Are Jews a race?

Nomenclature

@MineSubCraftStarved

The study also stated that the vast majority of the Jews surveyed(around 64%) were not even Jewish by religion, as they were secular or reform.

Number one, you are (quite possibly deliberately) misunderstanding what is meant by "secular". See:-

A "secular Jew" may be a religious Jew who espouses secularism in a general context; in the 20th century, American rabbis who endorsed strict separation of church and state were the most prominent example of "secular Jews"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_secularism

Number two, the article is crystal clear that European Jews see themselves as a religious, not an ethnic group. Your bizarre efforts to spin an article upside down which is so fundamentally clear about the opinion of Jews only further serves to expose the delusional thinking at the core of your arguments.

Untrue

I've already proven to you that it is true. 

Hebrew: A Dead Language Revived

https://jewishunpacked.com/hebrew-a-dead-language-revived/

Hebrew extinct as a spoken language by the 5th century CE

https://static.hlt.bme.hu/semantics/external/pages/lemma/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language.html

Most Jews do see Jewishness as a cultural or ancestral identity

Clearly, you are delusional. You are literally responding to a survey which illustrates that claim is false:-

Europe’s Jews see themselves as religious– not ethnic– group

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/report-europes-jews-see-themselves-as-religious-not-ethnic-group/

For Vikings, people in Scandinavian countries can likely determine ancestry from ancient Vikings

Vikings no longer exist and Hebrews no longer exist. Nobody can determine their ancestry from ancient vikings or from ancient Hebrews. This, again, has been explained to you repeatedly:-

Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2014.00462/full

DNA ancestry tests branded 'meaningless'

Commercial DNA tests that claim to tell people whether they are related to Richard III or descended from the Vikings are no more than "genetic astrology", scientists have warned.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9912822/DNA-ancestry-tests-branded-meaningless.html

Not for the past 2000 years at least, according to the wealth of genetic studies I have posted in this thread

Your trash papers are not credible, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly. Number one, they assume the Diaspora to have been a real historical event, despite there being no historical and/or scientific evidence to support it ever happening. Number two, these papers were written by Jews looking for ways to support their own religious mythologies (i.e. the precise opposite of how science is conducted). Number three, they do not support the claims you are making in the first place (i.e. they only claim to show similarities in the DNA of certain Jewish groups which inhabit certain regions). 

Everything you are arguing is objectively false. In your very last post you claimed the peer-reviewed scientific research of Dr Elhaik, connecting Ashkenazi Jews to northern Turkey -- research which was credible enough to circulate the entire world's media -- was a "conspiracy theory". This, despite the fact that the actual name Ashkenazi, is derived from the Turkish villages of Iskenaz, Eskenaz and Ashanaz. 

Genes Of Most Ashkenazi Jews Trace Back To Indigenous Europe, Not Middle East

https://www.medicaldaily.com/genes-most-ashkenazi-jews-trace-back-indigenous-europe-not-middle-east-259321

The reason your links aren't the subject of mainstream news stories is because they are trash papers whose authors have no scientific credibility. Even if that were not the case, there would still be a gargantuan leap between their results and your claims that Jews are a racial and/or ethnic group. Those very Middle Eastern genes which you falsely and deceitfully argue identify Jewishness, are shared with various other Muslim populations such as Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians, as again, has been explained to you repeatedly:-

Jews are the genetic brothers of Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese, study finds

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

Hence, your own Mickey Mouse quasi-logic stipulates that if Jews should be considered an ethnic group, then Muslims should also be considered an ethnic group, since they share the exact same genetic similarities which you falsely believe somehow makes Jews ethnically unique. 

You are objectively wrong and you will continue to be objectively wrong even if you keep coming back here to turn logic inside out for the next 50 years. Your own links contradict many of your claims, including the fact that you were kind enough to find another respected Jewish history professor, in addition to Shlomo Sand, who also espouses the obvious fact that Jews have "intermixed, intermarried, interbred and converted new populations to their religious beliefs", something which you are now disagreeing with!

Exactly

Lmfao. So in the space of a single sentence, you have yo-yoed from "not in the past 2000 years", to "exactly". The way you continuously contradict yourself in a futile effort to maintain your bogus arguments is nothing shy of comical.

the relatively small amount of inter-breeding with outside populations that Hebrews have done(as evidenced by genetic studies)

This is not "evidenced by genetic studies". Precisely the opposite is evidenced by genetic studies, as has been explained to you repeatedly:-

Recent DNA analysis of Ashkenazic Jews – a Jewish ethnic group – revealed that their maternal line is European. It has also been found that their DNA only has 3% ancient ancestry which links them with the Eastern Mediterranean (also known as the Middle East) – namely Israel, Lebanon, parts of Syria, and western Jordan. This is the part of the world Jewish people are said to have originally come from – according to the Old Testament. But 3% is a minuscule amount, and similar to what modern Europeans as a whole share with Neanderthals.

https://theconversation.com/ashkenazic-jews-mysterious-origins-unravelled-by-scientists-thanks-to-ancient-dna-97962

What you define as your identity is your choice

Please spare me your ridiculously infantile appeal to woke logic. If I define myself as a unicorn it does not make me a unicorn.

