Doug Weller (talk | contribs) →Disputes: tired of the pov editing |
Historylover4 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
:I agree that it shouldn't be in. I love the "academic professsor" - a nice contrast I guess to "unacademic professor"? This POV editing is getting tiresome. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 20:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
:I agree that it shouldn't be in. I love the "academic professsor" - a nice contrast I guess to "unacademic professor"? This POV editing is getting tiresome. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 20:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
What shouldn't be in an actual professional article is someone like Skorecki and company and their fake "cohanim haplotype" claims that have been shown to be completely farcical. Professor Sergio Tofanelli and company at the [[University of Pisa]] showed Skorecki (and his cult followers) have no case to start as their supposed jocular "cohanim haplotype" is much older than 4,500 years old and is as much as 8,600 years old. Making it impossible for it to match any "Biblical" character from the start; as Skorecki and his devotees want to claim. Professor Shlomo Sand showed that, along with Professor Uzi Ritte debunking this supposed "marker", among other issues with Skorekci's claims are: "The amusing aspect of this story is that the 'priestly gene' could just as easily be a 'non-Jewish gene.' Since Judaism is inherited from the mother, it is not far-fetched to appropriate since the nineteenth century a good many of non-believing priests have married 'gentile' women, although the Halakhah forbids them to do so. These priests may have fathered 'non-Jewish' offspring, who, according to Skorecki's research, would bear the 'genetic seal' of the priests." Showing more of the ridiculousness of Skorecki (a highly questionable "source") and his "research" (versus say unbiased individuals Professor Uzi Ritte, Professor Sergio Tofanelli, etc). The biases of individuals like Skorecki are further analyzed and exposed by writers like [[Katya Gibel Mevorach]] and her insightful piece "Not an Innocent Pursuit: The Politics of a 'Jewish' Genetic Signature." To conclude I bring sources that should be included, as any honest person can clearly see.[[User:Historylover4|Historylover4]] ([[User talk:Historylover4|talk]]) 03:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:22, 14 August 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Genetics
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
For earlier discussions, see the Archive box to the right.
It is clear that someone edited the article trying to prove that a full 6/6 match in J1 means nothing and can be found in many populations who have no cohen ancestry. The author also states that this is "clear now". But he gives no sources stating or proving that a full 6/6 match can be found in non jewish populations just as often as in jewish cohen populations. There are only studies that prove that jewish people or people who claim jewish ancestry, just like the lemba in south africa, have the highest amounts of full 6/6 matches in J1. Nor arabs, nor any other non-jewish group, have the same high amounts of full 6/6 matches, not even close to. So this statement is totally false and should be deleted. Very unscientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.24.184 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
6/6 match alone is irrelevant since it occurs in many haplogroups J1,J2,E and also in R1b ,and R1a. What account is in which haplogroup the 6/6 match lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.184.161 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- What is not widely reported is that only 48% of Ashkenazi Cohanim and 58% of Sephardic Cohanim have the J1 Cohen Modal Haplotype (Skorecki et al. 1997).
- So nearly half of them Ashkenazi Cohanim results are in haplogroups other than J1. Overall, J1 constitutes 14.6% of the Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of the Sephardic results (Semino et al. 2004). Nor is Cohanim status dependent on a finding of haplogroup J1
- Additionally, many other haplogroups among the Ashkenazim, and among the Cohanim in particular, appear to be of Israelite/Middle Eastern origin.
- According to Behar (2003), the Cohanim possess an unusually high frequency of haplogroup J in general, reported to comprise nearly 87% of the total Cohanim results. Among the Sephardim, the frequency of 75% is also notably high (Behar 2003). Both groups have dramatically lower percentages of other haplogroups, including haplogroup E. Given the high frequency of haplogroup J among Ashkenazi Cohanim, it appears that J2 may be only slightly less common than J1, perhaps indicating multiple J lineages among the priestly Cohanim dating back to the ancient Israelite kingdom.
- However, J1 is the only haplogroup that researchers consider “Semitic” in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations, with a very low frequency in Italy and Greece as well (Semino et al. 2004).The group’s origins are thought to be in the southern Levant. Its presence among contemporary Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations indicates the preservation of Israelite Semitic ancestry, despite their long settlement in Europe and North Africa. Further, the CMH is considered the putative ancestral haplotype of haplogroup J1 (Di Giacomo et al. 2004).
- Table 1 compares the Jewish J1 CMH to the J1 modal haplotypes of other Middle Eastern populations:
- Table 1
- Modal Haplotypes* in J1 Populations
- Please see the document. It shows how the Haplotype differs from the Haplotype of the Bedouins (DYS388&393] and the Palestinians (DYS,388,390,&393).
- A Mosaic of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence, E. Levy-Coffman - Journal of Genetic Genealogy, 2005
- http://jewsandjoes.com/dnajewshapq.pdf http://jogg.info/11/coffman.pdf
- The paper deals with the issues of E, R1b ,and R1a in detail.
- Let me know of your response here on my comments section of my talk page, please. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- To respond to the original poster first:
- The article merely reports what the numbers say about a 6/6 match. If you're Jewish and you have a 6/6 match, just based on that data, the chances that you have male-line Cohen ancestry go up from about 5% to about 25%. That figure comes out as a trade-off between two things (see Bayesian inference for more details). On the one hand, the proportion of Cohens who have a 6/6 match for the CMH is much higher than in the general Jewish population; but on the other hand, the general Jewish population is much bigger than the Cohen population, so a priori you're much less likely to be a Cohen. Doing the maths to trade-off between these two gives the (roughly) 25% figure.
- So it's not the case that a full 6/6 match "means nothing". But even if you are Jewish, it is not conclusive proof -- it doesn't even make it more likely than not.
- If you are not Jewish, because the 6/6 match can occur by coincidence, even though it may be rare, it is much more likely that that is indeed what has happened, rather than it indicating Cohen ancestry.
- More on this can be found at e.g. Base rate fallacy. It is something very important to take account of in, for example, medical tests. Suppose a test is 100% accurate in the sense that it has no false negatives -- the test will register positive for everyone who has the condition. But suppose it has a 1% rate for false positives -- i.e. so that if you don't have the condition, the test might come up positive. Now suppose the condition occurs in the population at a rate of 1 in a million. If you test 1 million people, the (statistically average) 1 person with the condition will test positive. But so will 10,000 people without it. So even with a positive result from a test that specific, the odds against having the condition may still be 10,000 to 1 against. That is essentially the point that was being made about the significance of a 6/6 match in a non-Jewish person.
- In response to the second anonymous poster:
- You are essentially right. A 6/6 match won't actually occur in haplogroups E, R1a or R1b -- the STR values in those groups tend to be very different. But it could occur in haplogroup J1 or J2. And the tightly-related Cohen ancestry which matches 6/6 comes from haplogroup J1.
- So testing the haplogroup does give important additional information. I don't have access to the numbers to calculate the updated odds -- possibly they could be dug out from some of the papers that have been published; but the updated odds of having Cohen ancestry, given that you are Jewish, 6/6 for the CMH, and a member of J1, probably are significantly higher than 25% (given the numbers one could work it out) -- though the odds will still not be 100%, because there are some Jewish J1 6/6 people who don't match the tightly-related Cohen ancestry when you look at more markers. (See for example the tables of people's detailed STR results at the FTDNA haplogroup J project). So one could only really be confidently sure of a close relation to that particular ancestry having tested more markers. Jheald (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Finally, JohnLloydScharf makes a very good point, underlining that we now can clearly recognise that there are several different ancient ancestries with a very ancient Cohen connection. The J1 ancestry that matches the CMH may be the ancestry that is most numerically prevalent amongst modern-day Cohens, but it is not the only ancient Cohen ancestry.
- The other thing that is important to recognise is that the ancient Israelites were not genetically homogenous -- there was haplogroup J1 there, haplogroup J2, haplogroup E, probably some haplogroup R1a, and others. Ancient Israel was made up of many haplogroups, and it is likely that several haplogroups contributed some of the first Kohens.
- I think JohnLloydScharf makes that point; but I'm slightly concerned with the identification of J1 as "the only Semitic haplogroup". The first comment I'd make is that the mutation which defines J1 is a lot older than the time of the ancient Israelites -- perhaps 20,000 years ago, though there are at least two schools of thought on how to estimate when such mutations occurred, which give very different numbers. So it would be very misleading to identify "Semitic" with "ancient Israelite" in this context. Also, since the papers written in the early 2000s some very high rates of haplogroup J1 have been found in the Caucasus; this may speak to an origin further north and further east than previously had been thought. The CMH J1 Cohen ancestry appears to be associated with the J1 subgroup Haplogroup J1c3 (Y-DNA), which may have arisen 9,000 to 10,000 years ago. Current thinking is that the subgroup may have arisen in "northeast Syria, northern Iraq [or] eastern Turkey". J1c3 then appears to have spread out, including west towards the Mediterranean, its descendents mixing with other groups who were already there. Jheald (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Phinehas
Just fixed a quotation attributed to Prof. Scorecky about Phinehas.
I'm also going to remove the word "Zadokites" from a subtitle.
m656 (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Speculations about the ancient Cohen Zadok known from Bible
Just deleted the words "around the times of Zadok, the High Priest that anointed King David".
This looks like a new idea, if not, reference should be provided.
m656 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Where is Italy on the Migration Map?
Since we know that Jews went -- or were taken-- to Rome, why does Italy play no role in the «immigration», i.e. spread of Jews throughout the Western World? That map looks like fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.31.66 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Disputes
Historylover4 (talk · contribs) added the following paragraph:
“ | Academic Professor Uzi Ritte has completely rejected any distinguishing characteristics about the supposed "Cohan Modal haplotype"; "No newspaper bothered to publish the findings of Professor Uzi Ritte, of the Department of Genetics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who had examined the same priestly haplotypes on the Y-chromosome and found nothing distinctive about them."[1]. And further a study by Sergio Tofanelli et al. 2009 (associated with the University of Pisa) says the supposed "Cohan modal haplotype" must be older than 4,500 years old and is around 8,600 years old making it long before the supposed origin of the Cohanim all together. | ” |
If Ritte's view has been ignored in the press, why should we suddenly quote it? Because Shlomo Sand mentions it in The Invention of the Jewish People? This seems to me a clear problem with WP:WEIGHT. As for Tofanelli et al 2009, this would require the full reference before we can add this. I imagine it might be doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.58, but one can't tell for sure. Also, it is a primary research study rather than a secondary source. JFW | T@lk 19:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it shouldn't be in. I love the "academic professsor" - a nice contrast I guess to "unacademic professor"? This POV editing is getting tiresome. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What shouldn't be in an actual professional article is someone like Skorecki and company and their fake "cohanim haplotype" claims that have been shown to be completely farcical. Professor Sergio Tofanelli and company at the University of Pisa showed Skorecki (and his cult followers) have no case to start as their supposed jocular "cohanim haplotype" is much older than 4,500 years old and is as much as 8,600 years old. Making it impossible for it to match any "Biblical" character from the start; as Skorecki and his devotees want to claim. Professor Shlomo Sand showed that, along with Professor Uzi Ritte debunking this supposed "marker", among other issues with Skorekci's claims are: "The amusing aspect of this story is that the 'priestly gene' could just as easily be a 'non-Jewish gene.' Since Judaism is inherited from the mother, it is not far-fetched to appropriate since the nineteenth century a good many of non-believing priests have married 'gentile' women, although the Halakhah forbids them to do so. These priests may have fathered 'non-Jewish' offspring, who, according to Skorecki's research, would bear the 'genetic seal' of the priests." Showing more of the ridiculousness of Skorecki (a highly questionable "source") and his "research" (versus say unbiased individuals Professor Uzi Ritte, Professor Sergio Tofanelli, etc). The biases of individuals like Skorecki are further analyzed and exposed by writers like Katya Gibel Mevorach and her insightful piece "Not an Innocent Pursuit: The Politics of a 'Jewish' Genetic Signature." To conclude I bring sources that should be included, as any honest person can clearly see.Historylover4 (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)