info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Haplogroup E1B1B Y-DNA
536 views
Skip to first unread message
Attila
Jul 19, 2012, 3:07:44 AM7/19/12
to
This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns the claim
that there is a biological basis for the definition of a well-defined group
called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both sides of the purported
correlation: the biological side and the ethnographic side. Let's begin with
the biological side.
This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along on
the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother & father's
religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban legend
is mooted.
"Hitler’s “Jewish genes”
"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having “non-Aryan”
ancestry. Specifically, The Daily Mail title is: “DNA tests reveal ‘Hitler
was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.’” Since it’s a British
newspaper I frankly wouldn’t put it past them to simply pass along a hoax…
but I think if they were going to do that they would have said it was the
Cohen Modal Haplotype. The article claims that Hitler’s Y lineage was
haplogroup E1b1b (all biological descendants of the same common male
ancestor through the direct patriline will carry this set of Y chromosomal
markers). This is really vague, as the haplogroup has many subclades.
Obviously if you pull the lens far back enough you’ll find a phylogeny where
Hitler and Jews and/or Africans are within the same clade. Dienekes notes
that this is not a rare haplogroup. It is correct that if one is an
Ashkenazi Jew the odds of one carrying this haplogroup are much higher. But,
it is not necessarily entailed from this that one is likely to be an
Ashkenazi Jew if one carries this haplogroup (or is of Ashkenazi Jewish
descent).
This is clear from the map of the distribution of E1b1b’s two major
subclades:
You can see the maps here
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/hitlers-jewish-genes/
"Even within Europe most men who carry this set of markers are not Ashkenazi
Jews.
"Of course this does not mean that Hitler wasn’t an Ashkenazi Jew. But
there’s probably an easier way to find out if he had such ancestry: sequence
his relative’s autosomal DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinctive.
The most common thesis I’ve heard is that Alois Hitler’s biological father
was Jewish, which would make Hitler 1/4 Jewish, and his surviving great-
nephew, Alexander, 1/16 Jewish. That’s probably enough to get a sense of
whether this urban legend has any validity."
There is considerable discussion at the end of this article. Bruce Wilson
makes this point:
August 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
"Razib, this may be the first responsible and well-informed coverage (and
debunking) of this mess I’ve seen in mainstream media. I consider this a
hoax (and have said so). Further, from what I could tell the incidence of
E1B1B1 in Austria currently is 9% – not rare at all."
Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
"Hey Razib, any thoughts on this ? –
"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the claim
(running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most common
Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews but that’s not the case. E1B1B’s subclade
E1B1B1 is considered the second most common Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews.
...
"I don’t have a biology background and am trying to puzzle this out – is the
article’s apparent conflation of E1B1B and E1B1B1 valid in this case?"
Razib's answer,
"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems suspicious
to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree and
fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together, and bingo.
i suspect that’s what’s going on."
I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
effort[of translating it/att]:
'Enough already with this silliness. There are no French genes, no
German, Austrian or Berber genes. For sure, certain populations may have
genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
identify a suspect in a criminal investigation or confirm someone’s
paternity, but we cannot use it to say that any one person belongs to this
or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more frequently
in Northern Europe? Indeed, but they are found in North Africa, too… We need
to keep hammering home the point that most of humanity’s genetic diversity
is found within populations and not in the differences between them.'"
I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies between
Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the general
population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why this doesn't
appear to have been done?
I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
that there is a biological basis for the definition of a well-defined group
called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both sides of the purported
correlation: the biological side and the ethnographic side. Let's begin with
the biological side.
This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along on
the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother & father's
religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban legend
is mooted.
"Hitler’s “Jewish genes”
"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having “non-Aryan”
ancestry. Specifically, The Daily Mail title is: “DNA tests reveal ‘Hitler
was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.’” Since it’s a British
newspaper I frankly wouldn’t put it past them to simply pass along a hoax…
but I think if they were going to do that they would have said it was the
Cohen Modal Haplotype. The article claims that Hitler’s Y lineage was
haplogroup E1b1b (all biological descendants of the same common male
ancestor through the direct patriline will carry this set of Y chromosomal
markers). This is really vague, as the haplogroup has many subclades.
Obviously if you pull the lens far back enough you’ll find a phylogeny where
Hitler and Jews and/or Africans are within the same clade. Dienekes notes
that this is not a rare haplogroup. It is correct that if one is an
Ashkenazi Jew the odds of one carrying this haplogroup are much higher. But,
it is not necessarily entailed from this that one is likely to be an
Ashkenazi Jew if one carries this haplogroup (or is of Ashkenazi Jewish
descent).
This is clear from the map of the distribution of E1b1b’s two major
subclades:
You can see the maps here
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/hitlers-jewish-genes/
"Even within Europe most men who carry this set of markers are not Ashkenazi
Jews.
"Of course this does not mean that Hitler wasn’t an Ashkenazi Jew. But
there’s probably an easier way to find out if he had such ancestry: sequence
his relative’s autosomal DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinctive.
The most common thesis I’ve heard is that Alois Hitler’s biological father
was Jewish, which would make Hitler 1/4 Jewish, and his surviving great-
nephew, Alexander, 1/16 Jewish. That’s probably enough to get a sense of
whether this urban legend has any validity."
There is considerable discussion at the end of this article. Bruce Wilson
makes this point:
August 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
"Razib, this may be the first responsible and well-informed coverage (and
debunking) of this mess I’ve seen in mainstream media. I consider this a
hoax (and have said so). Further, from what I could tell the incidence of
E1B1B1 in Austria currently is 9% – not rare at all."
Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
"Hey Razib, any thoughts on this ? –
"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the claim
(running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most common
Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews but that’s not the case. E1B1B’s subclade
E1B1B1 is considered the second most common Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews.
...
"I don’t have a biology background and am trying to puzzle this out – is the
article’s apparent conflation of E1B1B and E1B1B1 valid in this case?"
Razib's answer,
"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems suspicious
to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree and
fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together, and bingo.
i suspect that’s what’s going on."
I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
effort[of translating it/att]:
'Enough already with this silliness. There are no French genes, no
German, Austrian or Berber genes. For sure, certain populations may have
genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
identify a suspect in a criminal investigation or confirm someone’s
paternity, but we cannot use it to say that any one person belongs to this
or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more frequently
in Northern Europe? Indeed, but they are found in North Africa, too… We need
to keep hammering home the point that most of humanity’s genetic diversity
is found within populations and not in the differences between them.'"
I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies between
Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the general
population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why this doesn't
appear to have been done?
I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
jillery
Jul 19, 2012, 3:42:13 AM7/19/12
to
with the issue of whether or not Hitler had Jewish genes, and so
violate your expressed intent in starting this topic. Naughty,
naughty.
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 4:12:15 AM7/19/12
to
"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rcef08d8uls7dgo4o...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:07:44 +0200, Attila <jdka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns the claim
> >that there is a biological basis for the definition of a well-defined group
> >called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both sides of the purported
> >correlation: the biological side and the ethnographic side. Let's begin with
> >the biological side.
> >
> >This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
> >subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
> >mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along on
> >the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
> >matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
> >involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
> >generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother & father's
> >religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
> >
> >I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
> >Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban legend
> >is mooted.
> >
> >"Hitler's "Jewish genes"
> >
> >"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having "non-Aryan"
> >ancestry. Specifically, The Daily Mail title is: "DNA tests reveal 'Hitler
> >was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.'" Since it's a British
> >newspaper I frankly wouldn't put it past them to simply pass along a hoax.
>
> >This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns the claim
> >that there is a biological basis for the definition of a well-defined group
> >called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both sides of the purported
> >correlation: the biological side and the ethnographic side. Let's begin with
> >the biological side.
> >
> >This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
> >subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
> >mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along on
> >the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
> >matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
> >involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
> >generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother & father's
> >religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
> >
> >I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
> >Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban legend
> >is mooted.
> >
> >"Hitler's "Jewish genes"
> >
> >"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having "non-Aryan"
> >ancestry. Specifically, The Daily Mail title is: "DNA tests reveal 'Hitler
> >was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.'" Since it's a British
> >
> >Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
> >"Hey Razib, any thoughts on this ? -
> >Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
> >
> >"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the claim
> >(running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most common
> >Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews but that's not the case. E1B1B's subclade
> >E1B1B1 is considered the second most common Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews.
> >...
> >"I don't have a biology background and am trying to puzzle this out - is the
> >"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the claim
> >(running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most common
> >Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews but that's not the case. E1B1B's subclade
> >E1B1B1 is considered the second most common Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews.
> >...
> >article's apparent conflation of E1B1B and E1B1B1 valid in this case?"
> >
> >Razib's answer,
> >"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems suspicious
> >to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree and
> >fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together, and bingo.
> >i suspect that's what's going on."
> >
> >I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
> >"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
> >effort[of translating it/att]:
> > 'Enough already with this silliness. There are no French genes, no
> >German, Austrian or Berber genes. For sure, certain populations may have
> >genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
> >conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
> >identify a suspect in a criminal investigation or confirm someone's
> >paternity, but we cannot use it to say that any one person belongs to this
> >or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more frequently
> >in Northern Europe? Indeed, but they are found in North Africa, too. We need
> >
> >Razib's answer,
> >"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems suspicious
> >to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree and
> >fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together, and bingo.
> >i suspect that's what's going on."
> >
> >I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
> >"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
> >effort[of translating it/att]:
> > 'Enough already with this silliness. There are no French genes, no
> >German, Austrian or Berber genes. For sure, certain populations may have
> >genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
> >conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
> >identify a suspect in a criminal investigation or confirm someone's
> >paternity, but we cannot use it to say that any one person belongs to this
> >or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more frequently
> >to keep hammering home the point that most of humanity's genetic diversity
> >is found within populations and not in the differences between them.'"
> >
> >I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
> >disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies between
> >Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the general
> >population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why this doesn't
> >appear to have been done?
> >
> >I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
> >ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
>
>
> I am no expert, but ISTM you conflate the issue of a Jewish genome
> with the issue of whether or not Hitler had Jewish genes, and so
> violate your expressed intent in starting this topic. Naughty,
> naughty.
>
Correct. Nothing in the article specified a "well-defined group called "Jews".
> >is found within populations and not in the differences between them.'"
> >
> >I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
> >disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies between
> >Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the general
> >population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why this doesn't
> >appear to have been done?
> >
> >I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
> >ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
>
>
> I am no expert, but ISTM you conflate the issue of a Jewish genome
> with the issue of whether or not Hitler had Jewish genes, and so
> violate your expressed intent in starting this topic. Naughty,
> naughty.
>
That is a subjective interpretation of "most likely had Jewish and African
genes".
The article in the previous thread claimed that Hitler may not have been "pure
Aryan" but did not claim that he may have been a Jew or an African. Atilla seems
to have set up a strawman that is easier to dispute than what has really been
said about the research in question.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 4:57:07 AM7/19/12
to
On Jul 19, 9:42�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having �non-Aryan�
> >ancestry. Specifically, The Daily Mail title is: �DNA tests reveal �Hitler
> >was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.�� Since it�s a British
> >newspaper I frankly wouldn�t put it past them to simply pass along a hoax�
> >there�s probably an easier way to find out if he had such ancestry: sequence
> >his relative�s autosomal DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinctive.
> >The most common thesis I�ve heard is that Alois Hitler�s biological father
> >article�s apparent conflation of E1B1B and E1B1B1 valid in this case?"
> >to keep hammering home the point that most of humanity�s genetic diversity
> naughty.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If it is not possible to characterize what would be "Jewish genes" how
would it be possible to assert that Hitler had "Jewish genes" or not?
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:07:44 +0200, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns the claim
> >that there is a biological basis for the definition of a well-defined group
> >called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both sides of the purported
> >correlation: the biological side and the ethnographic side. Let's begin with
> >the biological side.
>
> >This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
> >subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
> >mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along on
> >the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
> >matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
> >involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
> >generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother & father's
> >religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
>
> >I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
> >Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban legend
> >is mooted.
>
> >"Hitler�s �Jewish genes�
> >This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns the claim
> >that there is a biological basis for the definition of a well-defined group
> >called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both sides of the purported
> >correlation: the biological side and the ethnographic side. Let's begin with
> >the biological side.
>
> >This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
> >subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
> >mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along on
> >the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
> >matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
> >involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
> >generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother & father's
> >religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
>
> >I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
> >Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban legend
> >is mooted.
>
>
> >"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having �non-Aryan�
> >ancestry. Specifically, The Daily Mail title is: �DNA tests reveal �Hitler
> >was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.�� Since it�s a British
> >newspaper I frankly wouldn�t put it past them to simply pass along a hoax�
> >but I think if they were going to do that they would have said it was the
> >Cohen Modal Haplotype. The article claims that Hitler�s Y lineage was
> >haplogroup E1b1b (all biological descendants of the same common male
> >ancestor through the direct patriline will carry this set of Y chromosomal
> >markers). This is really vague, as the haplogroup has many subclades.
> >Obviously if you pull the lens far back enough you�ll find a phylogeny where
> >ancestor through the direct patriline will carry this set of Y chromosomal
> >markers). This is really vague, as the haplogroup has many subclades.
> >Hitler and Jews and/or Africans are within the same clade. Dienekes notes
> >that this is not a rare haplogroup. It is correct that if one is an
> >Ashkenazi Jew the odds of one carrying this haplogroup are much higher. But,
> >it is not necessarily entailed from this that one is likely to be an
> >Ashkenazi Jew if one carries this haplogroup (or is of Ashkenazi Jewish
> >descent).
>
> >This is clear from the map of the distribution of E1b1b�s two major
> >that this is not a rare haplogroup. It is correct that if one is an
> >Ashkenazi Jew the odds of one carrying this haplogroup are much higher. But,
> >it is not necessarily entailed from this that one is likely to be an
> >Ashkenazi Jew if one carries this haplogroup (or is of Ashkenazi Jewish
> >descent).
>
> >subclades:
> >You can see the maps here
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/hitlers-jewish-genes/
>
> >"Even within Europe most men who carry this set of markers are not Ashkenazi
> >Jews.
>
> >"Of course this does not mean that Hitler wasn�t an Ashkenazi Jew. But
> >You can see the maps here
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/hitlers-jewish-genes/
>
> >"Even within Europe most men who carry this set of markers are not Ashkenazi
> >Jews.
>
> >there�s probably an easier way to find out if he had such ancestry: sequence
> >his relative�s autosomal DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinctive.
> >The most common thesis I�ve heard is that Alois Hitler�s biological father
> >was Jewish, which would make Hitler 1/4 Jewish, and his surviving great-
> >nephew, Alexander, 1/16 Jewish. That�s probably enough to get a sense of
> >whether this urban legend has any validity."
>
> >There is considerable discussion at the end of this article. Bruce Wilson
> >makes this point:
> >August 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
>
> >"Razib, this may be the first responsible and well-informed coverage (and
> >debunking) of this mess I�ve seen in mainstream media. I consider this a
>
> >There is considerable discussion at the end of this article. Bruce Wilson
> >makes this point:
> >August 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
>
> >"Razib, this may be the first responsible and well-informed coverage (and
> >hoax (and have said so). Further, from what I could tell the incidence of
> >E1B1B1 in Austria currently is 9% � not rare at all."
>
> >Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
> >"Hey Razib, any thoughts on this ? �
> >Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
>
> >"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the claim
> >(running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most common
> >Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews but that�s not the case. E1B1B�s subclade
> >"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the claim
> >(running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most common
> >E1B1B1 is considered the second most common Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews.
> >...
> >"I don�t have a biology background and am trying to puzzle this out � is the
> >...
> >article�s apparent conflation of E1B1B and E1B1B1 valid in this case?"
>
> >Razib's answer,
> >"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems suspicious
> >to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree and
> >fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together, and bingo.
> >i suspect that�s what�s going on."
> >Razib's answer,
> >"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems suspicious
> >to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree and
> >fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together, and bingo.
>
> >I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
> >"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
> >effort[of translating it/att]:
> > � �'Enough already with this silliness. There are no French genes, no
> >I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
> >"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
> >effort[of translating it/att]:
> >German, Austrian or Berber genes. For sure, certain populations may have
> >genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
> >conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
> >identify a suspect in a criminal investigation or confirm someone�s
> >genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
> >conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
> >paternity, but we cannot use it to say that any one person belongs to this
> >or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more frequently
> >in Northern Europe? Indeed, but they are found in North Africa, too� We need
> >or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more frequently
> >to keep hammering home the point that most of humanity�s genetic diversity
> >is found within populations and not in the differences between them.'"
>
> >I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
> >disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies between
> >Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the general
> >population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why this doesn't
> >appear to have been done?
>
> >I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
> >ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
>
> I am no expert, but ISTM you conflate the issue of a Jewish genome
> with the issue of whether or not Hitler had Jewish genes, and so
> violate your expressed intent in starting this topic. �Naughty,
>
> >I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
> >disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies between
> >Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the general
> >population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why this doesn't
> >appear to have been done?
>
> >I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
> >ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
>
> I am no expert, but ISTM you conflate the issue of a Jewish genome
> with the issue of whether or not Hitler had Jewish genes, and so
> naughty.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If it is not possible to characterize what would be "Jewish genes" how
would it be possible to assert that Hitler had "Jewish genes" or not?
jillery
Jul 19, 2012, 5:21:06 AM7/19/12
to
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:57:07 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
>On Jul 19, 9:42�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:07:44 +0200, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns the claim
>> >that there is a biological basis for the definition of a well-defined group
>> >called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both sides of the purported
>> >correlation: the biological side and the ethnographic side. Let's begin with
>> >the biological side.
>>
>> >This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
>> >subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
>> >mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along on
>> >the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
>> >matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
>> >involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
>> >generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother & father's
>> >religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
>>
>> >I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
>> >Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban legend
>> >is mooted.
>>
>> >"Hitler�s �Jewish genes�
>>
>> >"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having �non-Aryan�
>> >ancestry. Specifically, The Daily Mail title is: �DNA tests reveal �Hitler
>> >was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.�� Since it�s a British
>> >newspaper I frankly wouldn�t put it past them to simply pass along a hoax�
>> >there�s probably an easier way to find out if he had such ancestry: sequence
>> >his relative�s autosomal DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinctive.
>> >The most common thesis I�ve heard is that Alois Hitler�s biological father
>> >article�s apparent conflation of E1B1B and E1B1B1 valid in this case?"
>> >to keep hammering home the point that most of humanity�s genetic diversity
>> naughty.
the politics. ISTM mentioning Hilter invites that demon through the
door.
wrote:
>On Jul 19, 9:42�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:07:44 +0200, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns the claim
>> >that there is a biological basis for the definition of a well-defined group
>> >called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both sides of the purported
>> >correlation: the biological side and the ethnographic side. Let's begin with
>> >the biological side.
>>
>> >This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
>> >subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
>> >mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along on
>> >the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
>> >matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
>> >involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
>> >generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother & father's
>> >religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
>>
>> >I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
>> >Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban legend
>> >is mooted.
>>
>>
>> >"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having �non-Aryan�
>> >ancestry. Specifically, The Daily Mail title is: �DNA tests reveal �Hitler
>> >was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.�� Since it�s a British
>> >newspaper I frankly wouldn�t put it past them to simply pass along a hoax�
>> >but I think if they were going to do that they would have said it was the
>> >Cohen Modal Haplotype. The article claims that Hitler�s Y lineage was
>> >haplogroup E1b1b (all biological descendants of the same common male
>> >ancestor through the direct patriline will carry this set of Y chromosomal
>> >markers). This is really vague, as the haplogroup has many subclades.
>> >Obviously if you pull the lens far back enough you�ll find a phylogeny where
>> >ancestor through the direct patriline will carry this set of Y chromosomal
>> >markers). This is really vague, as the haplogroup has many subclades.
>> >Hitler and Jews and/or Africans are within the same clade. Dienekes notes
>> >that this is not a rare haplogroup. It is correct that if one is an
>> >Ashkenazi Jew the odds of one carrying this haplogroup are much higher. But,
>> >it is not necessarily entailed from this that one is likely to be an
>> >Ashkenazi Jew if one carries this haplogroup (or is of Ashkenazi Jewish
>> >descent).
>>
>> >This is clear from the map of the distribution of E1b1b�s two major
>> >that this is not a rare haplogroup. It is correct that if one is an
>> >Ashkenazi Jew the odds of one carrying this haplogroup are much higher. But,
>> >it is not necessarily entailed from this that one is likely to be an
>> >Ashkenazi Jew if one carries this haplogroup (or is of Ashkenazi Jewish
>> >descent).
>>
>> >subclades:
>> >You can see the maps here
>> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/hitlers-jewish-genes/
>>
>> >"Even within Europe most men who carry this set of markers are not Ashkenazi
>> >Jews.
>>
>> >"Of course this does not mean that Hitler wasn�t an Ashkenazi Jew. But
>> >You can see the maps here
>> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/hitlers-jewish-genes/
>>
>> >"Even within Europe most men who carry this set of markers are not Ashkenazi
>> >Jews.
>>
>> >there�s probably an easier way to find out if he had such ancestry: sequence
>> >his relative�s autosomal DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinctive.
>> >The most common thesis I�ve heard is that Alois Hitler�s biological father
>> >was Jewish, which would make Hitler 1/4 Jewish, and his surviving great-
>> >nephew, Alexander, 1/16 Jewish. That�s probably enough to get a sense of
>> >whether this urban legend has any validity."
>>
>> >There is considerable discussion at the end of this article. Bruce Wilson
>> >makes this point:
>> >August 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
>>
>> >"Razib, this may be the first responsible and well-informed coverage (and
>> >debunking) of this mess I�ve seen in mainstream media. I consider this a
>>
>> >There is considerable discussion at the end of this article. Bruce Wilson
>> >makes this point:
>> >August 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
>>
>> >"Razib, this may be the first responsible and well-informed coverage (and
>> >hoax (and have said so). Further, from what I could tell the incidence of
>> >E1B1B1 in Austria currently is 9% � not rare at all."
>>
>> >Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
>> >"Hey Razib, any thoughts on this ? �
>> >Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
>>
>> >"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the claim
>> >(running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most common
>> >Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews but that�s not the case. E1B1B�s subclade
>> >"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the claim
>> >(running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most common
>> >E1B1B1 is considered the second most common Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews.
>> >...
>> >"I don�t have a biology background and am trying to puzzle this out � is the
>> >...
>> >article�s apparent conflation of E1B1B and E1B1B1 valid in this case?"
>>
>> >Razib's answer,
>> >"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems suspicious
>> >to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree and
>> >fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together, and bingo.
>> >i suspect that�s what�s going on."
>> >Razib's answer,
>> >"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems suspicious
>> >to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree and
>> >fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together, and bingo.
>>
>> >I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
>> >"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
>> >effort[of translating it/att]:
>> > � �'Enough already with this silliness. There are no French genes, no
>> >I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
>> >"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
>> >effort[of translating it/att]:
>> >German, Austrian or Berber genes. For sure, certain populations may have
>> >genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
>> >conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
>> >identify a suspect in a criminal investigation or confirm someone�s
>> >genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
>> >conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
>> >paternity, but we cannot use it to say that any one person belongs to this
>> >or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more frequently
>> >in Northern Europe? Indeed, but they are found in North Africa, too� We need
>> >or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more frequently
>> >to keep hammering home the point that most of humanity�s genetic diversity
>> >is found within populations and not in the differences between them.'"
>>
>> >I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
>> >disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies between
>> >Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the general
>> >population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why this doesn't
>> >appear to have been done?
>>
>> >I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
>> >ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
>>
>> I am no expert, but ISTM you conflate the issue of a Jewish genome
>> with the issue of whether or not Hitler had Jewish genes, and so
>> violate your expressed intent in starting this topic. �Naughty,
>>
>> >I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
>> >disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies between
>> >Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the general
>> >population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why this doesn't
>> >appear to have been done?
>>
>> >I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
>> >ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
>>
>> I am no expert, but ISTM you conflate the issue of a Jewish genome
>> with the issue of whether or not Hitler had Jewish genes, and so
>> naughty.
>
>If it is not possible to characterize what would be "Jewish genes" how
>would it be possible to assert that Hitler had "Jewish genes" or not?
Attila's expressed intent in starting this topic was to remove it from
>If it is not possible to characterize what would be "Jewish genes" how
>would it be possible to assert that Hitler had "Jewish genes" or not?
the politics. ISTM mentioning Hilter invites that demon through the
door.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 5:05:29 AM7/19/12
to
On Jul 19, 10:12�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> said about the research in question.- Hide quoted text -
a post like you do in your post?
"news:rcef08d8uls7dgo4o...@4ax.com... "
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have a technical question to you: what is the procedure for quoting
> - Show quoted text -
a post like you do in your post?
"news:rcef08d8uls7dgo4o...@4ax.com... "
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 5:50:05 AM7/19/12
to
On Jul 19, 11:21�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:57:07 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> >was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.�� Since it�s a British
> >> >newspaper I frankly wouldn�t put it past them to simply pass along a hoax�
> >> >there�s probably an easier way to find out if he had such ancestry: sequence
> >> >his relative�s autosomal DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinctive.
> >> >The most common thesis I�ve heard is that Alois Hitler�s biological father
> >> >article�s apparent conflation of E1B1B and E1B1B1 valid in this case?"
> >> >to keep hammering home the point that most of humanity�s genetic diversity
> door.- Hide quoted text -
would be "Jewish genes".
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:57:07 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 19, 9:42�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:07:44 +0200, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns the claim
> >> >that there is a biological basis for the definition of a well-defined group
> >> >called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both sides of the purported
> >> >correlation: the biological side and the ethnographic side. Let's begin with
> >> >the biological side.
>
> >> >This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
> >> >subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
> >> >mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along on
> >> >the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
> >> >matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
> >> >involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
> >> >generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother & father's
> >> >religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
>
> >> >I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
> >> >Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban legend
> >> >is mooted.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 19, 9:42�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:07:44 +0200, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns the claim
> >> >that there is a biological basis for the definition of a well-defined group
> >> >called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both sides of the purported
> >> >correlation: the biological side and the ethnographic side. Let's begin with
> >> >the biological side.
