Oh, well, I needed to read it to discover what evidence sup****ts the idea
that Charlemagne is descended from Phoenicians. Some ideas die hard.
Quote follows:
------------------------
"Because the Y-Chromosome is passed from father to son, genealogies that
are
based on a direct male line may be used to conclude the genetic
identifiers
of forefathers based on their descendents, many generations later.
The hypothesis of this exercise is suggest that Emperor Charlemagne must
have had Phoenician blood identifiers or have come from Phoenician
bloodline, simply because his direct male descendent, Thomas Jefferson has
been proven to have the same identifiers.
"Phoenician" Thomas Jefferson's patrilineal origin
Spencer Wells, the geneticist that heads the Genographic Project in
search
of the scientific "Adam" and the National Geographic study "Who were the
Phoenicians," revealed that Thomas Jefferson, one of the "founding
fathers"
of the United States belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup K2. The quote
from
Wells that follows is the scientific explanation of what was discovered in
studying Jefferson's DNA.
"As part of our genetic analyses for the film Search for Adam, we
analyzed additional markers on Jefferson's Y-chromosome in an effort to
determine why it is so unusual. If you recall the original Hemmings paper
in
Nature by Foster et al., the haplotype was 'rare', which is what enabled
them to implicate Jefferson as the source rather than another European. At
the time there were no matches among the 607 European men (Jefferson's
father claimed Welsh ancestry) who had been genotyped for the same 11
microsatellites. Recent searches of more comprehensive databases have
turned
up related haplotypes belonging to haplogroups O, K and Q. We investigated
the 12 microsatellites routinely typed by FTDNA, which did not add to the
haplogroup resolution. SNP testing, however, revealed that Jefferson's Y
is
positive for M70, which places him in haplogroup K2. K2 is rare in
northern
Europe (only one K was found among 1772 British men surveyed by Capelli et
al., but it wasn't typed for M70) but quite common in the Middle East and
northeast Africa, where it reaches frequencies of 10% or more...We are
currently looking at potential source populations for Jefferson's K2 as
part
of a broader survey of Y-chromosome variation in the Middle East and North
Africa, and expect to submit a publication by the end of the year. I'm
sure
that all of you will appreciate the amount of effort that has gone into
launching The Genographic Project, and hope that you will understand that
our publication schedule has been somewhat delayed as a result.
Spencer Wells
Mission Programs
National Geographic Society""
-- --------------
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Dora Smith" <villandra@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4650ab48$0$19401$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I got the article from its author. It doesn't really present any new
>evidence on Thomas Jefferson's DNA, like the desperately needed more
>markers, or anything like that, nor on his relation****p to Sally Hemings'
>descendants.
>
> The new study uses both newly gathered and previously published K2
> haplotypes to try to place Jefferson's haplotype among the old and
diverse
> K2 haplogroup. The authors developed a set of data based on genetic
> distances between the haplotypes, and used this to construct a
> phylogenetic network of the K2 haplogroup and show where Jefferson fits
in
> that tree. Some of the haplotypes they used are in a table; teh
previously
> published ones are available in Excel format from the author.
>
> I have both the table and the article if anyone wants them.
>
> At the same time, the authors recruited a good sized sample of people
> named Jefferson in England. Two among the sample whose grandfathers
came
> from variously central and Northern England matched Jefferson's
haplotype
> exactly. This proves that Jefferson came from England (and
substantially
> weakens the idea that he came from Wales).
>
> But Jefferson is descended from Charlemagne via Welsh royalty only if
> Charlemagne had Jewish or maybe Moorish paternal line blood. LOL. Of
> course we know that all European royalty are descended from Jesus
through
> Charlemagne and then the Merovingians - but that is through female
lines.
>
> However, Jefferson and the two Jefferson matches in England proved to be
> far more closely related to Middle Eastern and Sephardic and North
African
> Jewish men than to the two other K2 haplotypes from England. He was
> actually very closely matched to them. The text reads identical
matches,
> but my eyes looking at the haplotype tables read, close matches. But
> they don't even resemble the other northern and western European K2
> haplotypes, taking into account haplotypes in Y Search and the K2
> haplogroup DNA project as well. If you eyeball Jefferson's haplotype,
> the haplotypes in the table in the article, and the haplotypes in the
> separate table, you can plainly see without needing to do network
analysis
> that Jefferson's haplotype is far more like the North African and
> Sephardic Jewish haplotypes than to anything else.
>
> The available data does not prove that Jefferson's paternal line
ancestry
> is not Moorish or picked up by Romans or Germanic peoples on their way
> through North Africa. It is necessary to explain how the line
> subsequently got to England. Long ago Romans is possible. Moors from
> Spain is unlikely - unless the name "Jefferson" had actually been picked
> up in the Netherlands and carried from there to England by Protestants
> running around Europe in circles. It is an odd way to say "Jeffery's
> son", though that could be exactly what it is; and it gets funnier when
> you start trying to explain the name Jaffrey. Jewish ancestry is the
> most likely explanation, even if the name Jefferson did not come from
> England. It is hardly necessarily true that the ancestor who went to
> England was still Jewish.
