>>>>>> >>>> >fact that they are considered (or they considered themselves) as
>>>>>> >>>> >"Jews". In the paper it is mentioned that "the tight cluster
>>>>>> >>>> >comprising the Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian),
>>>>>> >>>> >Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iracqi), North African (Moroccan)
>>>>>> >>>> >and Sephardi (Bulgarian and Turkish) Jewish communities, as well
>>>>>> >>>> >as Samaritans, strongly overlaps Israeli Druze and is centrally
>>>>>> >>>> >located on the principal component analysis plot when compared
>>>>>> >>>> >with Middle Eastern, European Mediterranean, Anatolian and
>>>>>> >>>> >Caucasan non-Jewish populations".
>>>>>> >>>> I already agreed that ethnic Jewish groups are parts of larger
>>>>>> >>>> ethnic non-Jewish groups. Just as there are separate ethnic
>>>>>> >>>> populations in Africa, yet nobody complains about Svante P��bo's
>>>>>> >>>> papers because they mention African and non-African genomes.
>>>>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say that when talking
>>>>>> >>>> about a genome characteristic of Ashkenazi Jews, that we have to
>>>>>> >>>> call it the "Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian),
>>>>>> >>>> Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iracqi), North African (Moroccan) and
>>>>>> >>>> Sephardi (Bulgarian and Turkish) Jewish communities, as well as
>>>>>> >>>> Samaritans, strongly overlaps Israeli Druze and is centrally
>>>>>> >>>> located on the principal component analysis plot when compared
>>>>>> >>>> with Middle Eastern, European Mediterranean, Anatolian and
>>>>>> >>>> Caucasan non-Jewish populations" genome. But that's what you seem
>>>>>> >>>> to be saying. Perhaps you can suggest a shorter label, if only to
>>>>>> >>>> avoid doubling the length of the scientific papers that discuss
>>>>>> >>>> it.
>>>>>> >>>The authors concluded that their analyses "are concordant in
>>>>>> >>>revealing a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and
>>>>>> >>>non-Jews populations from the Levant. The most parsimonious
>>>>>> >>>explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin,
>>>>>> >>>which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish
>>>>>> >>>people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of
>>>>>> >>>the Levant".
>>>>>> >> And so do you have a suggestion for a shorter way to label the
>>>>>> >> genome(s) in question?
>>>>>> >In a comparison of this sort you have to decide who is "Jewish" and
>>>>>> >who isn't. How is this done?
>>>>>> Comparison of which sort? The specific paper identifies a specific
>>>>>> group, without comparing it to other groups.
>>>>>I am sorry but you are fully wrong: if you read the paper you will see
>>>>>that the methodology of the analyses is based on comparisons between
>>>>>several groups, of course!
>>>> I read the paper. My problem is not the paper. My problem is your
>>>> interpretation of it. Sometimes you seem to be referring to a single
>>>> uber-ethnic community of Jews and non-Jews who share a common genetic
>>>> heritage. Other times you seem to be referring to the individual
>>>> sub-groups which make up larger group. The paper refers to both.
>>>> Please let me know which one you think relates to this topic. And
>>>> also what you think this topic actually is. Perhaps then we can go on
>>>> from there.
>>>>>> That group by any other
>>>>>> name would smell as sweet.
>>>If your are trying to correlate some form of genetic marker with members
>>>of a given group, then you are comparing people who are in that group with
>>>those who are not in that group. I would think that you would want to keep
>>>the values of all other potentially relevant (to genetic markers)
>>>variables as close as possible across the two groups. For example, if you
>>>are comparing a sample of Litvaks (Ashkenazi from Lithuania) then it might
>>>be more useful to comapare them to non-Litvak Lithuanians than say,
>>>non-Litvak Thais.
>>>It would be helpful to make explicit the criteria used for making an in-
>>>group out-group division (Litvaks versus non-Litvaks). In the article "The
>>>genome-wide structure of the Jewish people" by Behar et al." mentioned by
>>>Glenn this is done by self-selection. I think there are inherent problems
>>>with that method but I won't persue that now.