>
> >> >This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
> >> >subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
> >> >mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along on
> >> >the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
> >> >matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
> >> >involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
> >> >generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother & father's
> >> >religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
>
> >> >I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
> >> >Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban legend
> >> >is mooted.
>
> >> >"Hitler�s �Jewish genes�
>
> >> >"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having �non-Aryan�
> >> >ancestry. Specifically, The Daily Mail title is: �DNA tests reveal �Hitler
>
> >> >"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having �non-Aryan�
> >> >was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.�� Since it�s a British
> >> >newspaper I frankly wouldn�t put it past them to simply pass along a hoax�
> >> >but I think if they were going to do that they would have said it was the
> >> >Cohen Modal Haplotype. The article claims that Hitler�s Y lineage was
> >> >haplogroup E1b1b (all biological descendants of the same common male
> >> >ancestor through the direct patriline will carry this set of Y chromosomal
> >> >markers). This is really vague, as the haplogroup has many subclades.
> >> >Obviously if you pull the lens far back enough you�ll find a phylogeny where
> >> >ancestor through the direct patriline will carry this set of Y chromosomal
> >> >markers). This is really vague, as the haplogroup has many subclades.
> >> >Hitler and Jews and/or Africans are within the same clade. Dienekes notes
> >> >that this is not a rare haplogroup. It is correct that if one is an
> >> >Ashkenazi Jew the odds of one carrying this haplogroup are much higher. But,
> >> >it is not necessarily entailed from this that one is likely to be an
> >> >Ashkenazi Jew if one carries this haplogroup (or is of Ashkenazi Jewish
> >> >descent).
>
> >> >This is clear from the map of the distribution of E1b1b�s two major
> >> >that this is not a rare haplogroup. It is correct that if one is an
> >> >Ashkenazi Jew the odds of one carrying this haplogroup are much higher. But,
> >> >it is not necessarily entailed from this that one is likely to be an
> >> >Ashkenazi Jew if one carries this haplogroup (or is of Ashkenazi Jewish
> >> >descent).
>
> >> >subclades:
> >> >You can see the maps here
> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/hitlers-jewish-genes/
>
> >> >"Even within Europe most men who carry this set of markers are not Ashkenazi
> >> >Jews.
>
> >> >"Of course this does not mean that Hitler wasn�t an Ashkenazi Jew. But
> >> >You can see the maps here
> >> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/hitlers-jewish-genes/
>
> >> >"Even within Europe most men who carry this set of markers are not Ashkenazi
> >> >Jews.
>
> >> >there�s probably an easier way to find out if he had such ancestry: sequence
> >> >his relative�s autosomal DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinctive.
> >> >The most common thesis I�ve heard is that Alois Hitler�s biological father
> >> >was Jewish, which would make Hitler 1/4 Jewish, and his surviving great-
> >> >nephew, Alexander, 1/16 Jewish. That�s probably enough to get a sense of
> >> >whether this urban legend has any validity."
>
> >> >There is considerable discussion at the end of this article. Bruce Wilson
> >> >makes this point:
> >> >August 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
>
> >> >"Razib, this may be the first responsible and well-informed coverage (and
> >> >debunking) of this mess I�ve seen in mainstream media. I consider this a
>
> >> >There is considerable discussion at the end of this article. Bruce Wilson
> >> >makes this point:
> >> >August 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
>
> >> >"Razib, this may be the first responsible and well-informed coverage (and
> >> >hoax (and have said so). Further, from what I could tell the incidence of
> >> >E1B1B1 in Austria currently is 9% � not rare at all."
>
> >> >Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
> >> >"Hey Razib, any thoughts on this ? �
> >> >Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
>
> >> >"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the claim
> >> >(running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most common
> >> >Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews but that�s not the case. E1B1B�s subclade
> >> >"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the claim
> >> >(running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most common
> >> >E1B1B1 is considered the second most common Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews.
> >> >...
> >> >"I don�t have a biology background and am trying to puzzle this out � is the
> >> >...
> >> >article�s apparent conflation of E1B1B and E1B1B1 valid in this case?"
>
> >> >Razib's answer,
> >> >"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems suspicious
> >> >to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree and
> >> >fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together, and bingo.
> >> >i suspect that�s what�s going on."
> >> >Razib's answer,
> >> >"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems suspicious
> >> >to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree and
> >> >fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together, and bingo.
>
> >> >I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
> >> >"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
> >> >effort[of translating it/att]:
> >> > � �'Enough already with this silliness. There are no French genes, no
> >> >I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
> >> >"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
> >> >effort[of translating it/att]:
> >> >German, Austrian or Berber genes. For sure, certain populations may have
> >> >genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
> >> >conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
> >> >identify a suspect in a criminal investigation or confirm someone�s
> >> >genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
> >> >conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
> >> >paternity, but we cannot use it to say that any one person belongs to this
> >> >or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more frequently
> >> >in Northern Europe? Indeed, but they are found in North Africa, too� We need
> >> >or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more frequently
> >> >to keep hammering home the point that most of humanity�s genetic diversity
> >> >is found within populations and not in the differences between them.'"
>
> >> >I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
> >> >disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies between
> >> >Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the general
> >> >population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why this doesn't
> >> >appear to have been done?
>
> >> >I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
> >> >ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
>
> >> I am no expert, but ISTM you conflate the issue of a Jewish genome
> >> with the issue of whether or not Hitler had Jewish genes, and so
> >> violate your expressed intent in starting this topic. �Naughty,
>
> >> >I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
> >> >disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies between
> >> >Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the general
> >> >population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why this doesn't
> >> >appear to have been done?
>
> >> >I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
> >> >ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
>
> >> I am no expert, but ISTM you conflate the issue of a Jewish genome
> >> with the issue of whether or not Hitler had Jewish genes, and so
> >> naughty.
>
> >If it is not possible to characterize what would be "Jewish genes" how
> >would it be possible to assert that Hitler had "Jewish genes" or not?
>
> Attila's expressed intent in starting this topic was to remove it from
> the politics. �ISTM mentioning Hilter invites that demon through the
>
> >If it is not possible to characterize what would be "Jewish genes" how
> >would it be possible to assert that Hitler had "Jewish genes" or not?
>
> Attila's expressed intent in starting this topic was to remove it from
> door.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok, then the true issue is whether it is possible to characterize what
> - Show quoted text -
would be "Jewish genes".
Attila
Jul 19, 2012, 6:08:35 AM7/19/12
to
it too much lest I destroy the continuity. If you read further you'll see
that it settles down to a discussion about the genetic aspect of the debate.
So no, I didn't but maybe we're getting to the source of the confusion. I
never cared a twaddle about Hitler. I have no interest in Hitler's genetic
history. I was/am concerned about the notion of a "Jewish gene". I was also
concerned about the existence of a so-called "African gene". The original
quote taken from UC's posted link stated, "Now genetic tests of Hitler’s
biological relatives show that he most likely had “sub-human” Jewish and
African genes." The statement is quite misleading if not an out and out lie.
In fact we are talking about a single object, and not two separate ones.
That is what I was/am concerned about, and nothing whatever to do with
Hitler. If you look through my posts, none of them dealt with the issue of
whether Hitler was "Jewish" or not (assuming that "Jewish" has any meaning
at all in that context). I sincerely hope that this is (finally) clear.
Please don't mix up my concerns with those that Glenn spuriously attributes
to me.
Can we please get back to my one and only area of interest: the empircal
status of claims about a "Jewish gene".
Attila
Jul 19, 2012, 6:09:24 AM7/19/12
to
Attila
Jul 19, 2012, 6:13:50 AM7/19/12
to
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> On Jul 19, 9:42 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:07:44 +0200, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns the
>> >claim that there is a biological basis for the definition of a
>> >well-defined group called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both
>> >sides of the purported correlation: the biological side and the
>> >ethnographic side. Let's begin with the biological side.
>>
>> >This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
>> >subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
>> >mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along
>> >on the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
>> >matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
>> >involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
>> >generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother &
>> >father's religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
>>
>> >I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
>> >Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban
>> >legend is mooted.
>>
>> >"Hitler’s “Jewish genes”
>> >reveal ‘Hitler was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.’”
>> >Since it’s a British newspaper I frankly wouldn’t put it past them to
>> >simply pass along a hoax… but I think if they were going to do that they
>> >there’s probably an easier way to find out if he had such ancestry:
>> >sequence his relative’s autosomal DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically
>> >distinctive. The most common thesis I’ve heard is that Alois Hitler’s
>> >the article’s apparent conflation of E1B1B and E1B1B1 valid in this
>> >humanity’s genetic diversity is found within populations and not in the
Netanyahu, nor for Hitler, nor for my cat. That's the point I wish to
discuss.
> On Jul 19, 9:42 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:07:44 +0200, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns the
>> >claim that there is a biological basis for the definition of a
>> >well-defined group called "Jews". There appear to issues involving both
>> >sides of the purported correlation: the biological side and the
>> >ethnographic side. Let's begin with the biological side.
>>
>> >This correlation is claimed to involve the Haplogroup E1B1B or rather a
>> >subclade thereof, E1B1B1. There is one amusing point that I can't resist
>> >mentioning. We are talking about Y-DNA which is, obviously, passed along
>> >on the father's side. "Jewishness" at least in the religious sense is
>> >matrilineal. Is this a "whoops" moment? So all cases of mixed marriages
>> >involving a mother practicing a different religion carry the risk of
>> >generating false positives. In the reverse case (switching mother &
>> >father's religious affiliation carry the risk of false negatives.
>>
>> >I now direct your attention to this article by Razib Khan in Discover
>> >Magazine. Here the possibility that this could be a hoax or an urban
>> >legend is mooted.
>>
>>
>> >"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having
>> >“non-Aryan” ancestry. Specifically, The Daily Mail title is: “DNA tests
>> >"A reader asked about the bizarre story of Adolf Hitler having
>> >reveal ‘Hitler was descended from the Jews and Africans he hated.’”
>> >Since it’s a British newspaper I frankly wouldn’t put it past them to
>> >simply pass along a hoax… but I think if they were going to do that they
>> >would have said it was the Cohen Modal Haplotype. The article claims
>> >that Hitler’s Y lineage was haplogroup E1b1b (all biological descendants
>> >of the same common male ancestor through the direct patriline will carry
>> >this set of Y chromosomal markers). This is really vague, as the
>> >haplogroup has many subclades. Obviously if you pull the lens far back
>> >enough you’ll find a phylogeny where Hitler and Jews and/or Africans are
>> >this set of Y chromosomal markers). This is really vague, as the
>> >haplogroup has many subclades. Obviously if you pull the lens far back
>> >within the same clade. Dienekes notes that this is not a rare
>> >haplogroup. It is correct that if one is an Ashkenazi Jew the odds of
>> >one carrying this haplogroup are much higher. But, it is not necessarily
>> >entailed from this that one is likely to be an Ashkenazi Jew if one
>> >carries this haplogroup (or is of Ashkenazi Jewish descent).
>>
>> >This is clear from the map of the distribution of E1b1b’s two major
>> >haplogroup. It is correct that if one is an Ashkenazi Jew the odds of
>> >one carrying this haplogroup are much higher. But, it is not necessarily
>> >entailed from this that one is likely to be an Ashkenazi Jew if one
>> >carries this haplogroup (or is of Ashkenazi Jewish descent).
>>
>> >subclades:
>> >You can see the maps here
>> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/hitlers-jewish-genes/
>>
>> >"Even within Europe most men who carry this set of markers are not
>> >Ashkenazi Jews.
>>
>> >"Of course this does not mean that Hitler wasn’t an Ashkenazi Jew. But
>> >You can see the maps here
>> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/hitlers-jewish-genes/
>>
>> >"Even within Europe most men who carry this set of markers are not
>> >Ashkenazi Jews.
>>
>> >there’s probably an easier way to find out if he had such ancestry:
>> >sequence his relative’s autosomal DNA. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically
>> >distinctive. The most common thesis I’ve heard is that Alois Hitler’s
>> >biological father was Jewish, which would make Hitler 1/4 Jewish, and
>> >his surviving great- nephew, Alexander, 1/16 Jewish. That’s probably
>> >enough to get a sense of whether this urban legend has any validity."
>>
>> >There is considerable discussion at the end of this article. Bruce
>> >Wilson makes this point:
>> >August 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
>>
>> >"Razib, this may be the first responsible and well-informed coverage
>> >(and debunking) of this mess I’ve seen in mainstream media. I consider
>>
>> >There is considerable discussion at the end of this article. Bruce
>> >Wilson makes this point:
>> >August 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
>>
>> >"Razib, this may be the first responsible and well-informed coverage
>> >this a hoax (and have said so). Further, from what I could tell the
>> >incidence of E1B1B1 in Austria currently is 9% – not rare at all."
>>
>> >Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
>> >"Hey Razib, any thoughts on this ? –
>> >Then there's this exchange between Bruce and Razib.
