[_ Old Earth _] The sons of Noah compared to Human genetics

[Tsigano]

Hi all

I have recently been looking into human genetics and the use of DNA to trace heritage. I myself am of a Romani (Gypsy) family and though we have lived in Europe since the early 1300s our ancestry originates from India - hence my studies.

My studies have mostly been on the "Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups"

What has surprised me is there seems to be emerging from research three distinct branches. At the moment there is the "out of Africa" theory that traces all mankind back to one man who they call 'Adam'. This is due to all mankind having the same certain DNA changes which show we all come from a common source (Noah as Christians believe due to flood wiping out the rest of the world from Adam).

What scientists are finding is all DNA haplogroups fall into three main branches. At the moment they say that group one came first. Then group 2 descended from group one. Finally group three descended from group one via group two. I am understanding this is because Group three has DNA traits found in both group 1 & group 2. Group 2 has DNA traits found in groups one but not group 3. From a Christian view I would say this just proves that all three does come from the same source - Noah.
Also from what I have been seeing, the further we try to go back the harder it is to determine roots and study is not always as accurate. I say this as a few times research into the root of a group / subgroup has often had to changed as evidence becomes clearer. I'm sure the main groups won't change but looking on previous cases they may change the root on the groups as additional research is carried out.

Now lets look at the groups and see who these people are.

The first group is Y DNA haplogroups A to E (Hamites?)

These are mostly area that we see described as being populated by the descendants of Ham. I think that the Jewish scholar Flavius Josephus who lived under Roman rule mentions in one of his books that the Mongols are descended from Ham - I'll have to check that one.

A = Africans (Ethiopians, Khoisans & Nilotics)
B = Africans (pygmies, Hadzabe)
C = Native Australasians, native Indonesians, Polynesians & Mongolians
E = Africa (most)

The second group F through to H (Shemites)
F = southern India
G = Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia etc) (sons of Aram?)
H = India / Romani (sons of Elam? - Dravidian languages which are believed to be the earliest Indian languages are related to Elamite of ancient SW Iran and make a language group titled "Elamo-Dravidian")
IJ = I = Bosnia and Herzegovina, Norway & Sardinia (sons of Joktan?)
J =Iraquis, Syrians, Jews & Arabs {sons of Peleg?)


The third group is K through to T (The coastland people - Japhethites?)

K = Philippines, Oceania
L = South, west & central Asia
T = very small group found in southern Asia & on the coast of Somalia

Then there is Haplogroup MNOPS within this branch
M = New Guinea, Melanesia
sub group NO (the many sons of Togamah?)
N = Yakuts (northern Asia), Saami, Finns (finland)
O = E.asia / China
P = Q & R (Magog?)
Q = Native Americans & some E.asians
R = Indo-Europeans of Europe, central Asia, Iran & northern India.
S = New Guinea

 

[Deavonreye]

I think you would be hard pressed to surmise that the biblical Noah is some sort of branch for all ethnic groups today. The Noah story is merely a story. Not literal history. True, there would have been branches in the past, but they would have been LONG before ~2,500 bce.

 

[Alabaster]

I think you would be hard pressed to surmise that the biblical Noah is some sort of branch for all ethnic groups today. The Noah story is merely a story. Not literal history. True, there would have been branches in the past, but they would have been LONG before ~2,500 bce.

Noah was a literal person. The races sprang from the lineage of his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Shem, which also can mean 'dusky', was the father of the Semitic race. Ham, which can refer to 'black', was the father of the Hamitic race, and Japheth, meaning 'fair', was the father of the Japhetic or European race.

 

[lordkalvan]

Noah was a literal person.

maybe there was an individual called Noah around whom legends were woven, but there is no evidence that the biblical story is any more an historical account of real events than there is that the tale from which it was adapted - the Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria - is also an historical account of real events.

The races sprang from the lineage of his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.

There appears to be no genetic evidence that supports this contention.

Shem, which also can mean 'dusky', was the father of the Semitic race. Ham, which can refer to 'black', was the father of the Hamitic race, and Japheth, meaning 'fair', was the father of the Japhetic or European race.

A fanciful story 'explaining' the origins of crude 'racial' characteristics that the tellers of those legends could recognize does not satisfactorily explain the much greater diversity amongst humanity than these narrow, restricted categorizations suggest exists. Most genetic diversity amongst humans exists in Africa, which rather implies an African origin for humanity and makes Mitochondrial Eve most likely black.

 

[Tsigano]

I think the thing to recognize is that when ever the Bible speaks in myths or parables it uses symbolism within the story. This is not random symbolism but are symbols that are used throughout the entirety of the Bible. Symbols such as the serpent, the dragon, the lion, leopard & bear, nakedness before God, a tree of life, stars in Heaven, the beast etc etc are all examples of words that are used as symbolism and can be found confirmed and supported in the creation, Psalms, Jesus's parables or prophecy by the prophets &in Revelations.

The thing with the story of the flood is that it does not use any of this symbolism. In fact it uses quite exact wording and measurements which suggests it is revealing key scientific facts. Saying the flood is a myth is like saying the Jews being taken into Egypt and being led out by Moses is a myth. The thing is that archeology reveals that Joseph was in Egypt (the point where the Jews entered into Egypt) and it also reveals that there are possible climate reasons for the raining of the frogs etc, and also that Egypt fell into a time of despair during the time after the Jews left Egypt. They have also found a ridge under the Red Sea which when a strong wind (the wind is mentioned) it would reveal a pathway.

Noah's story is like the account of Moses. If Jesus walked on water and performed miracles to the thousands then I'm sure Noah could build a large sea vessel and God will bring the required animals to him. We must also remember that the flood wasn't for hundreds of years but a short period of time. When we go looking for layers of clay etc under the Earth, it is obvious they won't be there. There are however other reasons to support it.

 

[lordkalvan]

I think the thing to recognize is that when ever the Bible speaks in myths or parables it uses symbolism within the story. This is not random symbolism but are symbols that are used throughout the entirety of the Bible. Symbols such as the serpent, the dragon, the lion, leopard & bear, nakedness before God, a tree of life, stars in Heaven, the beast etc etc are all examples of words that are used as symbolism and can be found confirmed and supported in the creation, Psalms, Jesus's parables or prophecy by the prophets &in Revelations.

So is it your argument that the Genesis account of creation is mythic and that this can be understood because the account is replete with symbolism?

The thing with the story of the flood is that it does not use any of this symbolism. In fact it uses quite exact wording and measurements which suggests it is revealing key scientific facts.

Or that the story-tellers are just making stuff up to add concrete details to a mythic tale?

Saying the flood is a myth is like saying the Jews being taken into Egypt and being led out by Moses is a myth.

Well, it certainly appears to have little historical justification beyond nation-building propaganda.

The thing is that archeology reveals that Joseph was in Egypt (the point where the Jews entered into Egypt)...

Can you link to any of this archaeology, please?

...and it also reveals that there are possible climate reasons for the raining of the frogs etc...

What are those reasons and how do they encompass the 'etc'?

...and also that Egypt fell into a time of despair during the time after the Jews left Egypt.

Again, can you cite references and/or links to support this, or at least explain it further?

They have also found a ridge under the Red Sea which when a strong wind (the wind is mentioned) it would reveal a pathway.

What 'ridge' is this, what 'wind' blows to 'reveal a pathway' and who are 'they' who have found it?

Noah's story is like the account of Moses.

I would agree, but probably not for the same reasons.

If Jesus walked on water and performed miracles to the thousands then I'm sure Noah could build a large sea vessel and God will bring the required animals to him.

Unfortunately, your certainty about something is not itself evidential.

We must also remember that the flood wasn't for hundreds of years but a short period of time. When we go looking for layers of clay etc under the Earth, it is obvious they won't be there.

Well, evidence of much less intense and shorter floods than the biblical one can be found (e.g. the Shuruppak site in Mesopotamia), so why would it be 'obvious' that there would be no similar evidence for a much greater, globe-encompassing flood?

There are however other reasons to support it.

Which would be?

 

[Tsigano]

So is it your argument that the Genesis account of creation is mythic and that this can be understood because the account is replete with symbolism?

Or that the story-tellers are just making stuff up to add concrete details to a mythic tale?

Well, it certainly appears to have little historical justification beyond nation-building propaganda.

Can you link to any of this archaeology, please?

What are those reasons and how do they encompass the 'etc'?

Again, can you cite references and/or links to support this, or at least explain it further?
What 'ridge' is this, what 'wind' blows to 'reveal a pathway' and who are 'they' who have found it?

I would agree, but probably not for the same reasons.

Unfortunately, your certainty about something is not itself evidential.

Well, evidence of much less intense and shorter floods than the biblical one can be found (e.g. the Shuruppak site in Mesopotamia), so why would it be 'obvious' that there would be no similar evidence for a much greater, globe-encompassing flood?

Which would be?

lol. We are going off subject of the thread a little here, I think you should open up a separate thread to discuss the flood. This thread is about the sons of Noah and comparing it to DNA and genetics. Not about whether the story of the flood is a myth. But to answer your post. My post was not actually trying to make any real claims other than pointing out the facts on observing symbolic words used in various parts of the Bible such as prophecy, revelations and also I was pointing out that symbolism is used in the creation story but it isn't apparent in the account of the flood. I do not see any stories in the Bible as "myths" but rather facts or facts through symbolism.

Unlike some people, I do not jump to any conclusion with regards to subjects nobody actually knows. I see far too many expert claiming over their theories and trying hard to nick pick over others wording on subjects that nobody knows. I prefer to discuss with the freedom of knowing that nobody actually knows. I think too many spend more time on arguing over what we don't know but miss discussing what we can see and therefore do know (I mean in the words of the Bible and not some scientist's theory). I do like most ponder over verses as I do see certain wording that raises interest but that is to discuss and not make conclusions. I do not make claims to know unless all evidence is undeniable.

Considering this I do accept that the story of creation may well be written with symbolism meaning it is not literal but a symbolic account. No this does not mean I think it is a myth. I do not see symbolism used in the account of the flood. This is not theory but undeniable observation.

With regards to archeology this was not the point I was making but to answer you interest, You'll have to look it up. I myself am not that interested but I have seen many sites and TV programs of different types on the matter over passed years.
From memory....
There was a volcanic island off of Greece which exploded (I think it was Thera). It apparently would have sent ash into the sky which would explain the blackened sky over the coast land area of Egypt (apparently the Jews being slaves lived far away from the coast towards the desert so would've have been affected), I can't remember all the details as it was on a documentary on TV but it also had reasons for river being of blood and the frogs etc.
If you're interested I sure you can find it if you search.

with regards to the crossing with the ridge and the wind, then this was also in a different documentary. The documentary said the first clue was with Napoleon when he was fighting the Turks. Apparently he recorded about parts of the red sea being exposed during strong winds. It then went into the archeology of the area and the science involved etc. This isn't the program but it has some similar stuff.There is enough out similar documentaries out there on the subject.

YouTube - The Exodus and the Red Sea Crossing - Part 1

Putting the two documentaries together then I am not an expert but I wonder if the explosion of Thera would create strong winds? causing the red sea to reveal the ridge. Could it would also explain the sudden loss of the wind as it passed? But this would be the subject of a separate thread. This thread was about the observation of the three main branches of DNA Y haplogroups and comparing it to the sons of Noah.

 

[Alabaster]

maybe there was an individual called Noah around whom legends were woven, but there is no evidence that the biblical story is any more an historical account of real events than there is that the tale from which it was adapted - the Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria - is also an historical account of real events.

There isn't evidence of many historical figures---yet. God just wants you to trust Him, yet those who do not love God will more easily turn toward the pagan accounts.

My Bible is my history book. Seeing as God wrote it for me, I am bound to receive it in the loving manner in which it has been produced.

There appears to be no genetic evidence that supports this contention.

A fanciful story 'explaining' the origins of crude 'racial' characteristics that the tellers of those legends could recognize does not satisfactorily explain the much greater diversity amongst humanity than these narrow, restricted categorizations suggest exists. Most genetic diversity amongst humans exists in Africa, which rather implies an African origin for humanity and makes Mitochondrial Eve most likely black.

Yawn.

 

[lordkalvan]

There isn't evidence of many historical figures---yet.

There is no evidence for many legendary figures either. What conclusions should we draw from that about these figures and the tales that surround them? I am thinking, for example, of King Arthur, Beowulf and Achilles.

God just wants you to trust Him, yet those who do not love God will more easily turn toward the pagan accounts.

How do you know that God doesn't want you to 'trust' the evidence in what you suppose is his creation rather than the legendary accounts of that creation written down by fallible men from a pre-scientific culture?

My Bible is my history book. Seeing as God wrote it for me, I am bound to receive it in the loving manner in which it has been produced.

Some of the Bible clearly has an historical foundation; some of it clearly doesn't. Many Christians have no difficulty distinguishing between the two and viewing the Bible as inspirational rather than literal. Why is there viewpoint less to be preferred than yours?

Yawn.

A convincing counterargument indeed.

 

[lordkalvan]

lol. We are going off subject of the thread a little here, I think you should open up a separate thread to discuss the flood.

Yes, it is a little OT, but I was just following up comments you made. There is at least one thread concerned with the flood already (http://www.christianforums.net/f22/dating-flood-30223/), but it has been moribund for a while.

This thread is about the sons of Noah and comparing it to DNA and genetics. Not about whether the story of the flood is a myth. But to answer your post. My post was not actually trying to make any real claims other than pointing out the facts on observing symbolic words used in various parts of the Bible such as prophecy, revelations and also I was pointing out that symbolism is used in the creation story but it isn't apparent in the account of the flood. I do not see any stories in the Bible as "myths" but rather facts or facts through symbolism.

Okay.

Unlike some people, I do not jump to any conclusion with regards to subjects nobody actually knows. I see far too many expert claiming over their theories and trying hard to nick pick over others wording on subjects that nobody knows. I prefer to discuss with the freedom of knowing that nobody actually knows. I think too many spend more time on arguing over what we don't know but miss discussing what we can see and therefore do know (I mean in the words of the Bible and not some scientist's theory). I do like most ponder over verses as I do see certain wording that raises interest but that is to discuss and not make conclusions. I do not make claims to know unless all evidence is undeniable.

