Nature Genetics: A Genetic View of Jewish History

Ray Martinez <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:-

[moderator's note: I have no idea why John thinks I wrote this
article; I did not. The article in question was written by Jon
Entine (for which seewww.abrahamschildren.net) and seemed
reasonably on-topic to me and no more beset with offensive
comment than a lot of other posts here.

Food For Thought
Aaron, the older brother of Moses, was not Jewish. Aaron was of the
tribe of Levi (1). The word "Jews" does not appear in Scripture until
well after the break-up of the united monarchy (2). "Jews" is derived
from the tribe of Judah; hence Judah/Jewdah/Jews. It refers to
citizens of the Southern kingdom of Judah (two tribes), capitol of
Jerusalem; not to be confused with the Northern kingdom of Israel (ten
tribes), capitol of Samaria.
According to Biblical chronology, Aaron, of course, lived in the
15th-14th century BC. The united monarchy separated into the two
different kingdoms *after* the death of Solomon in the 10th century BC
(3).


JE:-
I agree with the moderator. While the above may or may not be true it has
little to do with this discussion. This is an evolutionary theory science
list. What we discuss here is the validity within _evolutionary science_ of
any proposed grouping including supposed human racial groups. Also,
Jewishness as a culture (NOT as a racial sub species) will provide a
selective force via the Baldwin Effect which may be quite different to other
cultural selective forces providing a different evolutionary outcome for the
individuals concerned.

It appears to me that most people cannot/refuse to make the critical
separation of groups as _selectors_ which provide a Baldwin effect within
falsifiable, monocentric Darwinism and groups acting as single, fitness
independent _selectees_ necessarily competing against adult (fertile) forms
that make up these groups allowing just _non falsifiable,_ dicentric group
selection.

The point is that all Jews are Hebrews but not all Hebrews are Jews.

JE:-
To propose this as a SCIENCE you must provide falsifiable theories of both.
Of course you can always take the easy way out and simply throw out
falsifiability like almost everybody else who posts here allowing "anything
goes".

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


.