Will the work of Dr. Eran Elhaik change anything?

[abi]

Hmmmm. What Dr. Elhaik actually wrote in his conclusion:

We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including ... Judeans and with ... roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan.

What you wrote that he wrote:

Elhaik merely confirms ... they have zero genetic relation to the ancient Hebrew tribes...



You are misrepresenting his conclusion.

You used the dots to purposely leave out: "Our findings support the Khazarian hypothesis...," which was stated clearly in the conclusion that you posted and it was repeated several times throughout the paper. You also left out: "The genetic similarity between European Jews and Druze therefore supports the Khazarian hypothesis and should not be confused with a Semitic origin, which can be easily distinguished from the non-Semitic origin (fig. 5)...."

This is exactly what David Duke did as well. Remember that ol' "the company you keep" thing?

 

[Shusha]

You used the dots to purposely leave out: "Our findings support the Khazarian hypothesis...," which was stated clearly in the conclusion that you posted and it was repeated several times throughout the paper. You also left out: "The genetic similarity between European Jews and Druze therefore supports the Khazarian hypothesis and should not be confused with a Semitic origin, which can be easily distinguished from the non-Semitic origin (fig. 5)...."

This is exactly what David Duke did as well. Remember that ol' "the company you keep" thing?

But no one is arguing, least of all me, that the Jewish people in the Diaspora mixed with local populations. To assume that they did not is absurd. So it would be expected that the modern Jewish people would have a mixture of various local populations. (Though the stand-in peoples that Dr. Elhaik used are suspect as accurately representing Khazars).

The purpose of this thread is to claim that the Jewish people (none of them) have rights to their historical, ancestral and religious homeland because they are not descendants of the Jewish people who have history, ancestry and religious origins in that territory. And THAT is blatantly, patently, obviously a falsehood.

And knock it off with the David Duke bullshit. Its a transparent and frankly, childish attempt to demonize me by drawing a false comparison between me and a toxic anti-semite. It won't work and just makes you look silly.

 

[abi]

But no one is arguing, least of all me, that the Jewish people in the Diaspora mixed with local populations. To assume that they did not is absurd. So it would be expected that the modern Jewish people would have a mixture of various local populations. (Though the stand-in peoples that Dr. Elhaik used are suspect as accurately representing Khazars).

Be clear. You made a big deal of the conclusion, insinuating you agreed with his work. Do you agree or not?

The purpose of this thread is to claim that the Jewish people (none of them) have rights to their historical, ancestral and religious homeland because they are not descendants of the Jewish people who have history, ancestry and religious origins in that territory. And THAT is blatantly, patently, obviously a falsehood.

Absolute rubbish. Jews have the right because of the UN mandate and a superior military (might is right ring a bell?) through US support.

And knock it off with the David Duke bullshit. Its a transparent and frankly, childish attempt to demonize me by drawing a false comparison between me and a toxic anti-semite. It won't work and just makes you look silly.

If the shoe fits? And judging from comments you made previously about the Jews from Neturei Karta and the other Jews who believe similarly, "a toxic anti-Semite" might fit you pretty well. Do you not hate them for their Jewish beliefs?

 

[rylah]

Abi,

His study is so full of holes it makes me hungry for cheese.

In the meantime I'll mention 3 points:
* 2 fabricated models of Israelites and Khazars
* Sand - as main historic source
* Druze - 180 degrees opposite to what he says, he stopped using them.

p.s. Let me get to the end of the week, when I have a better connection and I'll make this thread a special one, with all the relative links to other studies that contradict his conclusions (one of Your links actually disproves his narrative) - they're grossly unscientific.

 

[Ventura77]

Abi,

His study is so full of holes it makes me hungry for cheese.

In the meantime I'll mention 3 points:
* 2 fabricated models of Israelites and Khazars
* Sand - as main historic source
* Druze - 180 degrees opposite to what he says, he stopped using them.

p.s. Let me get to the end of the week, when I have a better connection and I'll make this thread a special one, with all the relative links to other studies that contradict his conclusions (one of Your links actually disproves his narrative) - they're grossly unscientific.

Oh look...yet another armchair geneticist steps up...can't wait for your research paper refuting Elhaik...ROTFLMAO

 

[rylah]

Abi,

His study is so full of holes it makes me hungry for cheese.

In the meantime I'll mention 3 points:
* 2 fabricated models of Israelites and Khazars
* Sand - as main historic source
* Druze - 180 degrees opposite to what he says, he stopped using them.

p.s. Let me get to the end of the week, when I have a better connection and I'll make this thread a special one, with all the relative links to other studies that contradict his conclusions (one of Your links actually disproves his narrative) - they're grossly unscientific.

Oh look...yet another armchair geneticist steps up...can't wait for your research paper refuting Elhaik...ROTFLMAO

Well, if we're discussing scientific theory we must reference it to other studies and data.
True scientists also do all their best to try and contradict the conclusions of their research.

Not a geneticist but, there's enough data in each study beyond the formulas.
You know, it's not written for Martians...

 

[Ventura77]

Abi,

His study is so full of holes it makes me hungry for cheese.

In the meantime I'll mention 3 points:
* 2 fabricated models of Israelites and Khazars
* Sand - as main historic source
* Druze - 180 degrees opposite to what he says, he stopped using them.

p.s. Let me get to the end of the week, when I have a better connection and I'll make this thread a special one, with all the relative links to other studies that contradict his conclusions (one of Your links actually disproves his narrative) - they're grossly unscientific.

Oh look...yet another armchair geneticist steps up...can't wait for your research paper refuting Elhaik...ROTFLMAO

Well, if we're discussing scientific theory we must reference it to other studies and data.
True scientists also do all their best to try and contradict the conclusions of their research.

Not a geneticist but, there's enough data in each study beyond the formulas.
You know, it's not written for Martians...

Its actually quite amusing that some message-board devotee is self-assured that they can refute the conclusions of Elhaik...funny but I missed that part...

 

[abi]

p.s. Let me get to the end of the week, when I have a better connection and I'll make this thread a special one, with all the relative links to other studies that contradict his conclusions (one of Your links actually disproves his narrative) - they're grossly unscientific.

But, you came back on here with no links that refute the work of Elhaik. You should do this as the only evidence posted on this thread that attempts to refute his work was posted by myself and comes directly from David Duke. I posted this purposely to prove a point. So, do you have another refutation or was that just a tale?

 

[abi]

Shusha,

What part of "should not be confused with a Semitic origin" is so difficult to understand?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Meh. All these wasted electrons!

 

[rylah]

As promised earlier, and after careful reading of proposed material, I intend to show a range of discrepancies and assumptions and biases in Elhaik's studies.

Because of the vast level of data gathered in relation and reference to this study, I'll post ig in separate parts, trying to summarize and simplify the points to a level of conversation, leaving conclusions to the end post.



Introduction


I must mention that as far as both German and Khazarian hypothesis' they have a varying level of discrepancies with the traditional Jewish historiography, with the Khazarian being the most biased case, due to lack of information and it's nature. Virtually all are coming from 3 exclusively Jewish sources. But even when using them to back up the hypothesis they virtually ignore all the history of Jewish migration, while choosing only those that back up their proposed model, assigning new values and inventing new histories for longstanding Jewish communities in the Turkey and Persia regions.

However none of those hypothesis actually claim what most of the anti-Zionists erroneously use them for – to deny Jews rights in Israel/Palestine. Neither does the German hypothesis confirms German ancestry as main source of AJ's, nor does the Khazarian hypothesis separates Jews from Israelites or ME/Levant in general. Neither of them conclude of exclusively single predominant surrogate group that magically exchanged the ancient Jews, while the original ones faded away with no wide documented references outside of modern-day political discourse.



While reading Dr Elhaik's studies, analyzing his conclusions in relation to other new studies on the subject by different geneticists I've paid attention to 7 problematic areas that must be addressed:

1. Self contradictory methods and results.
   
   
2. Static models of proposed surrogate populations based on modern-day demographics, in relation to ancient peoples with no substantial reference to real data on those peoples.
   
   
3. Questionable references to historic data, from a handful of modern politicized works.
   
   Virtual ignorance towards major events in Jewish history of Persia, Kushta, and Europe.
   
   
4. Nature and volume of data in comparison
   
   
5. Weak and controversial linguistic bias about Yiddish at the basis of the study (Wexler, Sand)
   
   
6. Druze genetics
   
   
7. All that is “believed” and widely“assumed” - that lay at the basis of this study.
   

 

[rylah]

1. 
   Self contradictory methods and results.

GPS findings raise two concerns:

1. that the Turkish “Ashkenaz” region may be the centric location of other regions rather than the place where the Ashkenazic Jewish admixture signature was formed;
   
   
2. in the absence of “Ashkenazic” Turks it is impossible to compare the genetic similarity between the two populations to validate the common origins implied by the GPS results.
   
   
   
   To surmount these problems we derived the admixture signatures of “native” populations corresponding to the geographic coordinates of interest from the global distributions of admixture components (fig. 2B) and compared their genetic distances with AJs.
   
   This approach has several advantages.
   
   a. First, it allows studying “native” populations that were not sampled (!!??)

1. 
   b. Second, it allows identifying putative progenitors by comparing genetic distances between different populations.
   
   c. Third, it minimizes the effect of outliers in modern-day populations.
   
   
   
   d. Finally, it circumvents, to a certain degree, the problem of comparing AJs with modern-day populations that may have experienced various levels of gene exchange or genetic drift past their mixture with AJs. “
   
   
   
   (Elhaik 2016 - https://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwij6pSHucvXAhUQK1AKHfz1Cw8QFggrMAA&url=https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/8/4/1132/2574015/Localizing-Ashkenazic-Jews-to-Primeval-Villages-in&usg=AOvVaw1bIJPcgT9LYq8kNhsIajVW)

He actually explains what he DID NOT DO.

How can one isolate Spaniards, Caucasians, Persians and Greco-Romans from Jews, while at the same time studying their admixture with people in those regions?

Creation of synthetic models based on modern day demographics, or fixated on one of populations that for sure admixed with the Judeans and others throughout history, and migrated, while at the same time pointing at a problem comparing people in movement - destroys the model and method by itself. Any study about the history of the place shows Jewish presence in Caucasus region and Kushta prior and after the fall of the Turkic kingdom.



Therefore, GPS doesn't find any real progenitor of a population if one has zero real data outside of invented models or exclusively late information about the population at the time of the progenitors.
What one gets are merely models based on other models of imagined demographic situation for a short period of time. What GPS does is average out a probable point on map, based on those same static models – ignoring previous or further population shifts.

It's crucial to emphasize again that GPS model was calibrated using modern political boundaries - not archeology or anthropology, ancient people in movement were treated as static populations .

 

[rylah]

Before I touch on other studies in relation, I'd like to show contradictions from Elhaik himself. And I'll explain other points, as mentioned above.

Meanwhile, for some context (not a study) - Russian, Czech and British scientist refer directly to discrepancy Elhaik's methods and recent paper:

Pitfalls of the Geographic Population Structure (GPS) Approach Applied to Human Genetic History: A Case Study of Ashkenazi Jews

 

[abi]

Shusha
I found it interesting that Shusha is a city in the South Caucasus.
Shusha - Wikipedia

rylah
Your concerns have already been explained by the authors. I posted videos in the OP for those that can't understand scientific papers. Check them out. And, do you find it the least bit interesting/entertaining that David Duke presents the same argument that Shusha attempted to present before finally agreeing with Elhaik's conclusion and furthermore, that the 'science' that you present is what he bases his beliefs on? Check it out too.

The company you people keep is telling, yes?

 

[Shusha]

Shusha
I found it interesting that Shusha is a city in the South Caucasus.
Shusha - Wikipedia

Its also a clothing line, a brand of child's toys, a font and the nickname my father gave me when I was two and couldn't pronounce my own given name.

 

[MaryL]

This seems like an add for yet another "roots" thing. Since apes share DNA of 99% as humans, how can you tell what area we originated from? I know genetics have advanced, but this analyzing DNA origins seems a little suspicious.

 

[abi]

...the nickname my father gave me when I was two and couldn't pronounce my own given name.

The irony that Daddy's choice for you was quite possibly, your true ancestral homeland, yes?

This seems like an add for yet another "roots" thing. Since apes share DNA of 99% as humans, how can you tell what area we originated from? I know genetics have advanced, but this analyzing DNA origins seems a little suspicious.

He explains it scientifically in the papers I presented and in layman's terms in the videos I posted in the OP.

Nothing that has been posted has refuted:

Remarkably, the mean coordinates of Eastern European Jews are 560 km from Khazaria’s southern border (42.77° N, 42.56° E) near Samandar—the capital city of Khazaria from 720 to 750 CE...

When compared with non-Jewish populations, all Jewish communities were significantly (P < 0.01, bootstrap t test) distant from Middle Eastern populations and, with the exception of Central European Jews, significantly closer to Caucasus populations...

...therefore supports the Khazarian hypothesis and should not be confused with a Semitic origin, which can be easily distinguished from the non-Semitic origin...

In other words, it might not be easy for us, but for those educated in these fields, it is quite easy.

 

[fncceo]

Will the work of Dr. Eran Elhaik change anything?

Nope.

 

[rylah]

rylah
And, do you find it the least bit interesting/entertaining that David Duke presents the same argument that Shusha attempted to present before finally agreeing with Elhaik's conclusion and furthermore, that the 'science' that you present is what he bases his beliefs on? Check it out too.

The company you people keep is telling, yes?

It seems that neither You nor David Duke actually understand or discuss the Khazarian hypothesis itself, at least not the scientific or historic part of it.

However, American writers who supported this hypothesis like: B. Hendrick, L. Stoddard, KKK Hiram Wesley Evans, o'Beatie and William Robertson - are the people who influenced David Duke and Arab anti-Zionists.


Anyhow, here's nothing racist about recognizing Jews as a people, nation with respective rights.
There's also nothing racist about recognizing Slovaks, Slovenians, Russians, Kurds or the English people as such. There should be no double standard for Jews.

 

[rylah]

...the nickname my father gave me when I was two and couldn't pronounce my own given name.

The irony that Daddy's choice for you was quite possibly, your true ancestral homeland, yes?

This seems like an add for yet another "roots" thing. Since apes share DNA of 99% as humans, how can you tell what area we originated from? I know genetics have advanced, but this analyzing DNA origins seems a little suspicious.

He explains it scientifically in the papers I presented and in layman's terms in the videos I posted in the OP.

Nothing that has been posted has refuted:

Remarkably, the mean coordinates of Eastern European Jews are 560 km from Khazaria’s southern border (42.77° N, 42.56° E) near Samandar—the capital city of Khazaria from 720 to 750 CE...

When compared with non-Jewish populations, all Jewish communities were significantly (P < 0.01, bootstrap t test) distant from Middle Eastern populations and, with the exception of Central European Jews, significantly closer to Caucasus populations...

...therefore supports the Khazarian hypothesis and should not be confused with a Semitic origin, which can be easily distinguished from the non-Semitic origin...

In other words, it might not be easy for us, but for those educated in these fields, it is quite easy.

Actually the majority of those who are educated in this field reject the Khazarian hypothesis. That's why You'll see Elhaik quoting his OWN studies so much. His results, he claims are generally supported only by 2 small studies - one of which is his, and the second is from Behar's study titled :
"No evidence from Genome wide data of a Khazar origin for the AJs".