Jump to content


Photo

Blood Type Associated With Jewish Heritage?


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#1 Ahavati

Ahavati

    meh

  • Members
  • 7,399 posts

Posted 22 September 2005 - 09:18 PM

I don't know where this would go so feel free to move it where it belongs: I'll find it.

I'm studying/compiling something and have been told that Harvard did a study about blood types, particularly B+ (which only 9% of the world's population has). They somehow associated this type with the Cherokee Indians, who are apparantly the only tribe of Native Americans who were known to carry this particular type. Additionally (and purportedly), they linked the same type to Jewish Heritage based on some study done in europe (especially during the Holocaust) based on race and bloodtypes. Then another study (whether by Harvard or no) purportedly linked the Cherokee tribe with the lost tribe of Israel based on blood heritage comparisons between the two studies, and further studies to conclusify such.

Is anyone familiar with any of these studies? I mean I've got a year to dig and discover myself; however, if anyone has any leads or is aware of the sources I am referring to, I would appreciate a directional point.

Thanks in advance.
If not for my attempts to be a "good Christian" (i.e. someone who follows what Jesus taught and not what the Pauline Epistles taught), I doubt I'd be an orthodox Jew right now. Shemmy

#2 The Rabbi

The Rabbi

    Merchant of Death

  • Members
  • 4,160 posts

Posted 22 September 2005 - 10:25 PM

No. Curiously my grandmother a'h was B+.
www.eastsidegunshop.com

"That Obama's a piece of ####. And I told him to suck on my machine gun." -Ted Nugent.

#3 Ahavati

Ahavati

    meh

  • Members
  • 7,399 posts

Posted 22 September 2005 - 11:46 PM

No.  Curiously my grandmother a'h was B+.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Fascinating, isn't it?! I am as well (B+, that is). Also have Cherokee heritage. Now THAT in and of itself is utterly fascinating to me. That only one tribe out of all Native Americans were known to possess the B+ blood type. I ran across some preliminary data (above) and am chomping at the bit to discover these studies! I have an affinity with blood. I mean I don't eat it or anything like that. I just believe in it's power to carry throughout generations. It IS the LIFE that survives throughout our ancestors; the part of us that goes on and on...I don't know how I know this: I just...do.

I droolin' I tell ya! Drooolin'!!! I'll leave no stone unturned on this one. Oh man, what a thesis this would make!!!
If not for my attempts to be a "good Christian" (i.e. someone who follows what Jesus taught and not what the Pauline Epistles taught), I doubt I'd be an orthodox Jew right now. Shemmy

#4 anavah

anavah

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 12:21 AM

I droolin' I tell  ya! Drooolin'!!!  I'll leave no stone unturned on this one. Oh man, what a thesis this would make!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Bloodtype by race and nation

blackfoot indians are listed as b also.

#5 Ahavati

Ahavati

    meh

  • Members
  • 7,399 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 08:10 AM

Thanks for the info, Anavah, But, actually, no.

Blackfoot (N. Am. Indian)- (0 Type):17 (A Type) : 82 ( B type): 0 (Note Zero) (AB Type): 1 (there may be a minute trace due to interbreeding. But even the A Type that dominates the Blackfoot tribe is prevalent within the testing, thus AB. There is no pure B detected in any tribe but the Cherokee. The Harvard study (which is the one I want) concluded this (so I've read in preliminary reports).

Note the Navajo (N. Am. Indian) at zero for both B and AB. 73- 27 - 0- 0

Look at the Bororo! They are pure. 100 - 0 - 0 - 0

Cherokee is the only tribe according to the Harvard study, and appears this one:

Indians (USA - General) 79 - 16 - 4 - 1.

Wow. It's fascinating. That would mean that the Cherokee are not of the indigenous blood of early America that is associated with ALL other Native American tribes. I'm having extreme difficulty accessing certain essays/studies due to membership issues. But...I know people...yes, librarians. muahahahahaahahaha (breathes) hahahahahahahahah. Go Harvard.

Doesn't anyone else find this fascinating?!