>
> The K2 project is at
> http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-Haplogroup-K2/
>
> He developed a breakdown of haplogroup K2 into several subclades based
> only on the STR haplotypes. (Usually subclades are developed from
single
> nucleotide polymorphisms and then associated with the standard DYS
markers
> on which they more easily count repeats, but not always.) He places
> Jefferson's haplotype "probably" in one particular set of haplotypes.
It
> is not possible to be certain Jefferson's haplotype belongs there,
> however, because so little of Jefferson's haplotype is known.
>
> The original 1998 article on Jefferson and the Hemings clan examined a
> highly quixotic set of markers, only a few of which correspond to the
> markers that are typically collected in genealogical testing, only eight
> of which are among the 12 standard markers that are always measured even
> if nothing else is. Both articles compare people and develop an
entire
> phylogenetic network on only eight markers, which gives weak, possibly
> wrong, results. For instance, to exactly match Jefferson to Jewish
> haplotypes you need preferably 37 markers.
>
> FTDNA filled in several of the missing markers from somewhere but gave
no
> source information for it, and I'm having trouble extracting it from
them.
>
> In 1998, genealogical DNA was in its infancy. The large number of
> Jefferson and related Hemings descendants who have been tested should
> definitely have given rise by now to a proper analysis of 25 or 37
> standard genealogical markers. But I can't find more than what was in
> the 1998 article and what FTDNA added anywhere.
>
> Y Search, a big Y DNA database, has just one Jefferson listed and no
> Hemings, and only the 8 markers.
>
> No Jefferson or HEmings is represented in teh K2 DNA project.
>
> The Jefferson DNA project is currently hiding its data from the public.
> Most DNA projects make their data public in embedded Excel tables.
>
> No Jefferson or Hemings is represented in the SMGF (Mormon) genealogical
> DNA database. This database has shortcomings but getting tested for
that
> project is absolutely free. It attempts to link families by DNA.
>
> I've been writing to all sorts of people who pur****t to be connected to
> this testing asking for the rest of the markers. So far only one
> person has responded and he didn't have this data. He referred me to
two
> other people. It is possible that some people won't get their e-mail
> until the weekend is over.
>
> Spencer Wells has published a new book on the Jefferson and Hemings
> controversy. The review at Amazon tells us little more than that.
> Spencer Wells evidently has some kind of knowledge about Jefferson's
> haplotype but there is no clue how much of it is in his book, and
Spencer
> Wells is not known for his intellectual quality and for providing
richness
> of detail on his data in his books. Spencer Wells is director of the
> Geneographic Project, probably for no other reason than that most people
> know who he is. I e-mailed them, but that e-mail address is apparently
> extremely busy. I don't know if he'll ever get my e-mail.
>
> I smell fishes. Either the Jefferson's and Hemings' know better than
we
> do that Jefferson's paternal line is Jewish and don't want that fact
> known, or don't want to know it themselves, or they looked at the
> handwriting on the wall and decided to know no more. I would expect
the
> Hemings clan to be less subject to that kind of prejudice than the
> aristocratic Monticello folks, particularly after their long fight
against
> the Monticello operation for recognition, but we're talkign about
> relations between American Blacks and Jews; they could be even more
> prejudiced than the Monticello folks.
>
> I'll wait and see what information I get back in the next few days.
> Failing taht I get any, I'll just conclude that the fact that the
> Monticello outfit don't want any more information to come out confirms
> that Jefferson's roots are Jewish.
>
> I must say that the Edmund Rice family association is being almost as
> bizarre over the fact that his DNA confirms that he is not descended
from
> Welsh royalty. Not only did he come from East Anglia, but his paternal
> line ancestor was a Norse Viking. But shhh... don't start none of them
> rumors! Fortunately they prefer extreme nastiness to the suppression
> of all knowledge of the haplotype.
>
> It does actually take more than 8 markers to be able to say that
> Jefferson's DNA is an exact match to people named JEfferson in England.
> 12 markers aren't enough, though on the rare and highly variable K2
> haplogroup it would make a strong case. Actually, it takes a minimum
of
> 25 markers to be able to say that, and since even closely related people
> don't usually match perfectly, it actually takes 37 markers minimum and
a
> computation of genetic distance. Now, getting and publi****ng more
than
> 8 markers could well undermine the link to the two "identical"
haplotypes
> in England, and either the Monticello clan know it remains a close match
> and don't want to admit it, or they fear that more information will
> confirm the match and disconfirm the Welsh royalty theory.
>
>
> --
> Yours,
> Dora Smith
> Austin, TX
> tiggernut24@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "reatty" <reatty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:I6D3i.238841$2Q1.156881@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Dear Sam- as a stupid person, I eagerly await your analysis (no irony
or
>> sarcasm intended). Aside from the Hemings/Jefferson controversy, this
>> whole DNA ancestry thing is interesting. I have one off topic question.
>> What's the purpose of this type of testing of individuals? It's
>> interesting to know the answer, but does it advance knowledge of human
>> evolution or what?
>>
>> Stupidly yours, Stultus Americanus
>>
>
>
|