Well, we actually know a great deal about the geological history of Earth and geologists are able to identify the characteristic features of various phenomena like floods. That there is no evidence of a global flood of biblical proportions is a strong indication that, despite the lack of symbolism that you identify, the story is legendary and amounts to little more than a morality tale.

Considering this I do accept that the story of creation may well be written with symbolism meaning it is not literal but a symbolic account. No this does not mean I think it is a myth. I do not see symbolism used in the account of the flood. This is not theory but undeniable observation.

Christ used concrete examples involving human characters through parables to teach lessons. That does not mean that the parables recounted events that actually happened to actual individuals.

With regards to archeology this was not the point I was making but to answer you interest, You'll have to look it up. I myself am not that interested but I have seen many sites and TV programs of different types on the matter over passed years.
From memory....
There was a volcanic island off of Greece which exploded (I think it was Thera). It apparently would have sent ash into the sky which would explain the blackened sky over the coast land area of Egypt (apparently the Jews being slaves lived far away from the coast towards the desert so would've have been affected), I can't remember all the details as it was on a documentary on TV but it also had reasons for river being of blood and the frogs etc.
If you're interested I sure you can find it if you search.

Yes, you're right about Thera. It erupted around 1600-1625 BC and would have affected the Middle East, although to exactly what extent is uncertain. Some historians attribute the turmoil of the 2nd Intermediate Period in part to the explosion, but others are more inclined to point to the revolt against the Hyksos as causing this disorder.

with regards to the crossing with the ridge and the wind, then this was also in a different documentary. The documentary said the first clue was with Napoleon when he was fighting the Turks. Apparently he recorded about parts of the red sea being exposed during strong winds. It then went into the archeology of the area and the science involved etc. This isn't the program but it has some similar stuff.There is enough out similar documentaries out there on the subject.

Navigational hazards abound in the Red Sea (in the Gulf of Suez these include Moresby Shoal, Felix Jones Patches and the Daedalus Shoal), but a ridge of the type you suggest would seem to provide an insurmountable obstacle to vessels attempting passage of the Suez Canal from the south.

Putting the two documentaries together then I am not an expert but I wonder if the explosion of Thera would create strong winds? causing the red sea to reveal the ridge. Could it would also explain the sudden loss of the wind as it passed? But this would be the subject of a separate thread.

Yes, it would be more appropriate to another thread, but I think establishing the existence of this ridge at all would be more important than whether a there-induced wind might have exposed it.

This thread was about the observation of the three main branches of DNA Y haplogroups and comparing it to the sons of Noah.

Yes, but you cannot compare DNA Y haplogroups to the DNA of legendary individuals for whom you have no physical evidence with which to compare it. You are simply speculating on the back of the coincidental fact that it is possible to group Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups into several different categories, one of which you can contrive as a threefold grouping which you can then backfit to a legendary tale about mythical individuals. The best genetic evidence indicates that Haplogroups B, C and D separated over periods separated by many generations (probably thousands of years).

 

[Tsigano]

Yes, it is a little OT, but I was just following up comments you made. There is at least one thread concerned with the flood already (http://www.christianforums.net/f22/dating-flood-30223/), but it has been moribund for a while.
Okay.

Well, we actually know a great deal about the geological history of Earth and geologists are able to identify the characteristic features of various phenomena like floods. That there is no evidence of a global flood of biblical proportions is a strong indication that, despite the lack of symbolism that you identify, the story is legendary and amounts to little more than a morality tale.

Christ used concrete examples involving human characters through parables to teach lessons. That does not mean that the parables recounted events that actually happened to actual individuals.

Yes, you're right about Thera. It erupted around 1600-1625 BC and would have affected the Middle East, although to exactly what extent is uncertain. Some historians attribute the turmoil of the 2nd Intermediate Period in part to the explosion, but others are more inclined to point to the revolt against the Hyksos as causing this disorder.

Navigational hazards abound in the Red Sea (in the Gulf of Suez these include Moresby Shoal, Felix Jones Patches and the Daedalus Shoal), but a ridge of the type you suggest would seem to provide an insurmountable obstacle to vessels attempting passage of the Suez Canal from the south.

Yes, it would be more appropriate to another thread, but I think establishing the existence of this ridge at all would be more important than whether a there-induced wind might have exposed it.

Yes, but you cannot compare DNA Y haplogroups to the DNA of legendary individuals for whom you have no physical evidence with which to compare it. You are simply speculating on the back of the coincidental fact that it is possible to group Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups into several different categories, one of which you can contrive as a threefold grouping which you can then backfit to a legendary tale about mythical individuals. The best genetic evidence indicates that Haplogroups B, C and D separated over periods separated by many generations (probably thousands of years).

good. Now you''ve got it off your chest, please take it to the other thread.

What you say to most looks like scientific theory. I am not expert in this field. Science is always contradicting itself. You say some quotes that you believe yet there are others that make programs and documentaries who obviously disagree. Therefore nothing you say is concrete evidence as I sure in reality man is still just an infant in the true understanding of the universe. The way science is always learning new things which change previous theory is testimony to this

What I do know is God is real due to personal experience with the Holy Spirit and I therefore take the Bible more serious than man's theories.

With regards to DNA comparison. All you have done is try to dismiss any comparison. You therefore have added your input to the discussion. Thank you for your input

If we know the haplogroups of the people of that area living there today and we know their history using their own records of ancestry then, yes we are able to make some fairly good comparisons.

 

[lordkalvan]

good. Now you''ve got it off your chest, please take it to the other thread.

Umm, I don't believe I was the first person to raise the topic of the biblical flood in this thread.

What you say to most looks like scientific theory. I am not expert in this field. Science is always contradicting itself.

What do you mean 'always contradicting itself'? What examples are you thinking of? You have just used the science of molecular evolution as it concerns haplogroups to support the idea that the 'races' of humanity can be traced back to Noah's three sons. There seems to be some dissonance here.

You say some quotes that you believe yet there are others that make programs and documentaries who obviously disagree. Therefore nothing you say is concrete evidence as I sure in reality man is still just an infant in the true understanding of the universe. The way science is always learning new things which change previous theory is testimony to this

I don't think that simply referencing unspecified 'programs and documentaries' that by your own admission you can only recall patchily can be regarded as providing persuasive evidence in any scientific meaning of the word. As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, 150 years of 'learning new things' has only reinforced scientists' confidence in the essential robustness of that theory. In this context, there is no evidence that the haplogroup groups you have identified descended from three specific individuals born to the same husband and wife within the timeframe generally espoused by YECism for the biblical flood, i.e. around 4500 KYA.

What I do know is God is real due to personal experience with the Holy Spirit and I therefore take the Bible more serious than man's theories.

So do most other Christians as far as I understand it, but as the Bible was not written as a science textbook, there is no reason to suppose that the fallible men who wrote it down had a better understanding of the natural world than we have developed after several centuries of scientific inquiry. If the Christian God exists, why do you suppose he granted us the ability to inquire about, analyse and understand his creation as it actually is rather than as a pre-scientific culture imagined it to be?

With regards to DNA comparison. All you have done is try to dismiss any comparison. You therefore have added your input to the discussion. Thank you for your input

I have 'dismissed' nothing. I have simply pointed out that there is nothing in the science of haplogroups that supports the idea that you are trying to put forward. As it is this science that provides the basis for your argument, it seems illogical to simply accept the part that seems crudely to support your hypothesis while ignoring the more specific analysis and conclusions that show that it is untenable.

If we know the haplogroups of the people of that area living there today and we know their history using their own records of ancestry then, yes we are able to make some fairly good comparisons.

And how does this support your idea that the human 'races' descended from the three sons of a single couple living some 4500 KYA?

 

[Tsigano]

Umm, I don't believe I was the first person to raise the topic of the biblical flood in this thread.

What do you mean 'always contradicting itself'? What examples are you thinking of? You have just used the science of molecular evolution as it concerns haplogroups to support the idea that the 'races' of humanity can be traced back to Noah's three sons. There seems to be some dissonance here.

I don't think that simply referencing unspecified 'programs and documentaries' that by your own admission you can only recall patchily can be regarded as providing persuasive evidence in any scientific meaning of the word. As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, 150 years of 'learning new things' has only reinforced scientists' confidence in the essential robustness of that theory. In this context, there is no evidence that the haplogroup groups you have identified descended from three specific individuals born to the same husband and wife within the timeframe generally espoused by YECism for the biblical flood, i.e. around 4500 KYA.

So do most other Christians as far as I understand it, but as the Bible was not written as a science textbook, there is no reason to suppose that the fallible men who wrote it down had a better understanding of the natural world than we have developed after several centuries of scientific inquiry. If the Christian God exists, why do you suppose he granted us the ability to inquire about, analyse and understand his creation as it actually is rather than as a pre-scientific culture imagined it to be?

I have 'dismissed' nothing. I have simply pointed out that there is nothing in the science of haplogroups that supports the idea that you are trying to put forward. As it is this science that provides the basis for your argument, it seems illogical to simply accept the part that seems crudely to support your hypothesis while ignoring the more specific analysis and conclusions that show that it is untenable.

And how does this support your idea that the human 'races' descended from the three sons of a single couple living some 4500 KYA?

As this is a thread about DNA I will stick to the subject.

Example of science contradicting itself as newer research developes is the Y DNA haplogroup R2

R2 is a haplogroup mostly exclusive to India. It is a branch of the R haplogroup which contains the r1a haplogroup which is found mostly amongst Eastern Europeans such as Slavs and is very high in countries such as the Ukraine. It is also found amongst Indians and is high is Northwest Indian groups such as the Jatts of the Panjab region. Then there is R1b which is the prominent haplogroup of western and central Europe. It found at its highest amongst people of Ireland, Wales & the Basque people.
R2 was once thought to be a seperate haplogroup until further research now suggests it is a branch from the R group. R2 is now believed to be an earlier breakaway from the R group to that of R1a & R1b which is believed to be descended from people originally of Ukraine / central Russia.

The R haplogroup covers a large area which conveniently is the same area as all the Indo-European languages are from. The Jatts are recorded as possibly being from the Saka (Scythians) as are people of Russia and eastern Europe. Greeks have recorded that people such as Scythians, Getae, Persians etc are all related which also fits comfatable alongside both DNA & language study. This would therefore make research of people using DNA reasonably accurate.

The Bible which is ancient writings, records the people of Syria, Jordan, Israel & Arabia as descending out from Chaldeans. Both Arabs and Israelites of this area today claim descent from Abraham who came out of Chaldea. This whole area is dominated by the Y DNA haplogroup J. Again this can suggest we can use DNA in comparing to history and language studies. Interestingly J makes up a group known as IJ which also contains the haplogroup I. I is at its highest amongst people of Europe. If we were to consider the Bible then it lists that Peleg had a brother named Joktan who lived in the lands of Mesha as you go towards Sephar the great hill / mountain region of the East. I is also found in smaller amounts in Iran.

What we can also do is use writings by the Jewish scholar Flavius Josephus who wrote about the sons of Noah and who they were. Although Flavius was not a man lead by the Holy Spirit, he was a man raised in Jewish knowledge.

 

[lordkalvan]

As this is a thread about DNA I will stick to the subject.

Example of science contradicting itself as newer research developes is the Y DNA haplogroup R2

R2 is a haplogroup mostly exclusive to India. It is a branch of the R haplogroup which contains the r1a haplogroup which is found mostly amongst Eastern Europeans such as Slavs and is very high in countries such as the Ukraine. It is also found amongst Indians and is high is Northwest Indian groups such as the Jatts of the Panjab region. Then there is R1b which is the prominent haplogroup of western and central Europe. It found at its highest amongst people of Ireland, Wales & the Basque people.
R2 was once thought to be a seperate haplogroup until further research now suggests it is a branch from the R group. R2 is now believed to be an earlier breakaway from the R group to that of R1a & R1b which is believed to be descended from people originally of Ukraine / central Russia.

The R haplogroup covers a large area which conveniently is the same area as all the Indo-European languages are from. The Jatts are recorded as possibly being from the Saka (Scythians) as are people of Russia and eastern Europe. Greeks have recorded that people such as Scythians, Getae, Persians etc are all related which also fits comfatable alongside both DNA & language study. This would therefore make research of people using DNA reasonably accurate.

There doesn't seem to be anything particularly 'contradictory' about this summary. All you seem to be offering evidence of is that knowledge advances and understanding is refined and becomes more focussed. If you imagine that the scientific method comes along and says that scientists know everything about X right from the get-go and so no further understanding is necessary, then this is very far from the case. Although the principles of evolutionary theory remain essentially the same as when they were espoused by Darwin, the modern evolutionary synthesis and the knowledge that underpins it are quite different from the situation 150 years ago.

The Bible which is ancient writings, records the people of Syria, Jordan, Israel & Arabia as descending out from Chaldeans. Both Arabs and Israelites of this area today claim descent from Abraham who came out of Chaldea. This whole area is dominated by the Y DNA haplogroup J. Again this can suggest we can use DNA in comparing to history and language studies. Interestingly J makes up a group known as IJ which also contains the haplogroup I. I is at its highest amongst people of Europe. If we were to consider the Bible then it lists that Peleg had a brother named Joktan who lived in the lands of Mesha as you go towards Sephar the great hill / mountain region of the East. I is also found in smaller amounts in Iran.

I'm not quite sure what point you're making here except that peoples who have settled and dwelt in a particular region for many generations have shared genetic roots, virtually a truism that applies to any other region on Earth, I would think. I also fail to grasp the link you are trying to make amongst biblical folktales and folk history and molecular evolution

What we can also do is use writings by the Jewish scholar Flavius Josephus who wrote about the sons of Noah and who they were. Although Flavius was not a man lead by the Holy Spirit, he was a man raised in Jewish knowledge.

Why do you suppose that simply repeating legend and folklore makes a story any less legend and folklore than it was in the first place?

 

[Tsigano]

There doesn't seem to be anything particularly 'contradictory' about this summary. All you seem to be offering evidence of is that knowledge advances and understanding is refined and becomes more focussed. If you imagine that the scientific method comes along and says that scientists know everything about X right from the get-go and so no further understanding is necessary, then this is very far from the case. Although the principles of evolutionary theory remain essentially the same as when they were espoused by Darwin, the modern evolutionary synthesis and the knowledge that underpins it are quite different from the situation 150 years ago.

I'm not quite sure what point you're making here except that peoples who have settled and dwelt in a particular region for many generations have shared genetic roots, virtually a truism that applies to any other region on Earth, I would think. I also fail to grasp the link you are trying to make amongst biblical folktales and folk history and molecular evolution

Why do you suppose that simply repeating legend and folklore makes a story any less legend and folklore than it was in the first place?

lol
It contradicts itself as they previously thought and taught that it was of a completely separate branch. Now they say it is of the group R. Therefore everything they previously taught as being "fact" is no disregarded due to newer evidence and research.
Come on its not that difficult unless you are just trying to sound clever by disagreeing.

You still haven't actually contributed anything of any discussion on the subject other than trying to disprove everything as a means to turn everything within the Bible as "myth" or "folklore". Thats just getting repetitive and boring.
From your angle anything recorded in books is just folklore...
The battle of 1066 is just folklore. Stories about WWII is just folklore.
The fact is that writing of the past often hold elements of fact to them.

When we look at the study of ancient writings, compare them to language groupings and then use DNA, they all contribute towards evidence.

Example.
The Romani people of Europe are recorded first in Europe around the start of the 1300s.
They are tanned in appearance and have customs and a language not identifiable with the people of Europe. For hundreds of years the people of Europe did not know of they origins and as a result many great scholars tried to come up with all kinds of strange theories of origin. Some even saying Alantis. Some saying Africa. Many saying the Middle East due to verses out of the Bible.

It wasn't until soldiers in the army stationed in India recognized that many of the words within the Romani language are also spoken in India. This lead to a study of the Romani language compared to Indian. This immediately confirmed an Indian origin. For about 30 or more years scholars have studied the language and also the Romani customs and have finally been able to suggest the time at which they left and can also prove a Rajasthani / Panjabi regional origin. This then lead to a conclusion that Romani are from Rajputs or Jatts due to them leaving India at the time of Islam invading.
With the use of DNA we however can confirm a mixed origin as many carry the haplogroup H. H however is rare in groups such as the Jatts however who carry the marker R1a1.
R1a is common also with eastern Europeans such as slavs and through looking at Indian "folklore" we can see verse containing that a people known as the "Saka" came into the area of the Panjab and occupied it. Through histoical studies and archeology we know that Saka was a name used by the Scythians for themselves. Through Greek "folklore" we know Scythians occupied the lands of Eastern Europe.
Isn't it great when we put "folklore", language and genetics studies together?

 

[lordkalvan]

lol
It contradicts itself as they previously thought and taught that it was of a completely separate branch. Now they say it is of the group R. Therefore everything they previously taught as being "fact" is no disregarded due to newer evidence and research.
Come on its not that difficult unless you are just trying to sound clever by disagreeing.

No, I'm just trying to understand why you regard an advance in knowledge as contradictory. Does this refinement of understanding in some way 'contradict' an understanding of what molecular evolution and haplogroups tells us about genetic relatedness amongst humans? I don't think so. Does it tell us that scientists denied the possibility of any related haplogroups of the R group existed before the R2 haplogroup was identified? Are you trying to say that scientists claim that they know everything they could possibly know about haplogroups, either now or ten years ago? Are you saying that the FTDNA's Draft phylogeny tree has been cast in stone since it was first proposed and that scientists have denied the possibility that it might be refined and developed? Your definition of 'contradictory' seems to be little more than trying to say that any change to understanding amounts to rendering that earlier understanding wholly invalid and/or misleading.

You still haven't actually contributed anything of any discussion on the subject other than trying to disprove everything as a means to turn everything within the Bible as "myth" or "folklore"

I am trying to understand what scientific grounds you have for retrofitting the haplogroups to a legendary tale. As far as I can see you have none and simply selectively choose those parts that fit your idea and ignore those other parts that don't. Nowhere in this thread have I tried to prove that everything in the Bible is folklore and myth; I have simply pointed out that there is little evidence to support your hypothesis and none at all to support the idea of a global gflood of biblical proportions happening around 4500 KYA (which itself leads to skepticism regarding the story woven around Noah's sons)..

From your angle anything recorded in books is just folklore...

Eh, no. How you derive this conclusion from my comments, I have no idea. You are trying to generalize from the particular.

The battle of 1066 is just folklore. Stories about WWII is just folklore.

This is very much a straw man argument. There are, indeed, elements of folklore surrounding the events of 1066, but neither those events, nor those of 1939-1945 amount to non-historic events unsupported by significant and robust evidence from multiple independent sources.

The fact is that writing of the past often hold elements of fact to them.

If you can point to anywhere where I have suggested the contrary, please do so.

When we look at the study of ancient writings, compare them to language groupings and then use DNA, they all contribute towards evidence.

Yes. Where have I denied this?

Example.
The Romani people of Europe are recorded first in Europe around the start of the 1300s.
They are tanned in appearance and have customs and a language not identifiable with the people of Europe. For hundreds of years the people of Europe did not know of they origins and as a result many great scholars tried to come up with all kinds of strange theories of origin. Some even saying Alantis. Some saying Africa.

It wasn't until soldiers in the army stationed in India recognized that many of the words within the Romani language are also spoken in India. This lead to a study of the Romani language compared to Indian. This immediately confirmed an Indian origin. For about 30 or more years scholars have studied the language and also the Romani customs and have finally been able to suggest the time at which they left and can also prove a Rajasthani / Panjabi regional origin. This then lead to a conclusion that Romani are from Rajputs or Jatts due to them leaving India at the time of Islam invading.
With the use of DNA we however can confirm a mixed origin as many carry the haplogroup H. H however is rare in groups such as the Jatts however who carry the marker R1a1.
R1a is common also with eastern Europeans such as slavs and through looking at Indian "folklore" we can see verse containing that a people known as the "Saka" came into the area of the Panjab and occupied it. Through histoical studies and archeology we know that Saka was a name used by the Scythians for themselves. Through Greek "folklore" we know Scythians occupied the lands of Eastern Europe.
Isn't it great when we put "folklore", language and genetics studies together?

Yes, it is. I still fail to see how this supports the idea that the human 'races' owe their origins to three legendary individuals born to the same parents.

 

[Tsigano]

No, I'm just trying to understand why you regard an advance in knowledge as contradictory. Does this refinement of understanding in some way 'contradict' an understanding of what molecular evolution and haplogroups tells us about genetic relatedness amongst humans? I don't think so. Does it tell us that scientists denied the possibility of any related haplogroups of the R group existed before the R2 haplogroup was identified? Are you trying to say that scientists claim that they know everything they could possibly know about haplogroups, either now or ten years ago? Are you saying that the FTDNA's Draft phylogeny tree has been cast in stone since it was first proposed and that scientists have denied the possibility that it might be refined and developed? Your definition of 'contradictory' seems to be little more than trying to say that any change to understanding amounts to rendering that earlier understanding wholly invalid and/or misleading.

I am trying to understand what scientific grounds you have for retrofitting the haplogroups to a legendary tale. As far as I can see you have none and simply selectively choose those parts that fit your idea and ignore those other parts that don't. Nowhere in this thread have I tried to prove that everything in the Bible is folklore and myth; I have simply pointed out that there is little evidence to support your hypothesis and none at all to support the idea of a global gflood of biblical proportions happening around 4500 KYA (which itself leads to skepticism regarding the story woven around Noah's sons)..

Eh, no. How you derive this conclusion from my comments, I have no idea. You are trying to generalize from the particular.

This is very much a straw man argument. There are, indeed, elements of folklore surrounding the events of 1066, but neither those events, nor those of 1939-1945 amount to non-historic events unsupported by significant and robust evidence from multiple independent sources.

If you can point to anywhere where I have suggested the contrary, please do so.

Yes. Where have I denied this?

Yes, it is. I still fail to see how this supports the idea that the human 'races' owe their origins to three legendary individuals born to the same parents.

yawn.. You're just getting boring now .

Has anyone else got something to say that is more productive?

 

[Sparkey]

I'm interested to hear more. The counter-point voice of lordK helps stimulate the conversation but you're right to take it with a grain of salt. You've mentioned language studies and it is my thought that the direct relation between what we see today and the sons of Noah may have been influenced by what happened at the tower of Babel resulting in further complexities.

I'm not convinced that we have the ability to examine the subject in its entirety. We don't have the original DNA for comparision but that should not preclude us from looking at all the evidence.

 

[lordkalvan]

yawn.. You're just getting boring now .

Has anyone else got something to say that is more productive?

So basically all you want to do is have everyone validate your hypothesis without anything more to go on that an arbitrary selection of haplogroups on the basis that according to some criteria they can be fitted into three categories and, by a convenient coincidence, the Bible promotes a piece of legendary folklore that the (quote arbitrary) 'three races' of humanity originate in the three sons born to Noah and his wife, regardless of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support any element of this piece of speculative fantasy. Never mind that the evidence shows these haplogroups separating from one another over many more than one generation and never mind that these separations occurred tens of thousands of years before Genesis was even imagined as a tale.

 

[theLords]

This thread has been closed pending moderator review. Tsigano, your thread will be reopened.

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Statement of Faith

We as Christians on a Christian site request respect for our beliefs instead of the condescending remarks littering this thread. Is it so hard to show respect and disagree without having to make unnecessary insults?