I see the Latvians are up there with 24%, which is where I've traced my bloodline back to on my mother's side.
If not for my attempts to be a "good Christian" (i.e. someone who follows what Jesus taught and not what the Pauline Epistles taught), I doubt I'd be an orthodox Jew right now. Shemmy

#6 politico

politico

    ...

  • Banned
  • 11,413 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 09:29 AM

Additionally (and purportedly), they linked the same type to Jewish Heritage based on some study done in europe (especially during the Holocaust) based on race and bloodtypes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you're relying on nazi-sponsored research for this claim?
zinh.

#7 Ahavati

Ahavati

    meh

  • Members
  • 7,399 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 11:20 AM

I hope not. That's why I'm searching for the study. I truly don't think Harvard would rely on that type of information.

Other than that unknown, isn't it fascinating?!
If not for my attempts to be a "good Christian" (i.e. someone who follows what Jesus taught and not what the Pauline Epistles taught), I doubt I'd be an orthodox Jew right now. Shemmy

#8 anavah

anavah

    Rebbe

  • Members
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 01:47 PM

Wow. It's fascinating. That would mean that the Cherokee are not of the indigenous blood of early America that is associated with ALL other Native American tribes.  I'm having extreme difficulty accessing certain essays/studies due to membership issues. But...I know people...yes, librarians. muahahahahaahahaha (breathes) hahahahahahahahah. Go Harvard.

Doesn't anyone else find this fascinating?!

I see the Latvians are up there with 24%, which is where I've traced my bloodline back to on my mother's side.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Cherokees today are a highly racially and culturally assimilated people.
So I dont see that it proves much.

I find words like "pure" very scary. I find basing what someone is on their blood type or coloring also scary.

#9 Ahavati

Ahavati

    meh

  • Members
  • 7,399 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 04:55 PM

Cherokees today are a highly racially and culturally assimilated people.
So I dont see that it proves much.

I find words like "pure" very scary. I find basing what someone is on their blood type or coloring also scary.


Anavah, so is/was EVERY other tribe of Native Americans. Yes, the Cherokee was advanced, imho, but the FACT that they bear a unique blood type not found in ANY other tribe of Native Americans (you DO realize how many there are, right?) is NOT ONLY an AMAZING discovery. BUT is even more amazing because only around 9% or so of the world's population has this type blood. This separates this tribe in a way that isn't conclusive yet. And may never be. But I for one want to follow it; it's part of my heritage and I'm proud of it.

Now you might think that's nothing; but not me. I think it's amazing.

I find words like "pure" very scary. I find basing what someone is on their blood type or coloring also scary.


Now THAT I'm not suprised about! And I don't mean it facitiously, really. It's just that expecting some excitement from this board (well, the majority of it, anyway) is like expecting a public display of affection!!! But that's okay. It's just who people are. But I'm who I am, too.

There are four major blood types (not counting the positive/negative subtypes in each). The majority of Native Americans possess two, and in some instances three via interbreeding. However, their trait (be it 0 or A is still prelavent in testing). People are based on certain things all through the science world, be it genes, traits, whatever. I mean chrone's disease was linked years ago to Jewish heritage. I remember reading it when I was diagosed with it. I think more recent studies have negated such, or at least spread it out somewhat. But the Jews, too, have spread out somewhat as well.

Different tribes have different markers or traits. Take Asians, they have slanted eyes. Take Indians, they have darkened skin. Swedes have lightened, etc. etc. etc. None of these physical traits is new under the sun; and even many genetic discoveries are now commonplace. BUT this blood discovery is amazing because it's fresh and it's new. And it could be a link to something very important; it's definitely unique in character.

Harvard doesn't just play around and publish anything. They spend years and money and expertise on research that's sound and valid in a physical world (though with the progression of science could be negated with new discoveries).

I for one am very excited about it. Not scared. Not appalled. Not defensive of my heritage with things like "Prove you're a Jew", etc. I'm just very excited because it's just another piece of who I am uncovering itself before me. And I have the blood to prove it.
If not for my attempts to be a "good Christian" (i.e. someone who follows what Jesus taught and not what the Pauline Epistles taught), I doubt I'd be an orthodox Jew right now. Shemmy

#10 politico

politico

    ...

  • Banned
  • 11,413 posts

Posted 23 September 2005 - 05:54 PM

I hope not.  That's why I'm searching for the study. I truly don't think Harvard would rely on that type of information.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that probably depends on who did the study, not their institutional label.
zinh.

#11 Ahavati

Ahavati

    meh

  • Members
  • 7,399 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 06:26 PM

In Nazi Germany much research was done to associate blood type with personal characteristics. Especially, researchers tried to associate B-type blood with inferior characteristics. B-type blood was relatively common among German Jewish populations. This research has since been discredited.


Nazi b*stards (pardon my French. But, I'm not French so I don't speak it well). Note that the research regarding inferior characteristics in B-type blood was discredited (well duh yeah Jews are among the most intelligent in the world), NOT that the B-type wasn't relatively common among German Jewish populations.

Certain nationalist or ethnic pride movements such as the Basque consider blood type to be a valid indicator of one's racial or ethnic identity.

In the United States, few African Americans donate blood, resulting in a shortage of U-negative and Duffy-negative blood for African American patients.

The Japan blood type theory of personality is a popular belief that a person's ABO blood type is predictive of their personality, character, and compatibility with others. This belief has carried over to certain extent in other parts of East Asia such as South Korea and Taiwan. In Japan, asking someone their blood type is considered as normal as asking their astrological sign.[/B]


http://en.wikipedia...._of_personality

Talk about taking blood seriously....

A blood horoscope?!

Ooookay, then....

I'm not really interested in all the above, except that the B-type was common among Jews in Germany--just thought I'd share. I have more interesting stuff I'm compiling that I'll share later.
If not for my attempts to be a "good Christian" (i.e. someone who follows what Jesus taught and not what the Pauline Epistles taught), I doubt I'd be an orthodox Jew right now. Shemmy

#12 Thursday

Thursday

    Thor's Day

  • Members
  • 4,690 posts

Posted 24 September 2005 - 11:55 PM

Fascinating, isn't it?!  I am as well (B+, that is). Also have Cherokee heritage...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'm B+ and have some Native American, also.

Are you me?
παθει μαθος

#13 sultan_knish

sultan_knish

    Sultan

  • Members
  • 4,756 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 12:11 AM

Detailed though it was, however, this racial classification rested on a paradoxical foundation. Nazi science could not identify a specifically Jewish blood type because no such thing exists. The identity of Jewish grandparents was not determined by "blood" but by membership in the Jewish religious community instead.

----------

Blood groups provided a hope for many that the various races could be accurately distinguished. Otto Reche, professor of racial science at the University of Leipzig, was one of the pioneering researchers in this field. Reche (along with Paul Steffan) was founder of the German Society for Blood Group Research (in 1926) and also (again with Steffan, in 1928) of the "Zeitschrift für Rassenphysiologie." He was one of the leading figures in German anthropology and racial theory in the Weimar and Nazi periods.67

Reche claimed to have founded the Society for Blood Group Research as part of an effort to find a precise physiological measure of differences among the various races.67 (He was by no means the first to suggest an uneven distribution of blood types across "races": Karl Landsteiner had suggested this earlier in the century, and subsequent research in the Nazi period cited Landsteiner's work.)69 According to Reche (based on his studies of the rural inhabitants of northwest Germany), the long-headed European races were originally characterized by blood type A. Another, less well defined race with origins somewhere in Asia was characterized by blood type B, whereas the pure-blooded inhabitants of pre-Columbian America had neither type A nor B but were exclusively of type O. Reche concluded that a strong correlation had once existed between race and blood type, and that subsequently, through racial intermarriage, the races had become intermingled.

Reche felt that blood group research had important policy implications for the Nazi state. He described in vivid terms the negative consequences of allowing enemy ("feindliche") blood groups (A and B, for example) to mingle with one another. If a person of blood type A, for example, were to receive blood from an individual of type B, this could result in the destruction of the circulatory system and possibly even in the death of the recipient. He noted that the ability to distinguish blood types was important in police work and in the determination of paternity: "In some cases, it can be ascertained whether or not an illegitimate child is the offspring of a Jewish father, because the Asiatic B blood type is more common among Jews than among Europeans."70 Reche conceded that such tests were never conclusive, given that no single blood type was typical among Jews; most Nazi physicians admitted this was the case.

Reche and others, however, believed that even though there was no necessary correlation between race and blood type, the methods developed in the new science were important for Germany's new racial legislation. In 1939 Peter Dahr, for example, cited a case in which a (non-Jewish) woman married to a Jew had three children and wanted to claim that one of them stemmed from an extramarital relationship with a "German" and should therefore not be considered Jewish. Dahr showed how blood types could be used to determine paternity and resolve the racial status of the child. The mother was type OO, the father AB. Because the child in question was type OO, it could not have been fathered by the woman's husband. The child could therefore be considered German under Nazi law.71

#14 Daniel

Daniel

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 785 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 08:44 AM

I hope not.  That's why I'm searching for the study. I truly don't think Harvard would rely on that type of information.

Other than that unknown, isn't it fascinating?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Unfortunately, much current medical knowledge is indeed based on the results of experiments conducted by SS 'doctors' in Nazi camps.

It's very difficult to deal with for some people. But well... it happened.

#15 Daniel

Daniel

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 785 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 08:47 AM

It's definitely an interesting topic. I'm very interested in reading more about what you find out. Please keep posting about it. :)

#16 Ahavati

Ahavati

    meh

  • Members
  • 7,399 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 09:09 AM

Fascinating, isn't it?!  I am as well (B+, that is). Also have Cherokee heritage...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'm B+ and have some Native American, also.

Are you me?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


!

I'm telling you there's a connection with the Cherokee Tribe and the East. Well, there's a connection with ALL tribes and the east, however, the Cherokee are unique of all of these. I have discovered such FASCINATING THINGS!! Here, check this out!

According to William C. Boyd Ph.D. and Isaac Asimov Ph.D, Part 1 The genetics of the Blood types, Races And People,

A person's blood group is one of his physical characteristics, just as a dark skin may be, or blue eyes or a hooked nose. Like other physical characteristics, blood groups can be used to divide mankind into races. (CHAPTER 9
RACES AT LAST: THE ADVANTAGES OF BLOOD GROUPS).

...

HUMAN HISTORY BY GENES

In the first place, we must understand that the O, A, and B genes are all very old. They are not the result of recent mutations. For one thing, tests on Egyptian mummies show the three blood-group genes to be present there in about the same proportions as in modem Egyptians….

…the most reasonable theory, so far, is one that supposes that modern man first developed in central Asia at a time when its climate was more favorable than it is now. This earliest group of modern man may have had gene frequencies of 25 A, 15 B, and 60 O out of every hundred A-B-O blood-group genes.

This is about the gene frequency found in central Asia today….

…as we approach closer to historical times and as the human population on Earth increases, there were larger and larger emigrations out of central Asia. These were large enough to carry the B gene with them. The regions that were nearest central Asia, such as Manchuria and northern India, got the most. Eastern Europe got the most in that continent, and the B gene trickles off as you move westward. Northeastern Africa got the most in that continent, and the B gene trickles off as you move westward and southward….

…Peoples carrying the B gene, however never reached the American Indians,…


Except for the CHEROKEE!!! So...WHERE did the Cherokee come from AND WHEN?!

THE HUMAN RACES, BY GENES

… groups of human beings, splitting off from the original central Asian population, had different gene frequencies as far as the A, B, and O blood groups were concerned. It is very likely that the gene frequencies with respect to other physical characteristics were also changed. If these groups multiplied in isolation, they would finally become populations with marked differences in appearance. (This state of affairs is known as genetic drift.)…

…The people of Asia and those of Africa generally have higher frequencies of the B gene than other people do. They differ from each other in the Rh series. The Asian peoples have a high frequency of a gene called Rhz to distinguish it from the other genes of the Rh series. The African peoples, on the other hand, have a high frequency of another Rh gene called Rho.