>>
>> >"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the
>> >claim (running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most
>> >common Haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews but that’s not the case. E1B1B’s
>> >"I went back to the original Knack article, and it appears to make the
>> >claim (running through Google translation) that E1B1B is the second most
>> >subclade E1B1B1 is considered the second most common Haplogroup among
>> >Ashkenazi Jews. ...
>> >"I don’t have a biology background and am trying to puzzle this out – is
>> >Ashkenazi Jews. ...
>> >the article’s apparent conflation of E1B1B and E1B1B1 valid in this
>> >case?"
>>
>> >Razib's answer,
>> >"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems
>> >suspicious to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree
>> >and fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together,
>> >and bingo. i suspect that’s what’s going on."
>>
>> >Razib's answer,
>> >"bruce, paul, the focus on E1B1B as opposed to the subclade seems
>> >suspicious to me. like i said, work your way up the phylogenetic tree
>> >and fine[find/att] the clade where hitler and many jews are together,
>>
>> >I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
>> >"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
>> >effort[of translating it/att]:
>> >I was particularly interested in the contribution by Denis Vluegt:
>> >"This quote from geneticist Jean-Paul Moisan, however, is worth the
>> >effort[of translating it/att]:
>> > 'Enough already with this silliness. There are no French genes, no
>> >German, Austrian or Berber genes. For sure, certain populations may have
>> >genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
>> >conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
>> >identify a suspect in a criminal investigation or confirm someone’s
>> >German, Austrian or Berber genes. For sure, certain populations may have
>> >genetic traits in common, but we cannot use this information to leap to
>> >conclusions. The hard part is in making it clear that DNA allows us to
>> >paternity, but we cannot use it to say that any one person belongs to
>> >this or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more
>> >frequently in Northern Europe? Indeed, but they are found in North
>> >Africa, too… We need to keep hammering home the point that most of
>> >this or that population or ethnic group. So blue eyes are found more
>> >frequently in Northern Europe? Indeed, but they are found in North
>> >humanity’s genetic diversity is found within populations and not in the
>> >differences between them.'"
>>
>> >I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
>> >disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies
>> >between Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the
>> >general population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why
>> >this doesn't appear to have been done?
>>
>> >I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
>> >ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
>>
>> I am no expert, but ISTM you conflate the issue of a Jewish genome
>> with the issue of whether or not Hitler had Jewish genes, and so
>> violate your expressed intent in starting this topic. Naughty,
>>
>> >I too am not a biologist so I could be way off base but I find it
>> >disappointing that there are no comparisons of E1B1B1 frequencies
>> >between Ashkenazic populations in, say Vilna, Warsaw, Minsk with the
>> >general population of those three cities. Does anyone understand why
>> >this doesn't appear to have been done?
>>
>> >I'll stop here and wait for comments (if any). I'll move on to the
>> >ethnolographic problems once the discussion on these points is done.
>>
>> I am no expert, but ISTM you conflate the issue of a Jewish genome
>> with the issue of whether or not Hitler had Jewish genes, and so
>> naughty.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> If it is not possible to characterize what would be "Jewish genes" how
> would it be possible to assert that Hitler had "Jewish genes" or not?
I would claim that it is not possible: not for my grandmother, nor for
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> If it is not possible to characterize what would be "Jewish genes" how
> would it be possible to assert that Hitler had "Jewish genes" or not?
Netanyahu, nor for Hitler, nor for my cat. That's the point I wish to
discuss.
Attila
Jul 19, 2012, 6:20:27 AM7/19/12
to
in the H-word and do not care what the H-word's genetic composition was or
was not. I am only interested in the empirical basis for the existence of a
"Jewish" gene. Please blame Razib Khan for mentioning the H-word and not me.
You can grant me that it's a bit difficult to find discussion of the
"Jewish" gene without the H-person making an appearance. Any suggestions on
how to avoid it?
J.J. O'Shea
Jul 19, 2012, 6:37:40 AM7/19/12
to
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:05:29 -0400, marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote
(in article
<05810019-a064-43f0...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
> I have a technical question to you: what is the procedure for quoting a post
> like you do in your post? "news:rcef08d8uls7dgo4o...@4ax.com...
> "
It's a standard setting on most newsreaders. The message he quoted had
headers which included 'Message-ID:
<rcef08d8uls7dgo4o...@4ax.com>'. His newsreader, like mine, is
set to quote the message-ID header when replying. You use Google Groups. One
of the deficiencies of GG is that it _doesn't_ do that, where even
substandard newsreaders like MSOE (what he uses) can and will.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
(in article
<05810019-a064-43f0...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
> I have a technical question to you: what is the procedure for quoting a post
> like you do in your post? "news:rcef08d8uls7dgo4o...@4ax.com...
> "
headers which included 'Message-ID:
<rcef08d8uls7dgo4o...@4ax.com>'. His newsreader, like mine, is
set to quote the message-ID header when replying. You use Google Groups. One
of the deficiencies of GG is that it _doesn't_ do that, where even
substandard newsreaders like MSOE (what he uses) can and will.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 7:47:35 AM7/19/12
to
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 -
> 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
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, according to me, there are two issues in the expression
> - Show quoted text -
"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.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 8:46:55 AM7/19/12
to
On Jul 19, 12:37�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:05:29 -0400, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote
> (in article
> <05810019-a064-43f0-a588-5a91a9762...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:05:29 -0400, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote
> (in article
> <05810019-a064-43f0-a588-5a91a9762...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > I have a technical question to you: what is the procedure for quoting a post
> > like you do in your post? "news:rcef08d8uls7dgo4o...@4ax.com...
> > "
>
> It's a standard setting on most newsreaders. The message he quoted had
> headers which included 'Message-ID:
> <rcef08d8uls7dgo4obngu87go5m58tv...@4ax.com>'. His newsreader, like mine, is
> > I have a technical question to you: what is the procedure for quoting a post
> > like you do in your post? "news:rcef08d8uls7dgo4o...@4ax.com...
> > "
>
> It's a standard setting on most newsreaders. The message he quoted had
> headers which included 'Message-ID:
> set to quote the message-ID header when replying. You use Google Groups. One
> of the deficiencies of GG is that it _doesn't_ do that, where even
> substandard newsreaders like MSOE (what he uses) can and will.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Thank you: I found the way to do it.
> of the deficiencies of GG is that it _doesn't_ do that, where even
> substandard newsreaders like MSOE (what he uses) can and will.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 8:51:43 AM7/19/12
to
<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:98e630f3-5514-471a...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
possibility
"Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinctive".
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-still-complicated/
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Jul 19, 2012, 9:00:45 AM7/19/12
to
header lines such as "References" - possibly others too,
I'm not sure. These can be seen if you use an option
in the message action menu to "View Original" - that's
the control that normally appears as "Post reply",
which is the most useful action. A newsreader can use
entries in the "References" lines to attach messages
to one another, when they belong to the same part of
a conversation.
You could copy a message ID and include it in the body
of a Google Groups reply - but GG has more problems at
the moment...
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 9:53:19 AM7/19/12
to
On Jul 19, 2:51�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> "Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinctive".http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-...
I read the Nature paper "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish
people" by Behar et al. (2010;466:238-42).
First the methodology is based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)
and not on the concept of genes.
Then it is speciffied that "Most Jewish samples, other than those from
Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant" and
"Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and
Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in
Ethiopia and western India, respectively".
In conclusion these data show that there is no clear ethnic group
which can be named "Jews".
> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
I read the Nature paper "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish
people" by Behar et al. (2010;466:238-42).
First the methodology is based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)
and not on the concept of genes.
Then it is speciffied that "Most Jewish samples, other than those from
Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant" and
"Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and
Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in
Ethiopia and western India, respectively".
In conclusion these data show that there is no clear ethnic group
which can be named "Jews".
Attila
Jul 19, 2012, 10:07:42 AM7/19/12
to
substantive post. As to your #1 I will take advice from the biologists. I
would doubt the scientific validity of a gene/genome/Y-dna material/E1B1B1
etc. that is associated with some non-vacuous definition of "Jewish". I do
find it amusing that the purported "Jewish genome" E1B1B(1) is patrilineal
while religious Judaisim is matrilineal. That design doesn't sound very
intelligent to me. Did god screw it up?
Mitchell Coffey
Jul 19, 2012, 10:09:34 AM7/19/12
to
On Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:53:19 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2:51�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> >
> > news:98e630f3-5514-471a...@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 distinctive".http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-...
>
> I read the Nature paper "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish
> people" by Behar et al. (2010;466:238-42).
> Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant" and
> "Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and
This is true, and not surprising, given that Judaism allows for conversion and adoption, and traditonally only counts one parent's background in determining whether you are Jewish or not.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Jul 19, 2:51�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> >
> > news:98e630f3-5514-471a...@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 distinctive".http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-...
>
> I read the Nature paper "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish
> people" by Behar et al. (2010;466:238-42).
> First the methodology is based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)
> and not on the concept of genes.
> Then it is speciffied that "Most Jewish samples, other than those from
> and not on the concept of genes.
> Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant" and
> "Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and
> Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in
> Ethiopia and western India, respectively".
> In conclusion these data show that there is no clear ethnic group
> which can be named "Jews".
This is true, and not surprising, given that Judaism allows for conversion and adoption, and traditonally only counts one parent's background in determining whether you are Jewish or not.
Mitchell Coffey
Attila
Jul 19, 2012, 10:14:29 AM7/19/12
to
Let's start out by agreeing on the proposition you quoted
> "Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinctive".
You take the affirmative, me, the negative. Ok so far? Let's see if we can
have an interesting debate while maitaining civlity. Are you game? I'd
suggest a committee of 3 of the many outstanding biologist on this ng to act
as arbiters. Still with me? This is so much more fun. Yay!
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 10:34:07 AM7/19/12
to
<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:6a45fd0d-f989-4daf...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> Then it is speciffied that "Most Jewish samples, other than those from
> Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant" and
> "Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and
> Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in
> Ethiopia and western India, respectively".
> In conclusion these data show that there is no clear ethnic group
> which can be named "Jews".
>
The expression "Jewish genes" simply implies genetic similarities that Jews
happen to share with some significant frequency. It is neither all inclusive or
exclusive of non-Jews who happen to share those similarities. The title ""The
genome-wide structure of the Jewish people" can be referred to as "Jewish
genes".
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 10:50:05 AM7/19/12
to
"Attila" <jdka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ju94o6$ij5$1...@dont-email.me...
there is nothing wrong with the expression "Jewish genes" and that it does not
necessarily have to mean that there are genes that all Jews possess and no
non-Jews possess,or that anyone with a genetic marker that is shared by some
significant percentage of Jewish people is a Jew. I should imagine that some
Jews have "African genes" but that wouldn't make them African, or Spanish or
Arabian knights.
Attila
Jul 19, 2012, 10:57:49 AM7/19/12
to
any of these studies. There is no Jewish "ethnic" group. That is, people
labelling themselves as "Jews" do not share any common cultural traits.
There is no common language (even if we limit ourselves to Ashkenazics), no
common food, no common dances, and so forth. The only common feature is
either the religion practiced but even there, there are differences, e.g.
the minhag of the Ashkenazi is different from that of the Sephardi. The
conclusion is that there is no Jewish ethnic group. Once you remove the
religious factor it is very hard to find a set of cultural traits that could
identify such an ethnic group. Arguably a group like the Litvaks --
Ashkenazi from Lithuania, or maybe only those from Vilna -- would share a
number of features. But by and large among the non-religious, "Jewish" would
be either a self-imposed designation or one imposed by the dominant faction
of the society in question.
This leaves us (or me at least) with two big questions:
1. In the genetic studies cited so far, what definition was used to
determine Jewishness?
2. Were comparative studies done on the ambient societies in which the
sample "Jews" were being taken? For example were Litvaks from Vilna compared
with the general population of Vilna.
It seems to me that the answers to these questions are vital for evaluating
the credence we are to give to claims of large-scale communality.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 10:58:06 AM7/19/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your assertion that "The title 'The genome-wide structure of the
> - Show quoted text -
Jewish people' can be referred to as "Jewish genes" is arbitrary and
biased.
In their paper, I recomment you to read, the authors never mention the
term "genes" and even less the expression "Jewish genes".
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 11:17:01 AM7/19/12
to
news:ju979f$2f2$1...@dont-email.me...
With this insistence on a particularly dogmatic interpretation of the expression
"Jewish and African genes" and associated argument, one might begin to suspect
that you are anti-semitic in the sense that you suggest that there is no such
thing as "Jews". You certainly made accusations against an individual who you
likened to a "Nazi" because you inferred the expression he used was
anti-semitic. Disregarding the fact that basing that conclusion on his use of
the expression was more than a little odd and seemingly contradictory, why must
"Jewish and African genes" be regarded as an indicator of a single clear ethnic
group?
"Jewish and African genes" and associated argument, one might begin to suspect
that you are anti-semitic in the sense that you suggest that there is no such
thing as "Jews". You certainly made accusations against an individual who you
likened to a "Nazi" because you inferred the expression he used was
anti-semitic. Disregarding the fact that basing that conclusion on his use of
the expression was more than a little odd and seemingly contradictory, why must
"Jewish and African genes" be regarded as an indicator of a single clear ethnic
group?
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 11:30:39 AM7/19/12
to
> Your assertion that "The title 'The genome-wide structure of the
> Jewish people' can be referred to as "Jewish genes" is arbitrary and
> biased.
> In their paper, I recomment you to read, the authors never mention the
> term "genes" and even less the expression "Jewish genes".
Is that supposed to be evidence of anything? Certainly not to the
> Jewish people' can be referred to as "Jewish genes" is arbitrary and
> biased.
> In their paper, I recomment you to read, the authors never mention the
> term "genes" and even less the expression "Jewish genes".
question of
whether the use of the expression "Jewish genes" is "biased" or
"arbitrary".
Supposedly had the paper used those words you would have dismissed it
as such?
Single-nucleotide polymorphism are specific genetic markers within
DNA, and
there is nothing biased or arbitrary about referring to these as
"genes".
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 11:25:54 AM7/19/12
to
<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:b4a3e842-2d6b-4141...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> Your assertion that "The title 'The genome-wide structure of the
> Jewish people' can be referred to as "Jewish genes" is arbitrary and
> biased.
> In their paper, I recomment you to read, the authors never mention the
> term "genes" and even less the expression "Jewish genes".
>
> Jewish people' can be referred to as "Jewish genes" is arbitrary and
> biased.
> In their paper, I recomment you to read, the authors never mention the
> term "genes" and even less the expression "Jewish genes".
>
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 12:29:16 PM7/19/12
to
On Jul 19, 4:57�pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the credence we are to give to claims of large-scale communality.- Hide quoted text -
for the cut-off between "Jews" and "non Jews":
- "Blood or buccal samples were collected with informed consent from
unrelated volunteers who self-identified as members of one of the
Jewish communities or non-Jewish populations studied here
(Supplementary Note 1). The term �Old
World� refers to populations of the Eastern Hemisphere, specifically
Europe, Asia and Africa. Whenever the term Jewish is not part of the
population designation, this refers to a non-Jewish population."
- and "Participants were recruited during scheduled archaeogenetics
lectures addressing the general public, genealogical societies,
heritage centres and the scientific community. Each volunteer reported
ancestry by providing information on the origin of all four
grandparents. Samples were also obtained from the National Laboratory
for the Genetics of Israeli Populations (http://www.tau.ac.il/medicine/
NLGIP/)."
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the paper there was the following information about the criteria
> - Show quoted text -
for the cut-off between "Jews" and "non Jews":
- "Blood or buccal samples were collected with informed consent from
unrelated volunteers who self-identified as members of one of the
Jewish communities or non-Jewish populations studied here
(Supplementary Note 1). The term �Old
World� refers to populations of the Eastern Hemisphere, specifically
Europe, Asia and Africa. Whenever the term Jewish is not part of the
population designation, this refers to a non-Jewish population."
- and "Participants were recruited during scheduled archaeogenetics
lectures addressing the general public, genealogical societies,
heritage centres and the scientific community. Each volunteer reported
ancestry by providing information on the origin of all four
grandparents. Samples were also obtained from the National Laboratory
for the Genetics of Israeli Populations (http://www.tau.ac.il/medicine/
NLGIP/)."
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 12:43:18 PM7/19/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Expressions such as "Jewish genes","black genes", "Homosexuality gene"
> - Show quoted text -
etc. are loaded with a strong racist connotation and, I think, should
be avoided.
Attila
Jul 19, 2012, 1:24:14 PM7/19/12
to
Glenn wrote:
>
> <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:6a45fd0d-f989-4daf...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
>
> <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:6a45fd0d-f989-4daf...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>> >
bfb6-357...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...>
begging. One of the many problems is precisely what is the meaning of
"Jewish". You try to give the definition of Jewish gene" presupposing some
unstated definition of what "Jew" actually means. If you have such a
definition of "Jew" would you be so kind as to state it.
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 1:27:46 PM7/19/12
to
This started with Atilla condemning a blog author that reprinted and
commented on a news story that presented the possibility that Hitler
may not have been "pure Aryan", and referred to Hitler's possible
genetic ancestry as partly originating from the African/Mediterranean
area (where the alleged subhumans came from) as "having Jewish and
African genes". No clear racist connotation there, unless it was
racism against Nazis and Hitler. I doubt anyone expects bloggers to be
experts in every field they mention.
Attila
Jul 19, 2012, 1:31:45 PM7/19/12
to
Glenn wrote:
>
> "Attila" <jdka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ju979f$2f2$1...@dont-email.me...
>> marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
>
> "Attila" <jdka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ju979f$2f2$1...@dont-email.me...
>> marc.t...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>> >>
bfb6-357...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...>
term "Jew" is well defined and known and agreed to by all. I think with a
bit more experience in a world a tad wider than the one youo inhabit, you
might find that a definition is somewhat problematic, to say the least. The
logic behind your anti-semitic accusation defies belief. You are either
incredibly stupid or just winding me up. In any event this thread has
nothing to do with your ravings. So I won't comment further on the matter.
Also I promised Jillery no politics on this thread so do us all a favour and
bugger off. Start your own thread if you're so keen to carry on.
Attila
Jul 19, 2012, 1:32:15 PM7/19/12
to
Glenn wrote:
>
> "Attila" <jdka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ju94o6$ij5$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Glenn wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>> > news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
>
> "Attila" <jdka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ju94o6$ij5$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Glenn wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > <marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
bfb6-357...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
UC
Jul 19, 2012, 1:36:12 PM7/19/12
to
On Jul 19, 1:27�pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> When they are loaded then they can be racist. In isolation, no.
>
> This started with Atilla condemning a blog author that reprinted and
> commented on a news story that presented the possibility that Hitler
> may not have been "pure Aryan", and referred to Hitler's possible
> genetic ancestry as partly originating from the African/Mediterranean
> area (where the alleged subhumans came from) as "having Jewish and
> African genes". No clear racist connotation there, unless it was
> racism against Nazis and Hitler. I doubt anyone expects bloggers to be
> experts in every field they mention.
The point is that Hitler's ancestry was not what he would have
> When they are loaded then they can be racist. In isolation, no.
>
> This started with Atilla condemning a blog author that reprinted and
> commented on a news story that presented the possibility that Hitler
> may not have been "pure Aryan", and referred to Hitler's possible
> genetic ancestry as partly originating from the African/Mediterranean
> area (where the alleged subhumans came from) as "having Jewish and
> African genes". No clear racist connotation there, unless it was
> racism against Nazis and Hitler. I doubt anyone expects bloggers to be
> experts in every field they mention.
preferred. Didn't it ever occur to anyone that he was not the 'Nordic
type'?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nordic+type&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1280&bih=848&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=8kQIUPaEGoOo8AT3_9WZBA#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=%22nordic%22+blonde&oq=%22nordic%22+blonde&gs_l=img.12..0l4j0i5l4j0i24l2.3205.3205.4.5857.1.1.0.0.0.0.74.74.1.1.0...0.0...1c.T05CbgJ27tc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=60a6509363b012ff&biw=1280&bih=848
jillery
Jul 19, 2012, 1:39:25 PM7/19/12
to
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
>On Jul 19, 2:51�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>
>> news:98e630f3-5514-471a...@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 distinctive".http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-...
>
>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?
>First the methodology is based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)
>and not on the concept of genes.
>Then it is speciffied that "Most Jewish samples, other than those from
>Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant" and
>"Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and
>Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in
>Ethiopia and western India, respectively".
>In conclusion these data show that there is no clear ethnic group
>which can be named "Jews".
The logical flaw here is you're conflating different meanings of
'Jewish', which may refer to nationality, culture, religion, or ethnic
background. Of these, only ethnic background is relevant to questions
of genetics. You identified religious Jews of different ethnic
origins, declared they have no genetic similarity (no surprise there),
and then illogically concluded this proves there are no ethnic Jews,
and so imply there is no Jewish genome.
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.
wrote:
>On Jul 19, 2:51�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>
>> news:98e630f3-5514-471a...@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 distinctive".http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-...
>
>I read the Nature paper "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish
>people" by Behar et al. (2010;466:238-42).
>First the methodology is based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)
>and not on the concept of genes.
>Then it is speciffied that "Most Jewish samples, other than those from
>Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant" and
>"Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and
>Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in
>Ethiopia and western India, respectively".
>In conclusion these data show that there is no clear ethnic group
>which can be named "Jews".
'Jewish', which may refer to nationality, culture, religion, or ethnic
background. Of these, only ethnic background is relevant to questions
of genetics. You identified religious Jews of different ethnic
origins, declared they have no genetic similarity (no surprise there),
and then illogically concluded this proves there are no ethnic Jews,
and so imply there is no Jewish genome.
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.
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 1:42:14 PM7/19/12
to
On Jul 19, 10:24�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well I can tell you what I think was meant by "Jewish" and "African"
in "Jewish and African genes". It meant that Hitler may have carried
markers that would likely have identified him as an undesirable or
subhuman in Nazi Germany, had they the known about it. There is no
problem here, only with you and supporting your strawman. We carry
genes that others share in other parts of the world. Doesn't mean that
I am Mongolian or Australian. It can mean that, but it can also be
unrelated or so indirect as to be useless in determining ancestry.
However it does not mean that a significant number of Australians do
not carry markers that can ever be used to determine ancestry,
migration patterns and so on. But there is nothing intrinsically wrong
with saying that I have "Australian genes" when in fact I have no
known Australian ancestors.
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> >news:6a45fd0d-f989-4daf...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>
> >> > news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
>
> bfb6-35754527f...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...>
>
> > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> >news:6a45fd0d-f989-4daf...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>
> >> > news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
>
in "Jewish and African genes". It meant that Hitler may have carried
markers that would likely have identified him as an undesirable or
subhuman in Nazi Germany, had they the known about it. There is no
problem here, only with you and supporting your strawman. We carry
genes that others share in other parts of the world. Doesn't mean that
I am Mongolian or Australian. It can mean that, but it can also be
unrelated or so indirect as to be useless in determining ancestry.
However it does not mean that a significant number of Australians do
not carry markers that can ever be used to determine ancestry,
migration patterns and so on. But there is nothing intrinsically wrong
with saying that I have "Australian genes" when in fact I have no
known Australian ancestors.
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 1:45:37 PM7/19/12
to
On Jul 19, 10:39�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
Everyone has separate genomes, yet they are all mostly identical. Just
a little rub on your choice of word. Small genetic differences are not
genomes.
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
a little rub on your choice of word. Small genetic differences are not
genomes.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 2:03:04 PM7/19/12
to
relevance.
> In isolation, no.
>
> This started with Atilla condemning a blog author that reprinted and
> commented on a news story that presented the possibility that Hitler
> may not have been "pure Aryan", and referred to Hitler's possible
> genetic ancestry as partly originating from the African/Mediterranean
> area (where the alleged subhumans came from) as "having Jewish and
> African genes". No clear racist connotation there, unless it was
> racism against Nazis and Hitler. I doubt anyone expects bloggers to be
> experts in every field they mention.
is named "Jews". The true issue is not that. As already specified by
Attila the true issue is that what is named "Jews" is not an ethnic
group because "Judaism allows for conversion and adoption, and
traditonally only counts one parent's background in determining
whether you are Jewish or not" (citation from Mitchell Coffey).
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 2:32:18 PM7/19/12
to
something has no "scientific relevance" (whatever that means to you)
doesn't mean they are "wrong".
And what happened to such expressions being wrong because they are
loaded with strong racist connotation?
>
> > In isolation, no.
>
> > This started with Atilla condemning a blog author that reprinted and
> > commented on a news story that presented the possibility that Hitler
> > may not have been "pure Aryan", and referred to Hitler's possible
> > genetic ancestry as partly originating from the African/Mediterranean
> > area (where the alleged subhumans came from) as "having Jewish and
> > African genes". No clear racist connotation there, unless it was
> > racism against Nazis and Hitler. I doubt anyone expects bloggers to be
> > experts in every field they mention.
>
> It is quite possible that some Hitler's ancestors were related to what
> is named "Jews". The true issue is not that. As already specified by
> Attila the true issue is that what is named "Jews" is not an ethnic
> group because "Judaism allows for conversion and adoption, and
> traditonally only counts one parent's background in determining
> whether you are Jewish or not" (citation from Mitchell Coffey).
Yes, the true issue is precisely what you claim is not, as I have
> > In isolation, no.
>
> > This started with Atilla condemning a blog author that reprinted and
> > commented on a news story that presented the possibility that Hitler
> > may not have been "pure Aryan", and referred to Hitler's possible
> > genetic ancestry as partly originating from the African/Mediterranean
> > area (where the alleged subhumans came from) as "having Jewish and
> > African genes". No clear racist connotation there, unless it was
> > racism against Nazis and Hitler. I doubt anyone expects bloggers to be
> > experts in every field they mention.
>
> It is quite possible that some Hitler's ancestors were related to what
> is named "Jews". The true issue is not that. As already specified by
> Attila the true issue is that what is named "Jews" is not an ethnic
> group because "Judaism allows for conversion and adoption, and
> traditonally only counts one parent's background in determining
> whether you are Jewish or not" (citation from Mitchell Coffey).
already explained.
Some Jews are "Jewish" that do not carry a distinctive marker that
other's carry. That does not prevent useful information from being
gathered from genetic tests, nor make the expression "Jewish genes" of
no scientific relevance.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see what position you are defending here,
although I see no malice in your participation.
No, there is no absolutely unmistakeable definition of a well-defined
group that includes every single Jewish person.
Should all research in this field now be shut down? Can we learn
nothing from this such as whether it is possible that some
individual's ancestors were related to some group that individual does
not belong to?
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 2:58:41 PM7/19/12
to
On 19 juil, 19:39, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >First the methodology is based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)
> >and not on the concept of genes.
> >Then it is speciffied that "Most Jewish samples, other than those from
> >Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant" and
> >"Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and
> >Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in
> >Ethiopia and western India, respectively".
> >In conclusion these data show that there is no clear ethnic group
> >which can be named "Jews".
>
> The logical flaw here is you're conflating different meanings of
> 'Jewish', which may refer to nationality, culture, religion, or ethnic
> background. �Of these, only ethnic background is relevant to questions
> of genetics. You identified religious Jews of different ethnic
> origins, declared they have no genetic similarity (no surprise there),
> and then illogically concluded this proves there are no ethnic Jews,
> and so imply there is no Jewish genome.
The issue, as already pointed out by Attila is: how defining the group
of people called "Jews"?
> 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".
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 19, 2:51�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>
> >>news:98e630f3-5514-471a...@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 distinctive".http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-...
>
> >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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 19, 2:51�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>
> >>news:98e630f3-5514-471a...@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 distinctive".http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-...
>
> >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?
> >First the methodology is based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)
> >and not on the concept of genes.
> >Then it is speciffied that "Most Jewish samples, other than those from
> >Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant" and
> >"Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and
> >Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in
> >Ethiopia and western India, respectively".
> >In conclusion these data show that there is no clear ethnic group
> >which can be named "Jews".
>
> The logical flaw here is you're conflating different meanings of
> 'Jewish', which may refer to nationality, culture, religion, or ethnic
> background. �Of these, only ethnic background is relevant to questions
> of genetics. You identified religious Jews of different ethnic
> origins, declared they have no genetic similarity (no surprise there),
> and then illogically concluded this proves there are no ethnic Jews,
> and so imply there is no Jewish genome.
of people called "Jews"?
> 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.
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".
Glenn
Jul 19, 2012, 5:11:00 PM7/19/12
to
<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:56f941fb-4ef8-4c34...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 juil, 19:39, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >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.
>
http://www.hummingbirds.arizona.edu/Courses/Ecol426_526/Behar_et_al_2010.pdf
> > >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.
>
jillery
Jul 19, 2012, 5:56:52 PM7/19/12
to
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:58:41 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
>On 19 juil, 19:39, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> wrote:
>> >On Jul 19, 2:51�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:98e630f3-5514-471a...@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 distinctive".http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-...
>>
>> >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.
>> >First the methodology is based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)
>> >and not on the concept of genes.
>> >Then it is speciffied that "Most Jewish samples, other than those from
>> >Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant" and
>> >"Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and
>> >Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in
>> >Ethiopia and western India, respectively".
>> >In conclusion these data show that there is no clear ethnic group
>> >which can be named "Jews".
>>
>> The logical flaw here is you're conflating different meanings of
>> 'Jewish', which may refer to nationality, culture, religion, or ethnic
>> background. �Of these, only ethnic background is relevant to questions
>> of genetics. You identified religious Jews of different ethnic
>> origins, declared they have no genetic similarity (no surprise there),
>> and then illogically concluded this proves there are no ethnic Jews,
>> and so imply there is no Jewish genome.
>
>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.
>> 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
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.
wrote:
>On 19 juil, 19:39, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> wrote:
>> >On Jul 19, 2:51�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:98e630f3-5514-471a...@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 distinctive".http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-...
>>
>> >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.
>> >First the methodology is based on single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)
>> >and not on the concept of genes.
>> >Then it is speciffied that "Most Jewish samples, other than those from
>> >Ethiopia and India, overlie non-Jewish samples from the Levant" and
>> >"Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and
>> >Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in
>> >Ethiopia and western India, respectively".
>> >In conclusion these data show that there is no clear ethnic group
>> >which can be named "Jews".
>>
>> The logical flaw here is you're conflating different meanings of
>> 'Jewish', which may refer to nationality, culture, religion, or ethnic
>> background. �Of these, only ethnic background is relevant to questions
>> of genetics. You identified religious Jews of different ethnic
>> origins, declared they have no genetic similarity (no surprise there),
>> and then illogically concluded this proves there are no ethnic Jews,
>> and so imply there is no Jewish genome.
>
>The issue, as already pointed out by Attila is: how defining the group
>of people called "Jews"?
you're referring to.
>> 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".
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.
(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
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.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 19, 2012, 6:22:46 PM7/19/12
to
On 19 juil, 23:56, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:58:41 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
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.
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".
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:58:41 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>
> >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.
Attila did.
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".
jillery
Jul 19, 2012, 6:32:23 PM7/19/12
to
jillery
Jul 19, 2012, 7:10:47 PM7/19/12
to
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
Which is...????
And so do you have a suggestion for a shorter way to label the
genome(s) in question?
wrote:
genome(s) in question?
BroilJAB
Jul 19, 2012, 8:45:11 PM7/19/12
to
Virgil said,
Today, I am using Nyms
Mike Lovell, Samuel Harrigon, John Manning,
Calvin Ramsey, --g0d--, Fred Barley, yfk
and many MANY more at Alt Atheism.
BroilJAB said,
Also you are today: CoolTech, TransitionZone,
Waldo Tunnel, Zachariah Mulletstein, etc.
So, you admit to being a Nym Switching
troll with hundreds of transparent SNs.
You really must have NO life, at all....
Today, I am using Nyms
Mike Lovell, Samuel Harrigon, John Manning,
Calvin Ramsey, --g0d--, Fred Barley, yfk
and many MANY more at Alt Atheism.
BroilJAB said,
Also you are today: CoolTech, TransitionZone,
Waldo Tunnel, Zachariah Mulletstein, etc.
So, you admit to being a Nym Switching
troll with hundreds of transparent SNs.
You really must have NO life, at all....
Attila
Jul 20, 2012, 12:33:34 AM7/20/12
to
Glenn wrote:
> On Jul 19, 11:03 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>> On 19 juil, 19:27, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 19, 9:43 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 19, 5:25 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > > > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>
>> > > >news:b4a3e842-2d6b-4141-
> On Jul 19, 11:03 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>> On 19 juil, 19:27, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 19, 9:43 am, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 19, 5:25 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > > > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>
bcd9-2bc...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com...>
>> > > >On Jul 19, 4:34 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> > > > > > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>
>> > > > > >news:6a45fd0d-f989-4daf-
>> > > > > > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>
bef2-7dc...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...>
>>
>> > > > On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>
>> > > > > > > >news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
>> > > > On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>
bfb6-357...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...>
Attila
Jul 20, 2012, 12:44:52 AM7/20/12
to
jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
> wrote:
>
>>On 19 juil, 23:56, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:58:41 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>>> wrote:
>>> >On 19 juil, 19:39, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> >> >> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >> >>news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
> wrote:
>
>>On 19 juil, 23:56, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:58:41 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>>> wrote:
>>> >On 19 juil, 19:39, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> >> >> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>>>
bfb6-357...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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?
isn't. How is this done?
Glenn
Jul 20, 2012, 1:17:08 AM7/20/12
to
news:juan2u$iot$2...@dont-email.me...
You're all washed up with your attempt to make "Jewish and African genes" into a
racial slur.
racial slur.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 20, 2012, 2:55:13 AM7/20/12
to
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 -
> You're all washed up with your attempt to make "Jewish and African genes" into a
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is not a racial slur, this is stupid racism.
> - Show quoted text -
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 20, 2012, 3:41:50 AM7/20/12
to
On Jul 20, 1:10嚙窮m, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The issue, as already pointed out by Attila is: how defining the group
> >> >of people called "Jews"?
>
> >> The above doesn't parse. 嚙瘢 have no idea which of Attila's many points
> >> >The issue, as already pointed out by Attila is: how defining the group
> >> >of people called "Jews"?
>
> >> you're referring to.
>
> >I am just pointing out the issue of the definition of "Jews", as
> >Attila did.
>
> Which is...????
This is the issue: have you one?!
>
> >I am just pointing out the issue of the definition of "Jews", as
> >Attila did.
>
> Which is...????
> >> >> It's not expected that religious Jews of different ethnic origins will
> >> >> similar genomes compared to their neighboring autochthonous non-Jewish
> >> >> populations, since that is the origin of those ethnic Jews'
> >> >> populations. 嚙瘡owever, ethnic Ashkenazim and Sephardim Jews are
> >> >> populations, since that is the origin of those ethnic Jews'
> >> >> exceptions, as they did not originate within their neighboring
> >> >> autochthonous non-Jewish populations, and historic external and
> >> >> internal pressures limited the interbreeding between them. 嚙璀lso,
> >> >> autochthonous non-Jewish populations, and historic external and
> >> >> 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. 嚙皚ust as there are separate ethnic populations in
> >> >> 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
> >> Africa, yet nobody complains about Svante P嚙踝蕭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. 嚙瞑erhaps you can suggest a
>
> >> 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.
> >> 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?- Hide quoted text -
> >> 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
I don't think it is relevant to use the term "genome" 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 probabilistic methodology.
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Glenn
Jul 20, 2012, 3:41:06 AM7/20/12
to
<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:b44e3002-5e93-467d...@3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
"Despite the Diasporas, Jewish Genes Worldwide Show Ancient Connections"
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/06/04/despite-the-diasporas-jewish-genes-worldwide-show-ancient-connections/
"Center for Rare Jewish Genetic Disorders"
http://www.jewishgenes.org/
"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 so."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/11/jewgenics.html
"Jewish Genes Found Among Native Americans"
http://tentofabraham.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/jewish-genes-found-among-native-americans/
"Researcher tracing Jewish genes meets the Kohanim of Africa"
http://www.jewishjournal.com/books/article/researcher_tracing_jewish_genes_meets_the_kohanim_of_africa_20080820/
"A number of earlier studies found evidence for Middle Eastern affinities of
Jewish genes"
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full
"The Multiple Meanings of Jewish Genes"
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k48r643688v34074/
"Alleles coming from Spaniards also represent Jewish genes that were brought to
the country"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198885901002968
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 20, 2012, 5:21:47 AM7/20/12
to
On Jul 20, 9:41�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
genome" are not appropriate.
Moreover I don't think relevant to use such terms as "genome" or
"genes" when studying genetic variations between different groups of
methodology.
> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>
> news:b44e3002-5e93-467d...@3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...> 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.
>
> Which of these demonstrate stupid racism?:
>
> "Despite the Diasporas, Jewish Genes Worldwide Show Ancient Connections"
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/06/04/despite-the-dias...
> news:b44e3002-5e93-467d...@3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...> 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.
>
> Which of these demonstrate stupid racism?:
>
> "Despite the Diasporas, Jewish Genes Worldwide Show Ancient Connections"
>
>
> "Center for Rare Jewish Genetic Disorders"
>
> http://www.jewishgenes.org/
>
> "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 so."http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/11...
> "Center for Rare Jewish Genetic Disorders"
>
> http://www.jewishgenes.org/
>
> "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?
>
> "Jewish Genes Found Among Native Americans"
>
> http://tentofabraham.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/jewish-genes-found-amon...
> "Jewish Genes Found Among Native Americans"
>
>
> "Researcher tracing Jewish genes meets the Kohanim of Africa"
>
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/books/article/researcher_tracing_jewish_...
> "Researcher tracing Jewish genes meets the Kohanim of Africa"
>
>
> "A number of earlier studies found evidence for Middle Eastern affinities of
> Jewish genes"
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full
>
> "The Multiple Meanings of Jewish Genes"
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/k48r643688v34074/
>
> "Alleles coming from Spaniards also represent Jewish genes that were brought to
> the country"
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198885901002968
Ok, let's say that expressions such as "Jewish genes" or "Jewish
> "A number of earlier studies found evidence for Middle Eastern affinities of
> Jewish genes"
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full
>
> "The Multiple Meanings of Jewish Genes"
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/k48r643688v34074/
>
> "Alleles coming from Spaniards also represent Jewish genes that were brought to
> the country"
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198885901002968
genome" are not appropriate.
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
For instance "allele sharing distances" are used for measuring genetic
methodology.
jillery
Jul 20, 2012, 6:03:05 AM7/20/12
to
>>>> >> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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?
group, without comparing it to other groups. That group by any other
name would smell as sweet.
jillery
Jul 20, 2012, 6:20:22 AM7/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:41:50 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
>On Jul 20, 1:10嚙窮m, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The issue, as already pointed out by Attila is: how defining the group
>> >> >of people called "Jews"?
>>
>> >> The above doesn't parse. 嚙瘢 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...????
>
>This is the issue: have you one?!
Please identify what is the 'this' you claim Attila referred to.
how is that not relevant to that population or to the genome?
For the third time, do you have a suggestion for a shorter way to
wrote:
>On Jul 20, 1:10嚙窮m, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The issue, as already pointed out by Attila is: how defining the group
>> >> >of people called "Jews"?