>>>The main problem is postulating a relationship among the disparate groups
>>>labelling themselves "Jewish". There is clearly a basis for this among
>>>those who practice Judaism but the problem arises among non-practicing
>>>groups labelling themselves as "Jewish". Do these groups (say secular
>>>Litvaks and secular Sephardi from Istanbul) have anything in common? When
>>>I worked in Istanbul I had occasion to meet a number of such women. There
>>>were easily identifiable by their names. For reasons I don't know, they
>>>all had (all the ones I met) French first names rather than Turkish names.
>>>They were absolutely nice and pleasant but ... I had no more in common
>>>with them than with the equally nice and pleasant non-Sephardi women from
>>>Istanbul.
>>>Even if we restrict ourselves to the Ashkenazi, I could make the same
>>>point about the Litvaks and the Ashkenazi from Germany. Among the
>>>non-religious I am unaware of any common cultural traits: not language,
>>>not food, not music, etc. If I didn't know them personally and know
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
> >>>>>> >bfb6-35754527f...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...>
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>On Jul 19, 12:13 pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > I would claim that it is not possible: not for my
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > grandmother, nor for Netanyahu, nor for Hitler, nor for
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > my cat. That's the point I wish to discuss.- Hide
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > quoted text -
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > Actually, according to me, there are two issues in the
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > expression "Jewish genes":
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > 1) Is the concept of gene scientifically valid?
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > 2) Is the qualifier "Jewish" relevant as a genetic, or at
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > least ethnic, sub-population of homo sapiens (the same
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > for the qualifier "black")?
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > My own answer is "no" to both questions.
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> Perhaps a quote from a reference Atilla provided may cause
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> you to consider the possibility
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >> "Ashkenazi Jews are genetically
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >I read the Nature paper "The genome-wide structure of the
> >>>>>> >>>> >> >Jewish people" by Behar et al. (2010;466:238-42).
> >>>>>> >>>> >> Any chance you would provide a free-access URL to that paper?
> >>>>>> >>>> >I can only send it to you to your email address if you like.
> >>>>>> >>>> Yes, I would like. You already have my email. Thanks in
> >>>>>> >>>> advance.
> >>>>>> >>>Well, Glenn gave everyone the link.
> >>>>>> >>>> >The issue, as already pointed out by Attila is: how defining the
> >>>>>> >>>> >group of people called "Jews"?
> >>>>>> >>>> The above doesn't parse. I have no idea which of Attila's many
> >>>>>> >>>> points you're referring to.
> >>>>>> >>>I am just pointing out the issue of the definition of "Jews", as
> >>>>>> >>>Attila did.
> >>>>>> >> Which is...????
> >>>>>> Still no answer...
> >>>> And still no answer. Why are you being so coy?
> >>>>>> >>>> >> It's not expected that religious Jews of different ethnic
> >>>>>> >>>> >> origins will have similar genomes. It is expected that some
> >>>>>> >>>> >> ethnic Jews will have similar genomes compared to their
> >>>>>> >>>> >> neighboring autochthonous non-Jewish populations, since that
> >>>>>> >>>> >> is
> >>>>>> >>>> >> the origin of those ethnic Jews' populations. However, ethnic
> >>>>>> >>>> >> Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews are exceptions, as they did not
> >>>>>> >>>> >> originate within their neighboring autochthonous non-Jewish
> >>>>>> >>>> >> populations, and historic external and internal pressures
> >>>>>> >>>> >> limited the interbreeding between them. Also, Ashkenazim and
> >>>>>> >>>> >> Sephardim Jews have distinct genetic differences compared to
> >>>>>> >>>> >> each other, although I don't know if that qualifies them as
> >>>>>> >>>> >> having separate genomes.
> >>>>>> >>>> >You speak of "ethnic Jews". Actually when considering such
> >>>>>> >>>> >groups the important point (regarding the genetic point of view)
> >>>>>> >>>> >is the ethnic group to whom this people belong to and not the
> >>>>>> >>>> >fact that they are considered (or they considered themselves) as
> >>>>>> >>>> >"Jews". In the paper it is mentioned that "the tight cluster
> >>>>>> >>>> >comprising the Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian),
> >>>>>> >>>> >Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iracqi), North African (Moroccan)
> >>>>>> >>>> >and Sephardi (Bulgarian and Turkish) Jewish communities, as well
> >>>>>> >>>> >as Samaritans, strongly overlaps Israeli Druze and is centrally
> >>>>>> >>>> >located on the principal component analysis plot when compared
> >>>>>> >>>> >with Middle Eastern, European Mediterranean, Anatolian and
> >>>>>> >>>> >Caucasan non-Jewish populations".