…One of the Rh genes is usually written as rh (with a small "r.") The rh gene is recessive to all the other genes in the Rh series. Therefore, it is only when a person is homozygous for rh (that is, has two rh genes) that it can be detected. Such a person is said to be Rh-negative. A person with only one rh gene or none at all is Rh-positive.

…the American, Australian, and Asiatic groups have little or no rh gene. The African group contains a small quantity of rh gene. The inhabitants of Europe (including Americans and Australians who are descended from Europeans), however, have a good deal of the rh gene; about one out of seven among them is Rh-negative….

…Now we can summarize our six genetic races: *

1. Australian (Aboriginal): low B or none, low M, no A2
2. American (Indian): low B or none, low N, no A2 [Except the Cherokee!!!] 
3. Asian: High B, high Rhz, no A2
4. African: High B, high Rho, some rh, high A2
5. European: moderately high rh, moderate B, moderate A2 (result of migration)
6. Early European: very high rh, no B
* The genes for O and A are so widespread among all groups of people that they are nearly useless in racial classification.

The six races (plus a seventh race which is less clear-cut (o O the mystery!!!)) divide the world in an interesting manner. We can follow immigration waves that we could not follow if we used skin color or some other obvious physical characteristic….



Excerpts from: http://www.dadamo.co...cyclopedia.html
"Blood groups and the history of peoples" in The Eat Right 4 Your Type Encyclopedia

This is just fascinating!!! Where did the Cherokee come from?! They're NOT Native American by bloodline (as is EVERY OTHER TRIBE IN THE AMERICAS), however, distinquished such by Tribal name and placement. And there were literally HUNDREDS of tribes in early America. And out of these hundreds of tribes, only ONE possesses the B-type. Amazing.

To continue:


THE ANCESTRAL FOUNDATION

…if the mutations that produced the A and B antigens are ancient, the gene for blood group O is infinitely older.

Another dimension testifying to the great antiquity of group O comes from the science of physical anthropology and suggests that a greater part of humanity’s existence has been lived exclusively as group O.

New studies on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) support the theory that Homo sapiens emerged in Africa and only later infiltrated other regions….

…high rate of blood group O suggests that the Amerindians and Eskimos are directly descended from Cro-Magnon ancestors, probably Mongolians, who migrated around 15,000 B.C. to the Americas….

…few Native Americans are group B, so they must have migrated to the Americas late enough to pick up the Rh positive gene, but too early to pick up the gene for B. (9)… (THUS the Cherokee!!!!)
…the gene carried by people who are blood group O is ancient by evolutionary standards….

Some Highlights of some extensive research:

THE AGE OF THE HUNTER-GATHERERS

Our first human ancestors likely emerged in sub-Sahara Africa between 170,000 and 50,000 years ago. These ancestors probably ate a rather crude, omnivorous diet of plants, grubs, and the scavenged leftovers of other, more successful predatory animals…

...

THE WANDERINGS

By 30,000 B.C., bands of Cro-Magnons were migrating eastwards and northwards in search of new hunting lands. By 20,000 B.C., migration into Europe and Asia was so significant that large game herds began disappearing from those areas as well.

...

THE AGRICULTURAL DAWNING
The Neolithic Period, or "New Stone Age" followed the "Old Stone Age" or Paleolithic period of the Cro-Magnon hunters, beginning around 30,000 B.C. Agriculture and animal domestication are generally recognized as the hallmarks of its culture. The ability to cultivate grains and livestock allowed these early people to forgo the hand-to-mouth existence of their nomadic ancestors, and settle down in cities, allowing for substantial population concentrations…

The Neolithic Period was also an important watershed in the distribution of the ABO blood groups. This new, relatively sedentary, agrarian lifestyle and the major change in diet resulted in a new mutation in the digestive tracts and immune systems of these early people. Many of them became carriers of group A blood. The blood group A variant allowed humans to tolerate and better assimilate grains and other agricultural products. Blood group A initially appeared in any significant numbers in the early Caucasian peoples, sometime between 25,000 and 15,000 B.C., somewhere in western Asia or the Middle East. The gene for group A was carried into western Europe and Asia during the movement of these Neolithic societies, especially a branch termed the Indo-Europeans,…

...


