posted
^ I know. I looked up the original paper myself. LOL His own sources debunk everything he says! That's why I don't take him serious and just use him for laughs-- like all trolls.
The final nail in his coffin is when they actually test an actual ancient kohen.
The guy is like Antalas who believes indigenous North Africans are Eurasian and non-black no matter how dark their skin is. These guys are just delusional to the point of being deranged.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if someone believes that Judaic lineage is determined by the father, if they bring up a genetics article, they might like the flavor of a conclusion but the conclusion might also come out of a matrilineal element in concert with the patrilineal as per the context of the whole enchilada
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I know. I looked up the original paper myself. LOL His own sources debunk everything he says! That's why I don't take him serious and just use him for laughs-- like all trolls.
The final nail in his coffin is when they actually test an actual ancient kohen.
The guy is like Antalas who believes indigenous North Africans are Eurasian and non-black no matter how dark their skin is. These guys are just delusional to the point of being deranged.
Actually DJ, you are both talking past each other because the sources you cited show that J was not a common DNA lineage in the Levant 4 - 5kya ago.
If you look at the first link you recently posted to Chalcolithic Israel, most of the lineages in th e supplementary files are not J. And of course none of these have anything to do with the Jewish faith.
The second article we already discussed in another thread where this whole back and forth started between Tazarah, you and others and as stated there, none of these remains were firmly identified as "Jewish". And only one male had the J lineage. And that thread was locked because of this ongoing back and forth.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually DJ, you are both talking past each other because the sources you cited show that J was not a common DNA lineage in the Levant 4 - 5kya ago.
If you look at the first link you recently posted to Chalcolithic Israel, most of the lineages in th e supplementary files are not J. And of course none of these have anything to do with the Jewish faith.
The Chalcolithic study (4500–3900/3800 BCE) is of 22 individuals from one particular Cave, Israel. Y DNA was recovered for 10 individuals, one was of haplogroup E 9 were haplogroup T (plot twist) ____________
But the article with remains closer to the time period to the Israelites is
The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant, 2020
DNA charted in this image 73 individuals from five archaeological sites across the Bronze and Iron Ages Southern Levant, who share the Canaanite material culture, three sites in Israel Dating 2500 to around 1150 BCE, we see plenty of J and some E, R and T
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Actually DJ, you are both talking past each other because the sources you cited show that J was not a common DNA lineage in the Levant 4 - 5kya ago.
If you look at the first link you recently posted to Chalcolithic Israel, most of the lineages in th e supplementary files are not J. And of course none of these have anything to do with the Jewish faith.
The second article we already discussed in another thread where this whole back and forth started between Tazarah, you and others and as stated there, none of these remains were firmly identified as "Jewish". And only one male had the J lineage. And that thread was locked because of this ongoing back and forth.
None of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread.
Thank you... I don't know why it's so hard to understand, or why Djehuti has to lie and pretend the "cohen gene" is supported by conclusive evidence when he already admit to me word for word that it is not supported by conclusive evidence.
Then he admits yet again that his position about J has not been proven by saying "the nail in my coffin will be once they test an ancient Levite" -- in other words, djehuti's position is just an opinion without evidence.
1. Two Israeli geneticists I've cited conclude that modern jewish populations who carry J in large numbers are descendants of converts (not ancient Israelites) based on their autosomal admixture.
2. No geneticists have reported that haplogroup J the founding lineage of the Israelites.
With all the "evidence" out there, you would think there would be sources confirming what Djehuti is saying word for word (J being the founding lineage of Abraham/Israelites), but there is not.
I don't expect someone who can't even be honest about what the Bible says in Genesis, to be honest about data or anything else.
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
An important lesson we've learned is that a J marker is not what Djehuti claims it to be, as Dr. Elhaik said in his email. Looking solely at a J marker without looking at anything else (like autosomal) does not give a complete picture and leads people to false conclusions.
quote: "CONCLUSION: EEJ (eastern european Jews) are Europeans probably of Roman descent who converted to Judaism at times, when Judaism was the first monotheistic religion that spread in the ancient world. Any other theory about their origin is not supported by the genetic data. Future studies will have to address their genetic affinities to various Italian populations and examine the possibility of other components both European and Non-European in their gene pool."
quote: "From both The current study and those of Atzmon et al. [53] and Behar et al. [54] it can be seen that the only Jewish populations that are as close to Ashkenazi Jews as non-Jewish Europeans are those with a significant Sephardic (The descendants of the Jews who were expelled from the Iberian peninsula at the end of the 15th century) component in their gene pool. It is not possible at this stage to say what is the source of this resemblance, since we don't know what is the origin of Sephardic Jews, but considering all the genetic affinities of both groups it likely stems from Sephardic Jews being the descendants of converts in the Mediterranean basin rather than from a common Jewish origin in the Land of Israel."
quote: since we don't know what is the origin of Sephardic Jews, but considering all the genetic affinities of both groups it likely stems from Sephardic Jews being the descendants of converts in the Mediterranean basin rather than from a common Jewish origin in the Land of Israel." [/i]
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Actually DJ, you are both talking past each other because the sources you cited show that J was not a common DNA lineage in the Levant 4 - 5kya ago.
If you look at the first link you recently posted to Chalcolithic Israel, most of the lineages in th e supplementary files are not J. And of course none of these have anything to do with the Jewish faith.
The second article we already discussed in another thread where this whole back and forth started between Tazarah, you and others and as stated there, none of these remains were firmly identified as "Jewish". And only one male had the J lineage. And that thread was locked because of this ongoing back and forth.
None of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread.
Thank you... I don't know why it's so hard to understand, or why Djehuti has to lie and pretend the "cohen gene" is supported by conclusive evidence when he already admit to me word for word that it is not supported by conclusive evidence.
Then he admits yet again that his position about J has not been proven by saying "the nail in my coffin will be once they test an ancient Levite" -- in other words, djehuti's position is just an opinion without evidence.
1. Two Israeli geneticists I've cited conclude that modern jewish populations who carry J in large numbers are descendants of converts (not ancient Israelites) based on their autosomal admixture.
2. No geneticists have reported that haplogroup J the founding lineage of the Israelites.
With all the "evidence" out there, you would think there would be sources confirming what Djehuti is saying word for word (J being the founding lineage of Abraham/Israelites), but there is not.
I don't expect someone who can't even be honest about what the Bible says in Genesis, to be honest about data or anything else.
But I am not on your side on this. You aren't addressing the point I am making that this thread isn't about ancient Israelite DNA. And you keep going back and forth yet neither one of you is paying attention to what the other is saying. So why not leave this thread to the original topic instead of continuing a discussion from another thread that was already locked.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Doug
I understand you are not on my side, I just don't like being gaslighted and it's nice to see someone else say what I've been saying the entire time. I've already admit that there is no conclusive evidence to genetically support mine or Djehuti's argument either way, he is the one trying to play the genius.
I'm definitely willing to agree to disagree, the only reason this all started up again is because Djehuti brought my name up on a previous page in here and started acting as though he had schooled me on the topic.
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually DJ, you are both talking past each other because the sources you cited show that J was not a common DNA lineage in the Levant 4 - 5kya ago.
Yes and I never said it was! My point was that only after the Bronze Age did J become prevalent and that it was introduced from southern Turkey.
Carlos Flores et al. (2005) Abstract A high-resolution, Y-chromosome analysis using 46 binary markers has been carried out in two Jordan populations, one from the metropolitan area of Amman and the other from the Dead Sea, an area geographically isolated. Comparisons with neighboring populations showed that whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbors, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its high R1*-M173 frequency (40%) has until now only been found in northern Cameroonian samples. This contrasts with the comparatively low presence of J representatives (9%), which is the modal clade in [Modern] Middle Eastern populations, including Amman. The Dead Sea sample also showed a high presence of E3b3a-M34 lineages (31%), which is only comparable to that found in Ethiopians. Although ancient and recent ties with sub-Saharan and eastern Africans cannot be discarded, it seems that isolation, strong drift, and/or founder effects are responsible for the anomalous Y-chromosome pool of this population. These results demonstrate that, at a fine scale, the smooth, continental clines detected for several Y-chromosome markers are often disrupted by genetically divergent populations.
Lazaridis & Reich et ales. (2018) We find that the individuals buried in Peqi’in Cave represent a relatively genetically homogenous population. This homogeneity is evident not only in the genome-wide analyses but also in the fact that most of the male individuals (nine out of ten) belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup T (see Supplementary Table 1), a lineage thought to have diversified in the Near East. This finding contrasts with both earlier (Neolithic and Epipaleolithic) Levantine populations, which were dominated by haplogroup E, **and later Bronze Age individuals, all of whom belonged to haplogroup J**.
Taz's argument was that E entered the region from Turkey (with Abraham and his people) which makes no sense.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: And if someone believes that Judaic lineage is determined by the father, if they bring up a genetics article, they might like the flavor of a conclusion but the conclusion might also come out of a matrilineal element in concert with the patrilineal as per the context of the whole enchilada
As I've explained before, the Hebrews had a bilateral kinship with patrilineal emphasis that is the official lineage reckoned was a patrilineal segmented lineage (nation, tribe, clan, house, family) but maternal descent was also taken into consideration for membership in the nation.
Alice Linsley despite her errors on genetics and linguistics is spot on when it comes to ethnic/social practicies.
6. Ultimate authority rests with a male figure such as a patriarch, a chief or a king. (Part 7)
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Taz's argument was that E entered the region from Turkey (with Abraham and his people) which makes no sense.
Of course that makes no sense, because that isn't what I said. I was not suggesting that E was first introduced to the Levant by Abraham and his people, nor did the geneticist who I referenced (Dr. Elhaik) say or suggest that.
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Taz's argument was that E entered the region from Turkey (with Abraham and his people) which makes no sense.
Of course that makes no sense, because that isn't what I said. I was not suggesting that E was first introduced to the Levant by Abraham and his people, nor did the geneticist who I referenced (Dr. Elhaik) say or suggest that.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
I linked the source where Elhaik said Abraham was an E carrier in the thread you are referring to, and I linked it more than once.
Here it is again:
quote: "Yet, these averages mask the high heterogeneity among all Jewish communities. Some people may share the highest similarity with Gal (named after Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot), a young Neolithic woman – only 6200 years old, and other people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land."
what's this then? So E was already there, is this what you are implying?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@the lioness,
Quote me or Elhaik saying that E was first introduced to the Levant by Abraham, otherwise shutup and stop trying to troll.
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well forget the "first introduce" how about explaining how Abraham or his people carried E from Turkey when that region is the origin of J, and hg E existed in the Levant prior among the Natufians.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
Are you saying it's impossible for E to have come from Turkey/Mesopotamia just because another haplogroup supposedly originated there? How do you E was not also present in that area and that E-carrying migrants did not come from there?
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Well forget the "first introduce" how about explaining how Abraham or his people carried E from Turkey when that region is the origin of J, and hg E existed in the Levant prior among the Natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
I linked the source where Elhaik said Abraham was an E carrier in the thread you are referring to, and I linked it more than once.
Here it is again:
quote: "Yet, these averages mask the high heterogeneity among all Jewish communities. Some people may share the highest similarity with Gal (named after Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot), a young Neolithic woman – only 6200 years old, and other people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land."
^^ Charlatan geneticist Elhaik here, instead of saying this is his theory he states it's as if it is a fact "Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1)" Taz did you know most Turks are not E1b1 and even less so in ancient times? And the idea he was a Turk, Elhaik made that up
He also says: "led a group of Anatolians" He did not say "led his family" >that means In Elhaik's view some may have not been of his bloodline, potentially more than one haplogroup in the group
I guess Tazzy troll thinks the whole (small) world at the time was E
So when did God magically create the other haplogroups?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
"Lioness" the blackfacing troll still fails to realize that the part of modern day Turkey in question was apart of ancient Mesopotamia, thus, this is why Elhaik is calling Abraham a Turk.
I've already explained this to him at least twice.
Even if I had not explained it, this is something that somebody who participates in these topics should already know.
Notice how nobody else is complaining about Elhaik calling Abraham a Turk?
This blackfacing troll forever demonstrates why he is not worthy of any serious response on these topics. He is either not competent, or purposely trolling and trying to get a rise out of people.
Or both.
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: "Lioness" fails to realize that the part of modern day Turkey in question was apart of ancient Mesopotamia, thus, this is why Elhaik is calling Abraham a Turk.
Spaz, you seem to be getting very emotional lately. Relax
you don't know why Elhaik said Abraham was a Turk, stop the BS As we can see a small part of Turkey is only part of Mesopotamia so the words are not synonymous. if he meant Mesopotamia he would have said Mesopotamia. Though part of Mesopotamia is in Turkey Mesopotamia is much more associated with Iraq, wake the hell up
quote:
wiki History of Mesopotamia '
Later and in the broader sense, the historical region included not only the area of present-day Iraq, but also parts of present-day Iran, Syria and Turkey.
Modern Turkey:
quote: (Turkish Region) TR samples were documented and grouped into six different subregions, namely Balkan (TR-B: 90), West (TR-W: 157), Central (TR-C: 441), North (TR-N: 372), South (TR-S: 116), and East (TR-E: 284)
The most common Y chromosome haplogroups in TR individuals were from J2a (18.4%), R1b (14.9%), and R1a (12.1%) sublineages, consistent with previous findings (SI Appendix, Fig. S12 and Dataset S1) (3). Except for TR-B, in which I2a (20%) was the most prevalent haplogroup followed by R2a (17.1%) and E1b (14.3%)
The genetic structure of the Turkish population reveals high levels of variation and admixture
So we see in the modern Turks R dominates, then J and in the Balkan region of Turkey, E1b 14.3%
but if we go to ancient times E1b1b was not found in Neolithic Iran or Anatolia !! wake up E was LESS prevalent in Anatolia then So why would Elhaik even say "Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1)" ??
> put that in your pipe and smoke it
You and I don't know why after says Abraham was a Turk he put E1b1 in parentheses as if that was a given- not
If someone were to talk about say, the Berbers and the wrote "Berbers (E1b1b) that would be reasonable since most male Berbers are E1b1b but not Turks !!
I look into these things, and there are problems. That is why although Elhaik might says something on a commercial website he wouldn't say that in one of his peer reviewed articles because he would not pass the peer review
You don't check out people statements after you like them, fingers in ears
quote: Genesis 11:28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
Genesis 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Genesis 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
2 Kings 24:2 And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servants the prophets.
2 Kings 25:4 And the city was broken up, and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, which is by the king's garden: (now the Chaldees were against the city round about:) and the king went the way toward the plain.
2 Kings 25:5 And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho: and all his army were scattered from him.
2 Kings 25:10 And all the army of the Chaldees, that were with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about.
2 Kings 25:13 And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord, and the bases, and the brasen sea that was in the house of the Lord, did the Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon.
2 Kings 25:24 And Gedaliah sware to them, and to their men, and said unto them, Fear not to be the servants of the Chaldees: dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon; and it shall be well with you.
2 Kings 25:25 But it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, came, and ten men with him, and smote Gedaliah, that he died, and the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah.
2 Kings 25:26 And all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies, arose, and came to Egypt: for they were afraid of the Chaldees.
2 Chronicles 36:17 Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand.
Nehemiah 9:7 Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham;
Isaiah 13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
DISCLAIMER: I am not asserting that Elmaestro or anyone that he referred to in this screenshot agrees with my position.
*** It seems to be common knowledge amongst the non-trolls of this website that "Turkey" is a factor and relevant term in regards to the topic of Abraham. Have a seat, troll.
*** P.S. -- Look, "Lioness" is quoting from the Bible. According to his logic that means he believes in it and subscribes to everything written in it.
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Lol @ you for trying to use modern turkish data to prove a point.
And lol @ you for still trying to associate J with Abraham. Geneticists know exactly who these J carriers were that came to the Levant. Abraham was not a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization.
These J carriers were people from the Caucusus with Kura-Araxes culture and Hurrian names. Not Abraham/Hebrews.
Clearly you do not look into these things and are projecting your flawed logic onto others.
quote: "This geographic distribution of J2a versus J1 mirrors the two autosomal components from Haber et al. (2013). However, several demographic and migrational events may contribute to the observed Y frequency patterns in the southern Levant. Major J2a lineages whose origin is likely from East Anatolia, Armenia, Georgia, and NW Iran could have migrated to the southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age through the movement of the Kura-Araxes horizon to Lebanon, Syria, and ultimately the Galilee area marked by the Khirbet Kerak culture (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003). Later immigration from a similar East Anatolian source may have brought Hurrian onomastics to the southern Levant during the Middle Bronze Age (King 2009). These events may have added J2a to an underlying J1 substratum."
16 Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,
3 And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
1. The Hurrians were not Amorites or Horites.
2. God is not telling the Israelites in that scripture that they descend from Amorites/Hittites. Common sense tells us that is impossible. This is figurative speech in which God is insulting the Israelites for following heathen customs and taking apart in their idolatry.
quote: "The father, therefore, of this city, might be properly said to be an Amorite, and its mother, a Hittite; these names comprehending all the idolatrous nations of Canaan, of which the Jebusites were a branch. Or if the Jews or Israelites be intended, their progenitors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, sojourned in the land of Canaan long before the possession of it was given to their posterity; and the two latter were natives of that country. But as those are said to be our parents, in Scripture language, whose manners we imitate, the Jews or Israelites, may be here represented as being of Canaanitish origin, because they followed the manners of the idolatrous inhabitants of that country, rather than those of the pious patriarchs: see Ezekiel 16:45; John 8:44; Matthew 3:7. There is an expression of the same import in the history of Susannah, Ezekiel 16:56, that seems to be borrowed from this passage, O thou seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thy heart."
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Put the Bible down. You are grasping for straws and it's hilarious. I think I'm done now
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] Lol @ you for trying to use modern turkish data to prove a point.
And lol @ you for still trying to associate J with Abraham. Geneticists know exactly who these J carriers were that came to the Levant. Abraham was not a descendant of the Kura-Araxes/Hurrian civilization.
These J carriers were people from the Caucusus with Kura-Araxes culture and Hurrian names. Not Abraham/Hebrews.
who claimed they were from the Kura-Araxes culture ?
that's a straw man you brought in
With no other source, the bible says Abraham was a Chaldean of Ur
you should be trying to establish what culture he was from first rather than what culture he was not from
_______________________________
Ur Kasdim (Hebrew: אוּר כַּשְׂדִּים ʾŪr Kaśdīm), commonly translated as Ur of the Chaldeans, is a city mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as the birthplace of Abraham, the patriarch of the Israelites and the Ishmaelites. In 1862, Henry Rawlinson identified Ur Kaśdim with Tell el-Muqayyar, near Nasiriyah in Baghdad Eyalet (which is located in modern-day Iraq).[1] In 1927, Leonard Woolley excavated the site and identified it as a Sumerian archaeological site where the Chaldeans were to settle around the 9th century BC.[2] Recent archaeology work has continued to focus on the location in Nasiriyah, where the ancient Ziggurat of Ur is located
_________________________________
Taz do you ever look at this stuff and think, damn how come the people in area are not looking West African?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
You don't even realize what you are ultimately claiming by implying that Abraham was J. You just clarified that Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees (Mesopotamia) yet I just provided a source showing that J carriers who came to the Levant during the bronze age had Kura-Araxes culture and Hurrian names (Caucusus). They were migrants/invaders from the Caucusus.
They were not Hebrews nor did they have Hebrew names. The name "Abraham" is Hebrew/Semitic. Abraham was a Hebrew.
Here's another source:
quote: "Haplogroup J1-M267 probably evolved in the region encompassing northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and northwestern Iran 23 to 24 kya. The oldest human aDNA reported so far, belonging to this haplogroup, originates from an individual, who lived ~ 13.3 kya in the Caucasus during the Late Upper Paleolithic."
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You don't even realize what you are ultimately claiming by implying that Abraham was J. You just clarified that Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees (Mesopotamia) yet I just provided a source showing that J carriers who came to the Levant during the bronze age had Kura-Araxes culture and Hurrian names (Caucusus). They were migrants/invaders from the Caucusus.
They were not Hebrews nor did they have Hebrew names. The name "Abraham" is Hebrew/Semitic. Abraham was a Hebrew.
There is nothing that says that of J carriers who went into the Levant that every one of them had to have Kura-Araxes culture and Hurrian names.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
I linked the source where Elhaik said Abraham was an E carrier in the thread you are referring to, and I linked it more than once.
Here it is again:
quote: "Yet, these averages mask the high heterogeneity among all Jewish communities. Some people may share the highest similarity with Gal (named after Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot), a young Neolithic woman – only 6200 years old, and other people may find that they are close to Abraham, a Turkish man (E1b1) who led a group of Anatolians to what he must to have felt was the promised land."
You have to first establish that some group of E carriers went into the Levant from Turkey before trying to exclude
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: You don't even realize what you are ultimately claiming by implying that Abraham was J.
my position is that if he existed his haplogroup is unknown. He could have been T or R for all we know and think about this, he could have arrived into Israel and the majority of people there were not of his haplogroup. Not every male on the planet is E so God could have created other haplogroup people at any point in time after Noah (biblically) (or resurrect old pre-flood haplogroups in new people)
If you want to say E in Turkey you will have to find remains of any individual bearing E from that time period in Anatolia, I'll wait
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
You have been among the people trying to imply that Abraham had J. Now that I've shown J belonged to a totally different culture long before Mesopotamia/Abraham you want to play games. The data shows that J came to the Levant during the bronze age from the Caucusus along with Kura-Araxes/Hurrian culture.
These J carriers were not Sumerian or Mesopotamian in origin. They were invaders/migrants originally from the Caucusus.
quote: "Hurrian-speaking people was the region of the upper Nabur and Tigris Rivers, together with the piedmont beyond, extending into the eastern Taurus and northwestern Zagros Mountains. The Hurrian language belongs to neither the Semitic nor the Indo-European language family, nor is it related to Sumerian or Elamite, other important isolated languages of the ancient Near East."
posted
The main haplogroup of the Mesopotamians is J. If you think otherwise show us an article purporting the main haplogroup of the Mesopotamians was a different haplogroup, I'll wait
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Poor reading comprehension skills. Re-read my last comment.
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main haplogroup of the Mesopotamians is J. If you think otherwise show us an article purporting the main haplogroup of the Mesopotamians was a different haplogroup, I'll wait
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
"Lioness" is stuck in repeat mode, attacking a strawman.
Wow, Dr. Elhaik's (an actual credentialed geneticist) research and conclusions are actually starting to make a lot more sense.
Weren't you one of the people trying to tell me that Elhaik was incorrect for writing that the Natufians (E carriers) were the progenitors of the Israelites, one of the reasons being because there was a "gap" in time, and also because the Hebrews/Israelites had to come from Mesopotamia where J was?
quote: "The Natufian culture is certainly well-documented. The earliest sites, in Israel, have been dated to 10,900 BCE and the culture continued to 7,800 BCE, during which it metamorphosed between 8,500 and 8,000 BCE into the first full-blown agricultural Neolithic Pre-Pottery A culture found throughout the Levant. This would correspond well with the date given by Igor Diakonoff for the Proto-Afro-Asiatic parent culture (i.e. approximately 12,000 years ago). The Natufian culture certainly did spread, northwards to Syria and Mesopotamia, and the Belbasi culture of interior Anatolia certainly was of clear Natufian derivation."
posted
Typical troll tactic of saving battered ugly face. Taz would build a straw mansion for someone to knock down to avoid the fact that whatever original argument he had was null and void. That's why I stopped arguing and let the clown do his thing. Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b
Notice they have no explanation for J being Hurrian long before it was even in Mesopotamia, if they still want to claim Abraham was J then they have to claim he had Hurrian ancestry, which would be laughable at best. This whole time they have been trying to make it seem as though J originated in Mesopotamia but it was found in the Caususus with Hurrian culture long before it was ever in Mesopotamia.
There are also sources that indicate a Natufian (haplogroup E) presence in Mesopotamia.
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b
Another faulty statement , to say a language originated within a haplogroup Also no source
Question, what is the earliest known Semitic language?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: no need for explanation, it's dumb to say a haplogroup is a language or restricted to one
I didn't say a haplogroup was a language and I showed how J was apart of the Kura-Araxes culture. Now you wanna play dumb about haplogroups after I bring out sources showing where J was before Mesopotamia and how it did not originate there. Furthermore you are so Biblically illiterate that you don't even realize the implications of asserting that Abraham was J at this point.
My work here is done
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: language and I showed how J was apart of the Kura-Araxes culture.
another misstatement
get it straight It's a biological marker that has nothing to do with a culture
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
No matter how you try to twist it, J did not originate in Mesopotamia and was connected to a culture/language that had nothing to do with Abraham or his ancestors, and this was long before it was ever in Mesopotamia. Have a nice day
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b
Another faulty statement , to say a language originated within a haplogroup Also no source
Question, what is the earliest known Semitic language?
Akkadian
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Yatunde and Taz might be making up stuff as regard alleged E in Mesopotamia. Let's come up with an article
Here's one about a Mesopotamian region in southeastern Turkey, ancient remains several females and male remains found there 8500 to 7500, recovering Y-DNA from 4 males. I think fair to assume if Abraham existed this is pre-Abraham
A genomic snapshot of demographic and cultural dynamism in Upper Mesopotamia during the Neolithic Transition
Abstract Upper Mesopotamia played a key role in the Neolithic Transition in Southwest Asia through marked innovations in symbolism, technology, and diet. We present 13 ancient genomes (c. 8500 to 7500 cal BCE) from Pre-Pottery Neolithic Çayönü in the Tigris basin together with bioarchaeological and material culture data. Our findings reveal that Çayönü was a genetically diverse population, carrying mixed ancestry from western and eastern Fertile Crescent, and that the community received immigrants. Our results further suggest that the community was organized along biological family lines. We document bodily interventions such as head shaping and cauterization among the individuals examined, reflecting Çayönü’s cultural ingenuity. Last, we identify Upper Mesopotamia as the likely source of eastern gene flow into Neolithic Anatolia, in line with material culture evidence. We hypothesize that Upper Mesopotamia’s cultural dynamism during the Neolithic Transition was the product not only of its fertile lands but also of its interregional demographic connections.
Y-chromosome haplogroups of male individuals (n = 4) were assigned using the “best path” method of pathPhynder (80), which adds particularly low-coverage samples on phylogenetic trees annotated with haplogroups. We used the compiled Y-chromosome dataset and phylogenetic tree in (80). By counting the number of derived and ancestral alleles represented on each branch of the tree, we determined the best path for each male individual. Then, we assigned the relevant haplogroup according to the node of the sample on the tree (table S3). We used default parameters of pathPhynder. We visualized the tree using iTOL v6 (fig. S13) (81). Because of missing data among informative SNPs,
we could determine only the basal branch “CT” for two individuals (cay012 and cay033).
While cay011 was placed onto the haplogroup G branch
(supported by 10 derived variants above the branch and 2 derived variants at the assigned branch),
the cay007 individual was assigned J2a1a ____________________________________________
So they had limited information on 2 of them and were assigned to the basal branch CT One was Hap G (also the hap of the Egyptian Yuya, father of Queen Tiye) and one was J2
So this is showing J2 in Southern Turkey, in Mesopotamia 8500 to 7500 BC. Comparatively Kura–Araxes culture about 4000 BC until about 2000 BC/ Hurrian culture 3500 BCE - c. 1000 BCE.
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
1) Lol @ "lioness" not understanding the implications of J being found in the Caucus 13,000 years ago.
2) Lol @ "lioness" not understanding the implications of J not being Mesopotamian in origin, and that J carriers were invaders/migrants from the Caucusus.
3) Lol @ "lioness" not understanding the fact that J2 is linked to Hurrian/Kura-Araxes culture which had nothing to do with Abraham or his ancestors.
4) Lol @ "lioness" not understanding what #3 means from a Biblical standpoint.
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
aDNA discovered in Northern Iraq sheds a light on Neolithic and Bronze age populations of Mesopotamia showing the substantial migrations from the caucasus to the middle east. Demonstrating a Caucasian/Levantine Natufian mix in early populations.
quote: "We present the first ancient DNA data from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Mesopotamia (Southeastern Turkey and Northern Iraq), Cyprus, and the Northwestern Zagros, along with the first data from Neolithic Armenia. We show that these and neighboring populations were formed through admixture of pre-Neolithic sources related to Anatolian, Caucasus, and Levantine hunter-gatherers, forming a Neolithic continuum of ancestry mirroring the geography of West Asia. By analyzing Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia, we show that the former were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources, but the latter experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia."
quote: "The Eastern Mediterranean and inland clusters are separated by a gap in Fig. 2A, which may correspond to geographically intermediate areas between sampling locations, for example, the Euphrates region of North Mesopotamia. The totality of Neolithic West Asia is enclosed within the range of variation of the quadrangle formed by Caucasus hunter-gatherers, Ganj Dareh, Levantine Natufians from Israel, and Epipaleolithic Pınarbaşı from Central Anatolia."
quote: Haplogroup E1b1b is considered the prime candidate for the origin and dispersal of Afro-Asiatic languages across northern and eastern Africa and south-west Asia. The Semitic languages appear to have originated within a subclade of the M34 branch of E1b1b. One specific deeper subclade is surely associated with the development of Arabic language and with J1-FGC12, but it hasn't been identified yet. Note that E-M34 itself is many thousands of years old and is also found in non-Semitic countries, including Turkey, Greece, Italy, France and Spain.
Not properly written and no references and you left out the part about J1
Haplogroups are not origin point for a language. They are biological markers originating far prior to languages spoken by people later, who carry these haplgroups
It should say
"Populations associated with Haplogroup E1b1b are considered the prime candidate for the origin and dispersal of Afro-Asiatic languages across northern and eastern Africa and south-west Asia." ______________________
^ so looking at this, it's a reasonable theory but it's not explained further this article about Haplogroup J. It would be better to a journal article with this as it's main theme
wiki:
Afroasiatic languages
The Afroasiatic languages (or Afro-Asiatic, sometimes Afrasian), also known as Hamito-Semitic or Semito-Hamitic, are a language family of about 400 languages spoken predominantly in West Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and parts of the Sahara and Sahel.[2] Over 500 million people are native speakers of an Afroasiatic language, constituting the fourth-largest language family after Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, and Niger–Congo.[3] Most linguists divide the family into six branches: Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, Semitic, and Omotic.[4] The vast majority of Afroasiatic languages are considered indigenous to the African continent, including all those not belonging to the Semitic branch.
Subdivisions
Berber Chadic Cushitic Egyptian Semitic Omotic
Timeline There is no consensus as to when Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken.[43] The absolute latest date for when Proto-Afroasiatic could have been extant is c. 4000 BCE, after which Egyptian and the Semitic languages are firmly attested. However, in all likelihood these languages began to diverge well before this hard boundary.[65] The estimations offered by scholars as to when Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken vary widely, ranging from 18,000 BCE to 8,000 BCE.[43] An estimate at the youngest end of this range still makes Afroasiatic the oldest proven language family.[6] Contrasting proposals of an early emergence, Tom Güldemann has argued that less time may have been required for the divergence than is usually assumed, as it is possible for a language to rapidly restructure due to areal contact, with the evolution of Chadic (and likely also Omotic) serving as pertinent examples.[92]
Location Likewise, no consensus exists as to where proto-Afroasiatic originated.[43] Scholars have proposed locations for the Afroasiatic homeland across Africa and West Asia.[93] Roger Blench writes that the debate possesses "a strong ideological flavor", with associations between an Asian origin and "high civilization".[69] An additional complicating factor is the lack of agreement on the subgroupings of Afroasiatic (see Further subdivisions) – this makes associating archaeological evidence with the spread of Afroasiatic particularly difficult.[94] Nevertheless, there is a long-accepted link between the speakers of Proto-Southern Cushitic languages and the East African Savanna Pastoral Neolithic (5000 years ago), and archaeological evidence associates the Proto-Cushitic speakers with economic transformations in the Sahara dating c. 8,500 ago, as well as the speakers of the Proto-Zenati variety of the Berber languages with an expansion across the Maghreb in the 5th century CE.[95]
An origin somewhere on the African continent has broad scholarly support, and is seen as being well-supported by the linguistic data.[96] Most scholars more narrowly place the homeland near the geographic center of its present distribution,[18] "in the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa."[97] The Afroasiatic languages spoken in Africa are not more closely related to each other than they are to Semitic, as one would expect if only Semitic had remained in an West Asian homeland while all other branches had spread from there.[98] Likewise, all Semitic languages are fairly similar to each other, whereas the African branches of Afroasiatic are very diverse; this suggests the rapid spread of Semitic out of Africa. Proponents of an origin of Afroasiatic within Africa assume the proto-language to have been spoken by pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers,[92] arguing that there is no evidence of words in Proto-Afroasiatic related to agriculture or animal husbandry.[97] Christopher Ehret, S.O. Y. Keita, and Paul Newman also argue that archaeology does not indicate a spread of migrating farmers into Africa, but rather a gradual incorporation of animal husbandry into indigenous foraging cultures.[99] Ehret, in a separate publication, argued that the two principles in linguistic approaches for determining the origin of languages which are the principles of fewest moves and greatest diversity had put “beyond reasonable doubt” that the language family “had originated in the Horn of Africa”.[100]
A significant minority of scholars supports an Asian origin of Afroasiatic,[69] most of whom are specialists in Semitic or Egyptian studies.[101] The main proponent of an Asian origin is the linguist Alexander Militarev,[102] who argues that Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken by early agriculturalists in the Levant and subsequently spread to Africa.[43] Militarev associates the speakers of Proto-Afroasiatic with the Levantine Post-Natufian Culture, arguing that the reconstructed lexicon of flora and fauna, as well as farming and pastoralist vocabulary indicates that Proto-AA must have been spoken in this area.[103][104] Scholar Jared Diamond and archaeologist Peter Bellwood have taken up Militarev's arguments as part of their general argument that the spread of linguistic macrofamilies (such as Indo-European, Bantu, and Austro-Asiatic) can be associated with the development of agriculture; they argue that there is clear archaeological support for farming spreading from the Levant into Africa via the Nile valley.
_________________________________
It's interesting. A bible believer might favor a Levantine (Southwest Asia) origin for Proto-Afroasiatic, the alternate name of Afroasiatic also known as Hamito-Semitic, thus a Levantine origin might support a separation from the so called "Hamites"
Afroasiatic
Subdivisions
Berber Chadic Cushitic Egyptian Semitic Omotic
^ try fitting this into a sequentially ordered narrative descending from Noah and incorporating myth of God creating new languages at Babel. Taz, break that down for us, what's older Egyptian language or Semitic?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] aDNA discovered in Northern Iraq sheds a light on Neolithic and Bronze age populations of Mesopotamia showing the substantial migrations from the caucasus to the middle east. Demonstrating a Caucasian/Levantine Natufian mix in early populations.
quote: "We present the first ancient DNA data from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Mesopotamia (Southeastern Turkey and Northern Iraq), Cyprus, and the Northwestern Zagros, along with the first data from Neolithic Armenia. We show that these and neighboring populations were formed through admixture of pre-Neolithic sources related to Anatolian, Caucasus, and Levantine hunter-gatherers, forming a Neolithic continuum of ancestry mirroring the geography of West Asia. By analyzing Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia, we show that the former were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources, but the latter experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia."
quote: "The Eastern Mediterranean and inland clusters are separated by a gap in Fig. 2A, which may correspond to geographically intermediate areas between sampling locations, for example, the Euphrates region of North Mesopotamia. The totality of Neolithic West Asia is enclosed within the range of variation of the quadrangle formed by Caucasus hunter-gatherers, Ganj Dareh, Levantine Natufians from Israel, and Epipaleolithic Pınarbaşı from Central Anatolia."
There is nothing that would exclude Abraham , if he existed, from being a member of any of these populations or a mixture of them. This article supports my position
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Still trying to sidestep the data. This demonstrates natufians (E carriers) had a significant presence in neolithic Mesopotamia.
(You falsely accused me of making up information again... and were proven wrong yet again.)
You were completely unaware of the fact that E carriers were in Mesopotamia yet still tried to draw a conclusion without the full picture. This is why I like to let people talk and dig themselves into a hole.
Furthermore I've already demonstrated that due to it's origin and the culture it stemmed from, J has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or his ancestors when the Biblical narrative is taken into account.
Your head is rolling down the street, go pick it up.
Posts: 2524 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic