GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-04 > 1176721845


From: "Dienekes Pontikos" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Malaspina et al (2001)'s Cohens -- an answer ?
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:10:45 -0700
References: <4622E960.4000306@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <4622E960.4000306@comcast.net>


On 4/15/07, Bonnie Schrack <> wrote:
> In error? Hardly. All we need to say is that in those days, there was
> only rudimentary knowledge of SNP and STR markers on the Y chromosome
> and their uses. What was done in those older papers was perfectly
> legitimate and not erroneous; like much older scientific research, it
> will naturally be superseded by what comes after it.
>

The discovery of the difference between Cohen and non-Cohen Jews was
obviously not in error but is still significant. However, the clear
implication that CMH-6 haplotypes formed some kind of evidence for
Bronze Age ancestry is wrong. CMH-6's don't form a unique Y-chromosome
lineage, not to mention that the mutation rate used in Thomas et al.
98 to back up that claim is not the one that is widely used nowadays
which is much slower. Also, subsequent papers discovered that CMH-6 is
widely spread in different populations, a finding that was not
appreciated in the early work. The early work simply arrived at
conclusions that are suspect in light of the evidence that has amassed
since.


> These are simply false statements. Perhaps he feels that if such things
> are just repeated enough times, people will come to believe them?
>
> How can anyone take it seriously when he suggests that there is no
> evidence to suggest that the CMH-12 is more frequent than other
> haplotypes among Cohanim?

Being more frequent is not by itself sufficient evidence. Also, as I
mentioned in a different post, the very fact that CMH-12 is put
forward as an update of the old CMH-6 may be deterring Cohens who do
not possess it from coming forward as Cohens. Not to mention that
science isn't done with self-selected samples but with random
representative population samples. It's possible that CMH-12 is still
modal in Cohens, however the evidence for this is lacking nor has its
frequency been reported as far as I know. Modality by itself make
CMH-12 an "updated" version of the old CMH-6. Scientists must present
the evidence of its frequency and of its time depth.

It may very well turn out that the J1/CMH-12 combination is clearly
modal, at a high frequency, of an appropriate time depth, and
Cohen-specific or at least Cohen-centric. Such evidence would make it
an unambiguous "update" of the old CMH. The old CMH-6 was shown to be
modal (still valid), at a high frequency (still valid), of an
appropriate time depth (now invalid), and Jewish-centric (now
invalid). The new J1/CMH-12 combo must meet all these criteria to be
taken as a valid "updated" version.


--

Dienekes' Anthropology Blog
http://dienekes.blogspot.com

This thread: