Talk:Y-chromosomal Aaron/Archive 1

reverts
Reverted


 * 1) unnecessary English --> American english spelling change
 * 2) 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|&#9786; 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)
 * It is now immortalized at Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense_Gone_Wild —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)

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).

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_%28statistics%29 ) 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   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:

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).


 * The following records on Ysearch appear to match this family: NZMH4, 7DFSZ, 9YJ2F. According to Ysearch they have all been SNP tested and found to be Haplogroup I1a; also they are all predicted 100% to be I1a by Whit Athey's Haplogroup Predictor, on the basis of their Y-STR haplotypes.


 * The truth is that they are much closer to the modal haplotype of I1a than to the CMH, especially when 25 and 37 marker haplotypes are considered; and they are not an unusual distance from the I1a modal, when compared to the spread-out typical of other members of I1a.


 * Keis dismissed. Jheald 10:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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).


 * To be more precise, what matters is to match on the difference between 389ii and 389i, rather than 389ii itself. Jheald 10:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * 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. — 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)

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)

Current study of Cohen DNA is flawed and needs more investigation
There are a few points worth mentioning: The real marker of the Cohens has not been positively identified yet. The study by Skorecki, used a particular methodology in which slightly more J1 was found than J2 was found to describe the CMH, but with the relative proportions almost 50/50. A previous study had identified J2 as predominating among Cohens. The Skorecki study seems to have used a 12-marker system to identify the J1 haplotype, which automatically excludes most of the people who also carry J2 and has been estimated to exlude more than 2/3 of the people that are genuine Cohens. This point was alluded to on the forum http://www.familytreedna.com/forum/printthread.php?t=3677

To illustrate the problem, consider the following: Suppose a study was conducted in a Scottish border region to identify the relative proportions of Anglo-Saxon and Gaelic/Celtic heritage in the population there. To do this, the researcher selects a sample population and tallies the frequency of several typically English and Scottish surnames for each individual in the last 10 generations: the typically English surnames Smith and Thompson on the one hand, and typically Scottish surnames Stewart and MacDonald on the other. Suppose now, another researcher decides, for whatever reason, to identify a more specific 'Scottish heritage' requiring not only the names Stewart and McDonald, but also other traditional Scottish names like Wallace, McKenzie, and Dunn. True, the number of people who will have at least one of these names in his family tree will be greater. But if one were to compile a list of individuals with all these names in his family tree in the last 10 generations, the percentage of these people who also have the names Smith and Thompson would be substantially less than if only 2 Scottish names were considered as qualifying for Scottish heritage. The result would be that this particular Scottish population would be assumed to be of predominantly Scots Gaelic heritage when in fact it may be primarily Anglo-Saxon, and also a skewed image of what a Scottish heritage actually is would be presented.

It therefore comes as no surprise that a similar study of Levites found a much more varied origin, even though Levites are substantially similar to Cohens. Also, numerous studies found that J2 is found in Jews, both Sephardic and Ashkenazim, more than twice as frequency than J1. Even more interesting is the 2001 study by Nebel et al. which, using the supposed (predominantly J1) Cohen Modal Haplotype determined by the Skorecki study, determined that the CMH is only one microsatellite apart from the Moslem Kurdish haplotype, which is found on J2, while being more distant from the Galilee Moslem Arab and Negev Bedouin haplotypes, which are both found on J1 and linked to the movement of Arab populations from the Arabian peninsula. It's like saying that if you take a look at a more comprehensive view of this Scottish border region, the Scottish guy with all 5 Scottish names I mentioned in his family tree to 10 generations actually has more common heritage with the nearby English than a Scottish highlander from an area relatively untouched by English settlement. Like I said, much more work needs to be done on this subject. 205.68.95.65 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)JB


 * That's fascinating, but unfortunately is all original research which Wikipedia cannot include. Do you have any sources for us to cite that have reached the same conclusions? JoshuaZ 19:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article does already make your second point to some extent, for instance in the paragraph:


 * One source of early confusion was a widespread popular notion that only Cohens or only Jews could have the Cohen Modal Haplotype. It is now clear that this is not the case. The Cohen Modal Haplotype, whilst notably frequent amongst Cohens, is also far from unusual in the general populations of haplogroups J1 and J2 with no particular link to the Cohen ancestry. These haplogroups occur widely throughout the Middle East and beyond [7],[8]. So whilst many Cohens have haplotypes close to the CMH, a far larger number of such haplotypes worldwide belong to people with no likely Cohen connection at all.


 * But this point could perhaps be made again, more firmly, in the "Other carriers of the DNA" section, which I haven't yet done much editing to.


 * With regard to your first point, I think you are mistaken. There is no indication that any of the published studies discriminated against J2.  The Cohens sampled appear to have come from a wide selection of populations - they were not just "Highland Cohens"!  (NB: they weren't all called Cohen!!).  And there is nothing in the testing methodology that would have discriminated against J2.


 * In fact, none of the published studies tested J1 vs J2 at all. The STR results are marginally more likely to have come from J1 than J2, but there's not a lot in it.


 * It is widely believed, from the word that has got out from surname projects, from the few Cohens that are visible in public databases, and from FTDNA's webpages, that the haplogroup much more commonly found in Cohens is J1 rather than J2. When this is discussed in the article, under "Higher resolution", I hope that footnote 9 indicates the rather unsatisfactorily informally sourced nature of this information.  I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with the way it is sometimes stated as a definite fact, as I raised on Talk:Haplogroup_J_%28Y-DNA%29.  But nevertheless, it does appear to be accepted fact by those with access to the data.  Jheald 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point that the test for CMH does not explicitly 'weed out' those with a J2 haplotype, but the discussion thread on the Family Tree DNA, "CMH Question: I was, but am I still?" highlights the crux of the problem. A portion of those who were delineated Cohens using the original 6-marker model suddenly found themselves excluded using the 12-marker model, since the new test 'raised the bar' somewhat. But the testing company FTDNA did not disclose the basis of its 12-marker model, and when you add the fact that no one actually knows the breakdown of ancient Cohen DNA and the point you raised that those with surnames 'Cohen' were not necessarily considered Cohens, the question of what is the basis of identifing this as the Cohen modal haploype begs itself. Presumably, the intention is to eliminate the number of 'false positives' when including a Cohen, but by raising the bar in this manner you end up with a lot of 'false negatives', i.e. true Cohens exluded from consideration. The point was repeatedly raised in the discussion thread at http://www.familytreedna.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3677&page=2&pp=10 that indeed the model made by FTDNA may have been primarily concerned with making the CMH a J1 pattern rather than maximizing the number of Cohens in a cluster. This would necessarily mean eliminating many true Cohens who tend more toward J2, even if they also have a lot of J1. My suspicions to this effect were raised by the points I made earlier. If Levites were found to be characterized by various different haplotypes, with only a trace of J, how is it possible for highly related Cohanim to be in the J haplotype almost to exclusion of anything else (for instance, why don't they have more E3B, the second most common haplotype among Jews)? What is the percentage of J1 and J2 found in Levites? Another point is the studies, paricularly by Nebel, which found the CMH to be closer to the Kurdish haplotype (which is found on a J2 background) than to various haplotypes on a J1 background. This was corroborated in the study by Zoossmann-Diskin. The same study found CMH to be heavily represented among south/central Italians. Italy has one of the highest concentrations of J2 in Europe. This point is alluded to in this Wikipedia article, but surely that predates the arrival of Judean slaves by millenia. This may not be the best comparison, but the following scenario springs to mind: If one were to study the population distribution around the U.S., one would find that by the far the highest concentration of people lives around the Northeast, in particular the "megalopolis" stretching from Boston to Washington, D.C. For sure, the geographical population center of the country would be located toward the East of the country. But that doesn't change the fact that the state with by far the highest population is California.

138.88.182.236 01:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)JB


 * Before we start, can I just say that I'm not happy with the shorthand equation "doesn't share the majority common ancestry" => "not a 'true' Cohen". I think that the direct consequence of that kind of judgementalism is to create a lot of unnecessary unhappiness.  When families can show that they have passed down Cohen traditions for 500 years, and perhaps longer, that continuity should be respected and treated seriously, regardless of whether 500 years is less than 3000 years.


 * Now, to your points:


 * The point was repeatedly raised in the discussion thread at http://www.familytreedna.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3677&page=2&pp=10 that indeed the model made by FTDNA may have been primarily concerned with making the CMH a J1 pattern rather than maximizing the number of Cohens in a cluster.


 * That is quite a serious allegation; but I can understand why people may be reaching for the tinfoil hats, in response to the extraordinary level of secrecy/cover-up about the higher-resolution distribution of Cohen STR haplotypes.


 * One thing that can be found by combing the public databases (eg Ysearch, public FTDNA projects, Sorenson etc) is a small cluster of Ashkenazi Cohen-associated surnames with Y-STR haplotypes close to the 63 marker Y-STR Cohen haplotype Ysearch G6839. This is firmly in J1, and matches the 12 marker signature published by FTDNA.  Not all Cohen-type names have this pattern; but there is no other similar cluster of haplotypes belonging to such names to be found elsewhere.


 * Presumably, the intention is to eliminate the number of 'false positives' when including a Cohen, but by raising the bar in this manner you end up with a lot of 'false negatives', i.e. true Cohens exluded from consideration.


 * Rather than talking about "Cohens", first let's talk about close matches to the G6839 cluster. Going to more makers can only improve the specificity of a match (or not) to G6839.  So long as you allow for an appropriate amount of "genetic distance", you're not going to increase the number of false negatives to G6839 by increasing the number of markers tested.  On the contrary, there are "false negatives" on the 6 marker match, which can turn out to be rather closely related to G6839 after all when you look at more markers.


 * But there hasn't been a paternal-line common ancestor between G6839 and J2 for at least 10,000 years. So if somebody SNP tests as belonging to J2, then we can say for sure they aren't closely related to the G6839 cluster.


 * This leaves open the question of whether G6839 is reflective of the majority of Cohens as a whole -- ie the question of the basic underlying hypothesis, can we say that a majority of Cohens share a single paternal-line common ancestor at a timescale of 3,000 to 4,000 years ago?


 * As you say, the corresponding hypothesis for Levites is false. And the higher-resolution data on Cohens as a group, that would answer the question definitively, is at this time still a closely-guarded secret.  It does appear that there are a lot of Ashkenazi Cohens with Y-STR haplotypes appropriately close to the G6839 cluster.  Is there another sizeable cluster of Cohens in J2?  We don't know.


 * But if there were, you would have to ask why, out of all of the possible 6-marker haplotypes associated with J2, would this group also be found so close to the CMH, when they wouldn't have shared a common ancestor with G6839 for 10,000 years ? Jheald 09:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another point is the studies, paricularly by Nebel, which found the CMH to be closer to the Kurdish haplotype (which is found on a J2 background) than to various haplotypes on a J1 background. This was corroborated in the study by Zoossmann-Diskin. The same study found CMH to be heavily represented among south/central Italians. Italy has one of the highest concentrations of J2 in Europe.


 * I'm not saying that the CMH-6 can't be found in J2. It can.  But at most, across J2 as a whole, the frequency of CMH-6 in J2 runs at only about 10%.  So if there were to be a second Cohen cluster, in J2, why would it be so close to the CMH-6, when the odds are 90-10 against? Jheald 09:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that CMH was most closely associated with J1 when considering STR's, but when SNP's are also taken into account, the amount observed in J2 rises to over 43%. Honestly, I don't claim to be well versed on this topic; you know a lot more than I do. But something just doesn't jive here. Why is CMH so completely different from the Levites? Why isn't CMH observed among the Samaritan Cohens? Why do the CMH and the general Israelite haplotypes fall into different haplogroups? Is it possible that a few thousand Cohanim are more closely descended from the ancient Israelites than the rest of the Jewish population? I find that hard to believe, because a variety of non-Cohenic Jewish groups - the Babylonian exilarchs, the nesiim, some Hassidim (e.g. Baal Shem Tov) preserved ancient traditions of descent from David. So, if CMH is substancially different from the other Jewish groups, and if the Cohanim are derived from two separate ancestors, one in J1 and the other in J2, who is the Cohen ancestor that is not ancestral to much of the rest of the Jewish population? Melchitzedek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 March 2007

Dating
I've cut the following out of the article to here, not because it's completely without merit, but because it needs some work, and some deeper thought and research.


 * Founder effect


 * People who do not believe in the validity of the Cohen Modal Haplotype say that such efforts to detect a genetic signature's survival in the Y chromosome unchanged over 3,500 years (approximately the amount of time since the time of the patriarchs) seem misplaced. While it has been shown that surname studies and Y-DNA matches validate each other, the most current research increasingly points to a relatively recent historical timeframe for founder effects and matching haplotypes.


 * According to a study by a forensic team, the average mutation rate for Y-STRs (the "alleles" that create differences in haplotype scores) is 2.1 x 10(-3), or once every 476 generations, i.e., once every 14,280 years. But this estimate is computed on the basis of one allele changing – on its either increasing by 1 or its diminishing by 1. Where most people err is to forget that these statistics apply to one marker. For the six markers, the approximate 50% point for one mutation would be one-sixth or 2400 years.


 * Hence, even if Aaron's progeny did prosper and survive over the millennia, they would have split into dozens of different genealogies. Some believe that if the discoverers of the "Cohen Modal Haplotype" found any modal Jewish haplotype at all it is probably the genes of a prolific medieval rabbi who lived about 1000 years ago and had numerous sons and grandsons. Others argue that the fact that so many people with a family belief of being Cohanim have tested positive for the Cohen Modal Haplotype offers proof of its validity.  The former conclusion consorts better with the emerging consensus that the roots of the human family tree are much shallower than previously believed.  However, mutation rates are bitterly disputed and only longitudinal studies such as comparisons available to large DNA projects will yield secure estimates. [Surname projects are limited to recent western Christian populations and do not apply to other cultural groups.]

Jheald 12:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there are a number of issues here. The capsule summary is, I think, to quote Dienekes Pontikos of the well-known blog, "The conclusions of the earlier studies regarding the dating of the CMH-6 cluster are no longer persuasive". That's not saying that the dating is necessarily wrong, but that the calculation in Thomas et al (1998) to establish it is no longer convincing.

The two key points are:

1. The grouping of the samples. The most serious problem is that we now know that some of the set of samples grouped together for the calculation were not at all closely related. As well as the main J1 CMH group, the calculation also included haplotypes of Cohanim we can now recognise as belonging to J2, and some from even further afield (haplogroups G, I and K). This is why the researchers found the distribution had anomalous extra peaks in DYS 388, causing them to ignore that marker for the dating.

Including these samples caused the researchers to overestimate the average squared deviation (ASD). As the text above spotted, the central group, which is J1 CMH, is actually much more closely clustered than is compatible with the researchers' overall ASD estimate. The estimate is too big.

2. The time/ASD equation. Countering this to some extent, the simple equation
 * $$\mathrm{ASD} = \mu t\,$$

linking the ASD, the mutation rate and the time to a common ancestor has also proved to be flawed.

A subtle feature of its derivation is the assumption, for each haplotype in the population at each stage in time, that a group of closely similar haplotypes will end up with the same number of descendents as any similar sized group of very dissimilar haplotypes. However in practice this will not be the case, simply because of the effect of random fluctutions, especially in small population sizes, and as a result the haplotype distribution ends up more concentrated than the naive equation would predict:
 * $$\mathrm{ASD} < \mu t\,$$

or
 * $$\mu t = \alpha \mathrm{ASD}\,$$

where &alpha;&gt;1.

Typical estimates for the tweak factor &alpha; are in fact as high as 3, although as yet these are primarily empirical rather than well theoretically grounded.

It is possible that effects #1 and #2 may largely cancel each other out: the ASD will be smaller, but putting in an appropriate tweak factor may to some extent compensate.

The observation remains valid, that if the same CMH prevalence has been inherited by Sephardi Cohens as well as Ashkenazis, then the characteristic must surely pre-date the diaspora. But it would not be surprising to find at least the Ashkenazi results tightly clustering around a few key lines within the overall group, relecting distinct medieval lineage founders, with some clusters particularly dominant, just as a consequence of random fluctuation in the number of descendents.

Other points:

3. Mutation rates. The mutation rate assumed of 0.0021 assumed in the cut paragraphs above is in fact exactly the same rate as was assumed by Thomas et al (1998). The numbers are still not very certain, but this estimate is still probably not that far out as an average estimated rate over the six loci. However, one thing that is now much more appreciated is how considerably the mutation rates vary from DYS locus to locus. This information can be used to calculate a weighted version of the ASD, which otherwise disproportionately reflects only the fastest mutating loci.

4. Error bars. The very small quoted uncertainty estimate in the 1998 paper was never justified. It would hold only if each of the samples gave a completely independent data point for the variation from the mean. But this was never going to be true, because the lineages inevitably coalesce more and more into shared common lines, going back in time. So the actual number of effective independent data is very much smaller, and the uncertainty very much larger. At the end of the day, a substantial uncertainty is inevitable -- for instance it can never be less than the uncertainty in the convergence time for the last 2 lines remaining, going back in time.

Jheald 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon contribution (cut)
I've reverted the following anon contribution from the article:


 * However most Kohanims have J2 ( Indo-Europeans ancestry: Kurds, italians, greek, anatolian ancestries) J1 was found to be in only 10% of Kohanim, while the remaining 90% is mainly J2 and many different ancestries. The Haplotype/s represent recent ancestry ( less than 3 ooo years) while Haplogroup represent deep ancestry ( started at least 10 000 years ago, before Abraham or Aaron existed)


 * The existance of the Kohanim Modal Haplotype was found recently to be only in J2 not J1 the Semetic deep ancestry, adding the few kohanims ( few thousands in the whole world to the Ashkenazi Levites ( hundreds of thousands) who turned out to be from Haplogroup R1a1 ( deep ancestry of the Slavic nations) as imposters and intruders on the Israelite lineage.

According to the figures from Behar, the CMH accounts for somewhat over 50% of Kohanim, in both Ashkenazi and Sephardi communities. From what is known from public databases, this appears to be associated with J1, not J2.

If the anon, or anybody else, can point to a reliable source for "90% of Kohanim being non-J1", I would be very interested. Until then, I'm cutting it until it can be substantiated. Jheald 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My dear friend: Cohen Modal Haplotype was found in 3 million arabs in the country of Oman alone. All the Cohanim in the whole world are less than few hundred thouthands, but only 50% of them are Cohanim Haplotype AND J1. Since the writer of the study says that only CMH in J1 that only count as ancestry of Aaron ( understandable since Aaron could only be J1 or J2!!, since no J2 in Ethiopia and Eriteria at all but plenty of J1 and since Arabs are mainly J1 ( understood since Aaron and Ishmael are sons of the same man Abraham who could only be J1 or J2 and can not be both!!!) then only J1+ CMH is ancestry of Aaron, while CMH +J2 is definitely not descendents of Aaron. The reason for the confusion here is that CMH is older than J1 and it could be found in J2 and J1 and others. While J1 in Cohanim people is only 50% it is even much less in Ashkenazim (15%) and even lesser in Sephardim (12%) ( even though we know these numbers are jazzed up by the jewish researchers the three stooges of Family DNA website!! Behar, Nebel and Hammer!! The Mezrahi have the least of J1 and this proves that all jewish branches are liars and imposters on the ancestry of Abraham and/or the Semites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.28.120 (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When did he live?
Does the article state when the Y-chromosomal Aaron might have lived? This should be in the lead, right up top, as is done for the Mitochondrial Eve article. Badagnani (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tricky. The estimate in the 1998 paper is now known to be badly flawed, and not reliable.  (See the "Dating" section above).  But, as far as I remember, none of the subsequent papers has published a revised estimate.


 * It might be possible to do some work on the sequences in the public databases to estimate a cluster age; but such estimates are controversial even on the DNA-genealogy mailing lists, and here they would likely qualify as WP:OR. It is also likely that such estimates would get skewed by the presence of particular Ashkenazi lines that may have tended to have large families, generation after generation -- so you may get a date which is more reflective of the common ancestor of descendents of this group, rather than the common ancestor of all J1 CMH Cohens.  This problem could be made worse because, unlike the academic sample group, the group with sequences on the net is self-selecting, and appears to be overwhelmingly Ashkenazi, with few if any Sephardi Cohens identifiable.


 * There are enough uncertainties (eg as to mutation rates, extent of shared ancestry (and the right way to compensate for it), and simply from the randomness of the mutation process), that I suspect any answer could only be given with very large error bars. If the mathematics were to come out to give a median date of 0 AD, with error bars including anything from 5000 BC to 1000 AD (picking numbers completely out of nowhere, just for the purposes of discussion), I agree that that would be worth knowing and worth citing; but the calculation would nevertheless be likely to be attacked for its assumptions, and the numbers would still probably be too vague to be indicative of very much.  Jheald (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But if somebody did try to do a calculation, I'd be interested to see what they got... Jheald (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
Recently, the following text has been added by User:Chriscohen. I propose cutting it to here, out of the main article. Although I am sure added in good faith, it does not represent an accurate current understanding of the Cohen Modal Haplotype. We now know far more about the overall picture, and where the CMH fits into it; and we can also now recognise that, while the original papers were very important, not every conclusion made in them has turned out to be correct. I'll expand on this in more detail below. Jheald (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In particular, the CMH is a (rather limited) Y-STR signature -- not a Unique Event Polymorphism.
 * Secondly, it should be recognised that the papers published by Thomas et al were soe of the very earliest ever published in the field of genetic genealogy, one of the very earliest explorations at a time when almost nothing was known of the surrounding genetic landscape. Since then, in the last ten years, there has been a huge amount of research, and of data gathered.


 * The same team that discovered and announced the Cohen Modal Haplogroup,(first published by Nature Magazine on Jan 2 1997), came foward one year and six month later (9 July 1998) to announce, [ after new analyses and samples studies ], the final point regarding the Unique Cohanim Lineage: J1 Kohanim and J2 Kohanim have the same common orign. (Y-Chromosome Aaron)


 * -- Note: this cannot be correct, because J1 and J2 had not yet been named and identified at this stage. Jheald (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The J2 Kohanim and J1 Kohanim are from the same Cohanim "Unique-Event Pholymorphism" (UEP). Because of microsatellite instability, it is useful to define a COHEN MODAL CLUSTER of related chromosomes as the modal haplotype and 'all of its one-mutation neighbours at the microsatellite loci', wich 'all share the same Cohen' Unique-Event Pholymorphism (UEP). The distribution of allele sizes within Cohen UEP group, at the trinucleotide microsatellite DYS388 indicates a 'departure' from the stepwise mutation modal. Because this modal underlies the method used to estimate the coalescence time of Cohen chromosomes, the DYS388 was 'dropped' and not considerate from the analysis.


 * Example: DYS 393 390 19 391 392
 * J1 (CMH) – 12 23 14 10 11 (Cohen Unique-Event Pholymorphism)
 * J2 Kohanim – 12 23 15 10 11 (Cohen Unique-Event Pholymorphism)
 *  [any one-mutation neighbours = The same Cohen' Unique-Event Pholymorphism'(UEP).


 * The Cohen Modal 'Unique-Event Pholymorphism' strongly suggests a common orign, ' Y - Chromosome - Aaron', on both Ashkenazic and Sephardic Cohanim.


 * Under stepwise mutations, the average squared difference (ASD) in allele size among all current chromossomes and the ancestral haplotype, averaged over loci, has an expectation of 'T', where is the mutation rate and 'T' the coalescence time. Taking the Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities 'as a whole', the value is 0.226. This give an estimated of 106 generations, dating the coalescence of Cohanim chromosomes to between the Exodus, and the destruction of the first Temple in 586 BC. (Conservatively taking 95% confidence intervals on the mutation rate leads to an interval of a mininum 34 generations).


 * In the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Cohanim, the Cohen Modal Haplotype Cluster frequencies are 69.4% and 61.4%, respectively. For comparison, among Ashkenazic and Sephardic Israelites, the frequencies are only 14.7%, and 13.8% respectively. In a sample of 306 male Jews from Israel, Canada and United Kingdom, it was found 112 different compound haplotypes. Despite extensive diversity among Jews (Israelites), a 'single' haplotype (The modal haplotype "Cohen Unique-Event pholymorphism')is strikingly frequent in both Ashkenazic and Sephardic Cohanim. 

Comments:

1. Unique event polymorphism?

As discussed at Unique event polymorphism, and in the article Genealogical DNA test, there are two main types of genetic variation that are tested in genealogical DNA tests. The first, SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) are very rare, to the extent that it can be assumed that all the individuals who share the marker, worldwide, will have inherited it from the same common ancestor, and the same single mutation event. This is why they are classed as UEPs (Unique event polymorphisms). SNPs are used to define the [|haplogroups], like haplogroup J and its sub-groups J1 and J2. All members of a particular haplogroup can trace their male-line descent to a particular mutation event, that occurred in a particular individual in some past epoch.

In contrast, variations in STR (short tandem repeat) counts happen far more often - and can also reverse themselves. This makes STR signatures useful to identify and separate recent genealogical history. But on the other hand, it can mean that several different lineages can all happen to have reached the same STR signature just by random chance, not because they are closely related. So STR signatures can not be classed as Unique event polymorphisms. The chance that diferent lineages may have converged to the same STR signature is higher the shorter the signature. And the 5 or 6 locus signature of the original CMH is very short.