…The Indo-Europeans… …between 3500 and 2000 B.C. spread southward into Southwestern Asia, especially to Iran and Afghanistan. At some point after this, they began to spread again, this time further westward, into Europe…. …their migration serve to transport the gene for group A…

...

THE NOMADIC MUTATION

The gene for blood group B first appeared in significant numbers somewhere around 10 to 15,000 B.C., the tail end of the Neolithic period, in the area of the Himalayan highlands now part of present day Pakistan and India.

...

Two basic blood group B population patterns emerged out of the Neolithic revolution in Asia: an agrarian, relatively sedentary population located in the south and east, and the wandering nomadic societies of the north and west. This schism stands as an important cultural remnant in Southern Asian cuisine - the use of dairy products remains practically nonexistent. To the Asian culture, dairy products are considered the food of the barbarian.

In the Middle-East… …a third century BC Egyptian mummy, 'Iset Iri Hetes' was recently typed and found to be group B. (18)

…Africa in general (independent of any racial categorization) has a higher incidence of group B than Europe…

Jewish populations…(have) …a trend towards higher than average rates of blood group B. The Ashkenazim of Eastern Europe and the Sephardim of the Middle East and Africa, the two major sects, share high rates of group B blood and bear no discernible differences. Babylonian Jews differ considerably from the present-day Arab population of Iraq, in that they have a high frequency overall of group A, and an even higher frequency of group B blood.

…To modern day anthropologists, blood group B continues to this day to be an "Eastern" blood group.

...

Blood group B is a distinctly non-Indo-European blood type.

...

The small numbers of blood group B in old and Western Europeans represents western migration by Asian nomadic peoples.

Modern subcontinental Indians, a Caucasian people, have some of the highest frequencies of blood group B in the world.


Well, I think it's pretty much been determined that the Cherokee are NOT (even though classified as such by name) a Native American tribe and migrated from the East during a MUCH later time-frame than previous Native American type-0 & A.

Veddy veddy intellesting.

In the Middle-East… …a third century BC Egyptian mummy, 'Iset Iri Hetes' was recently typed and found to be group B. (18)

I found THIS particularly interesting...you know...ALL of this can tie in biblically given the right person to connect it all. I mean simple questions and deductions...type-B didn't appear on the earth until much later than the 'purported' origin of tyoe-0 and evolution of type-A. This sets it aside differently than the previous two types. The fact that it was discovered in an Egyptian mummy 3,000 BC is a VERY significant time-frame for the Jewish people, no? When did HaShem call forth Abraham? The questions are as endless as puzzle peices tossed in a box; however, taken out one by one with what little answers we have and a partial picture is formed.

Of course I've always believed that Science was no threat to Religion. Dig baby, Dig!! On the contrary, I've always felt it merely uncovered the hows of what HaShem performed. Evolution and Creation, to me, go hand in hand right along the path of heritage.

Just Fascinating!!!
If not for my attempts to be a "good Christian" (i.e. someone who follows what Jesus taught and not what the Pauline Epistles taught), I doubt I'd be an orthodox Jew right now. Shemmy

#17 Ahavati

Ahavati

    meh

  • Members
  • 7,399 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 09:15 AM

I hope not.  That's why I'm searching for the study. I truly don't think Harvard would rely on that type of information.

Other than that unknown, isn't it fascinating?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Unfortunately, much current medical knowledge is indeed based on the results of experiments conducted by SS 'doctors' in Nazi camps.

