GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-04 > 1176468095
From: "Sasson Margaliot" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ten Lost Tribes, Far East, esp. Japan
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:41:35 +0300
wouldn't it turn the mutation tables upside down to have the son of Hpg. R
> being Hpg. J?
> Aaron was the son of Levi, so J coming from R...in other words.
There is nor reason to think that the Tribe of Levi is in R.
It is most likely in J, like all other Tribes and like the Cohanim.
Probably from your point of view, this might be a difference w/o a
> distinction. I was just asking because it does not seem logical - that's
It is not possible to derive J from R - it would require three reverse
mutations and two repeated mutations. Odds against that are astronomical.
I am just trying to understand it. Several weeks ago I saw a website that
> proposed pretty much the same division of Haplogroups between Shem, Ham
> Japheth....it was on a website re Africa, I believe.
I did introduced the idea of Genesis Genealogy in 25 Nov 2005 on this List.
It was quoted without mentioning me on several websites.
This subject was defined as "off-topic" on this List. Anyone who wants to
discuss Genetic Genealogy should write to me off-list. Please do not discuss
Genesis Genealogy on this GENEALOGY-DNA List.
I'm not sure that the
> concept you proposed is original or unique, but I could be wrong. I only
> know that I never saw it on Brit-Am's site...!
It is on page called "DNA refutation". The page claims that SNPs defining
the Haplogroups happened multiple times. This is simply not correct. Every
expert on this List will confirm that the ordering of primary mutations has
a solid scientific basis.