We can date Haplogroups J1 and J2 by considering the spread of different STR signatures now associated with them. Typical answers are in the range 10,000 to 20,000 years ago -- much older than clusters associated with the CMH in either haplogroup. The original person associated with J1 (and similarly for J2) lived long before Biblical times. With time, the range of STR signatures associated with each haplogroup has spread out, as the population has increased and mutated, until now if you plot it, the range of associated 6-locus STRs look like two blobs, which slightly overlap. The CMH signature can be found in the overlap; it is recent (comparatively); and it does not correspond to a single lineage.

This is confirmed if one looks at more STR loci. Whilst Cohens in J1 and Cohens in J2 with the CMH (more or less) may more or less match on 6 loci, they do not match (as the present WP article explains) when you look at more loci -- indicating that they do not share a recent (< 10,000 years ago) common ancestor. This has become much more clear since 1998.

2. DYS 388. We now know that the reason that Thomas et al found an anomalous histogram distribution for DYS 388 is not so much that DYS 388 has different mutation characteristics, but more specifically that the group of samples they were considering was not homogenous. Instead, we can now identify, looking at the underlying data, that it contained a few Cohens from Haplogroups G, I and K, as well as Cohens from Haplogroup J. Haplogroups G, I and K are all associated with sharply lower values at DYS 388, which is why the distribution for this locus didn't look like a simple single bump.

3. Dating. As discussed in other sections on this talk page above, the dating in the paper must now be regarded as questionable at best. Excluding the samples which we can now recognise as coming from Haplogroups G, I and K gives a rather less spread out STR distribution -- ie one with a rather lower ASD, pointing (other things being equal) to a rather younger cluster age. On the other hand, we now also know that the relationship between the cluster age and the ASD is rather less straightforward than was assumed back in 1998 by Thomas et al. The direct link between the two assumed in that paper only holds if all lineages in the population grow at similar rates. But this fails, because the growth is inevitably uneven -- some lineages go through population bottlenecks, others systematically grow faster. As a result, the naive ASD calculation tends to underestimate the cluster age. However, it is controversial whether this can be corrected for. Some have suggested simply multiplying the "ASD age" by a factor of 3. Others reject this. Finally, even given the ASD model, the uncertainty error estimates in the Thomas paper are far too low -- effectively they assume each line from the original founder is completely independent of the others, so each sample represents a different independent data point for its age. In reality, though, the different ancestries will merge and be anything but independent; so there are many fewer effective measurements of the age, and the error bars (even if the ASD model were correct) would be much much larger. On all these grounds, we have to recognise that the world has moved on since the original Thomas et al age estimate.

4. Cluster frequencies. These are already reported higher up, in the section "Initial studies".

For these reasons therefore, the recent additions, whilst well intentioned, are misguided and should be reverted. Jheald (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jheald. How are you? Thanks for your message.


 * The infos that I added was in good faith, for sure, and from the source of Origins of Old Testaments Priests - Nature, Volume 394 - 9 de July 1998.


 * This is the ultimate Doctor Karl Skorecki statment along with his top team. You said that the Dr. Skorecki's infos that I added "cannot be correct?".


 * You went to far on that!


 * I am please to tell you that the infos are correct. You dont have authority to remove Dr. Skorecki infos and facts. He is the one that first discovered the CHM in 1997. The info I added was from Dr. Skorecki, reconized and published by Nauture, almost two years later after the first article with the CMH standard signature.


 * There is no other article published by Nature, since 1998, about this specific matter, or anything that could say that Dr. Skorecki statments are false or incorrect about the Cohen Unique-Event Pholymorphism. I understand that there is a lof of different foccus and controvery over this matters and I appreciate the infos that you posted but without credible sources like Nature and Dr. Skorecki. But until you dont have material published from a credible and notorious Magazine as Nature,(saying that those info are incorrect) dont ever think about deleting the infos from Dr. Skorecki again, ok?


 * Again, you and nobody else have any more authority than Dr. Skorecki over this specif matter. The lasted book, published in 2004 from Devora Company, THE DNA & TRADITION, has his full article. I think you must have one. It is well explained there.


 * Please dont take me wrong. I will post again the infos, as soon as possible for me. (I did not save the infos, because I would think that anyone could have this king of gut to go against Dr. Skorecki), so I dont have the time right now!


 * Take care, and please dont get me wrong!


 * Chris Cohen (tested by his team and with the Cohen Unique-Event Polymorphism) J2 Kohanim. I am the President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. And a personal friend with all of his team members. I do belong to a traditional Cohanim family well know in Jerusalem and EUA. I am a member and sponsor of The Center of Cohanim, in Israel. I support the Cohen-Levi Organization and their projects. I am the President of the longest brazilian newspaper, Jornal Goyaz founded in 1884, with 124 years. As a jornalist and publisher, I am just about to publish a book about the Conhanim, containing also the infos that I added.


 * PS: I think that persecutions and anti-semitism during jewish history was good enought to separate the Tribe and Cohanim. It is now, time of reunion and gathering the tribe. The Cohen-Unique Polymorphism put on the same basket and family, the J1 Cohanim and J2 Cohanim like myself. I hope that you can understand that, and dont get me wrong. The CMH is not the only signature for the Cohanim anymore. The Cohen-UniqueEvent Polymorphism is much more precisely and strong and important information for all readers.


 * If you need the definition of 'Unique-Event Polymorphism', here cames a great one from Wikipedia:


 * In genetic genealogy a Unique Event Polymorphism (UEP) is a genetic marker that corresponds to a mutation which is likely to occur so infrequently that it is believed 'overwhelmingly' probable that 'all' the individuals who share the marker, worldwide, will have inherited it from the same common ancestor, and the same single mutation event.


 * -- it then specifically goes on to say why STR combinations (eg like the CMH) do not represent UEPs. Jheald (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Take care.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris,


 * Science runs on data rather than authority.


 * There's a simple way to check this. I don't know how many STRs you have had tested for yourself, but compare your full results with, say, G6839 at Ysearch, which is a typical 63-marker STR result for a Cohen in Haplogroup J1.   (Alternatively, if you don't have your own results to hand, compare the results for J2 Cohens to J1 Cohens on the FTDNA Cohen project website ).


 * If you really are a Cohen in Haplogroup J2, it is likely that you will have mismatches on DYS 19 (=15, not 14); DYS 385a (=14, not 13); DYS 385b (=17, not 15); DYS 388 (=15, not 16); DYS 389ii (=29, not 30) -- and those just in the first 12 loci examined.   And when you look at more STR markers, you will find the trend continues.


 * Simply put, these results do not have the closeness you would expect for two lineages that really were related in the last 4,000 years.


 * There's a tightly-related cluster of Cohens in J1. There's another tightly-related cluster of Cohens in J2.  But when you look at 12 or 25 or 37 or 63 STR markers, you find there simply is no close (ie within ~5000 years) relatedness between those two clusters.


 * I regret, but that's what the data shows. I'm sorry if it's not what you wanted to see, but that's the way it goes.  Jheald (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jheald, again, you disappoint me by deleting the infos from Dr. Skorecki. I will insert again, and again. (I did not save it again, but I will save it next time for sure)

Since you said that "Science runs on data", I will let you study a little bid more, in order to be capable of disagree with Dr. Skorecki studies and statment. So you can better understand, once of all, the process of mutations, and to start helping you with this new task for your life, read this infos from Dr. Skorecki, published in 2004.

"Given the isolation of Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities, the presence of the same Cohen Unique Event Polymorphism in the Cohanim of both communities indicates a common orign. It is interesting, therefore, to estimate the time at wich Cohen chromossomes were derived from a commom ancestral chromossome (coalescence time). Under stepwise mutations, the average squared difference (ASD) in allele size among all current chromossome and the ancestral haplotype, averaged over loci, has an expectation of T, where is the mutation rate and T the coalescence time. Taking the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Communities as a whole, the value for ASD is 0.2226. Assuming a mutation rate of 0.0021, this gives a estimate of 106 generations time of 25 (30) years gives an estimate of 2,619 (3,180) years before present, dating the coalescence of the Cohanim chromossomes to between the Exodus and the destruction of the first Temple in 586 BC. Estimates based on the Ashkenazic and Sephardic samples taken separately are 2,619 (3,142) and 2,684 (3,221) years before present, respectively. To obtain confidence intervals on the distance between the ancestral and sampled chromossomes, I noted that most non-ancestral haplotypes are singletons, indicating that the genealogy connecting Cohen chromossomes is more like the star genealogy characteristic of rapid growth than the correlated genalogy characteristic of constant size populations. To obtain confidence intervals in this case, (M) mutations occur during the 106 generations, with (M) being a Poisson random variable with parameter 106. The number of mutations increasing allele size (D) is drawn from a binomial distribution with parameters 0.5 and (M) [0.5 reflects size symmetry of mutations] leading to the distance D (2dm). In a star genealogy, we have 485 (the number of loci multiplied by the sample size) observations of D. Confidence intervals are obtained by repeating this process 1,000 times and taking the associated 2.5 and 97.5 pecentiles, leading to a 95% confidence interval of  84-130 generations for the combined Ashkenazic and Sephardic samples or for a generations time of 25 years, only 2,100-3,250 years before present. The 95% confidence interval places the origin of priestly Y-Chromossomes sometime during or shortly before the first Temple period in Jewish history (2,100-3,250).” Author: Dr. Skorecki, Haifa Israel. (published on Jerusalem Post 2004).

Jheald, this is the bottom line! I am asking you, do not remove his true infos and facts from the article again. I am sorry, but again, you and me, does not have authority (Science Knowledge and credibility) than Dr. Skorecki. Who are you? Can you tell me your credentials and full name as I did before about myself? Please, go ahead and study Science a little bid more, in order to be at least capable of going against Dr. Skorecki statments. Have a great time! Please dont take me wrong. I will add Dr. Skorecki infos again and again, if that may be the case! I'm sorry if it's not what you wanted to see, but that's the way it goes. Science runs on data.

Here is my 12 ones :-) ( I did the test with FTDNA ). Fw: Email from the founders of the J2a1k Pre-k to Chri Cohen.

"Hi Chris, You are closest to the "Katz" and others "Cohen" too. Your genetic distance from this group is not really 2 but you differ only on DYS385a,b which is well known as a "fast" mutator so on the stable markers you are exactly like the Katz and Cohens. Your 385 is 13-18 for a total of 31 and theirs is 14-17 for a total of 31 too. (same values.

Chris Cohen:12 23 15 10 13 18 11 15 12 13 11 29

Cohen/Katz: 12 23 15 10 14 17 11 15 12 13 11 29

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So what they're telling you is that you are pretty close to the most prominent Cohen cluster in J2. You are not close to the Cohen cluster in J1.


 * Compared to the Cohens in J1, you have mismatches on DYS 19 (=15, not 14), DYS 385b (=18, not 15), DYS 388 (=15, not 16), and DYS 389ii (=29, not 30). Pretty much what I predicted, if you look above.  That's a genetic distance of roughly 6 on 12 markers - which according to the FTDNA site means you are most likely "totally unrelated".


 * As to the quote from the Jerusalem Post, I am disappointed that they have merely quoted from the 1998 paper Skorecki was involved with, and ignore what we have learnt since.  But a calculation that lumps together samples that we now know are from haplogroups G, I, K, J1 and J2, without any distinction, can simply not now be considered credible.  Jheald (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I will replay this post when I came back.

12 23 14 10 13 15 11 16 12 13 11 30 (CMH-12)

12 23 15 10 13 18 11 15 12 13 11 29 (Mine 12)

You are not good in science, and also math? 6 on 12 ?

Now, the CMH is only a standard signature, there are others too!

See you soon,

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.102.49 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You have 1 pointsworth of difference on DYS 19, 3 on DYS 385b, 1 on DYS 388, and 1 on DYS 389ii. Total = 6.


 * At the cost of repeating myself: you're close to the Cohen cluster in J2. You're not close to the J1 Cohens. Jheald (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jhead, how are you again?

Well, now you start realizing the true and real facts (from Dr Skorecki), by complaining that Jerusalem Post in 2004, produced and published an wonderfull article with quotes from the 1998 paper Skoreckia. As you well said "I am disappointed", I must say, I am sorry for that! It is not my falt. You must understand that once a scientic fact is disvorered, it will be used and credited forever for the most credible companies as Nature, Jerusalem Post, NY Times, CBS, CNN and etc.... They all quoted 1998 Dr. Skoreckia work. The still do today, and will do it tomorow and etc..

Euclid, the Greek founder of mathematic in 3rd century BC still is very quoted, Rosalind Franklin founder of the DNA in 1953 also still very quoted, Sir Isaac Newton born in 1643 is still the "father of science".

Please dont make me laugh with your poor arguments. You will never going to prove that Dr. Skorecki work is false, untrue, or incorrect.

You must realize that, after 10 years of Dr. Skorecki statment (1998), nobody came foward to dennied his facts, studies and books. You know why? Because it is a scientific fact, and will be used forever as the basis for scientic studies.

Now, you can not simply remove scientic proved facts from Dr. Skorecki on Wikipedia or everyplace else, and published by Nature, Jerusalem Post, NY Times, and etc...

Dont do it again, for your own best. You are by yourself against Dr. Skorecki?

Are you out of your mind? Who are you? Tell me your full name and credentials as I did before. I dont have nothing to hide!

Now you keep talking abouth me being not linked to J1 Cohens that has the CMH. I dont have to be linked directly with this especific family of Cohens with the CMH that was first tested in 1997 by Dr. Skorecki himself. “any one-mutation neighbours = The same Cohen' Unique-Event Pholymorphism'(UEP) [bottom line”. Now, almost two years later Dr. Skorecki did extra 306 analisies of male Jews from others locations as Israel, Canada, EUA, United Kingdom, and found 112 different compound haplotypes. Than he test a lot of others Cohen, as the Katz, Kaplan, and many others Cohanim well know, recognized and respected in Jewish History and Rabinic Assembly in Jerusalem that was not tested before in the first study. Despite a big and extensive diversity among Jews (Israelites), a 'single' ONLY ONE haplotype (The modal haplotype Cohen Unique Event polymorphism) was found, and is strikingly frequent in both Ashkenazic and Sephardic Cohanim only. (J1 and J2). Given the isolation of Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities, the presence of the same Cohen Unique Event Polymorphism in the Cohanim of both communities indicates a common orign.

If you read again my posts with all the explanations from Dr. Skorecki, you can realize that:

“The 95% confidence interval places the origin of priestly Y-Chromossomes sometime during or shortly before the first Temple period in Jewish history (2,100-3,250)”.

What is wrong with you? Are you problematical person, that never accept the facts and true? This is going to get you complicate!

You better stop deleting Dr. Skorecki facts and statments published in Nature, Jerusalem Post, books, and etc...

If you disagree with him, his statments, open up your own webpersonal page to discuss, but until than, you dont have the right to remove the infos that I added from Dr. Skorecki for the readers of Wikipedia.

Take Care, and I will post again as soon as possible his infos. (only a few, because it is very extensive) I hope that you stop being this kind of person, that goes against the founder of CMH and Cohen Unique Event Polymorphism statments, Dr. Skorecki.

Please, nobody disagree with Isaac Newton, Euclid the greek mathman. You will never see anyone came up and say that Mr. Skorecki statments are false, incorrect, untrue, or even questionable.


 * Actually, Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin has published exactly that, and as early as 2001. (Journal of Comparative Human Biology 51 (2-3): 156-162).  From a summary: "Zoossmann concludes that the existing studies of Jewish priests are problematic and arrive at conclusions that are not supported by all available data".  Specific faults identified include a "failure to use enough suitable markers to construct the Unique-Event-polymorphisms haplotypes", and a "problematic method of calculating coalescence time". Zoossmann-Diskin also published a follow up paper in 2005.


 * You might also like to look at Ekins et al (2005) "The significant presence of CMH chromosomes in deeply divergent clades J1 and J2 (>20kybp), indicates the present CMH definition is not sufficient to distinguish lineages that likely arose by parallel IBS mutations... The inference of Jewish ancestry based on the original CMH definition should be performed with caution as subjects may be falsely categorized into the eponymous CMH lineage when the true origin is in the deeply divergent IBS branch. These observations underscore the importance of using updated SNP classifications when utilizing the CMH to infer ancestry in Jewish populations, or the use of the expanded STR definition."


 * Or read what Bonnie Schrack had to say in 2007 . She's the co-ordinator of the J project at FTDNA, and the person who probably sent you your email linking you to the J2 Cohens and Katzes.  Here's what she writes: "The reality is that in J2, there are some true Cohanim, yes; and there are people who have the old 6-marker CMH, yes. But THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE! They are two totally *separate and distinct groups*, who belong to different haplogroups."  And she goes on: "Somehow, you all are going to have to break down this mental link between having a few Y DNA markers, and having a religious status. There is no inherent connection! I should think this would go without saying for any religious person".


 * Those are some people who have gone out of their way to comment specifically on some of the misconceptions you're now trying to perpetuate.


 * But for most geneticists it simply goes without saying: any most recent male-line common ancestor shared by both somebody in Haplogroup J2 and somebody in Haplogroup J1 MUST, by definition, date to a time earlier than either Hg J2 or Hg J1 branched away from Haplogroup J.


 * As to Newton, Euclid and so forth, are you for real? One of the most defining characteristics of science is its preparedness to revisit and if necessary revise previous conclusions in the light of new understanding or new data.  So Newton's theory of light was blown away by the work of Thomas Young in the early 1800s; and Euclid's axioms are ignored by the curved spacetime of Einstein's General Relativity.  And we no longer believe in phlogiston or caloric or the four humours or the miasmic theory of disease, or any number of other great theories of the past.


 * It makes no sense whatever to hang on to early statements made back in 1998, when those now fly in the face of our current state of knowledge ten years on. The 1998 statements were first guesses, made on the basis of only 6 STR markers, rather than the 12, 25, 37 or 63 routinely tested today; and of very crude SNP testing, which didn't distinguish samples we can now identify as being from at least 5 different haplogroups (J1, J2, G, I, and K).  And we know vastly more about the DNA signatures of different population groups in the region now, too.


 * To ignore all this, because you want to raise statements made back in 1998 to the level of holy writ, is simply perverse; and should have no place in a serious science article in this encyclopedia. Jheald (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

Mr. Jhead is ignoring and is not up to accept the scientif facts from Dr. Karl Sckoresky from Bruce Rapparport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute, Technion, Haifa 31096, Israel and his team:

Mark G. Thomas / The Centre for Genetic Anthropology, Departament of Biology and Anthropology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;

Haim Ben-Amit/Rambam Medical Centre, Haifa 31096, Israel;

Turdor Parfitt / University of London, London WC1H OXC, UK;

Neil Brandman and David. B. Goldstein/ University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK

The infos that I used as references to write a small part of the main article, was from this team of Dr. Karl Sckoresky, and was first published by Nature, Volume 394 - 9 de July 1998- Origins of Old Testaments Priests. This article was published by Jerusalem Post in 2004 and also published on the THE DNA & TRADITIONAL - A The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews book/ Devora Publishing from Jerusalem and New York (2005)Author: Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman - Director of The Center of Kohanim located in the Old City of Jerusalem. The author met with the researches, and help collect samples for the studies. Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman is the principal speaker for the next Internacinal Jewish Genealogical Society Convention, held in Jerusalem every year, since 2002. Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman is the director of the Cohen-Levi Organization. http://www.cohen-levi.org

Mr. Jhead use as references to dennied Dr. Sckoresky and his team work, his personal friends opinions as from the Bonnie Schrack (?) from J Haplogroup personal project over FTDNA (as thousands of others). Mr. Jhead use as reference, Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin from a Summary of the Journal of Comparative Human Biology 51 (2-3): 156-162)??????

Mr. Jhead does not present facts at all, only unreal poor staffs from personal point-of-view of uncredible persons. An indentified person said: “Zoossmann concludes that the existing studies of Jewish priests are problematic and arrive at ‘conclusions’ that are not supported by all available data”. Specific faults identified include a "failure to use enough suitable markers to construct the Unique-Event-polymorphisms haplotypes", and a "problematic method of calculating coalescence time".?????

Again Mr. Jhead use as references, e-mails from his personal friends, as from Mr. Bonnie Shrack ????? Please read this one: “Somehow, you all are going to have to break down this mental link between having a few Y DNA markers, and having a religious status. There is no inherent connection! I should think this would go without saying for any religious person”.

This is insane staff from Mr. Jhead. He wants to manipulate the main article, by deleting Mr. Skorescky and his professional team mentioned above, by using references and plenty of info that was never was published by any credible magazine or newspaper. And uncredible persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Zoossmann-Diskin summary is from the press release written by Zoossmann himself. If you want to check the full article, published in a peer-reviewed subject-specialist journal, rather than a general science journal like Nature, you should be able to find it in a good university library.  I have a copy, but I have recently moved flat, and it's taped up in a box at the moment.


 * But on the subject of sources, perhaps you can clarify your own? Rabbi Kleiman's book is searchable on Google-books, here. .  Interestingly, it doesn't contain any mention of Haplogroup J1 or Haplogroup J2.  But then perhaps that's not surprising, since it doesn't discuss any research on the Cohens more recent than a conference presentation given by Hammer in 1999.


 * As for the Jerusalem Post, its website doesn't return hits for any articles written by Skorecki himself.  Perhaps the 2004 article you're thinking about is the uncritical book review of Rabbi Kleiman's book written by the journalist Rena Rosenblum, dated Nov. 12, 2004 ?


 * Can I put it to you that there is no source backing up your (scientifically impossible) assertion that Cohens in J1 and Cohens in J2 share a recent (more recent than the splitting of J1 and J2) common ancestor? Jheald (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very distressing to see that there has been this attack on a reasonably decent Wikipedia article by someone who deeply misunderstands the facts involved, to say the least. I hope people who are reading this will realize that Chris Cohen has some kind of agenda he is trying to promote, leading him to substitute a fantasy version for the widely known facts regarding the Y DNA of the Cohanim. I've been involved in research on this as administrator of the J haplogroup project; I have seen a great deal of data that Mr. Cohen has not seen. I hope no one will be misled simply by his name; there are many other Cohens out there who have a good understanding of this -- he certainly doesn't represent most Cohanim in his unilateral campaign.

I have not had time yet to read the whole exchange -- after I do that I will try to address more specific points. Iris-J2 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ChrisCohen's changes are clearly disruptive behavior as defined on this Wikipedia guidelines page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27

Refusal to 'get the point'

In some cases, bad-faith editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.

Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.

That is what I see going on here. Iris-J2 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a serious dispute which I am just now entering, I would like to give some background about who I am. I'm a genetic genealogist who has been studying the J haplogroup since 2003. Presently, as a volunteer, I administer the Y-Haplogroup J Project at Family Tree DNA, which as of this moment has 459 members; Chris Cohen joined this project on 2/15/08.

I have been engaged in research on the J haplogroup with a number of collaborators for the last few years, among others, Dr. James F. Wilson and Dr. Whit Athey. In 2006, Whit and I presented our work in progress as a poster at the American Society of Human Genetics annual meeting. This month, that work was cited in a paper by Roy King, Peter Underhill, et al, "Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic," Annals of Human Genetics (2008) 72,205–214. Our poster and the King paper do not deal with the Cohen question, but we have also been studying that, with the support and assistance of members of Cohen lineages. We are also collaborating with another, even more well-known scientist in the field of population genetics, but since we have not yet published with him, I will refrain from mentioning his name here.

Whit Athey and I are also responsible for the J haplogroup in the Phylogenetic Tree Project of ISOGG, the International Society of Genetic Genealogy. Whit is the editor of the online Journal of Genetic Genealogy.

James Heald has pursued his studies of the J haplogroup and the Cohanim independently; we have corresponded a few times, but not extensively. James has a good understanding of the current state of knowledge on the Y DNA of the Cohanim. In general I agree with his arguments; I haven't had time yet to read the entire long exchange here, but the position he is defending is the consensus view, while ChrisCohen's reflects a dire misunderstanding of the widely-known facts of the matter.

-- Bonnie Schrack, Iris-J2 (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Again, this is my last post about this issue:

Hi Jhead, how are you?

I hope that you can read again the final answer and respect the Wikepedia’s editors decisions, otherwise this is going to get you in trouble.

So, the article of The Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype “stays”, and will be “merge” as they said clearly. Dont delete it anymore, as just did it few minutes ago.

Wikipedia Editor´s decisions:

“the article stays” and “I agreed - merge both articles and let the individuals with the knowledge to discuss this information work – it – out rather than a delete”

Have a great time! Take care!

Chris Cohen

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cohen_Modal_Cluster_Haplotype" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Al, I agree with you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert war
I've now used up the maximum of three reverts per day that we are allowed. This has become edit warring. We should not continue this, but use Dispute Resolution.

The reason I kept reverting ChrisCohen's changes is that he is engaging in Tendentious Editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing

Tendentious Editing: editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. A single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behaviour is generally characterised as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions.

Chris is repeatedly attempting to insert content which is being resisted by James and I. I hope others will also soon come to help us. Chris needs to learn that he cannot personally determine what appears on a Wikipedia page, if everyone else disagrees with him. -- Bonnie Iris-J2 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about this field, but it seemed to me that the added material is original research, I didn't see any reference and I saw edit waring about it therefore I decided to take it out. If you continue to add that paragraph you should add references, plenty of them because there are many claims there that needs support from an external reliable source -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi AdrianTM, thanks for getting involved. When you say, "If you continue to add that paragraphs you should add references," you're directing that to Chris, not to me, right? Since he is the one inserting them.

Also, I didn't understand what you meant when you wrote "I saw edit waring about it therefore I decided to take it you"? Chris' paragraphs are still there. I hope someone else will remove them, since I can't do any more today.

Bonnie Iris-J2 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant the paragraph added by Chris, also I meant "take it out" I already did that twice. -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to see these problems. I think a big issue is the lack of recent material published in a scientific peer group reviewed journal regarding the specific issue of the CMH. I understand (last year) from Dr. Skorecki that Dr Behar is working on such an article and they expected publication soon. This year I asked the same question and I hear "it is still in the works". Well, I hoping that any further disruption of this "Y-chromosomal Aaron" webpage will be deferred until Dr Behar (and hopefully including Dr Skorecki too) finally achieves publication. Aburto (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

Hi Everyone,

Now, this is a dispute not between me (Chris) and than (Bonnie, Jhead, and their friends) but between one single man “alegations” against the most credible profissionals in the world.

Zoossmann-Diski “alegations” x (against) five well know and credible man: Karl Skorecki, Mark G. Thomas, Haim Ben-Amit, Neil Brandman and David. B. Goldstein.

I feel so bad for those kind of persons that bealive and follow simply false alegations from a single man named  Zoossmann-Diskin (?). This man never “proved” that the studies from Karl Skorecki, Mark G. Thomas, Haim Ben-Amit, Neil Brandman and David. B. Goldstein was or is wrong.

Zoossmann-Diskin just make “some questions and alegations”, and dont answer it or present facts that can prove his allegations. Just because he cant do it. Karl Skorecki, Mark G. Thomas, Haim Ben-Amit, Neil Brandman and David. B. Goldstein had their article published by Nature. Zoossmann-Diskin dont have nothing.

Does Zoossmann-Diskin have credibility to “remove” the studies, facts and informations from Dr Karl Skorecki, Mark G. Thomas, Haim Ben-Amit, Neil Brandman and David. B. Goldstein over the Wikipedia articles?

No, he cant do that at all.

Until this person named Zoossmann-Diskin or his followers show up with a article published by a credible magazine as NATURE saying that the scientific facts from Doctors Karl Skorecki, Mark G. Thomas, Haim Ben-Amit, Neil Brandman and David. B. Goldstein is false, or untrue on incorrect their information will stay on the article as the Wikepedia’ editors already said before:

Wikipedia Editor´s decisions: “the article stays” and “I agreed - merge both articles and let the individuals with the knowledge to discuss this information work – it – out rather than a delete”

Until another Wikipedia Editor says no, the article Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype stays and will be merge for the best of all readers of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's editors choice is the final word (read the policy). Until than, lets just accept their decisions and leave the article and merge it for the best of all readers.

--Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. 21:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris,


 * (1) Be aware of WP:3RR. It is strongly forbidden to keep re-inserting the same content on Wikipedia against a consensus of other editors.  In particular, it is absolutely forbidden to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours substantially the same content.  Yet despite the objections of User:Jheald, User:Iris-J2 and User:AdrianTM, you have persisted in adding back the same content again and again and again and again.  This is simply not allowed, and persistently carrying on could get you blocked from editing at all.  Please do not continue.


 * (2) Sources. Can you give any source for your (scientifically impossible) assertion that Cohens in J1 and Cohens in J2 share a recent (more recent than the splitting of J1 and J2) common ancestor?  There is no mention of Haplogroup J1 or J2 in the old 1990s papers; and Google Books  reveals there's no mention of them in Rabbi Kleiman's book either.  These sources do not support what you are asserting.


 * (2B) Furthermore, neither the 1990s papers, nor Rabbi Kleiman's book, ever call the CMH a "Unique Event Polymorphism". Can you offer any source for this assertion, other than your own head?


 * (3) Merger. What is being suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype is that that article should be replaced with a redirect to here, and should cease to exist in its own right.  That's what a "Redirect" !vote means.  It is not in any way a qualitative endorsement of the misguided content you have put up there.


 * Please, discuss and show specific sources here on the talk page for the points you are making, rather than just endlessly re-inserting them into the article; and please, discuss and engage with the criticisms that have come up in the light of what has been learnt in the last 10 years, since 1998, rather than pretending they don't exist.  Jheald (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

Hi Jheald, how are you?

So, you dont have the book of Rabbi Kleiman's? That's why you cant understand yet the whole process. Please, considere yourself a buyer for this wonderfull peace of work. (Ask Al Burto, your friend, he own one). Now, I can scan the part, and send it to you... (tomorow). http://www.cohen-levi.org

(1) Please dont keep (you) deleting infos that were approved from the Wikipedia's editors. Bottom line. You asked them to remove the article about the Cohen Modal Cluster, and they refused.

(2) The CMH is not a "Unique Event Polymorphism". The CHM is the real baseline standard modal signature used to indicate one-steps mutations neighbours (J2 Kohanim) as an "Unique Event Polymorphism". ( I will remove on the “Examples” graphic sector this info that is close to the CMH in order to make it clear, it is that ok to you?... )

(3)You realy need to read with more attention to the posts. I know that you are not blind person.

You asked Wikepedia to delete the article. Here is their decisions (oficial Wikepedia editors, not users):

First Editor decision: Keep – this is better resolved at WP:Arbitration than here. The subject matter is way over the head of the average Wikipedia editor. As such, I say the article stays, until resolved by individuals with professional experience in this matter.

Second Editor decision: Comment – I agree – Why not merge and let the individuals with the knowledge to discuss this information work – it – out rather than a delete.

Than, an user came foward only to suggest redirect. But this same person conclude at the end by saying “By the way, Arbcom is not for content disputes. For the moment, the only way to proceed is to have every single statement in the article possess a citation from the peer-reviewed scientific literature that backs it up. However, both articles have loads of Original Research and Synthesis in them.

Now, look what the forth person just posted couple of minutes a go:

Merge -- more precisely, make sure all views of the significance are expressed in the main article, which is Y-Chromossome Aaron. The main question at issue is to what extent the science supports the postulated historical significance. The final article must explain the science --perhaps a little more clearly than the present--and must explain all the various historical or religious positions being taken. I dont think at this point any of them can be ignored as splinter. (I believe the religious question is whether the science is sufficiently sound to be used as the basis for denying or accepting priestly descent, instead of or in addition to the traditional necessarily genealogical approach) The article seems to have been separated because of the feeling that its conclusion was not being given sufficient weight. However, the present article can not stand by its own, because the references are non-specific--they are only the basic review in Nature, various unspecified communications, and a single book from a particular religious viewpoint. I think there may be a basis for separating into two articles--one emphasizing the interpretations, but this is not the way to do it. Merge.

So, please, you must respect their decisions, ok?

Dont delete it anymore, or you are going to face, unfortunely, a big problem to solve.

Best regards,

Chris

--Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR complaint filed
Since Chris has reverted User:Shoessss, despite a specific warning about 3RR in that user's edit summary, I have now (reluctantly) filed a complaint at WP:AN/3RR. Jheald (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Chriscohen is blocked for 24 hours. Given his entrenched behaviour towards this page I fully anticipate him returning after the block to try and put through the original research edits again. Let me (or the 3RR noticeboard) know if that happens. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dating of various things
In reviewing the above discussion, I find a few things not clear in the consensus version of the article. DGG (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Incidentally, how does the paragraph
 * 1) "Thomas et al dated the origin of the shared DNA to approximately 3,000 years ago (with variance arising from different generation lengths)" What the paper says is in the abstract "roughly 3000-2000 years before present" and later in the text, "2,100-3,250 years before present. Under these assumptions, the 95% confidence interval places the origin of priestly Y chromosomes sometime during or shortly before the Temple period in Jewish history." By "Temple period" it must mean 1st and 2nd temple combined. I do not see from the paper how the WP article can possibly give a summary date of "about 3000". If you want to give a single date, the mean would appear to be 2675 bp= 670 BCE, toward the end of the 1st temple period--there is an historical date for its destruction at 586 BCE.
 * 2) "and they do not share a common ancestor with the J1 Kohanim in a Biblical timeframe; but they are equal co-inheritors of a patrilineal tradition which appears to date back well before the Diaspora." What exactly do you mean as Biblical timeframe-- the 2100-3250 bp period given above, the traditional date for Aaron of 1597 BCE, the approximate consensus modern date of about 1200 BCE, or what? And on what basis can you date the "patrilineal tradition" Further, what actual date and date range do you say is the scientific consensus for the divergence?
 * 3) * The standard quoted estimate for the age of J1 and J2 is that of Semino et al (2004), fig. 2. They estimate the date for the original M267 mutation event which defines J1 as 24,100 years ago, +/- 9,400 years; and the M172 mutation event which defines J2 as 18,500 years ago, +/- 3,500 years. The date for any common ancestor of J1 and J2 would be significantly earlier still.  A very long time before any Biblical event. -- Jheald (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Probably the best way to deal with Chris's material is to include a paragraph--a single paragraph, which I have asked him to write, giving the hypothesis that the J1 and J2 have a short genetic difference, and thus that the J2 is also at around this time--from what he write, he thinks the time scale similar but give no exact figures. It need not explain the religious background all over again.
 * 5) * That would go against the evidence of all reliable sources -- Jheald (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The most basic difficulty with Y-chromosomal Aaron being identified with J-M267 (J1) is that it implies Abraham and the Semitic tribes originated from Southern Arabia/Ethiopia and not the Levant or Mesopotamia. Archaeologists have mapped ancient Semitic tribes to modern Ethiopia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. The only exception to these were the tribes of Aram (Aram-Damascus), Asshur, and Elam as small cluster groups in Mesopotamia overshadowed by Assyria and Babylon (both listed as Hamitic; see Genesis 10). This suggests a Southern Arabian/Ethiopian origin for the Semites and Abraham, which does not correspond to the evolution of haplogroup J in the Levant."

relate to the biological data? The question of what tribe was where is a separate question entirely from the question of the genotypes.DGG (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to create a new WikiProject: Genetic History
I have put up a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject, WikiProject: Genetic History.

To quote from what I've written there:


 * Description: A wikiproject for articles on DNA research into genetic genealogy and genealogical DNA tests; the history and spread of human populations as revealed by eg human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups; and similar. Many such articles can be found in Category:Genetic genealogy and its subcategories, notably the subcategories on human haplogroups.


 * Rationale
 * My direct motivation for seeking this Wikiproject was a recent run-in at Y-chromosomal Aaron, where I desperately missed the lack of a relevant WikiProject talk page to go to, to attract the input, advice and views of knowledgeable editors in this area.
 * There's a lot of general public interest in the proposed subject area -- eg the Y-chromosomal Aaron page is apparently getting well over 100 hits a day, and over the last 18 months or so there's been a lot of material added, by a fair number of different editors, mostly editing different pages which are particularly relevant to them. IMO, a central wikiproject would be useful, and also a good place to be able to bring WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:general cluelessness issues for wider informed input.
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology do already exist, but their focus is much much broader. With regard to those project's charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those project's normal focus.  On the other hand, I believe that there are a number of wikipedia editors (and readers) who are specifically interested in the subject, who would find advantage if there were a specific wikiproject for it. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.

Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.

Either way, please show what you think, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal of aditional information
Hi Jheald, Hi everyone.

I am proposing new information on the article.

A - These J2 Kohanim typically have a 4/6 match for the 6-marker CMH (with DYS19=15 rather than 14, and DYS388=15 rather than 16).

B - They do not match the 12-marker J1-extended CMH

C - and they do not share a common ancestor with the J1 Kohanim in a Biblical timeframe;

The A part is perfect. It is correct that those with that specif signature have a Cohanim claim. There are Cohanim surnames that machtes this signaure. Katz, Kaplan, Rappaport, and many others. They have this J2 Kohanim signature. We all must know that in jewish communities, rabbies, Assembly Jewish Rabbinical, these Kohanim as the Katz, Kaplan, Rappaport are very well recognized as Cohanim. They have their genealogical tree to confirm. This J2 Kohanim Signature is something that have to be mention on the article somehow;

The B part it is true. But this phrase must have a dot at the end, not a comma.

The C part is the one that have to be edit. Why? First if this is right, than Katz, Kaplan, Rappaport are NOT Kohanim and NOT from Aaron Cromossome. This is very very serious argument! We cannot use the 12 mark to conclued this "hiphotese". Now, if we take the CHM-6, these J2 Kohanim are very close with the J1 Kohanim. The one-step mutation indicates a common ancestor in no later than 3,300 years a go. Now, we must understand that 3,300 years it is a long time, and the these one-step mutatation in very normal to occur in this period. We need to edit the C part, because this is a "hiphotesi". The  C part use the "J1 Kohanim" as the base and reference of calculation of common ancestor. But wich J1 Kohanim signature? The CHM-6 or the CMH 12 mark that is used only by FTDNA for their own purpose? There are many others J1 Cohanim with CMH, that does not have this 12 standard marks. We cannot ignore a fact, and we CANNOT use only this one specif 12 marks signature to determinate the commom ancestral of ALL Cohanim. We have to separe things, because the way this part was written is not okay, it is not right, not fair, and not true.

I am here to have an open mind conversation. Take Care

--Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris,


 * Thanks for coming to the talk page, to discuss things rationally.


 * But when you write "The one-step mutation indicates a common ancestor in no later than 3,300 years ago", that is not correct, mathematically.


 * A one-step difference might arise because both lines have a recent common ancestor. Or it might arise because there are two unrelated populations which both quite often have those marker values.


 * Just from 5 STR markers, you can't tell. Both scenarios are possible.


 * But when you either look at more markers (12, 25, 37, 63... however many you want); or, more decisively, you look at the once-only-in-all-history SNP mutations which define haplogroups, you find both point clearly to the two different populations scenario, rather than the sharing of a recent ancestor.


 * There are lots of people with Katz, Kaplan, Rappaport etc surnames in J1 who are closely related to Cohens in J1. There are some in J2 who are closely related to Cohens in J2.   The J1 and the J2 Cohens may be both descended from unbroken lines of priests going back to the time of Ezra or even earlier.  But they are not closely related.  Jheald (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi JHeald and everyone,

We are finally geting on the point. I bealive that if you add the info that you just wrote, would be very interesting for readers.

The J1 and the J2 Cohens may be both descended from unbroken lines of priests going back to the time of Ezra or even earlier.

This is very important information. Can you add it on the article? J1 Cohens and J2 Cohen, does not need to be "close" related. The main point is that they "may be both descended from unbroken lines of priests". History did separete jews into two major communities. The beauty of this info, is that you can link both Cohen to the past. This is top information. Can we consider adding this part?

We have to add right after this phrase:

These J2 Kohanim typically have a 4/6 match for the 6-marker CMH (with DYS19=15 rather than 14, and DYS388=15 rather than 16).'''The J1 and the J2 Kohanim may be both descended from unbroken lines of priests going back to the time of Ezra or even earlier.

I am not asking for much, but I really would like to see this info on the article. Is that okay for you?

Thanks.

Chris --Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi JHeald, how are you again?

I added that info that you wrote, okay? I bealive that you can leave the phrase, righ? Now, it looks pretty much clear for readers. Please dont delete. You are doing a going job on the article, with the recents info added, and I am asking for only this info to stays!

Thanks

--Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Jheald and everybody that works to improve the quality of this great article! Keep up the good work! Please, leave that phrase the way it is now, ok? That particulary (no biblical time frame thing) confuses the readers, because you are talking about a specific 12-marker J1-extended CMH, and using this one as reference and base for the calculation. This info does not need to be there, or writting in this particulary way. The article is about Y Chromossome Aaron. I am not going to ask nothing else for this article, but lets leave the 12-marker J1-extended CMH out of the reference (only in this part) out of the confused phrase. As you can see all other quotes about 12-marker J1-extended CMH must stay. I appreciate working with you guys. This article is excellent! See ya --Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscohen (talk • contribs) 13:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not just the 12 markers. The important difference is the two SNP mutations, M172 and M267.  These mutations are believed to be at least 10-15,000 years old.


 * So I have put the sentence back; but I have tried to re-write it slightly, to be more even-handed between J1 and J2 Cohens:
 * The J1 and the J2 Kohanim may be both descended from unbroken lines of priests going back to the time of Ezra or even earlier. The J2 Cohens do not match the 12-marker J1-extended CMH, and J1 and J2 Cohens do not share a common ancestor within a Biblical timeframe; but they are equal co-inheritors of a patrilineal tradition which appears to date back well before the Diaspora.


 * Could this be acceptable? Jheald (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

JHeald, thanks for taking my considerations into this wonderfull article.

Can we finalize buy leaving this:

The J1 and the J2 Kohanim may be both descended from unbroken lines of priests going back to the time of Ezra or even earlier. The J2 Cohens do not match the 12-marker J1-extended CMH. The important difference is the two SNP mutations, M172 and M267. These mutations are believed to be at least 10-15,000 years old; but they are equal co-inheritors of a patrilineal tradition which appears to date back well before the Diaspora.

NOW, it is really much more plausible and explained for readers, rigth? Please, lets leave this way, and I will no longer write nothing on this article! Thanks

--Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * instad of "are", "can be interpreted as" I dont like Weasel words, but there remains the possibility of convergence. DGG (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)