DNA Racial Classifications Refuted!
by Yair Davidiy
Case Study: "The Cohen Gene"
See also:
Brit-Am DNA Articles: List of Contents
DNA Theory divides the world's populations according to haplogroups. Every change in each haplogroup is attributed to a single ancestor. The following article proves that the said changes may occur repeatedly at different times and encompass whole segments of otherwise unrelated people in specific areas. This effectively nullifies to a great degree the applicability of DNA studies to historical research regarding the movements and interrelationships of different peoples!
To demonstrate our point in the article below we concentrated on
The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH)
popularly known as "The Cohen Gene".
Brit-Am
Research
Revelation
Reconciliation
Facing A Revision of DNA Theory
DNA Racial Classifications Refuted!
by Yair Davidiy on behalf of Brit-Am
And in response to interest expressed by Brit-Am supporters.
Elul 5766.
Note on the Hebrew date above.
This date was attached to the first daft of this article.
It is our practice to place the Hebrew and secular date on all our News features.
Other features usually do not bear a date. There is no big deal about this and we never attached any particular
importance to it.
Certain lowlives however made a whole song and dance about it for some reason. We were viciously attacked by
militant bigot fanatical freethinkers who are prejudiced against anybody who does not toe the line of what they
consider to be scientific darwinist orthodoxy.
There is very little difference between their attitude and that of the anti-Jews who no matter
what the facts are will always twist them as they will.
All this just goes to show that whatever ones says or believes the Forces of Darkness will
try to present it as meaning the opposite.
It could be that both we and the article we have written below may be validly criticised but if so whatever is said should at least relate to the matter at hand and not degenerate to telling mistruths and perversion of the truth.
The fact that some of our opponents in this matter felt the need for such underhand lowdown tactics reflects on possible intellectual paucity and lack of real faith in their own doctrines.
Contents:
Abstract
DNA General Theory
World YDNA Haplogroups
REP Repeat Event Polymorphisms) -An Alternate Proposal
The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH)
Conclusion to First Part
Very Important and Interesting Books - Read More -
and
Order Now!
http://britam.org/books.html
Click Here
Abstract: Scientists classify different groups of mankind
according to differences in their DNA structure. Examination of Y DNA determines racial male
ancestry and mtDNA defines ancestral groupings along the female lines.
These classifications are based on the assumption that hereditary changes in
DNA are one-time only events experienced in one individual who transmits the new differentiation to his descendants.
In other words, it is being said that each change has only one human ancestor.
There is evidence suggesting the said assumption to be incorrect. The same changes occur at more than one time and in more than one subject. They do in fact appear across whole spectrums of population. This is exemplified by the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) which amongst Jews emerged spontaneously within the seed of Aaron while independently also appearing in other peoples, as explained below.
This is now admitted by most researchers. The applicability of this finding is however claimed to be restricted to subgroupings of Y(male-transmitted)DNA called "haplotypes" and not to the major YDNA divisions or "haplogroups" that are considered more stable.
It is also not considered applicable to mt(Female-transmitted)DNA.
The article below gives a brief overview of the major "haplogroup" DNA "racial" divisions.
This is followed by a discussion of the CMH and its possibility of being found independently of heredity in different populations. What applies to the CMH may well be pertinent in priciple to all haplotype findings.
In regards to haplogroups and mtDNA changes from one category ot another are known to take place (sometimes very quickly) in dead organisms and under certain conditions also in living ones.
The possibility of extra-ordinary environmental effects also causing changes should also therefore be considered.
These facts limit the applicability of DNA racial classification in the historical sense for large groups of people. A new formulation is needed and a rethinking of the applicability of DNA to historical studies of ethnic permutation.
DNA General Theory
DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is a kind of helix (double twisted) string of molecules containing genetic instructions. DNA comes packed into chromosomes which are associated groups of DNA segments known as genes. Females have 23 XX chromosomes while males have 22 XX chromosomes and one XY chromosome. The Y in the XY chromosome in theory is passed from father to son and is not influenced by the mother. By tracing unique characteristics in the Y chromosome we may trace male ancestry.
Chromosomes are located in the nucleus of all cells of the human body. The nucleus is surrounded by miniscule agents called mitochondria that convert organic materials into energy to keep the cells going. Mitochondria have their own DNA which until recently was considered to pass only from female to female, i.e. a male receives his mitochondria from his mother but does not pass it on whereas a female both receives it from her mother and passes it onto her children. By examining changes in mitochondria we may trace female ancestors (woman after woman) back through the generations. This is mtDNA.
Conventional DNA Theory as presented to the public more or less says the following:
In the case of Y DNA: A mutation occurs in a portion of the DNA of an individual's Y Chromosome that will differentiate him from everybody else. He will pass his now unique DNA onto his male descendants and they to theirs until further down the line another change occurs in the DNA of one other descendant and so the process will begin again. The result is that we may use these differences to distinguish between major groups and subgroups and so classify humanity into different Y DNA Haplogroups.
The same concept exists for mtDNA.
The changes are presented as occuring one time only, as being
"unique event polymorphisms (UEP)".
The Implications
By stressing the one-time only aspect, UEP (Unique Event Polymorphisms), humanity may be stratifed into different groupings and sub-groupings the relationships of one to another being quite clear or at least may be presented as such.
World DNA Y Haplogroups
Diagram:
Y DNA is divided into Haplogroups and Haplotypes. Haplogroups are defined by comparative differences in a relatively stable section of the DNA known as "SNP" (pronounced "snip")s i.e. Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms whereas haplotypes are measured from less stable sections known as STR(Short Tandem Repeat)s.
Diagram: DNA Y Haplogroups
If you look at the above diagram and if necessary read our brief explanation in the article on Y DNA you will see that according to present-day understanding of Y DNA development Y haplogroups form the following clusters:
(i) (A, B, C, D, E) Sub-Saharan Africans, North African Berbers, some of the Southern Mediterraneans, and about half the Japanese and Tibetans belong in one group .
(ii) (F, G, H, I, J) Caucasian Mountain Peoples, European Balkan Groups, Jews and Middle East Peoples, along with many Indians, Sardinians, Bosnians, Germans, and Scandinavians.
(iii) (K, L, M, P, N, O, Q, R) This interrelated group comprises
Indonesians, South-east Asians, Chinese, Koreans, Fins, Slavs, Western Celts, Basques, and Amerindians.
There may be factors we are unaware of. One could even try and align the above "clusters" with the Bible by perhaps equating (i) with Ham, (ii) with Shem, and (iii) with Japhet.
This is however a bit difficult for us (especially in light of our Brit-Am Biblical and Historical researches) to agree with DNA "science" in accepting the above divisions. It seems unlikely that most of the Irish and inhabitants of the British Isles (R1b) are closer to the Chinese in origin than they are to the Jews, Scandinavians, and Germans. We also find it a bit strange to view a majority portion of the Japanese as closer to the Zulus than they are to the Chinese and Koreans.
If this really was what Science says we would be faced with the choice of either accepting it or putting it to one side in the expectation that eventually new findings would effect a revision that was more acceptable to our "gut" instinct.
This however is NOT what DNA research actually says but rather how it has been presented.
REP (Repeat Event Polymorphisms) -An Alternate Proposal
In the DNA literature one often comes across assumptions or facts that can only be explained by the presence of what we will call REP (Repeat Event Polymorphisms).
By REP we mean that instead of UEP (Unique Event Polymorphisms) being the rule they are the exception.
A DNA sequence reflects the state of a living organism. It has an inbuilt resilience allowing it to switch from one state to another under given circumstance.
The organism will react according to its inbuilt coding when encountering external stimuli.
Not only will one single organism react in the said way but large numbers when affected at the same time by the same circumstances.
According to this we would propose, for instance, that regardless of the haplogroups that originally reached a certain area external influences at certain stages cause them all to convert in a specific direction, e.g. J, G, and I (or some such) may anciently have come to the British Isles but in the course of time they all changed due to the environment or what not to R1b.
Sound fantastic?
It could be, yet archaeological DNA studies do indicate a much great diversity in the West than currently exists. Hg (Haplogroup) K for instance is an offshoot of the (F, G, H, I, J) group yet considered the forefather of
(K, L, M, P, N, O, Q, R). Hg K apart from Finland is rare now in Europe but in the ancient Basque area reached 16%. Similar phenomenon have been reported from much of Europe.
It may also be that changes do take place but only in certain directions and only under set conditions with a certain haplogroup being able to change only along limited parameters, etc.
This proposal appears to be within the boundaries of accepted scientific possibility and in accordance with known phenomenon.
As an example of this ability within DNA Coding to change in more than one location
(in REP, Repeat Event Polymorphisms) we have chosen to examine a case that has received much publicity and that is frequently held up as an example of the efficacy of DNA studies. Our example is an examination of the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH).
The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH)
The explanation below is not complicated and not too technical.
We have tried to make it as simple as possible
but reactions from certain quarters indicate that we have not succeeded.
The article tries to take account of major academic opinions and be understandable to both the expert and the layman.
It apparently does not do this.
Nevertheless, someone who really wants to understand what we are saying from the article below can do so.
For the sake of the majority of readers who may lack the time or patience to understand the article itself, here is a very crude
summation:
Conventional DNA Theory would like to say that:
J is a haplogroup or major subdivision of the Y (Male transmitted) chromosome alongside
F, G, H, I, etc.
Originally there was only J.
J split into
J1 and J2.
Later J1 split into CMH (Cohen Module Haplotype) and non-CMH.
The problem is that we find CMH in a large proportion of J2 and in a small proportion of the other haplogroups (F, G, H, I, etc).
If we are going to accept conventional DNA theory that CMH is a later development of J1 we must assume that when it occurs
outside of J1 it does so autonomously. CMH may be transmitted by heredity but it can also appear on its own without any inherited cause.
The appearance of CMH is not a unique one-time only event but a recurring phenomenon.
What applies to CMH is pertinent to all DNA groups.
The article below explains our reasoning for the above claim in more detail.
Alternate explanations exist claiming that the CMH is not a later development but one of the earliest.
As we shall see these alternate explanations do not overduly affect our claims since they too acknowledge that the occurence of CMH is not limited to inheritance but may occur spontaneously (even in groups) at least in cases where the "parent" already is highly similar to the CMH.
The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) is usually found as a subdivision of haplogroup J.
Haplogroup J itself is a subdivision of F and is part of a clustering that includes haplogroups G, H, I, J and is
prominent in the Caucasian Mountains, in the Balkans (hg G), amongst Middle East Peoples (hg J), some Indians (hg H),
and a portion of the Scandinavians, Germans, Bosnians, and Sardinians (hg I).
About 40% of Jews are haplogroup J.
Even though J accounts only for 40% of the Jews as a whole it reaches more than 80% amongst the Cohanim.
The Jewish population is divided into Cohens, Levites, and ordinary Israelites who amongst the Jews are mostly from Judah and Benjamin.
<<Within Jewish groups, membership in three male castes (Cohen, Levi, and Israelite) is
determined by paternal descent (Behar et al. 2003).>>
The Cohens are descended from Aaron the brother of Moses. They are the Priestly Caste. They were originally part of Levi
but today they are perhaps more numerous than the Levites are. They also have an entirely different genetic structure from
the Levites.
Haplogroup J consists of an ancestral form (J*) and two subgroups J1 and J2.
Jewish populations are for convenience divided into "Ashkenazic" (European) Jews and "Sephardic" (Mediterranean and Eastern) Jews.
<<Among Ashkenazim, J2 occurs among 23.2% of the population, while Sephardim have 28.6% (Semino et al. 2004). While these percentages are nearly identical to Iraqi (22.4%) and Lebanese (25%) groups, they are also comparable to Greek (20.6%), Georgian (26.7%), Albanian (19.6%), Italian (20-29%), and to a lesser extent, French Basque (13.6%) populations (Semino et al. 2004).>>
<<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).>>
<<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). 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.>>
The CMH is a subgroup of haplogroup J.
Although you can have the CMH in either J1 or J2, it is the genetic signature in J1 that is considered the uniquely Jewish priestly signature.
<<Overall, J1 constitutes 14.6% of the Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of the Sephardic results (Semino et al. 2004). >>
48% of Ashkenazi Cohanim and 58% of Sephardic Cohanim have the J1 Cohen Modal Haplotype (Skorecki et al. 1997).
To sum up, about 40% of the the Jews are hg J (both J1 and J2) whereas for Cohanim the figure is ca. 80% out of which about half have the CMH whereas for Jews who are not Cohens only ca. 3% have the CMH.
More than half the Cohens who are J1 are also CMH whereas most non-Cohen J1 Jews are not.
Does CMH Define the Cohens?
No.
About half the Cohens do not have CMH and CMH is also found in other peoples.
There are however indications that the CMH may have a tendency to "spontaneously" occur amongst Cohens more than it does amongst non-Cohens.
See below.
CMH Amongst non-Jews
Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin explains that:
* The Cohen modal haplotype is the most common haplotype among
Southern Italians*1, Central Italians*2, Hungarians*3, and Iraqi Kurds*4, and is also found among many Armenians*5 and South African Lembas*6. .
cf. J.E. Elkins
<<The bulk of the CMHg chromosomes were observed in J1 (53.0%) and J2
(43.2%), with a small portion falling outside of haplogroup J (3.8%).
Members of the CMHg were observed throughout the world, with significant frequencies
in various Arab populations: Oman (20.1%), Iraq (15.2%), Palestine (9.5%).>>
An Updated World-Wide Characterization of the Cohen Modal Haplotype. J.E. Ekins et al.
Note: Bonnie Schrack claims that the opinions quoted above by
Avshalem Zoossmann-Diskin and J.E. Elkins ARE NOT CORRECT. She says that scientifically they are invalid
and that the CMH is NOT the most common haplotype "among Southern Italians*1, Central Italians*2, Hungarians*3, and Iraqi Kurds".
Bonnie does not prove her point on this issue nor has she seen the relevent studies. Based on her own studies she merely doubts that the reports of Avshalem Zoossmann-Diskin and J.E. Elkins will be proven valid.
Even if Bonnie is correct the point remains that the CMH is quite common and occurs amongst non-Jewish populations in areas and at a frequence where its appearance cannot be attributed to Jewish or related ancestry..
Is the CMH the result of a one-time only mutation (UEP, Unique Event Polymorphism) as conventionally explained?
The CMH CANNOT BE the result of a single event but can only be explained as a recurring phenomenon
effecting a change that after taking place is passed on by heredity. It mainly takes place within haplogroup J but in 3% of the cases has also been recorded outside of it.
To explain how this could be so we must clarify the difference between haplogroup and haplotype.
Haplogroups are determined by SNP (pronounced "snip") while haplotypes are defined by STP.
In principle STPs (haplotypes) have a faster rate of change than SNPs (haplogroups) which are considered more stable.
Different STPs may therefore be found on the one SNP. Different STPs define Haplotypes whereas differences in the SNP define the Haplogroup. Haplotypes should therefore be considered the same as subdivisions of Haplogroups. The problem is that the same Haplotype is found frequently in more than one Haplogroup. Haplotypes are transmitted by heredity but they are an example of a typical REP (Repeat Event Polymorphism) that can occur more than once and in more than one context. They are an example of Identical Genetic Change that occurs in more than one place in more than one subject and then are inherited and can be used to trace ancestry.
Since the same changes however occur in other bodies their applicability is limited. If we knew what influences the occurence of the changes we could use the heredity aspects that follow after the changes have taken place. If for instance we were aware that groups within a certain area at a certain time were liable to have undergone the said changes when we later find these changes in other places we could assume that their ancestors had formerly sojourned in the affected regions at the time in question. This however would not be enough to determine an inherited relationship between bearers of the characteristic though it could lead in that direction.
The CMH is a haplotype that occurs in J1, J2, and elsewhere:
<<The bulk of the CMHgchromosomes were observed in J1 (53.0%) and J2 (43.2%), with a small portion falling outside of haplogroup J (3.8%)>>
An Updated World-Wide Characterization of the Cohen Modal Haplotype.
J.E. Ekins et al.
Placing the occurrence of CMH outside of J to the side for the moment and concentrating on its occurrence only in J1 and J2 Di Giacomi made a proposal that superficially could explain the occurrence of CMH in both J1 and J2.
<<The CMH is considered the putative ancestral haplotype of haplogroup J1
(Di Giacomo et al. 2004).>>
Giacomi says that the CMH gave rise to J1. If this were so it would explain perhaps how CMH could be found in both J1 and J2. The explanation could be explained as saying that originally there was J2. CMH emerged as a haplotype in J2. From the CMH variety of J2 "mutated" J1. At that stage we would have had J2 without CMH, J2 with CMH, and J1 with CMH.
Originally all J1 would have had CMH but something happened, J1 produced varieties mostly without CMH.
Nevertheless CMH remained as a haplotype in part of J1 and also as a haplotype in J2 from which it had originally emerged.
The Theory of Giacomi
Originally there was J2
J2CMH mutated from J2 giving
J2 and J2CMH
J1CMH mutated from J2CMH giving
J1CMH which existed alongside J2 and J2CMH
part of J1CMH mutated into J1 (without CMH) so that we have
J1CMH and J1
Total Result= J2, J2CMH, J1CMH, J1
This scenario is a bit far-fetched and even Giacomi probably would not agree with it. It is however the only way the presence of CMH in both J1 and J2 can be explained while preserving the principle of it being the result of a one-time only event. The problem however is that CMH is considered YOUNGER than both J2 and J1 and therefore could not have fathered "J1".
The CMH is a LATE Phenomenon!
From: Dienekes Pontikos <dienekes.pontikos@gmail.com>
"The CMH can arise on a J1 and a J2 background independently. In
addition to the CMH, there are numerous other haplotypes shared by
both J1 and J2, and there is no reason to believe that the CMH in
particular was the ancestral haplotype of haplogroup J. Actually, it
was almost certainly not, because the CMH has a long DYS388-16, and
ancestral J almost certainly had a short DYS388."
What Does the CMH Really Tell Us?
Question: We have seen from the above that CMH
does occur at a much higher frequency amongst Cohans than amongst others.
We have too seen that CMH is also found amongst non-Jewish peoples.
You have claimed that not all bearers of CMH are necessarily related to each other in anyway.
What then is the significance of CMH concerning Jews or people who think they may be Jewish?
Answer: CMH is more likely to appear in hg J (especially J1 amongst Jews) than in
other haplogroups. Once CMH appears it is transmitted by heredity.
Since Cohens are the most likely to have CMH when CMH is found amongst Jews there is a higher than average chance that the Jew is a Cohen.
Assuming that our figures are correct if ca. 3% of Jews are Cohens (some give an alternative figure as low as 1%) and half of them are CMH then ca.1.5% of the Jews are CMH Cohens.
We also understand that 3% of Jews who are not Cohens are CMH. The total percentage of Jews (Cohens and non-Cohens) who have CMH is 4.5%. If therefore we come across a Jew with CMH there is a probability factor of one out of three (33.3%)that he is a Cohen against a chance of 3 out of 100 when we do not know if he is CMH or not. A Jew with CMH is ca.10 times more likely to be a Cohen than a Jew without CMH is likely to be one. In other words, a third of the Jews with CMH are Cohens while only ca. 3% of them are not Cohens.
We can go further than this. Half the Cohens have CMH.
Jews who are Cohens are aware of the fact because they have a family tradition that they are Cohens.
There are however numerous reasons why this tradition would not always have been kept. The Cohens were Priests and as such were forbidden to marry certain categories of women:
THEY SHALL NOT TAKE A WIFE THAT IS A WHORE, OR PROFANE; NEITHER SHALL THEY TAKE A WOMAN PUT AWAY FROM HER HUSBAND: FOR HE IS HOLY UNTO HIS GOD [Leviticus 21:7].
What happened (as sometimes it must have as it still does today) when the Cohen transgressed the prohibition of his ancestral calling and took to wife a divorced or otherwise invalid spouse?
The answer is that the status of the children was impaired. They were "Chalel" (pronounced like "Halel" and related to the English word "hole", i.e. emptied) meaning emptied and voided of the Cohen privileges. This means that if and when the Temple was rebuilt they would not usually be allowed to officiate in the Divine Service. And there were other disabilities. They would also not receive the special offerings that the Cohens were given (Leviticus 22:10,
Numbers 18:28).
There were also cases were those who may have been descended from Cohens were disqualified since they lacked recorded evidence of it.
[Ezra 2:62] THESE SOUGHT THEIR REGISTER AMONG THOSE THAT WERE RECKONED BY GENEALOGY, BUT THEY WERE NOT FOUND: THEREFORE WERE THEY, AS POLLUTED, PUT FROM THE PRIESTHOOD.
[Ezra 2:63] AND THE TIRSHATHA SAID UNTO THEM, THAT THEY SHOULD NOT EAT OF THE MOST HOLY THINGS, TILL THERE STOOD UP A PRIEST WITH URIM AND WITH THUMMIM.
All these disqualified Cohens
would probably have felt they had a lower status. In such cases they might well have prefered to forget their Cohen
ancestry all together and have themselves and their children considered the same as every other ordinary Jewish-Israelite.
We may therefore expect to find Jews who are of Cohen ancestry and not aware of it.
The number of Jews who are not Cohens (as far as they know) with CMH is twice the numbers of Cohens who have the CMH.
It could however be the case that many of these non-Cohen CMH Jews actually had a Cohen ancestor.
It follows that within Jews we can assume that CMH is particular to Cohens or almost so.
Proportionately twice as many (ca. 85%) Cohens as "Israelite-Jews" are hg J and almost half of these hg J Cohens are CMH.
We may be justified in regarding the CMH in Cohens as emerging amongst the Cohanim some time after the designation of their forefather Aaron the first Cohen! CMH emerges from hg J. Cohens who have CMH are mostly from J1 even though CMH (elsewhere) is also found in J2. This also explains why more than half the Cohens are not CMH since they represent ancestral lines that continued as they were before the appearance of CMH in their fellows.
CMH is a haplotype that emerges spontaneously and after emerging remains to be transmitted by hereditry. This means that all Cohens who have CMH could be related to each other but CMH when occuring in non-Jewish peoples in most cases would be an independent phenomenon.
When CMH is found amongst non-Jews it does not indicate that the person has Jewish ancestry. If however additional evidence is available the presence of CMH may have some supportive value.
By analogy if ca. 14% of Irishmen have red hair versus only ca.7% for the non-Irish inhabitants of Glasgow, Scotland, and 10%(?) of Glasgow is Irish when we find a red-haired person in Glasgow there is (all other factors being the same) one chance in five (instead of one chance in ten) that the person is an Irishmen.
Since twice as many Irishmen have red hair there is more chance of a red-haired person being Irish.
This does not mean that all red-haired people are related to the Irish since not all red-hairs are kinfolk to each other even though red-hair is often an inherited trait.
We see from the above that DNA changes may take place spontaneously and repeatedly under certain conditions at least in regard to haplotypes.
If similar phenomenonen were to be applicable to DNA haplogroups it would mean that they have only LIMITED APPLICABILITY in determining common ancestry.
They would still however have some pertinence since once the DNA changes take place they are transmitted by hereditry. DNA may be able to tell us which groups of people were in the same areas at the same time and subject to the same influences even though they were not necessarily related to each other. More study on these matters is required.
The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) demonstrates the use of DNA by possibly helping us to trace who is a Cohen within the Jewish Community. On the other hand the CMH also exemplfies the limitations of DNA studies when we find it appearing independently amongst other peoples and with no ancestral connection to Israel.
The next article in this series contains a discussion of the CMH ilustrating some of the issues involved.
The Experts Vindicate in Part
"DNA Racial Classifications Refuted!"
The above URL-referenced article is somewhat technical and badly presented but the conclusion is that Brit-Am understanding of mass DNA changes taking effect within groups is admitted or at least implied though not explained.
See also:
Brit-Am
DNA Articles
Main Page
Offerings and Publications
Return to Question and Answer
Table of Contents