It's very difficult to deal with for some people. But well... it happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Well, the thing is, is that such research was intended to DEMEAN Jews, catagorize them as less intelligent, less [insert a million things here]. It certainly was not to elevate them. So, in essence, their research failed because what it did was indeed distinquish them as a very unique tribe of people on the earth.

I've always believe that what man intends for evil (and that was the German intent with these studies), that HaShem could turn for the good. And boy did He!
If not for my attempts to be a "good Christian" (i.e. someone who follows what Jesus taught and not what the Pauline Epistles taught), I doubt I'd be an orthodox Jew right now. Shemmy

#18 Ahavati

Ahavati

    meh

  • Members
  • 7,399 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 09:19 AM

It's definitely an interesting topic. I'm very interested in reading more about what you find out. Please keep posting about it. :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


:D

Why you can play, too!!!
If not for my attempts to be a "good Christian" (i.e. someone who follows what Jesus taught and not what the Pauline Epistles taught), I doubt I'd be an orthodox Jew right now. Shemmy

#19 p_almonius

p_almonius

    Minister of silly davening

  • Members
  • 4,050 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 09:24 AM

Blood type is useful in ruling out the possibility that one person is the child of another, but is I don't think it's of any use in showing that two individuals or populations are related. But let's say that there was some test that could show that some other population the Jews were connected, maybe a unique genetic marker, not one that shows up in many different populations - what would it mean? Would it show that the they are descended from Jews? Perhaps they share a common, non-Jewish ancestor, or come from one of the obscure children of Abraham from his concubines.
I am DEMANDING that the Rabbonim start screaming about this.

#20 Ahavati

Ahavati

    meh

  • Members
  • 7,399 posts

Posted 25 September 2005 - 10:05 AM

Blood type is useful in ruling out the possibility that one person is the child of another, but is I don't think it's of any use in showing that two individuals or populations are related.  But let's say that there was some test that could show that some other population the Jews were connected, maybe a unique genetic marker, not one that shows up in many different populations - what would it mean?  Would it show that the they are descended from Jews?  Perhaps they share a common, non-Jewish ancestor, or come from one of the obscure children of Abraham from his concubines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


LOL! You just said it! Blood is useful for determining a person's heritage. But, blood is a lot more useful than that. According to HaShem, blood is the LIFE.

And it means that the Cherokee bear a unique marker that separates them from any other of the HUNDREDS of Native American tribes; Type-B blood. I don't care how you cut it, THAT IS FASCINATING!!

Abraham had lots of concubines? I thought he only had Sarah and Hagar? I don't think I ever remember Abraham taking a wife after Sarah died. He was old and well stricken in age. Nor do I remember reading about concubines prior to his marriage to Sarah...or during. And was not Hagar's son (whom HaShem blessed) wed to an Egyptian? That could account for the intermingling of blood right there (depending on whose type Ishmael carried). And what of Joseph? Was his wife not Egyptian? I'm telling you, the time frame is RIGHT THERE for the appearance of the B-type blood
...we'll NEVER have all the answers; however, there are more than we realize already here. Just need the right person (someone profusely voiced in Science and Religion) to dedicate a lifetime (because that's what it would take) to research, study, and begin piecing it together.


…In genetics it is not the actual age of the gene that matters, it is its frequency or drift. This is computed by geneticists using a formula called the Hardy-Weinberg equation. Hardy-Weinberg posits that if the only evolutionary force acting on the population is random mating, the gene frequencies remain unchanged constant. In essence if you start off with a small number of a particular gene in a larger gene pool (such as the gene for blood group B in the gene pool for ABO blood type) and nothing other than random mating occurred, at the end of a period of time, you would still have a small number of B genes in the ABO gene pool.


Research has determined that it would be virtually impossible to trace the 0 and A types of blood to a conclusive origin; however, the B-type, which is the most recent evolution of types, is different. I have discovered rare maps from studies at Stanford. I'll get them ready to post.
If not for my attempts to be a "good Christian" (i.e. someone who follows what Jesus taught and not what the Pauline Epistles taught), I doubt I'd be an orthodox Jew right now. Shemmy




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users