> >>>>>> >>>> I already agreed that ethnic Jewish groups are parts of larger
> >>>>>> >>>> ethnic non-Jewish groups. Just as there are separate ethnic
> >>>>>> >>>> populations in Africa, yet nobody complains about Svante P��bo's
> >>>>>> >>>> papers because they mention African and non-African genomes.
> >>>>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure you don't really mean to say that when talking
> >>>>>> >>>> about a genome characteristic of Ashkenazi Jews, that we have to
> >>>>>> >>>> call it the "Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian),
> >>>>>> >>>> Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iracqi), North African (Moroccan) and
> >>>>>> >>>> Sephardi (Bulgarian and Turkish) Jewish communities, as well as
> >>>>>> >>>> Samaritans, strongly overlaps Israeli Druze and is centrally
> >>>>>> >>>> located on the principal component analysis plot when compared
> >>>>>> >>>> with Middle Eastern, European Mediterranean, Anatolian and
> >>>>>> >>>> Caucasan non-Jewish populations" genome. But that's what you seem
> >>>>>> >>>> to be saying. Perhaps you can suggest a shorter label, if only to
> >>>>>> >>>> avoid doubling the length of the scientific papers that discuss
> >>>>>> >>>> it.
> >>>>>> >>>The authors concluded that their analyses "are concordant in
> >>>>>> >>>revealing a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and
> >>>>>> >>>non-Jews populations from the Levant. The most parsimonious
> >>>>>> >>>explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin,
> >>>>>> >>>which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish
> >>>>>> >>>people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of
> >>>>>> >>>the Levant".
> >>>>>> >> And so do you have a suggestion for a shorter way to label the
> >>>>>> >> genome(s) in question?
> >>>>>> >In a comparison of this sort you have to decide who is "Jewish" and
> >>>>>> >who isn't. How is this done?
> >>>>>> Comparison of which sort? The specific paper identifies a specific
> >>>>>> group, without comparing it to other groups.
> >>>>>I am sorry but you are fully wrong: if you read the paper you will see
> >>>>>that the methodology of the analyses is based on comparisons between
> >>>>>several groups, of course!
> >>>> I read the paper. My problem is not the paper. My problem is your
> >>>> interpretation of it. Sometimes you seem to be referring to a single
> >>>> uber-ethnic community of Jews and non-Jews who share a common genetic
> >>>> heritage. Other times you seem to be referring to the individual
> >>>> sub-groups which make up larger group. The paper refers to both.
> >>>> Please let me know which one you think relates to this topic. And
> >>>> also what you think this topic actually is. Perhaps then we can go on
> >>>> from there.
> >>>>>> That group by any other
> >>>>>> name would smell as sweet.
> >>>If your are trying to correlate some form of genetic marker with members
> >>>of a given group, then you are comparing people who are in that group with
> >>>those who are not in that group. I would think that you would want to keep
> >>>the values of all other potentially relevant (to genetic markers)
> >>>variables as close as possible across the two groups. For example, if you
> >>>are comparing a sample of Litvaks (Ashkenazi from Lithuania) then it might
> >>>be more useful to comapare them to non-Litvak Lithuanians than say,
> >>>non-Litvak Thais.
> >>>It would be helpful to make explicit the criteria used for making an in-
> >>>group out-group division (Litvaks versus non-Litvaks). In the article "The
> >>>genome-wide structure of the Jewish people" by Behar et al." mentioned by
> >>>Glenn this is done by self-selection. I think there are inherent problems
> >>>with that method but I won't persue that now.
> >>>The main problem is postulating a relationship among the disparate groups
> >>>labelling themselves "Jewish". There is clearly a basis for this among
> >>>those who practice Judaism but the problem arises among non-practicing
> >>>groups labelling themselves as "Jewish". Do these groups (say secular
> >>>Litvaks and secular Sephardi from Istanbul) have anything in common? When
> >>>I worked in Istanbul I had occasion to meet a number of such women. There
> >>>were easily identifiable by their names. For reasons I don't know, they
> >>>all had (all the ones I met) French first names rather than Turkish names.