>>
>> >> The above doesn't parse. 嚙瘢 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...????
>
>This is the issue: have you one?!
>I don't think it is relevant to use the term "genome" 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 probabilistic methodology.
If a genome exists with a set of SNPs characteristic to a population,
>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 probabilistic methodology.
how is that not relevant to that population or to the genome?
For the third time, do you have a suggestion for a shorter way to
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 20, 2012, 7:24:16 AM7/20/12
to
On Jul 20, 12:03�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
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!
> That group by any other
> name would smell as sweet. �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On 19 juil, 23:56, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:58:41 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >On 19 juil, 19:39, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >>>> >> wrote:
> >>>> >> >On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> >> >> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>
> >>>> >> >>news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
> >bfb6-35754527f...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...>
>
> >>>On 19 juil, 23:56, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:58:41 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >On 19 juil, 19:39, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:53:19 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >>>> >> wrote:
> >>>> >> >On Jul 19, 2:51 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> >> >> <marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>
> >>>> >> >>news:98e630f3-5514-471a-
that the methodology of the analyses is based on comparisons between
several groups, of course!
> That group by any other
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
jillery
Jul 20, 2012, 8:14:02 AM7/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:24:16 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
And still no answer. Why are you being so coy?
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.
wrote:
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.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 20, 2012, 7:20:23 AM7/20/12
to
On Jul 20, 12:20�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:41:50 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> wrote:
you propose a specific definition?
>
> If a genome exists with a set of SNPs characteristic to a population,
> how is that not relevant to that population or to the genome?
>
> For the third time, do you have a suggestion for a shorter way to
sapiens, of homo neanderthalensis etc. but not of a given "ethnic
group" and even less of a "Jewish genome" because the genome of the
individuals of these groups of people is the same genome, the one of
homo sapiens.
Now, when you want to trace the migration of a given group of people
whose genetic distances are supposed to be less within the group than
in the general population of homo sapiens, it is possible to use
genetic markers (such as SNP variations). These genetic markers can be
variations (i.e., haplotypes) of a given 'gene' but it is a nonsense
to speak of a "ethnic group gene" and even more of a "Jewish gene"
because all homo sapiens have the same genes.
Even the genome of homo neanderthalensis shares most of the genes of
the genome of homo sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal).
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:41:50 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 20, 1:10�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >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
> >On Jul 20, 1:10�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >The issue, as already pointed out by Attila is: how defining the group
> >> >> >of people called "Jews"?
>
> >> >> you're referring to.
>
> >> >I am just pointing out the issue of the definition of "Jews", as
> >> >Attila did.
>
> >> Which is...????
>
> >This is the issue: have you one?!
> > Please identify what is the 'this' you claim Attila referred to.
'This' means 'to find a consensus definition for the term "jews" ': do
>
> >> >I am just pointing out the issue of the definition of "Jews", as
> >> >Attila did.
>
> >> Which is...????
>
> >This is the issue: have you one?!
> > Please identify what is the 'this' you claim Attila referred to.
you propose a specific definition?
>
> If a genome exists with a set of SNPs characteristic to a population,
> how is that not relevant to that population or to the genome?
>
> For the third time, do you have a suggestion for a shorter way to
> label the genome(s) in question?- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scientifically speaking it is possible to speak of the genome of homo
sapiens, of homo neanderthalensis etc. but not of a given "ethnic
group" and even less of a "Jewish genome" because the genome of the
individuals of these groups of people is the same genome, the one of
homo sapiens.
Now, when you want to trace the migration of a given group of people
whose genetic distances are supposed to be less within the group than
in the general population of homo sapiens, it is possible to use
genetic markers (such as SNP variations). These genetic markers can be
variations (i.e., haplotypes) of a given 'gene' but it is a nonsense
to speak of a "ethnic group gene" and even more of a "Jewish gene"
because all homo sapiens have the same genes.
Even the genome of homo neanderthalensis shares most of the genes of
the genome of homo sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal).
UC
Jul 20, 2012, 9:59:23 AM7/20/12
to
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?
J.J. O'Shea
Jul 20, 2012, 10:29:16 AM7/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:59:23 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-dfd6743d-b7d7-...@p1g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jul 20, 2:55ï¿œam, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
pick it up. After all, you're you.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
(in article
<uranium-dfd6743d-b7d7-...@p1g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jul 20, 2:55ï¿œam, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 7:17ï¿œam, "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
>>
>>> 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?
>
pick it up. After all, you're you.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 20, 2012, 10:37:49 AM7/20/12
to
show the contrary:
http://www.hummingbirds.arizona.edu/Courses/Ecol426_526/Behar_et_al_2...
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full
Namely data reveal a close relationship between most contemporary
'Jew' communities and 'non-Jewish' populations from the Levant
(however with the problem related to the selection of respectively the
'Jewish' communities and 'non-Jewish' populations). However there are
the counterexamples of Ethiopian 'Jews' (Beta Israel) and Indian
'Jews' (Bene Israel and Cochini) who cluster with neighbouring
Attila
Jul 20, 2012, 11:03:08 AM7/20/12
to
unleashing a violent shit storm with this story. It's a rather old claim but
Arthur Koestler uses it as a theme for his book The 13th Tribe. Shlomo Sand
has a long discussion about its history in his book The Invention of the
Jewish People. Protective clothing are advisible if you persue this topic.
Attila
Jul 20, 2012, 11:34:15 AM7/20/12
to
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.
It would also be helpful to give the rationale for
UC
Jul 20, 2012, 11:41:03 AM7/20/12
to
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 Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:59:23 -0400, UC wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> >>> 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.
may not be true.
UC
Jul 20, 2012, 11:43:25 AM7/20/12
to
Will in New Haven
Jul 20, 2012, 11:44:18 AM7/20/12
to
thread made it clear that this is untrue. Many people _thought_ it was
untrue and also thought it was maliciously created to further anti-
semitic goals but there were some who believed it and who put it
forward who seemed to have no malice and were simply pursuing an
interesting line of inquiry.
The factual basis of the idea was that there _was_ a Central Asian
people, the Khazars, who converted to Judaism long after the
destruction of Judea. That there was someone around to give them this
idea would seem to mean that the idea that they were the ONLY Jews
left was untenable. The claim made by the most sensible proponents was
only that _most_ of modern Jewry or most of modern Ashkenezik Jewry
was descended from the Khazars.
However, modern genetic analysis finds little or no evidence of
Central Asian origin in the Ashkenezik population and quite a bit of
evidence of Middle Eastern ancestry, with European admixtures. Not
only that, the ancestry of the northern Jews and that of the
Sephardim, from around the Med, are closer than either of those groups
thought.
Most of the non-Jews of Palestine, not the Druze or the Bedouin,
although they speak Arabic and most are Muslims, are also mostly
descended from the people of the Middle East and not from the Arabs of
the Penninsula. So it has been literally brother against brother.
--
Will in New Haven
UC
Jul 20, 2012, 11:56:04 AM7/20/12
to
On Jul 20, 11:44�am, Will in New Haven
Thanks for the info.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 20, 2012, 12:09:04 PM7/20/12
to
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:24:16 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
> >>> >>>> populations in Africa, yet nobody complains about Svante P��bo's
I agree with you that the papers I read do not document the selection
criteria enough for splitting between "Jewish communities" and "non-
Jewish populations".
criteria enough for splitting between "Jewish communities" and "non-
Jewish populations".
>
> This is about as clear as I can make it.
>
> �It would also be helpful to give the rationale for- Hide quoted text -
> This is about as clear as I can make it.
>
UC
Jul 20, 2012, 12:18:57 PM7/20/12
to
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?
there is no mention of it in Egyptian sources at all.
Comment?
UC
Jul 20, 2012, 12:27:14 PM7/20/12
to
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 20, 2012, 1:11:42 PM7/20/12
to
I was interested in this thread mainly because of the issue raised by
Attila on concepts such as "black" or "Jewish gene or genome" etc.
which I consider nonsenses scientifically speaking (but likely tinged
with racist innuendo).
You ask me "Comment?" ... because you guessed I am French?
UC
Jul 20, 2012, 1:23:53 PM7/20/12
to
J.J. O'Shea
Jul 20, 2012, 2:02:25 PM7/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jul 20, 10:29ï¿œam, "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, 2:55ï¿œam, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
parties use that 'idea' for very specific reasons. Reasons which may be
familiar to you, you perverted baby killer.
(in article
<uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jul 20, 10:29ï¿œam, "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, 7:17ï¿œam, "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
>>
>>>>> 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.
>
parties use that 'idea' for very specific reasons. Reasons which may be
familiar to you, you perverted baby killer.
jillery
Jul 20, 2012, 2:50:59 PM7/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:20:23 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
>On Jul 20, 12:20�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:41:50 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 20, 1:10�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >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...????
>>
>> >This is the issue: have you one?!
>> > Please identify what is the 'this' you claim Attila referred to.
>
>'This' means 'to find a consensus definition for the term "jews" ': do
>you propose a specific definition?
First, there appears to be a longer than usual delay between posting
and becoming visible on my news server with your posts, so we have
been out of sync during several interchanges.
IIUC your reply above, you seem to be referring to this part of
Attila's OP:
*********************
"This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns
the claim that there is a biological basis for the definition of a
well-defined group called "Jews".
*********************
Attila then went on to refer to a Discover weblog, which is not about
a biological basis for defining Jews, but is about whether Hitler had
Jewish ancestry. I remarked on this very point in an earlier post,
that to conflate these two separate issues is to invite politics back
into the discussion.
If there is any relevance to the Discover article above and a
biological basis for the definition of Jews, it is from the title of
this topic, of the haplogroup E1b1b. And the article shows that said
haplogroup has poor correlation to Ashkenazi Jews. So at best, this
article eliminates one haplotype as a candidate, and a poor candidate
at that.
Ironically, Attila's question would have been better served with links
contained in cited article:
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jewish-question/>
and
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-still-complicated/>
and
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/01/how-ashkenazi-jewish-are-you/>
where the same author shows there are distinct genetic differences
between Jewish and non-Jewish populations. This suggests to me other
classifications besides E1b1b are more appropriate candidates for
consideration.
>> If a genome exists with a set of SNPs characteristic to a population,
>> how is that not relevant to that population or to the genome?
>>
>> For the third time, do you have a suggestion for a shorter way to
>> label the genome(s) in question?
not to populations or individuals. I am no expert, but that's not
what I understand to be the case:
**************
From Wikipedia:
"the genome is the entirety of an organism's hereditary information.
It is encoded either in DNA or, for many types of virus, in RNA. The
genome includes both the genes and the non-coding sequences of the
DNA/RNA."
***************
From Merriman-Webster:
"one haploid set of chromosomes with the genes they contain; broadly:
the genetic material of an organism."
****************
From Oxford Online Dictionary:
"the haploid set of chromosomes in a gamete or microorganism, or in
each cell of a multicellular organism. "
"the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or
organism. "
If you disagree, please don't just snip out the above and re-assert
your disagreement. Instead, please maintain context integrity while
providing cites which support your POV. Thank you in advance.
>Now, when you want to trace the migration of a given group of people
>whose genetic distances are supposed to be less within the group than
>in the general population of homo sapiens, it is possible to use
>genetic markers (such as SNP variations). These genetic markers can be
>variations (i.e., haplotypes) of a given 'gene' but it is a nonsense
>to speak of a "ethnic group gene" and even more of a "Jewish gene"
>because all homo sapiens have the same genes.
>Even the genome of homo neanderthalensis shares most of the genes of
>the genome of homo sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal).
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.
wrote:
>On Jul 20, 12:20�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:41:50 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 20, 1:10�am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >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...????
>>
>> >This is the issue: have you one?!
>> > Please identify what is the 'this' you claim Attila referred to.
>
>'This' means 'to find a consensus definition for the term "jews" ': do
>you propose a specific definition?
and becoming visible on my news server with your posts, so we have
been out of sync during several interchanges.
IIUC your reply above, you seem to be referring to this part of
Attila's OP:
*********************
"This question is carried over from a different thread. It concerns
the claim that there is a biological basis for the definition of a
well-defined group called "Jews".
*********************
Attila then went on to refer to a Discover weblog, which is not about
a biological basis for defining Jews, but is about whether Hitler had
Jewish ancestry. I remarked on this very point in an earlier post,
that to conflate these two separate issues is to invite politics back
into the discussion.
If there is any relevance to the Discover article above and a
biological basis for the definition of Jews, it is from the title of
this topic, of the haplogroup E1b1b. And the article shows that said
haplogroup has poor correlation to Ashkenazi Jews. So at best, this
article eliminates one haplotype as a candidate, and a poor candidate
at that.
Ironically, Attila's question would have been better served with links
contained in cited article:
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jewish-question/>
and
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/genetics-the-jews-its-still-complicated/>
and
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/01/how-ashkenazi-jewish-are-you/>
where the same author shows there are distinct genetic differences
between Jewish and non-Jewish populations. This suggests to me other
classifications besides E1b1b are more appropriate candidates for
consideration.
>> If a genome exists with a set of SNPs characteristic to a population,
>> how is that not relevant to that population or to the genome?
>>
>> For the third time, do you have a suggestion for a shorter way to
>> label the genome(s) in question?
