|
|
Post by pumpkin on Jan 9, 2006 1:45:01 GMT -5
|
|
attis
Full Member
Posts: 249
|
Post by attis on Jan 10, 2006 5:55:49 GMT -5
Iraqi Jews (of Baghdad) are not a Sephardic group. I am not sure what Western Branch of Indo-European the authors are talking about. There is no such thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by gambin on Jan 10, 2006 9:45:04 GMT -5
Interesting, but then again, this study is over 4 years old and uses old identifiers "Eu"s. The more modern, more comprehensive studies have greater accuracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Jan 11, 2006 1:13:32 GMT -5
Even if the study is four years old I do not think that the results are pulled out of nowhere. It is still interesting to see that almost all the Groups in the Middle East are somehow related to Arabs even the racist Cousins of the Arabs the Jews. The Arabian Peninsula clusters to close to the Middle East so that it would be unrealistic to think that ancient Arabs would not have Genetically influenced this region. PS. Jesus the Son of God the partly Arab man. I always new it ,God must be a Arab. ;D  Figure 6 Geographical distribution of Eu 9 and Eu 10. The haplogroups are represented by different shades of grey as designated. The number in each pie indicates the population analyzed. The data are from Semino et al. (2000) for the following populations: 1 = Sardinians; 2 = central-northern Italians; 3 = Calabrians; 4 = Greeks; 5 = Macedonians; 6 = Ukrainians; 7 = Turks; 8 = Lebanese; 10 = Syrians; and 12 = Georgians. Data from the present study are from the following populations: 9 = Jews; 11 = Palestinian Arabs; and 13 = Muslim Kurds. |
|
|
|
Post by gambin on Jan 11, 2006 8:39:58 GMT -5
Even if the study is four years old I do not think that the results are pulled out of nowhere. It is still interesting to see that almost all the Groups in the Middle East are somehow related to Arabs even the racist Cousins of the Arabs the Jews. The Arabian Peninsula clusters to close to the Middle East so that it would be unrealistic to think that ancient Arabs would not have Genetically influenced this region. Well, I don't think that current studies would contradict these older results too much. By the way, when speaking of the "racist Cousins of the Arabs, the Jews" you should realize that many "north Arabians" (Lebanese, Syrians, etc.) are quite adamant about distancing themselves away from Arabians (those from the Arabian peninsula). Look at posts by Lebanese RacialMaster for example, though he's hardly exclusive. You'll notice this on other forums |
|
|
|
Post by annienormanna on Jan 11, 2006 12:55:58 GMT -5
Even if the study is four years old I do not think that the results are pulled out of nowhere. It is still interesting to see that almost all the Groups in the Middle East are somehow related to Arabs even the racist Cousins of the Arabs the Jews. The Arabian Peninsula clusters to close to the Middle East so that it would be unrealistic to think that ancient Arabs would not have Genetically influenced this region. PS. Jesus the Son of God the partly Arab man. I always new it ,God must be a Arab. ;D I don't think being genetic cousins necessarily means ethnicity, given the socio-political context of ethnicity. But in the face of science, it would be foolish to deny genetic affinity. I would also agree that racists are in strong denial about Semitic "whiteness," since no premise they use is grounded science. Then again, casting Jesus as an Arab misses the mark about the meaning of His existence. There's an amusing saying among certain Brits "Only God knows and he's working for Mossad these days."  |
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Jan 11, 2006 20:42:51 GMT -5
Much of the recent Capelli paper was based on this study.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Jan 11, 2006 21:06:28 GMT -5
Ok Arabs and Most Jews have a common origin at least in part. They are both Semitic speaking peoples. It's like Western Turks and Greeks, who retain many genetic affinities, but they hate to admit it.
Obviously Arabs are closely related to most Semitic peoples in the land of Canaan, and Jordan I would think. And Arabian bedouin tribes have influenced South Iraq to some extent too. Beyond that I think Turks, Syrians, north Lebanese, Armenians, Iranians and such cluster slightly differently than the southern Semitic tribes but slightyly different. (obviously they are still Caucasians and still ME so they are similar in many respects).
|
|
|
|
Post by gambin on Jan 12, 2006 9:30:31 GMT -5
Much of the recent Capelli paper was based on this study. Most of the works cited to Semino were attributed to a 2004 study and were directed more to the Turks and Syrians samples. The implications of that study no doubt helped affect this one's conclusions though. Most of the samples were 2004 or current (2005); among those belonging in the latter were the Italians, the Lebanese, Sardinians, Maltese. Admittedly the study on the Arabian Arabs was dated at 2001.  |
|
|
|
Post by gambin on Jan 12, 2006 9:32:39 GMT -5
Ok Arabs and Most Jews have a common origin at least in part. They are both Semitic speaking peoples. It's like Western Turks and Greeks, who retain many genetic affinities, but they hate to admit it. Obviously Arabs are closely related to most Semitic peoples in the land of Canaan, and Jordan I would think. And Arabian bedouin tribes have influenced South Iraq to some extent too. Beyond that I think Turks, Syrians, north Lebanese, Armenians, Iranians and such cluster slightly differently than the southern Semitic tribes but slightyly different. (obviously they are still Caucasians and still ME so they are similar in many respects). I don't think Armenians were part of the study. Plus, eastern Iranians wouldn't cluster with the Arabs as they have strong amounts of R1a (hg-3 legacy). |
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Jan 12, 2006 10:49:33 GMT -5
Right, the point is that recent studies are no more accurate or comprehensive than studies from 2000 and 2001. Current techniques are very precise, and probably as accurate as we're going to get. The results of Capelli (2005) were important because the spectrum of variation was reduced quite a bit, as it focussed on the Mediterranean region.
|
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Jan 12, 2006 13:47:58 GMT -5
Ok Arabs and Most Jews have a common origin at least in part. They are both Semitic speaking peoples. It's like Western Turks and Greeks, who retain many genetic affinities, but they hate to admit it. Obviously Arabs are closely related to most Semitic peoples in the land of Canaan, and Jordan I would think. And Arabian bedouin tribes have influenced South Iraq to some extent too. Beyond that I think Turks, Syrians, north Lebanese, Armenians, Iranians and such cluster slightly differently than the southern Semitic tribes but slightyly different. (obviously they are still Caucasians and still ME so they are similar in many respects). Do Arabs and most Persians have a common origin? |
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Jan 12, 2006 17:39:08 GMT -5
I think it varies, like gambin said. Persians from southwestern Iran are closely related to Arabs.
|
|
|
|
Post by nymos on Jan 12, 2006 21:20:56 GMT -5
I think it varies, like gambin said. Persians from southwestern Iran are closely related to Arabs. Yeah, that's because of admixture. What I mean is do Arabs and most Persians (as an ethnic group) have common origin? |
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Jan 13, 2006 0:17:01 GMT -5
Do Arabs and most Persians have a common origin? Depends principally on the type of Arab. Syrians and nearby areas maybe. But if u mean Saudia Arabian, Palestinian, Jordanian, and general Bedouin populations, then I'd say no, we do not have a common origin. It also depends how far back u go. Everyone has a common ancestory at some point. But within the context of recent history, no. Persians, in my belief orginated north of the Dasht-e-lut desert region (which was once a lake with lush lands). Arabs originated in Arabia proper. Also admixture in southwest Iran has been exaggerated IMO. However data on the ME in general is nowhere near the level of data available on Europe. |
|
