Here Is Something For The Dna Chasers.

[Guest Starsky]

We have to bear in mind that the Jews now "gathering" in Israel are not Jews by blood. They are the descendents of gentile converts to Judaism from Eastern Europe. This was a group known as the Khazars. They have no genetic connection to Jacob and so the land they have claimed in Palestine is not theirs to claim.

[Guest Starsky]

I found this interesting....didn't anyone else?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 25 2004, 09:04 AM

I found this interesting....didn't anyone else?

I think we need a brief Khazar history lesson to appreciate your thread, Peace:

<span style='color:blue'>"At about the same time that the Mohammedans had conquered Spain, the king of a people, called Khazars, had become dissatisfied with worshipping idols, and had become a Jew. A great many of his lords, generals, and soldiers had done likewise. Rabbis were then invited to come and teach Jewish laws and customs to the Jewish Khazars. During the two hundred years of the existence of this Jewish kingdom, most of the Khazars had learned the Jewish religion and were living in accordance with its laws. Hasdai rejoiced greatly to learn of the kingdom of the Khazars. Unfortunately, the Russians destroyed it a few years later. You are probably wondering: ''What happened to the Jewish Khazars?'' Some of them mingled with the other Jews of Russia, and the others || gradually forgot their Judaism and became Christians."

- Mordechai I. Soloff, in How the Jewish People Grew Up (Cincinnati, OH: The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1936), pages 219, 221.

Dan Rottenberg, author of "Finding Our Fathers: A Guidebook to Jewish Genealogy" (1st edition, 1977), has ancestors from the Austrian and Russian empires. Some of his wife's ancestors were allegedly Khazars. Karen De Witt, in The Washington Post, wrote the following on page B3, in the Saturday, August 20, 1977 issue, in her article "Family Lore and the Search for Jewish 'Roots'": "Rottenberg, who has traced his and his wife's family back to the early 1800s and found one line that goes back to the Khazar kingdom in the Crimea, which dates to the 8th century, notes that there is only a finite number of Jews in the world." And Rottenberg wrote in his book "Finding Our Fathers" on page 45: "In any case, some East European Jews, and perhaps a great many, are descended from the Khazars. Figuring out whether you are or aren't of Khazar ancestry may be impossible, but some families seem to have clues. For example, a branch of my wife's family named Tamarin, from Russia, maintains that the family came into Judaism via the Khazar conversion and that the family took its name from Tamara, queen of Georgia in the thirteenth century."

http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html

It appears that the Khazars were converts but later mingled with other Jews when forced to flee to other countries.

M.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

The idea that modern Jews are not descendants from the Jews of the Bible is a stock notion in anti-Semitic circles. It doesn't wash. The DNA of modern Jewish populations contains indications of common ancestors dating far beyond the time of the Khazar kingdom, many of whose subjects did convert to Judaism.

Sephardic Jews -- the Jews of Spain, France, North Africa, parts of Italy, and Britain -- have no connection with the Khazars whatsoever. There was some intermarriage between Khazar converts and the Ashkenazi Jews of eastern Europe, but there is a far closer connection between the Jews of today and the Jews of biblical times than there is between us and Ephraim. Or Indians and Manasseh.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 25 2004, 12:37 AM

We have to bear in mind that the Jews now "gathering" in Israel are not Jews by blood. They are the descendents of gentile converts to Judaism from Eastern Europe. This was a group known as the Khazars. They have no genetic connection to Jacob and so the land they have claimed in Palestine is not theirs to claim.

Did you mean to include a link for this? It doesn't make any sense as written...

[Ray]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@ Feb 25 2004, 10:53 AM

The idea that modern Jews are not descendants from the Jews of the Bible is a stock notion in anti-Semitic circles. It doesn't wash. The DNA of modern Jewish populations contains indications of common ancestors dating far beyond the time of the Khazar kingdom, many of whose subjects did convert to Judaism.

Sephardic Jews -- the Jews of Spain, France, North Africa, parts of Italy, and Britain -- have no connection with the Khazars whatsoever. There was some intermarriage between Khazar converts and the Ashkenazi Jews of eastern Europe, but there is a far closer connection between the Jews of today and the Jews of biblical times than there is between us and Ephraim. Or Indians and Manasseh.

I’d like to learn some more about this DNA evidence, especially about whose DNA is used to determine whether or not people in the Eastern hemisphere are related to people in the Western hemisphere. Any suggestions for places to start?

For instance, how does someone use DNA to determine whether or not a person is a “Jew”? Whose DNA do you begin with, and how do you know whether or not that person is a “Jew” and not a Samaritan, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, etc.?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Ray+Feb 25 2004, 06:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Feb 25 2004, 06:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@ Feb 25 2004, 10:53 AM

The idea that modern Jews are not descendants from the Jews of the Bible is a stock notion in anti-Semitic circles. It doesn't wash. The DNA of modern Jewish populations contains indications of common ancestors dating far beyond the time of the Khazar kingdom, many of whose subjects did convert to Judaism.

Sephardic Jews -- the Jews of Spain, France, North Africa, parts of Italy, and Britain -- have no connection with the Khazars whatsoever. There was some intermarriage between Khazar converts and the Ashkenazi Jews of eastern Europe, but there is a far closer connection between the Jews of today and the Jews of biblical times than there is between us and Ephraim. Or Indians and Manasseh.

I’d like to learn some more about this DNA evidence, especially about whose DNA is used to determine whether or not people in the Eastern hemisphere are related to people in the Western hemisphere. Any suggestions for places to start?

For instance, how does someone use DNA to determine whether or not a person is a “Jew”? Whose DNA do you begin with, and how do you know whether or not that person is a “Jew” and not a Samaritan, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, etc.?

http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp

[Outshined]

Further reading: (some are pdf format)

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Whiting_DNA.pdf

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Sorenson_Roper_DNA.pdf

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Butler_DNA.pdf

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Kudos+Feb 25 2004, 05:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kudos @ Feb 25 2004, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Feb 25 2004, 06:52 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@ Feb 25 2004, 10:53 AM

The idea that modern Jews are not descendants from the Jews of the Bible is a stock notion in anti-Semitic circles. It doesn't wash. The DNA of modern Jewish populations contains indications of common ancestors dating far beyond the time of the Khazar kingdom, many of whose subjects did convert to Judaism.

Sephardic Jews -- the Jews of Spain, France, North Africa, parts of Italy, and Britain -- have no connection with the Khazars whatsoever. There was some intermarriage between Khazar converts and the Ashkenazi Jews of eastern Europe, but there is a far closer connection between the Jews of today and the Jews of biblical times than there is between us and Ephraim. Or Indians and Manasseh.

I’d like to learn some more about this DNA evidence, especially about whose DNA is used to determine whether or not people in the Eastern hemisphere are related to people in the Western hemisphere. Any suggestions for places to start?

For instance, how does someone use DNA to determine whether or not a person is a “Jew”? Whose DNA do you begin with, and how do you know whether or not that person is a “Jew” and not a Samaritan, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, etc.?

http://mormonscripturestudies.com/bomor/twm/lamgen.asp

Humans and chimpanzees share an astounding 98.4% of their DNA. The genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees (pygmy and common) is less than that between common gibbons and siamang gibbons. It is also less than that between closely related North American bird species such as the red-eyed vireos and white-eyed vireos. Diamond concludes that "we are just a third species of chimpanzee" and "our important visible distinctions from the other chimps—our upright posture, large brains, ability to speak, sparse body hair, and peculiar sexual lives—must be concentrated in a mere 1.6 percent of our genetic program."[10]

Current genetic data suggest that ancestors of Native Americans separated from their Asian neighbors about 40-50,000 years ago and from each other in what may have been three or more separate waves of migration by 7-15,000 years ago. No support for Mormon beliefs linking American Indians to ancient Israelites is evident in the data.

These are from that site....so we are more related to chimpanzee...it would appear, than to Israel according to this site...LOL

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined@Feb 25 2004, 07:01 PM

Further reading: (some are pdf format)

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom01.html

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Whiting_DNA.pdf

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Sorenson_Roper_DNA.pdf

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Butler_DNA.pdf

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

Woah! These articles basically say two things: Semitic DNA would not be expected to be found in the modern populations of Native Americans because DNA testing is unreliable to link modern to ancient populations. Then they go on to use DNA to try to prove that the native Americans are not related to the Siberian population that mainstream scientist link them to. Huh?

[Cal]

curvy--you go girl!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 25 2004, 08:25 PM

These are from that site....so we are more related to chimpanzee...it would appear, than to Israel according to this site...LOL

Well...I think you are kidding. Humans share about 99.9% of their DNA with all other humans. Our similarities with chimpanzees are between 95%-99% depending on who you ask.

[Ray]

So we’re talking about a 0.1 percent difference between the DNA of all humans?

And there is supposed to be some way to determine what that 0.1 percent signifies?

I’d like to find some information on how to interpret DNA evidence for myself, and see the actual DNA evidence, rather than rely on someone else’s interpretations of these things. People don’t really expect us to just take their word for these things, do they?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Feb 26 2004, 09:44 AM

So we’re talking about a 0.1 percent difference between the DNA of all humans?

And there is supposed to be some way to determine what that 0.1 percent signifies?

I’d like to find some information on how to interpret DNA evidence for myself, and see the actual DNA evidence, rather than rely on someone else’s interpretations of these things. People don’t really expect us to just take their word for these things, do they?

Well Ray, you have the internet. Do some research. You wonder what differences can be in 1/10 of 1%, but think about the universe. DNA is like a miniature universe.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 25 2004, 10:26 PM

curvy--you go girl!

I'm not trying to criticize all of the information in these articles. Some of the info seemed credible. But for someone to analyze DNA science, call it invalid, and then go on to try prove their own hypothesis with the very thing they just called invalid is ludicrous. It doesn't make any sense.

[Outshined]

The authors were not trying to discredit DNA science at all; in fact one of the authors IS a DNA researcher. The point of those articles boils down to the inability to rule out an ancestry group based on MtDNA, especially since MtDNA is only passed down through females.

Critics want to point to DNA research and claim that it is proof that the BOM is false, and the articles cited are saying that DNA research does no such thing.

Which article in particular called DNA science invalid?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined@Feb 26 2004, 10:54 AM

The authors were not trying to discredit DNA science at all; in fact one of the authors IS a DNA researcher. The point of those articles boils down to the inability to rule out an ancestry group based on MtDNA, especially since MtDNA is only passed down through females.

Critics want to point to DNA research and claim that it is proof that the BOM is false, and the articles cited are saying that DNA research does no such thing.

Which article in particular called DNA science invalid?

On the one hand, mitochondrial dna cannot be expected to show a link between modern Native Americans and ancient Semitic populations. On the OTHER hand, this same mitochondrial dna is used to show that modern Native Americans are not related to ancient Siberian populations as previously thought. The same technology considered invalid is considered valid--depending on the preconceived outcome.

[Outshined]

It's obvious that the technology can not be used to disqualify a particular group from the ancestry of a second group.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 26 2004, 10:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 26 2004, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Feb 26 2004, 09:44 AM

So we’re talking about a 0.1 percent difference between the DNA of all humans?

And there is supposed to be some way to determine what that 0.1 percent signifies?

I’d like to find some information on how to interpret DNA evidence for myself, and see the actual DNA evidence, rather than rely on someone else’s interpretations of these things.  People don’t really expect us to just take their word for these things, do they?

Well Ray, you have the internet. Do some research. You wonder what differences can be in 1/10 of 1%, but think about the universe. DNA is like a miniature universe.

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@ Feb 26 2004, 10:23 AM

Well Ray, you have the internet. Do some research.

curvette,

Is that as good as you can do? I was hoping somebody might be able to provide a link to the information I was asking for, possibly with images of DNA strands and an explanation of what each component signifies. While you may not be able to show me any links to those sources of information, somebody else might be able to, and knowing where to look can save a lot of time.

When someone asks for information showing why we (LDS) believe something, should we simply tell them to go look it up in the scriptures? I don’t think so. Some people are familiar enough with the scriptures to be able to point out where someone can read something pertaining to the question being asked, and I don’t see any reason why some people can’t be familiar enough with DNA to be able to point out their sources of their information too.

And I’m not interested in hearing the excuse that this can’t be understood without a lot of prior education. All education begins somewhere and someone who is familiar with this issue should know some good sources of information. And btw, the information doesn’t have to be on the internet, but that would be preferable.

p.s. A sincere THANK YOU to you, curvette, and Outshined, and the other people who have helped to clarify this issue for me.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray+Feb 26 2004, 11:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Feb 26 2004, 11:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Feb 26 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by -Ray@Feb 26 2004, 09:44 AM

So we’re talking about a 0.1 percent difference between the DNA of all humans?

And there is supposed to be some way to determine what that 0.1 percent signifies?

I’d like to find some information on how to interpret DNA evidence for myself, and see the actual DNA evidence, rather than rely on someone else’s interpretations of these things.  People don’t really expect us to just take their word for these things, do they?

Well Ray, you have the internet. Do some research. You wonder what differences can be in 1/10 of 1%, but think about the universe. DNA is like a miniature universe.

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette

@ Feb 26 2004, 10:23 AM

Well Ray, you have the internet. Do some research.

curvette,

Is that as good as you can do? I was hoping somebody might be able to provide a link to the information I was asking for, possibly with images of DNA strands and an explanation of what each component signifies. While you may not be able to show me any links to those sources of information, somebody else might be able to, and knowing where to look can save a lot of time.

When someone asks for information showing why we (LDS) believe something, should we simply tell them to go look it up in the scriptures? I don’t think so. Some people are familiar enough with the scriptures to be able to point out where someone can read something pertaining to the question being asked, and I don’t see any reason why some people can’t be familiar enough with DNA to be able to point out their sources of their information too.

And I’m not interested in hearing the excuse that this can’t be understood without a lot of prior education. All education begins somewhere and someone who is familiar with this issue should know some good sources of information. And btw, the information doesn’t have to be on the internet, but that would be preferable.

Good heavens Ray. How lazy are you? Do you know how to use a search engine? There is no conspiracy theory on DNA. No one expects you to "take their word for it." Use your own intelligence, do a search on it, find some good websites and dive in.

[Outshined]

Try these links:

http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/dna

http://www.biology.washington.edu/fingerpr...t/dnaintro.html

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Genome.html

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 26 2004, 11:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 26 2004, 11:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Feb 26 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by -curvette@Feb 26 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by -Ray@Feb 26 2004, 09:44 AM

So we’re talking about a 0.1 percent difference between the DNA of all humans?

And there is supposed to be some way to determine what that 0.1 percent signifies?

I’d like to find some information on how to interpret DNA evidence for myself, and see the actual DNA evidence, rather than rely on someone else’s interpretations of these things.  People don’t really expect us to just take their word for these things, do they?

Well Ray, you have the internet. Do some research. You wonder what differences can be in 1/10 of 1%, but think about the universe. DNA is like a miniature universe.

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@ Feb 26 2004, 10:23 AM

Well Ray, you have the internet. Do some research.

curvette,

Is that as good as you can do? I was hoping somebody might be able to provide a link to the information I was asking for, possibly with images of DNA strands and an explanation of what each component signifies. While you may not be able to show me any links to those sources of information, somebody else might be able to, and knowing where to look can save a lot of time.

When someone asks for information showing why we (LDS) believe something, should we simply tell them to go look it up in the scriptures? I don’t think so. Some people are familiar enough with the scriptures to be able to point out where someone can read something pertaining to the question being asked, and I don’t see any reason why some people can’t be familiar enough with DNA to be able to point out their sources of their information too.

And I’m not interested in hearing the excuse that this can’t be understood without a lot of prior education. All education begins somewhere and someone who is familiar with this issue should know some good sources of information. And btw, the information doesn’t have to be on the internet, but that would be preferable.

Good heavens Ray. How lazy are you? Do you know how to use a search engine? There is no conspiracy theory on DNA. No one expects you to "take their word for it." Use your own intelligence, do a search on it, find some good websites and dive in.

curvette,

Did you overlook my statement concerning saving time? Of course I could do all the research myself, but it will take far less time with references from other people. If you can't provide any references, don't, but don't criticize me when I ask for help. What do you think this message board for, anyways?

Outshined,

Thanks again for your help. :)

And btw, you're not only helping me, but everyone else who is reading this thread. :)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Feb 26 2004, 01:13 PM

curvette,

Did you overlook my statement concerning saving time? Of course I could do all the research myself, but it will take far less time with references from other people. If you can't provide any references, don't, but don't criticize me when I ask for help. What do you think this message board for, anyways?

Outshined,

Thanks again for your help. :)

And btw, you're not only helping me, but everyone else who is reading this thread. :)

Yes, I overlooked it. I'm a little cranky. I'm going to go have a nap...