>Scientifically speaking it is possible to speak of the genome of homo
>sapiens, of homo neanderthalensis etc. but not of a given "ethnic
>group" and even less of a "Jewish genome" because the genome of the
>individuals of these groups of people is the same genome, the one of
>homo sapiens.
IIUC you're saying above that 'genome' refers to entire species but
>sapiens, of homo neanderthalensis etc. but not of a given "ethnic
>group" and even less of a "Jewish genome" because the genome of the
>individuals of these groups of people is the same genome, the one of
>homo sapiens.
not to populations or individuals. I am no expert, but that's not
what I understand to be the case:
**************
From Wikipedia:
"the genome is the entirety of an organism's hereditary information.
It is encoded either in DNA or, for many types of virus, in RNA. The
genome includes both the genes and the non-coding sequences of the
DNA/RNA."
***************
From Merriman-Webster:
"one haploid set of chromosomes with the genes they contain; broadly:
the genetic material of an organism."
****************
From Oxford Online Dictionary:
"the haploid set of chromosomes in a gamete or microorganism, or in
each cell of a multicellular organism. "
"the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or
organism. "
If you disagree, please don't just snip out the above and re-assert
your disagreement. Instead, please maintain context integrity while
providing cites which support your POV. Thank you in advance.
>Now, when you want to trace the migration of a given group of people
>whose genetic distances are supposed to be less within the group than
>in the general population of homo sapiens, it is possible to use
>genetic markers (such as SNP variations). These genetic markers can be
>variations (i.e., haplotypes) of a given 'gene' but it is a nonsense
>to speak of a "ethnic group gene" and even more of a "Jewish gene"
>because all homo sapiens have the same genes.
>Even the genome of homo neanderthalensis shares most of the genes of
>the genome of homo sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal).
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.
UC
Jul 20, 2012, 2:56:34 PM7/20/12
to
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 Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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, 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, 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? Are you omniscient?
>
> >>>>> 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.
I'm not.
Bob Casanova
Jul 20, 2012, 3:03:54 PM7/20/12
to
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:45:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by BroilJAB
<Design...@wmconnect.com>:
>Virgil said...
....everything here:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Virgil/
This one seems appropriate for you:
"Each of us bears his own Hell."
Or maybe this one:
"I have known sorrow and learned to aid the wretched."
May I aid you?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by BroilJAB
<Design...@wmconnect.com>:
>Virgil said...
....everything here:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Virgil/
This one seems appropriate for you:
"Each of us bears his own Hell."
Or maybe this one:
"I have known sorrow and learned to aid the wretched."
May I aid you?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
UC
Jul 20, 2012, 2:59:20 PM7/20/12
to
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
> 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.
'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?
Glenn
Jul 20, 2012, 3:28:38 PM7/20/12
to
<marc.t...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:3f7d50a6-fc36-4019...@b20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
jillery
Jul 20, 2012, 4:19:05 PM7/20/12
to
their behavior and appearance are substantially different,
particularly among non-practicing individuals. And I agree with your
conclusion. If you were to observe Jew in the U.S. you would likely
make similar observations. But in order to answer your question in
any meaningful way, you have to be clear about which one of the
multiple meanings of 'Jewish' you're using.
My impression is you're describing cultural differences different
Jewish groups absorb from the different cultures which surround them.
This is common among minorities, who typically overlay the outside
culture on their traditional one, but don't replace it entirely. It's
called assimilation, and some Jews feel that's a dangerous thing.
After all, look what happened to those Lost Tribes.
I am not Jewish by any meaning of the word, but my impression is that
Jews, like other healthy minorities, take pride in, and have respect
for, their biological and spiritual connections to their ancestors and
the trials their ancestors overcame.
UC
Jul 20, 2012, 4:37:57 PM7/20/12
to
What about the Romans? What populations were there?
J.J. O'Shea
Jul 20, 2012, 7:56:04 PM7/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:56:34 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<uranium-07512d63-e7a2-...@k13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jul 20, 2:02ï¿œpm, "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, 10:29ï¿œam, "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, 2:55ï¿œam, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Are you omniscient?
Nah. I have, however, a degree in history and an interest in the subject.
>
> I'm not.
>
You're a pervert. And an invertebrate.
(in article
<uranium-07512d63-e7a2-...@k13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jul 20, 2:02ï¿œpm, "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, 10:29ï¿œam, "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, 7:17ï¿œam, "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.
>>
>>>>>>> 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?
> Are you omniscient?
Nah. I have, however, a degree in history and an interest in the subject.
>
> I'm not.
>
You're a pervert. And an invertebrate.
Richard Norman
Jul 20, 2012, 8:19:57 PM7/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:02:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>(in article
><uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
>
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>(in article
><uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@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 Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:59:23 -0400, UC wrote
>>> (in article
>>> <uranium-dfd6743d-b7d7-443f-8b7a-b5ef9f0d3...@p1g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
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.
See the Wikipedia entry at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People
Richard Norman
Jul 20, 2012, 8:25:39 PM7/20/12
to
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.
Richard Norman
Jul 20, 2012, 8:30:28 PM7/20/12
to
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
J.J. O'Shea
Jul 20, 2012, 8:46:52 PM7/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:19:57 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
(in article <otsj08l146e91b944...@4ax.com>):
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:02:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>> (in article
>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
>>
> 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.
(in article <otsj08l146e91b944...@4ax.com>):
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:02:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>> (in article
>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 10:29ï¿œam, "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, 2:55ï¿œam, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr 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, 7:17ï¿œam, "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.
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
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.
UC
Jul 20, 2012, 8:42:46 PM7/20/12
to
Richard Norman
Jul 20, 2012, 10:31:24 PM7/20/12
to
chromosome with a particular mutation in a base pair that can be
identified and therefore tracked in different populations.
Richard Norman
Jul 20, 2012, 10:37:10 PM7/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:46:52 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
You are right in general but not in particular.
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:19:57 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>(in article <otsj08l146e91b944...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:02:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>>> (in article
>>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@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 Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:19:57 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>(in article <otsj08l146e91b944...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:02:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>>> (in article
>>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@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>
>>>>> ):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
Glenn
Jul 20, 2012, 11:11:40 PM7/20/12
to
"Richard Norman" <rsno...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:545k08hgu4hh53kcn...@4ax.com...
are racists, or that most or the majority of those that claim a Jewish genetic
identity are racists?
J.J. O'Shea
Jul 21, 2012, 1:49:31 AM7/21/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:37:10 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
(in article <545k08hgu4hh53kcn...@4ax.com>):
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:46:52 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:19:57 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>> (in article <otsj08l146e91b944...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:02:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
>>>> ):
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 10:29ï¿œam, "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, 2:55ï¿œam, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
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-...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
and Message-ID:
<uranium-754fc1a7-91be-...@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.
(in article <545k08hgu4hh53kcn...@4ax.com>):
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:46:52 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:19:57 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>> (in article <otsj08l146e91b944...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:02:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@e7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
>>>> ):
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 10:29ï¿œam, "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>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
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-...@f14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
and Message-ID:
<uranium-754fc1a7-91be-...@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.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 21, 2012, 4:04:40 AM7/21/12
to
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'?
Richard Norman
Jul 21, 2012, 7:42:53 AM7/21/12
to
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 01:49:31 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
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.
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:37:10 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>(in article <545k08hgu4hh53kcn...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:46:52 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:19:57 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>>> (in article <otsj08l146e91b944...@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:02:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>>>>> (in article
>>>>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@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 Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:37:10 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>(in article <545k08hgu4hh53kcn...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:46:52 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:19:57 -0400, Richard Norman wrote
>>> (in article <otsj08l146e91b944...@4ax.com>):
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:02:25 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>>>> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:41:03 -0400, UC wrote
>>>>> (in article
>>>>> <uranium-ca75ee69-c408-...@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>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
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.
Richard Norman
Jul 21, 2012, 7:46:56 AM7/21/12
to
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 01:04:40 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
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.
wrote:
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.
marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
Jul 21, 2012, 8:11:34 AM7/21/12
to
On 21 juil, 13:46, Richard Norman <rsnor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 01:04:40 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
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.
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 01:04:40 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
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.
Attila
Jul 21, 2012, 9:03:25 AM7/21/12
to
"the Jews" share a particular genetic marker then isn't it their
responsability to define the word "Jew"? I have repeatedly said that there
is no Jewish ethnic group since the only common feature that the vaarious
subgroups would have is sharing the label "Jewish".
>
> My impression is you're describing cultural differences different
> Jewish groups absorb from the different cultures which surround them.
> This is common among minorities, who typically overlay the outside
> culture on their traditional one, but don't replace it entirely. It's
> called assimilation, and some Jews feel that's a dangerous thing.
> After all, look what happened to those Lost Tribes.
>
> I am not Jewish by any meaning of the word, but my impression is that
> Jews, like other healthy minorities, take pride in, and have respect
> for, their biological and spiritual connections to their ancestors and
> the trials their ancestors overcame.
I think we come from two very different worlds. I don't think anyone in
> My impression is you're describing cultural differences different
> Jewish groups absorb from the different cultures which surround them.
> This is common among minorities, who typically overlay the outside
> culture on their traditional one, but don't replace it entirely. It's
> called assimilation, and some Jews feel that's a dangerous thing.
> After all, look what happened to those Lost Tribes.
>
> I am not Jewish by any meaning of the word, but my impression is that
> Jews, like other healthy minorities, take pride in, and have respect
> for, their biological and spiritual connections to their ancestors and
> the trials their ancestors overcame.
their right mind could possible "take pride in" something which is not their
own doing. We are born into an ethnic group/nationality/sex not by virtue of
our own actions so I how could we possibly "take pride in" such things. I
was born left-handed and I take absolutely no pride in being left-handed; it
is not an accomplishment of mine. I was born with a defective aortic valve
(bicuspid rather than the usual tricuspid). I would have to be totally
insane to be proud of the fact. I was born to parents whose ancestors were
Litvaks. I have absolutely no reason to feel proud about that -- I had
nothing to do with it. Of my relations, I only have respect for those who I
knew and who earned my respect by their actions. Simply being related to me
doesn't give you admission to my legion of respect. Further, I don't
understand how I could possibly respect ancestors who I never met and whose
names I don't even know. So I take absolutely no pride in my biological
ancestors. Why should I? Being related to me is no big deal. I don't have a
clue about spiritual connections or what that phrase could even mean.
Furthermore, I don't see why minorities should be saddled with these
ridiculous chores of "taking pride in" those things. Why only minorities?
And what on earth are healthy minorities and why should only the healthy
ones take pride in and respect...? As for my ancestors' I have absolutely no
idea of what travails they underwent. For all I know they were total
scoundrels, but what difference does that make?
I'm sure these things have an entirely different meaning to you but I have
never encountered them before and have never heard such things expressed by
anyone I know. I am convinced that your ancestors were just as nice, clever,
funny, etc as mine and so every bit as worthy of the respect they earned
from people who actually knew them.
Richard Norman
Jul 21, 2012, 9:36:59 AM7/21/12
to
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:11:34 -0700 (PDT), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:
>On 21 juil, 13:46, Richard Norman <rsnor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 01:04:40 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 21 juil, 02:30, Richard Norman <rsnor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:59:20 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>
>> >> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> there is less than 1% difference among all living humans. 嚙瘢IRC human
>> >> >> share at least 95% of their genes with chimpanzees. 嚙瘢t is a miracle
>> >> 嚙篁ttp://www.thegeneticatlas.com/E1b1b1_Y-DNA.htm
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.
wrote:
>On 21 juil, 13:46, Richard Norman <rsnor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 01:04:40 -0700 (PDT), marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 21 juil, 02:30, Richard Norman <rsnor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:59:20 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>
>> >> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jul 20, 2:50嚙緘m, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Of course neandertal and sapiens share most of their genes. According
>> >> >> to Svante P嚙踝蕭bo and his group, they are at least 90% identical, and
>>
>> >> >> Of course neandertal and sapiens share most of their genes. According
>> >> >> there is less than 1% difference among all living humans. 嚙瘢IRC human
>> >> >> share at least 95% of their genes with chimpanzees. 嚙瘢t is a miracle
>> >> >> of modern genetics that science can reliably and authoritvely support
>> >> >> those numbers. 嚙畿ut I don't see their relevance here. 嚙磕hen 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. 嚙確his topic necessarily deals with correlated
>> >> >> focus on differences, not similarities.
>>
>> >> >> As for discussing "a Jewish gene" I already dismissed that straw man
>> >> >> 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. 嚙瞎y
>>
>> >> >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
>> >> 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. 嚙瘤or example, the Haplogroup E1B1B in the subject
>> >> that are unique to Jews that can then be used to "define" Jews or
>> >> line of this thread is most common in the horn of Africa and has its
>> >> greatest expression 嚙箠n Somalia and Morocco.
>> >> 嚙篁ttp://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. 嚙磐es, I careless said "gene" instead of "haplotype"
>> >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
>> 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". 嚙磅till it is useful to speak of genes
>>
>> The definition of "gene" is as multiple and as fuzzy about the edges
>> (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
>
>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.
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.
jillery
Jul 21, 2012, 10:24:40 AM7/21/12
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages