Quote :

"Maybe you can follow this more closely:"

Quote :

"immediately after: [quote]Now, unless you're challenged in the head, that sentence states why you have a distaste, in no way, shape, or form refutes that you have a distaste."

Are you certain what you're discussing at this moment or are you purely flying on emotion? I did make that comment immediately after what you posted, and clarified for you in my previous post that I have issues with aspects of Ashkenazi mentality and that I do have a distaste for Zionism. Are you stating that just because something I state doesn't explicitly refute a position then I must hold the opposite position, because I never claimed my comment refuted that I have a distaste. And again, if you follow the sequence of that post it is clear I was referring to the subject of the previous sentence, which is Zionism.

I also notice how you have repeatedly ignored and skirted the questions that I directly asked you in order to get a feel of the consistency within your behavior.

Quote :

" a group of students who transferred to a new school "

This analogy fails because the group of people in our discussion are largely genetically composed of people indigenous to the region.

Quote :

"Host community/culture is generally used when talking about immigrants, which is exactly my point"

I believe you're subscribing to a definition of Host Community that is not typical in the anthropological sense of the word. I'll google it...

Quote :

"Host Community is a general concept that encompasses all of the people who inhabit a defined geographical entity.... Members of the host community have responsibilities that include governing the place and ...those who have or continue to define its particular cultural identity,... They contribute to the conservation or its heritage and interact with visitors. http://www.picture-project.com/glossaire_list.php3?id_rubrique=17 "

So, again, the host community is the prime culture that sets the standards and any subculture, whether indigenous to the region or not would not be considered the host community.

Quote :

"Believe it or not, the vast majority of the results were you badmouthing other jews. "

I disagree with your conclusion again. You're claiming the overwhelming majority is me bad mouthing other jews. In 50% of them I'm talking about myself and in the other 30% i'm either defending native americans, or condeming israel on a political level. In 10% (of which this thread is a large component i'm arguing about the difference between disapproving of zionism and disliking jews.

I enjoy the moment where you decide to become intellectually honest.

[Edited on July 22, 2010 at 2:58 PM. Reason : genetically ]

7/22/2010 2:52:19 PM

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/22/exclusive-records-show-military-surveyed-troops-attitudes-towards-jews-in-1940s/

Quote :

"Military Surveyed Troops’ Attitudes Towards Jews In 1940 # “There is nothing good about Jews.” (Agree: 86%, Disagree: 13%) # “Jews are out to rule the world.” (Agree: 27%, Disagree: 73%) # “The Jews always get the best of everything.” (Agree: 30%, Disagree: 70%) # “You can always tell a Jew by the way he looks.” (Agree: 61%, Disagree: 39%) # “Jews are the biggest goldbricks in the Army. (Agree: 51%, Disagree: 49%) # “A Jew will always play you for a sucker.” (Agree: 48%, Disagree: 52%)"

7/22/2010 2:56:38 PM

Quote :

"This analogy fails because the group of people in our discussion are largely composed of people indigenous to the region."

It's a perfectly cromulent analogy because they aren't indigenous at all. I grow tired of explaining this to you.

Quote :

"I believe you're subscribing to a definition of Host Community that is not typical in the anthropological sense of the word. I'll google it..."

Quote :

""Host Community is a general concept that encompasses all of the people who inhabit a defined geographical entity...They contribute to the conservation or its heritage and interact with visitors."

This is exactly my point. If the ashkenazi are truly indigenous to the region they would be part of the host community. Thanks for looking that up.

Quote :

"I disagree with your conclusion again. You're claiming the overwhelming majority is me bad mouthing other jews."

It is. Anyone who cares to look will come to the same conclusion.

7/22/2010 3:07:26 PM

Quote :

"I grow tired of explaining this to you."

So from your perspective is a person who is 1/32 native american indigenous to the united states? Are they only to be considered indigenous if they maintain their cultural identity? If so what does that mean for Ashkenazi who are european by blood but have dropped religious and cultural identity?

Quote :

"If the ashkenazi are truly indigenous to the region they would be part of the host community."

Not if they keep their culture separated from that of the prime culture. They are genetically indigenous.

Quote :

"It is. Anyone who cares to look will come to the same conclusion."

If they stop reading at this thread, as you clearly did.

7/22/2010 3:22:28 PM

Quote :

"So from your perspective is a person who is 1/32 native american indigenous to the united states?"

Strawman.

Quote :

"Not if they keep their culture separated from that of the prime culture."

This directly contradicts the definition you posted.

Quote :

"They are genetically indigenous."

This directly contradicts the various articles you posted about their middle eastern origins.

Quote :

"If they stop reading at this thread, as you clearly did."

It's apparent to everyone but you.

7/22/2010 3:37:07 PM

Quote :

"Strawman."

Not at all. I am seeking the lines of your consistency, which is why that series of questioning (that you neglected to answer) had a progressive pattern.

Quote :

"This directly contradicts the definition you posted."

Not at all. I think you may be confused. The host culture is the prime culture of any land and the link I posted stated as much. I am stating that the Eastern European countries were the host communities and that the people who became Jews in this region participated in the subculture and thus would not be recognized as part of the host culture regardless of being indigenous to the region. See the negrito of thailand, shinto of japan, aboriginals of australia or the african populations of south africa during the apartheid for examples.

Quote :

"This directly contradicts the various articles you posted about their middle eastern origins."

Not at all. Again, this is why I asked for your thoughts on an individual with only 1/32 Native American blood. Just because someone has genetic roots to an area does not mean they are not genetically indigenous to another area, unless you hold the belief that someone who has any admixture whatsoever cannot be indigenous to any region despite a clear majority threshold.

Quote :

"It's apparent to everyone but you."

if you have the time categorize my quotes and put them in a spreadsheet and give me a percentage of things said by me that are derogatory towards other jews. I am interested in seeing evidence of this "vast majority" that is someone how not discernible by me.

7/22/2010 3:51:19 PM

Quote :

"Are you stating that just because something I state doesn't explicitly refute a position then I must hold the opposite position, because I never claimed my comment refuted that I have a distaste."

I'm stating that your statement is a direct continuation of what I was discussing. It'd be like if I posted "Man, IRSeriousCat is really dumb" and you posted "Largely due to being dropped on the head as a child" and then tried to backtrack and tried to say you weren't talking about the reason you were dumb.

Basically, I'm about 99.9% sure you hate Ashkenazi Jews and are trying to hide behind contempt of zionism so we don't just call you a racist.

7/22/2010 4:11:19 PM

Quote :

"I have issues with aspects of Ashkenazi mentality"

Is Ashkenazi a race or a philosophy? I am not aware of any other race through which a specific mentality is genetically inherited.

Or are you just being racist?

7/22/2010 4:17:48 PM

Quote :

"Not at all. I am seeking the lines of your consistency, which is why that series of questioning (that you neglected to answer) had a progressive pattern."

The experience of native americans in north america is an entirely different animal than the experience of jews in europe. This is a strawman and you know it.

Quote :

"I am stating that the Eastern European countries were the host communities and that the people who became Jews in this region participated in the subculture and thus would not be recognized as part of the host culture regardless of being indigenous to the region"

Let me repost your definition:

Quote :

""Host Community is a general concept that encompasses all of the people who inhabit a defined geographical entity...They contribute to the conservation or its heritage and interact with visitors."

Either they were part of the host culture or they weren't indigenous.

Quote :

"Not at all. Again, this is why I asked for your thoughts on an individual with only 1/32 Native American blood. Just because someone has genetic roots to an area does not mean they are not genetically indigenous to another area, unless you hold the belief that someone who has any admixture whatsoever cannot be indigenous to any region despite a clear majority threshold. "

I'll be honest with you, I only read the abstracts of your 3 linked studies before. I just went through the findings and found that absolutely none of them support your argument. All of them state that genetically askenazi jews are distinctly different from the rest of europe and that they're most similar to other middle eastern jews. Not only are you a fucking retard, you're also a dishonest fucking retard.

Quote :

" I am interested in seeing evidence of this "vast majority" that is someone how not discernible by me."

It's apparently discernible to everyone else in this thread.

7/25/2010 8:37:02 PM

Quote :

"The experience of native americans in north america is an entirely different animal than the experience of jews in europe. This is a strawman and you know it."

Moved from place to place, not considered citizens but rather enemies within wherever they went, experienced genocide...sound very similar to me. Perhaps you can enlighten me with how they are distinctively different situations.

Quote :

"Either they were part of the host culture or they weren't indigenous."

I feel that you've unfortunately let emotion override and take you down a path of non-sequiturs. The definition that was posted has no reference to the indigenous nature of a group one way or the other regarding a host culture. I've already established how a group can not be indigenous and yet be the host culture.

Perhaps you're assuming that all indigenous peoples must be part of the host community based on the word all that you both bolded and italicized. I think you're reading too much into the all in a search for information that supports your thoughts. Think about it, the definition says all inhabitants, if you take "all" literally it means everyone who lives in this geographical area, in which case anyone (not just indigenous) who lives there is a part of the host community. Again, the definition mentions nothing about being indigenous one way or the other. By default "all inhabitants" would make the Ashkenazi who live there a part of the host community, regardless of origin. Don't let the all distort your comprehension. Focus on Members of the host community have responsibilities that include governing the place and can be regarded as those who have or continue to define its particular cultural identity, lifestyle The Ashkenazi, as a subculture, did not contribute to the cultural identity of the region, which is why they are not to be considered the host community even though they are indigenous to that area.

Quote :

"I'll be honest with you, I only read the abstracts of your 3 linked studies before."

Apparently you haven't really done more than that now, or you only have a very elementary understanding of genetics.

What escaped your comprehension was probably that the articles mentioned Y chromosomal links, and that the majority of the Ashkenazi population has these markers, thus representing a distant connection the middle east and a majority of the group sharing this marker while some don't have it at all.

I believe you are mistaking this maker for genetic admixture, they are two distinct entities. If you have a european white male born who then moves to africa and marries a nigerian black woman and has a son, who then has a son, who then has a son, who then has a son, and then lastly, another son all who were born to native nigerians then you have a male with 1/32 european blood and the remainder african. However, if you test his genetic markers his Y chromosome will show as european even though he is significantly composed of blood from the native area. I also think it is interesting to note that 30% or so Ashkenazi don't have even these slight genetic connections to the middle east.

It is unfortunate that your misunderstanding regarding the nature of genetic testing allowed you to consider me as dishonest even though i explicitly stated this issue when the articles were posted.

Quote :

"It would appear that there is significant admixture when examining contributing haplotypes to Ashkenazis. However there is little variation in Y chromosomal contribution indicating a small group of middle eastern men"

[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM. Reason : quote myself]

7/26/2010 10:56:48 AM

Quote :

"Moved from place to place, not considered citizens but rather enemies within wherever they went, experienced genocide...sound very similar to me. Perhaps you can enlighten me with how they are distinctively different situations."

You've pointed out some vague and superficial things that they have in common. This is a strawman argument.

Quote :

"Members of the host community have responsibilities that include governing the place and can be regarded as those who have or continue to define its particular cultural identity, lifestyle The Ashkenazi, as a subculture, did not contribute to the cultural identity of the region, which is why they are not to be considered the host community even though they are indigenous to that area."

Exactly. They never fully integrated because their european neighbors always viewed them as foreign refugees in their land. No one in europe saw them as indigenous at the time and would undoubtedly find fault with you labeling them as such now.

Quote :

"Apparently you haven't really done more than that now, or you only have a very elementary understanding of genetics."

Ok. If you'd like to play that game then I have no problem quoting your own links.

Your first one is solely a study of bottlenecks in the ashkenazi population and even gives you some numbers for admixture:

Quote :

"When these diagnostic haplogroups were used for analysis, the my value was 8.1%±11.4%, suggesting an even smaller contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazi paternal gene pool than in the previous study by Hammer et al. (2000)."

Quote :

"The admixture analysis shown in Table 6 suggests that 5%–8% of the Ashkenazi gene pool is, indeed, comprised of Y chromosomes that may have introgressed from non-Jewish European populations."

Figure 6 makes this all very clear. On the last page you compared askenazis to "a guy who is 1/16 native american and the rest white" being considered indigenous to the US. By your logic, I take it that someone who is 1/16 european and the rest middle eastern shouldn't be considered indigenous to europe.

Your second link is suggesting that the jewish men who founded the ashkenazi communities brought women with them instead of just knocking up shiksas when they got there.

Quote :

"Until now, it had been widely assumed by geneticists that the Ashkenazi communities of Northern and Central Europe were founded by men who came from the Middle East, perhaps as traders, and by the women from each local population whom they took as wives and converted to Judaism. But the new study, published online this week in The American Journal of Human Genetics, suggests that the men and their wives migrated to Europe together."

Again, this does not support your claim.

Your third link is just a study of middle eastern genetic differences. Sadly, this one doesn't help your argument either:

Quote :

"Many of the Jewish diaspora communities were separated from each other for hundreds of years. Therefore, some divergence due to genetic drift and/or admixture could be expected. However, although Ashkenazi Jews were found to differ slightly from Sephardic and Kurdish Jews, it is noteworthy that there is, overall, a high degree of genetic affinity among the three Jewish communities. Moreover, neither Ashkenazi nor Sephardic Jews cluster adjacent to their former host populations, a finding that argues against substantial admixture of males. These findings are in accordance with those described by Hammer et al. (2000)."

Hell, just check out wikipedia. It includes links to various studies that all contradict you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#DNA_clues

If you'd like, you can also check out the Hammer study that keeps being mentioned as well:

Quote :

"To address the degree to which paternal gene flow may have affected the Jewish gene pool, we estimated approximate admixture levels in our Jewish samples from Europe. This question remains unresolved in particular for the Ashkenazi community. Our results indicated a relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim. If we assume 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, then the rate of admixture would be <0.5% per generation."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/?tool=pmcentrez

7/26/2010 1:26:33 PM

Quote :

"You've pointed out some vague and superficial things that they have in common. This is a strawman argument."

You have as of yet to explain how the situations are different and are outright ignoring evidence to the contrary. If the only way you can move past a comment for which you have no answer is by stating "strawman" and then not capable of providing any evidence to support even that claim it appears as if you're resulting to cognitive dissonance as a defense mechanism.

Quote :

"They never fully integrated because their european neighbors always viewed them as foreign refugees in their land."

Again claims you fail to support. Your conclusion as to why the Jews were never fully integrated is based purely around conjecture and desperation, and is outright wrong. Jews never fully integrated into the community because they separated themselves to maintain an independent culture that was largely based around their religion. The clear lacking substance in your conclusion and argument suggest that you quickly make up a response based on what you think will support your point. You'd be just as effective saying "uh huh uh huh is too is too is too"

Quote :

"Your first one is solely a study of bottlenecks in the ashkenazi population and even gives you some numbers for admixture:"

This is the exact conceptual error that I suggested you were making. You have again confused Y chromosome traits with genetic admixture. I described for you above why they are not the same. Read what you quoted and then read what I wrote above. When you've educated yourself on the matter we can continue this conversation.

Quote :

"On the last page you compared askenazis to "a guy who is 1/16 native american and the rest white" being considered indigenous to the US. By your logic, I take it that someone who is 1/16 european and the rest middle eastern shouldn't be considered indigenous to europe."

I agree, a 1/16 native american should not be considered indigenous. A 1/16th native american can have a largely native american y chromosome that is all but indistinguishable from a full blood, yet they are still not indigenous. Conversely someone who has only a foreign Y chromosome marker and blood is otherwise of native then they should be considered indigenous. The Ashkenazi fall into this latter category. However, you'll probably say this is all moot since natives and ashkenazi are entirely different and such a comparison at all is nothing more than a strawman, regardless of validity.

Quote :

"Your second link is suggesting that the jewish men who founded the ashkenazi communities brought women with them instead of just knocking up shiksas when they got there. "

Again something I already brought up myself and mentioned. If you actually read the articles, that is instead of scanning for things you mistakenly thought were supporting your position, you'd notice that articles 1 and 3 explicitly state that mostly men came and the AJ women lack the mitochondrial traits of middle eastern origin. In addition to that information that has already been posted in this thread information was posted stating that the dutch AJ have mitochondrial middle eastern traits but do not have Y chromosomal traits. Article 2, while noting the mainstream accepted perspective to the contrary, was the only study to any female migration. One of the main reasons I included that article based on the attributes of the dutch matching this female point of origin.

It is amusing how incredibly selective you are being in your quotations, especially since you called me dishonest although I acknowledged out right various tidbits of the linked information.

Also regarding the wikipedia article, you again made selective quotations, all of which are AGAIN related to the Y chromosome marker, and not actual blood. See other wikipedia information below.

Quote :

"Like most DNA studies of human migration patterns, these studies have focused on...the Y chromosome (passed on only by males), and the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA, passed on only by females)...unaffected by recombination they provide an indicator of paternal and maternal origins "

Do you comprehend how this is different from blood quantum?

Quote :

"The authors also report on Eu 19 chromosomes, which are very frequent in Eastern Europeans (54%-60%) at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. They hypothesized that these chromosomes could reflect low-level gene flow from surrounding Eastern European populations, or, alternatively, that both the Ashkenazi Jews with Eu 19, and to a much greater extent Eastern European populations in general, might partly be descendants of Khazars."

Quote :

" multiple origins for Ashkenazi Levites, a priestly class who comprise approximately 4% of Ashkenazi Jews. It found that Haplogroup R1a, uncommon in the Middle East or among Sephardic Jews, originating in Central Asia and dominant in Eastern Europe, is present in over 50% of Ashkenazi Levites"

Quote :

" David Goldstein, now of Duke University, reported in 2002 that, unlike male lineages, the female lineages in Ashkenazi Jewish communities "did not seem to be Middle Eastern", and that each community had its own genetic pattern and even that "in some cases the mitochondrial DNA was closely related to that of the host community."

This next quote is in a part where a researcher has found some mitochondrial middle eastern origin of the Ashkeanazi. Four women, to be specific. The parts I find most interesting have been bolded for emphasis.

Quote :

" we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews ~40%, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only four women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews"

So you have a group of people where less than half show any middle maternal middle eastern origin, the origins that do exist come from only 4 people and the native middle eastern jews lack this mitochondrial marker.

There isn't much evidence pointing to anything other than the Ashkenazi being european.


Allow me to ask you a question. When you look at an Ashkenazi do you see someone who is european or do you see someone who resembles those in the middle east? Do you honestly believe that Ashkenazi are free of notable european blood quantum?

7/26/2010 4:02:45 PM

Quote :

"You have as of yet to explain how the situations are different and are outright ignoring evidence to the contrary."

What evidence? You've said that they moved, weren't considered citizens, and experienced genocide. It sounds like they also have a lot in common with Jawas and blue fin tuna. This is a strawman.

Quote :

"Jews never fully integrated into the community because they separated themselves to maintain an independent culture that was largely based around their religion."

They never integrated because europeans weren't trusting of foreigners, especially foreigners who killed their messiah. Failure to integrate has far more to do with animosity than it does with cultural differences. Just look at the expulsion of jews from various kingdoms, allegations of blood libel, judensau, the long history of pogroms in europe, the list goes on and on.

Quote :

"This is the exact conceptual error that I suggested you were making. You have again confused Y chromosome traits with genetic admixture. I described for you above why they are not the same. Read what you quoted and then read what I wrote above."

I understand it perfectly. Do you? I suggest you read the study. It makes very concrete observations about admixture that directly contradict your position.

Quote :

"If you actually read the articles, that is instead of scanning for things you mistakenly thought were supporting your position, you'd notice that articles 1 and 3 explicitly state that mostly men came and the AJ women lack the mitochondrial traits of middle eastern origin."

Where? I couldn't find such a claim in either.

Quote :

"Article 2, while noting the mainstream accepted perspective to the contrary, was the only study to any female migration. One of the main reasons I included that article based on the attributes of the dutch matching this female point of origin."

Noting? Article 2 accepted and supported the "mainstream accepted perspective", by which I assume you mean the result of the Hammer study. It doesn't mention the dutch at all, rather it suggests that the mtDNA differences are a result of genetic drift.

Quote :

"Also regarding the wikipedia article, you again made selective quotations, all of which are AGAIN related to the Y chromosome marker, and not actual blood."

I didn't quote anything from wikipedia, rather I suggested you look at it because it presented a number of other genetic studies that contradicted you.

Quote :

"The authors also report on Eu 19 chromosomes, which are very frequent in Eastern Europeans (54%-60%) at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews. They hypothesized that these chromosomes could reflect low-level gene flow from surrounding Eastern European populations, or, alternatively, that both the Ashkenazi Jews with Eu 19, and to a much greater extent Eastern European populations in general, might partly be descendants of Khazars."

Low-level gene flow or an increased role of Khazars in eastern europe. This really doesn't prove anything, other than that 1/8 of ashkenazis have these chromosomes. However, Eu 19 is present in 4% of sephardic and kurdish jews (interestingly in only 1.4% of palestinian arabs), so I wouldn't rule out genetic drift playing some role.

Quote :

" multiple origins for Ashkenazi Levites, a priestly class who comprise approximately 4% of Ashkenazi Jews. It found that Haplogroup R1a, uncommon in the Middle East or among Sephardic Jews, originating in Central Asia and dominant in Eastern Europe, is present in over 50% of Ashkenazi Levites, while the rest of Ashkenazi Levites' paternal lineage is of Middle Eastern origin. Behar suggests a founding event, probably involving one or very few European men, occurring at a time close to the initial formation and settlement of the Ashkenazi community as a possible explanation. Ashkenazi and Sephardic Cohanim and Israelites, on the other hand, were found to share the same genetic signature, originating in the Middle East 2000 years earlier"

I included the rest of the paragraph that you decided to leave off. Regardless, you've got one very small subgroup which may lead to 2% of ashkenazi having some european lineage. Wowzers.

Your last quote in that block is just rehashing your second article, which I've already been over.

But then you left off this gem:

Quote :

"In addition, Behar et al. have suggested that the rest of Ashkenazi mtDNA is originated from ~150 women, most of those likely of Middle Eastern origin."

Quote :

"There isn't much evidence pointing to anything other than the Ashkenazi being european."

Well, only if you count modern science as evidence.

But please, continue trying to explain away your bigotry by cherry picking data from studies that contradict you and then present them out of context in a condescending manner. Surely that will fool everyone.

7/26/2010 6:19:56 PM

Quote :

" What evidence? You've said that they moved, weren't considered citizens, and experienced genocide. It sounds like they also have a lot in common with Jawas and blue fin tuna. This is a strawman."

I offered historical comparisons of the two groups in discussion to provide situational context in response to you suggesting the two groups are two entirely different situations. You have in no way, despite being asked directly, provide information to support your initial claim or address my response to your claim. You are either with limited thought and substance on this matter, or intentionally creating misdirection. Both are just as underwhelming and callow.

Quote :

" They never integrated because europeans weren't trusting of foreigners, especially foreigners who killed their messiah. Failure to integrate has far more to do with animosity than it does with cultural differences. Just look at the expulsion of jews from various kingdoms, allegations of blood libel, judensau, the long history of pogroms in europe, the list goes on and on. "

You are mistaking the symptom for the cause. The Jewish communities separated themselves in order to participate in a culture differing from the remainder of their counterparts. This act of seclusion resulted in suspicion and accusations that arose from imaginations that ran wild as a result of countrymen questioning this seclusion. I find it interesting that you considered presenting a list of historical events as a categorical solidification of your assumption. As a history major I would suspect that you know to evaluate situational context and evaluate how those events arose from that context. A proper comparison and use of supporting evidence would be to identify a group that assimilated to the majority culture of their community but were still ostracized as foreigners and treated with such suspicion in medieval Europe as the jewish population.

Quote :

" I understand it perfectly. Do you? I suggest you read the study. It makes very concrete observations about admixture that directly contradict your position."

It is obvious that you don’t. The article mentions Y chromosomal admixture for the AJ group. Not blood quantum admixture in the individual. While I am not responsible for your failure to grasp the concept, I will continue to help elucidate you.

Quote :

" Where? I couldn't find such a claim in either."

Give the other items to which you have been unaware I will take you at your word.


Behar

Quote :

" Demographic data provide evidence for a dramatic expansion in size; from an estimated number of ~25,000 in 1300 AD, the Ashkenazi population had grown to more than 8.5 million by the beginning of the 19th century (Weinryb 1972)."

So you’re suggesting the population increased by 340x in 500 years without significant intermarriage?

Quote :

" It doesn't mention the dutch at all"

Quote :

" In particular, the Dutch Jewish population had a relatively high frequency of the R-P25 haplogroup, which predominates in western European non-Jews."

Quote :

" Because of the apparently high level of admixture in Dutch Jews (my value of 46.0%}18.3%),"

Quote :

" In particular, the Dutch AJ population appears to have experienced relatively high levels of European non-Jewish admixture"

Quote :

" Dutch Jews do not appear to have increased levels of European mtDNA introgression (Behar et al. 2004), suggesting that admixture in this population is mainly the result of higher rates of intermarriage between Jewish woman and non-Jewish men."

Quote :

" an increased role of Khazars in eastern europe. This really doesn't prove anything"

From the NIH

Quote :

" Alternatively, it is attractive to hypothesize that Ashkenazim with Eu 19 chromosomes … originally a Turkic tribe from Central Asia, who settled in southern Russia and eastern Ukraine and converted en masse to Judaism… A.D[/QUOTE] I would say that this indicates blood quantum not matching the population of those from the region of modern day israel. Especially when considering even the chromosomal markers differentiate significantly from, say, even Kurdish Jews [quote] I included the rest of the paragraph that you decided to leave off. Regardless, you've got one very small subgroup which may lead to 2% of ashkenazi having some european lineage."

I have repeatedly copied information from the provided articles that indicates groups up to 20% (and in the high 40s if you count Dutch Jews) that are lacking Y chromosomal markers. If you wish to bank on other people not reading the articles for the information that has been cited and instead continue to claim as if you have not seen it then by all means continue to do so.

Quote :

" But then you left off this gem:"

I didn’t mean to offend by that, but I can see how that could be viewed as intentional. Since the statement says that there were 150 women total, and that a subset of these 150 are only likely to be middle eastern I did not consider it conclusive

7/27/2010 9:47:44 AM

Quote :

"I did not consider it conclusive"

Also, it contradicted your opinion.

7/27/2010 10:21:50 AM

Quote :

"You are either with limited thought and substance on this matter, or intentionally creating misdirection. Both are just as underwhelming and callow."

Not really. I was always really bad at getting up early and signing up for classes so I always ended up taking the leftover courses to fulfill my history degree. Sadly, this entailed many courses on native american history (and the african slave trade), so I'm surprisingly knowledgeable about the plight of native americans. I'd be happy to discuss it with you in another thread, though not here, because it would add absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand. Like I said, it is a strawman.

Quote :

"You are mistaking the symptom for the cause. The Jewish communities separated themselves in order to participate in a culture differing from the remainder of their counterparts."

I could just as easily say that you're mistaking the cause for a symptom. You've provided absolutely no evidence otherwise aside from your own admittedly biased speculation.

Quote :

"The article mentions Y chromosomal admixture for the AJ group. Not blood quantum admixture in the individual."

Just to be clear, I'm referencing the discussion section titled "Admixture Estimates". This is what makes very concrete observations about admixture that directly contradict your position. Let's just go ahead and drop this antiquated "blood quantum" BS until one of us tries to join the Sioux nation.

Quote :

"Give the other items to which you have been unaware I will take you at your word."

This was in response to my questioning your claim that "you'd notice that articles 1 and 3 explicitly state that mostly men came and the AJ women lack the mitochondrial traits of middle eastern origin".

Then you post this:

Quote :

"Demographic data provide evidence for a dramatic expansion in size; from an estimated number of ~25,000 in 1300 AD, the Ashkenazi population had grown to more than 8.5 million by the beginning of the 19th century (Weinryb 1972).""

This says absolutely nothing about men coming and the AJ women lacking mitochondrial traits of ME origin, explicitly or otherwise. It doesn't even imply what you're trying to see here. You're really grasping at straws.

Quote :

"So you’re suggesting the population increased by 340x in 500 years without significant intermarriage?"

That rate of growth is below the current 1.2% world growth rate. It would be possible without intermarriage.

Then you quote me as saying that it doesn't mention the Dutch; this was in reference to your false claim about the second article. You then proceeded to quote other articles that mention dutch jews. Despite your quote bombing, article 2 doesn't mention dutch jews once. Regardless, it contradicts your position.

Quote :

"I would say that this indicates blood quantum not matching the population of those from the region of modern day israel. Especially when considering even the chromosomal markers differentiate significantly from, say, even Kurdish Jews"

That's funny. Your own article states that:

Quote :

"...although Ashkenazi Jews were found to differ slightly from Sephardic and Kurdish Jews, it is noteworthy that there is, overall, a high degree of genetic affinity among the three Jewish communities."

Weird that you would say that they differ "significantly" but an article that you cited says that they only "differ slightly".

Quote :

"If you wish to bank on other people not reading the articles for the information that has been cited and instead continue to claim as if you have not seen it then by all means continue to do so."

Where have I done this? You'll assert that an article says something that it doesn't, I'll point out that the article says no such thing, and then you'll quote an entirely different source or quote something irrelevant and pretend that it's applicable. I'm just impressed that you became an expert in genetics while only being semi-literate. It's actually quite breathtaking.

7/27/2010 1:35:50 PM

Quote :

" Like I said, it is a strawman."

We evidently disagree on the significance of the comparison which is why you suggest it is a strawman and I disagree. I m entertained that you chose to share an anecdote professing you have a profound knowledge of native american history, yet chose not to point out how the comparisons differ. Interesting you'd choose that path.

Quote :

"I could just as easily say that you're mistaking the cause for a symptom. You've provided absolutely no evidence otherwise aside from your own admittedly biased speculation."

There is a substantial difference between the formation of your opinion and the assertion of my conclusion. I provided a scenario in which you conclusion would hold true, however, since I have not seen any evidence to support that possibility that lends further credibility to the the basis of my conclusion while yours lacks any semblance of a foundation.

Quote :

" "Admixture Estimates". This is what makes very concrete observations about admixture that directly contradict your position. Let's just go ahead and drop this antiquated "blood quantum" BS until one of us tries to join the Sioux nation."

The admixture estimates is specifically referencing the groups and variation in Y chromosomes. This is different from blood. I can understand why you would suggest "blood quantum" as antiquated, but there is a fundamental difference between Y chromosome matching and actual mixture by blood. Do you view someone with an african Y chromosome match but is 527/528 whtie to be white black? You can choose to ignore this question too as you've ignored many others directly.

Quote :

"This was in response to my questioning your claim that "you'd notice that articles 1 and 3 explicitly state that mostly men came and the AJ women lack the mitochondrial traits of middle eastern origin""

Quote :

"This says absolutely nothing about men coming and the AJ women lacking mitochondrial traits of ME origin, explicitly or otherwise. It doesn't even imply what you're trying to see here. You're really grasping at straws."

Thats my fault. I went down to include something else from my article and failed to come back and address it. The reason that second bit of information was below it had nothing to do with me attempting to connect that information with another discussion.

Quote :

"That rate of growth is below the current 1.2% world growth rate. It would be possible without intermarriage."

You know that the growth rate now doesn't compare at all with the growth rate then, especially when considering mortality rates. Even the articles repeatedly mention multiple founding events of group mixing. Who is the one really grasping at straws?

Quote :

" Despite your quote bombing, article 2 doesn't mention dutch jews once"

I never said article two mentions dutch jews. I pointed out that article two was interesting because that article focuses on middle eastern women coming which is contrary to mainstream analysis. I found it interesting that ME women Mitochondrial genes were found since the Dutch, as mentioned in other articles, lack Y chromosomal connections but have the mitochondrial ones. I have stated that fact at least two other times.

Quote :

"Weird that you would say that they differ "significantly" but an article that you cited says that they only "differ slightly"."

You evidently have reading issues. Before my quoted I stated the source for you to make it easier. This is what the NIH says

Quote :

"The investigation of the genetic relationship among three Jewish communities revealed that Kurdish and Sephardic Jews were indistinguishable from one another, whereas both differed slightly, yet significantly, from Ashkenazi Jews"

Quote :

"Where have I done this? You'll assert that an article says something that it doesn't, I'll point out that the article says no such thing, and then you'll quote an entirely different source or quote something irrelevant"

I've quoted the articles in this thread verbatim multiple times, i've only used the same three sources until you brought in wikipedia, and the irrelevant quote was an error on my part which I openly acknowledged. Regardless, you have shown evidence of my prior claim multiple times in your most recent post alone.

7/27/2010 6:14:06 PM