Re: I Obey JTEM

Your countless posts speak for them selfs, but you know that.

Another evidence of Matt's stupidity.

You are the bible thumper here, have you ever contribute to any any
topic outside of jews and bible? Dont think so.

    You are invited to present all the specific examples you have. As you have
none, attacking the messenger is used instead of dealing with the message.

    igor arrived only a few months ago. How could igor know? igor like hump?

    Which you bible thumpers do not as the bible is not history.

It is obvious that Matt is anti-jewish to the core. I bet he blames
jews for everything that went wrong in his personal life. He repeats
same bullshit over and over again for years, no matter how much
evidence presented refuting his every single claim,  its boring, come
on Matt, come up with something interesting for a change, will you?
JTEM is lacking excitement in his personal life so he looks for it on
Usenet  by contradicting everyone about everything, this way he gets
attention, he is a clown.
I learned quite a few things form other posters replying to them, so
they do have their purpose on SHA.

You will have noticed, of course, that my original post on this thread
made no mention of Jews (it solely discussed the concepts of
haplogroups, modal types, what they were and how they could be dated),
but did predict trolling from JTEM and Matt. And, guess what! Mind
you, it was a safe bet they'd never actually READ the post. For
starters, they can't read. For another, they're much too interested in
bashing to actually discuss anything.

Sure, I referred to the Cohen Modal Type. I also referred to the R
haplogroup and the modal type for that. In neither case did I describe
any ethic, racial or religious group to those modal types. This was
something Matt and JTEM added all on their own, with no outside help.
Which goes to show one thing - they're obsessive as hell. Instead of a
rational debate about what might be meant by the genetics, the Two
Trolls Of SHA were much too busy tilting at windmills.

Bleh.

Yes.

Idiot.

No, your simple mind cant understand the extent of the issue.
Canaanites or Phoenicians as Greeks used to call them constitute a
large portion of Jewish etnos and so do many Europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardium_Pottery

Listen, you f.cking idiot, you have no idea what you're
talking about, and you have no business even attempting
it.

The whole point of the "Cohen Modal Type" is that the
vast majority of Jews -- oh, 90% or more -- don't match
it. In fact, most of those claiming to be "descendants
of Aaron" don't have it. But, PLENTY of non-Jews do!

So, what does it "prove"? Absolutely NOTHING. What
does it suggest? That the vast majority of Jews either
intermarried with their local non-Jewish populations, or
are descendant from latter day converts.

The following page lists the mutation rates for various short tandem
repeats (STRs) in the Y chromosome. These mutations are used to track
the movement of populations over time.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~geneticgenealogy/ratestuff.htm

(It turns out, from very recent studies, that the very slow-mutating
STRs vary in their mutation rate over time, so this table is not 100%
correct, but it's good enough for the timescales we're concerned with.
Those changes are only important to those studying humanity back tens
or hundreds of thousands of years.)

The way it works is simple enough. There is an equal (roughly)
probability of an STR lengthening or shortening, so the standard modal
type (the mode of the frequency of the various STRs across the whole
of a population) will - for a statistically large enough population -
be identical to the founder's STR's. (There will only ever be one
founder for a given SMT, as the Y chromosome is inherited along the
male line only.)

A given STR is known as a genetic marker and the number of times it
occurs is the value of that marker.

Because values can both increase and decrease, it's not just a simple
matter of looking at a handful of markers to see where someone fits
in. Even the broadest classifications usually require about 12
markers, and generally nobody trusts a result under 37 markers, and
most serious investigators go into the 67+ range.

However, STRs aren't the only thing people check these days. It's long-
since evolved into hunts for single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism

Again, these are inherited along the male line, and as with STRs, they
change very slowly. If a person has an identified grouping of STRs and
SNPs, there is no serious question of them having a direct common
ancestor along the paternal line with every single person with those
same STRs and SNPs. By looking at the mutation rates of the various
STRs, and by examining when specific SNPs appear, it is possible to
build a very sparse but entirely sound family tree of haplogroups. An
example for the R haplogroups can be found here:

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR09.html

You can then calculate the time to the most recent common ancestor of
any two people with the same haplogroup, by looking at the precise
differences in the more rapidly-changing markers and the probability
of those changes happening. What you end up with is a probability
curve that obviously can't extend beyond the age of that given
haplogroup. This curve tells you the probability that this most recent
common ancestor appeared more recently than a given amount of time
back. You can further refine the curve by taking into account what you
know about your family tree and therefore what you can exclude as
possibilities.

A similar technique exists for mitochondrial DNA, which is only
inherited on the female line, but the haplogroups for that tend to be
much more ancient. This makes it great for validating where ancient
populations as a whole were at a given time, but it's less useful for
genealogical work at this time.

(Although there has been some good work done since on non-European
populations, a good introduction is Syke's book "Seven Daughters of
Eve", named for the seven haplogroups he identified as stemming from
Mitochondrial Eve, the earliest woman we can uniquely identify through
mtDNA.)

Now, with respect to the people of the near East, the page of interest
is this one:

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpJ09.html

Now, remember boys and girls, displacement from the modal type means
you are no longer of the modal type, so nobody who belongs to ANY
haplogroup for which there has been a mutation on ANY marker out of
those used for the Cohen Modal Type =OR= carries an SNP belonging
specifically to a haplogroup whose modal type is NOT of the Cohen
Modal Type is Cohen Modal Type.

As the CMT occurs in both J1 and J2 (but not J), there is a precursor
haplogroup currently unidentified that is common to J1 and J2 and
descended from J that this modal type appears in. The majority of
descendent haplogroups will have mutated off the modal type. Since J1
and J2 spawn off it, and there are no other J lines, there's clearly a
genetic bottleneck at the time the CMT appears, at least within the J
haplogroup, and may extend back indefinitely into J but no further
back than that. There is nothing significant in any other haplogroup
at the time, so no planetary disaster need be considered, but clearly
there's a regional problem and it only affects these people, not other
populations in the region at the time.

I will leave it to others to bicker and squabble over how to interpret
the data, though doubtless those most inclined to bicker and squabble
will neither reference the data nor make use of it. Doubtless, too,
we'll see repeated arguments over what "modal" means, who knew what
when, and who defined what how, but that sort of trash is best left to
the experts on trash. Those interested in the science can reach their
own conclusions, WHETHER OR NOT THOSE AGREE WITH ANYONE ELSE'S VIEW.
There is no requirement to adhere to a specific viewpoint in science,
merely an obligation to use the best data available and a gentlemen's
agreement to respect when that data contradicts a cherished belief.

How does this impact history, which is written, not bred? Well, it's
quite fascinating. It turns out that technology and culture flow quite
independently of populations. Since culture includes traditions and
socially-maintained belief systems, and technology leaves the
artefacts, this can seriously screw with written histories and
archaeology in unpredictable ways. As a result, genetic archaeology
(studying the genetic markers of the DNA found in human bones and hair
from archaeological sites) is proving important in unscrambling the
omelette.