Talk:Y-chromosomal Aaron

reverts

Reverted

unnecessary English --> American english spelling change
some rubbish about mutations; of course there are mutations, mutations are the source of the molecular clock that can be used to date the common ancestor. learn some genetics. Dunc|☺ 09:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Last time I checked, neither "hypothesised" nor "hypothesized" ended "Tised" or "Tized." You've now added the T twice to the article.
If you have evidence that the Y chromosome has not changed at all in the past few thousand years in any members of the Kohen linneage, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, the article should note that there are changes and not claim the chromosomes are identical. Furthermore, there is no reference to a "molecular clock" anywhere in the article, so even though both of us know that, the reader might not, and might wonder "if all of Aaron's descendents have the same chromosome, why don't all of Adam's, too?" I hardly think that's rubbish.
Learn some manners, and I'll assume that you were acting in good faith on the spelling issue. If not, calling my legitimate work "rubbish" and telling me to "learn some genetics" is certainly neither acting in good faith nor particularly polite.

Dave 09:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm interpreting three days of nonresponsiveness to mean my changes are acceptable. Cheers. Dave 04:26, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Levi's genes

Aw c'mon. Have a sense of humor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.130.108 (talk • contribs) .

It was very funny, but the casual reader will fail to get the joke. Anycase, there's plenty of fun to be had on the talk pages! JFW | T@lk 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is now immortalized at Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense_Gone_Wild#Y-chromosomal_Aaron —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry491 (talk • contribs) .

Very good. I should have BJAODNed it. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lemba --Non Jews?

The Lemba are listed as people "other than jews" who possess this gene, however, the Lemba do consider themselves to be Jewish and practice a form of Judaism. It is POV (and patronizing) to say that people who call themselves Jews are not Jewish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.69.57 (talk • contribs) .

I agree. I'll fix it. — Reinyday, 16:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that the waybread of the elves? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.124.124.86 (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Modal Haplotype and Haplogroup

It should be noted that the Haplogroup of the Cohen Haplogroup is based on the Cohen Halpotype, which is a "Modal" type, i.e. most common found markers among Cohenim. ( see Mode_(statistics) ) As a result of this, the Haplogroup "requirement" of the CMH is merely a derivative of another derivative. This introduces too much statistical error. (Any qualified statistician could see this error) Consequently, the "J" grouping should be left off until further and complete testing is done with ALL possible participants in order to determine a Modal Haplogroup, as well as, a listing of all possible included haplogroups. Also, it is statistically necessary to show the standard deviation [1] for the haplotype so that proper statistical calculations of relatedness can be completed.

This is important to mention because there are a few, matches to the Cohen Modal Haplotype in some other Haplogroups, and these matches can NOT be explained through the layman method of "coincidence". Mathematically, the usage of the word "coincidence" is not valid. One quite well known surname, actually, which seemingly derives its roots from the Hebrew word "Keis", [Kaf-Samech] as found in the Sefer Shemot 17:16, is quite interesting in its closeness to the 12 marker CMH. If this similarity were just coincidence, we would see much more coincidental matching from other haplogroups, but we do not. Some sources have stated that the haplogroup to which this particular family belongs used to be considered a subclade of "J".

This is especially intriguing because these individuals, Keis, do NOT match ANY, (not even remotely), modal haplotypes for their existing Haplogroup. However, these individuals DO show a close relationship to the CMH, significantly more so than to any other type or origin among any other haplogroupings including their own haplogroup. This is not typical and examinations of existing Y-DNA databases show this to be quite unusual in nature.

A new study is needed to discover why these individuals have a differing haplogroup than the modal type would seem to predict and to explain the similarities, especially of this particular family surname to the CMH, and the name's potential sources in Hebrew. Coincidence is not a valid mathematical answer in this case. Many times in the past people have been purposefully excluded from these types of results, only to be discovered later to actually be who they claimed to be.

Consequently, more study is needed.

As an example, using the CMH 12 marker data below, we see the interesting comparison:

Cohen Modal Type:	12, 23, 14, 10, (13), (15), 11, 16, (12), 13, 11, [30]
Surname above:	12, 23, 15, 10, (13), (15), 11, 14, (11), 13, 11, [29]

This would seem to indicate some form of "cousin" relationship, and if the count in the 388 marker were even one greater, would indicate this family was actually Cohenim. Again, this similarity is found with no other data currently existing in Y-DNA databases, clearly indicating some more study is required.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.255.158 (talk • contribs) .

Current 12 marker values for the CMH

Just wanted to add that there are now 12 markers being used in the CMH they are:

12, 23, 14, 10, (13), (15), 11, 16, (12), 13, 11, [30]

Formatting legend:

"()" -- Commonly mutable marker, i.e. mutates more frequently than others, non-matches are less significant than non-matches in other markers

"[]" -- This is acutally a sumation of other markers so not matching it is not important.

Order is: 393, 390, 19, 391, 385a, 385b, 426, 388, 439, 389i, 392, 389ii

This information comes from FamilyTreeDNA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.255.158 (talk • contribs) .

Kurdish Jews

The current version of the article says there is no tradition or history of Kurdish Jews. This is rather misleading. There are indeed Kurdish Jews, including thousands of them in Israel today. I think we need to revise this language. Acarvin 21:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it, and also pointed to Genetic origins of the Kurds. — Reinyday, 16:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

removal

I'm removing the following:

Hence, when two haplotypes match (no matter how many markers are tested in common on them, whether it is 4, 8 or 12) it is conventionally stated that the "most recent common ancestor," the male ancestor they share, lived about 10,000 years ago unless there is also isonymy (congruence of surname). For multiple matching sites, however, one must add the probabilities, and if this is done for nine markers (the searchable standard in the YHRD), the results are a combined mutation rate of once every 952 years, i.e. a time depth of 500-1500 years, about a millennium ago. In other words, exact matches on nine sites go back to about the year 1000. Nine test locations are very few for today's market.

I don't know why the MRCA is stated as 10,000 years. If you match someone at 67 of 67, then it is 90% chance that the MRCA is within 4 generations.[2] — Reinyday, 17:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

deletion

Just deleted three duplicate pararaphs under "Founder..." which were identical to the three paragraphs still there. My first Wiki edit! Reluctant Pilgrim 07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longitudinal?

From the article: However, mutation rates are bitterly disputed and only longitudinal studies such as comparisons available to large DNA projects will yield secure estimates.

Maybe some clarification would be in order? To the casual reader the example seems to describe a cross-sectional study, not a longitudinal one... --Tabor 05:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews are racists

Wow. Jews keep track of their priests genes. What a bunch of motherfucking racists. Can't anyone be a priest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.243.59.119 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Re:

Is it Racist to trace your ancestry?