There is no "concrete" or "scientific" way to determine ethnicity

Again, you repeatedly contradict yourself, since if there is no scientific way to determine ethnicity, then what on Earth is the point of referencing sponsored junk science in your quest to prove that Jews are an ethnic group, rather than simply a religion? This flies in the face of everything you have thus far written. You are tying yourself up in knots which would impress most sailors.

So there was no Greek national identity prior to their independence from the Ottoman Empire? 

What are you blathering about? I didn't so much as mention Greece (or the Ottoman Empire), so kindly put your straw man argumentation away and grow up.

Pseudo-scientific approximations of ethnicity purely by physical appearance are a definite callback to the era of scientific racism prevalent in the 19th and 20th centuries

Lmao. Refusing to ignore objective physical differences in appearance between people who are obviously of Chinese heritage and people who obviously are of European heritage has nothing to do with being racist. Stop being an absolute clown. The very premise of ethnicity is shared heritage. 

Look, I'm afraid the reality of the matter is that you are a delusional narcissist who simply cannot be reasoned with. You evidenced this poignantly when you spent almost a full week arguing that "1+1=3" and "1+1=2" are equally valid statements. You are so far beyond the realm of logic or reason that reading your 10,000 word trash posts is nothing more than amusing.

MineSubCraftStarved

@Nomenclature

Number one, you are (quite possibly deliberately) misunderstanding what is meant by "secular". See:-

1b: not overtly or specifically religious
If you are secular, you aren't religious, thus you aren't Jewish by definition, case in point. The founders of Jewish secularism weren't Jewish by religion in the least, where were there Kippahs? Their Payots? Jews in the soviet union were still considered Jewish by nationality, not by religion(there weren't any religious Jews in Soviet Russia).

I've already proven to you that it is true. 

It was natively spoken by the Israelites and remained in regular use as a spoken language by their longest-surviving descendants, the Jews and Samaritans, before dying out between 200–400 CE. However, it was largely preserved as a liturgical language, featuring prominently in Judaism (since the Second Temple period) and Samaritanism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language As I said, it was still spoken in religious circles.

You are literally responding to a survey which illustrates that claim is false:-

The survey mentioned literally said 68% of Jews said that they identify Jewishness based on parentage, thus meaning there is an ethnic component to Jewish identity.
Funny how you ignored this part, along with the only three Jews on debate island telling you there is a Jewish identity.

Number one, they assume the Diaspora to have been a real historical event, despite there being no historical and/or scientific evidence to support it ever happening.

If you actually read the papers(which you clearly haven't), they NEVER make a reference to a Roman diaspora. They simply point out the similarities between Jewish populations and the middle east. If anything, they support the idea of a Roman diaspora and lend scientific evidence to support it, which contradicts your claim of there is no being.

Number two, these papers were written by Jews looking for ways to support their own religious mythologies

Unless you can prove that those papers were made out of a larger Jewish conspiracy, your claims are bogus.
It's funny how you accuse me of Jewish bias, yet many of the geneticists I cite aren't even Jewish, while Elhaik and Sand were.

Number three, they do not support the claims you are making in the first place (i.e. they only claim to show similarities in the DNA of certain Jewish groups which inhabit certain regions). 

They support my claim that modern Hebrews are not as a result of conversion as you claim but rather kept their link to the middle east. It is simply ludicrous to suggest another middle eastern group managed to move to Europe and then convert to Judaism and assume the title of Hebrews, rather than the Hebrews themselves. As stated previously, the similarity between the Jewish population and their Kohanim suggests a Hebrew origin as well, as Kohanim would've kept their ancient connection to Aaron or the ancient Hebrews. So similarity between them and most Jews today indicates a definite Hebrew origin.

This, despite the fact that the actual name Ashkenazi, is derived from the Turkish villages of Iskenaz, Eskenaz, and Ashanaz. 

Ashkenazi, plural Ashkenazim, from Hebrew Ashkenaz (“Germany”), - Britannica
Ashkenazi is not derived from Turkic village names, it is derived from the word German. The Yiddish origin in Germany is prevalent, especially in the fact that it is a highly Germanic language, rather than a Turkic language, which it would be if Ashkenazi Jews came from Turkey.
It's ludicrous to suggest that a Germanic language originated from Turkic Peoples, and more ludicrous to overturn the wealth of genetic data supporting an Ashkenazi origin in the middle east, rather than Turkey.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/genes-most-ashkenazi-jews-trace-back-indigenous-europe-not-middle-east-259321

The paper mentions the study that I already rebutted previously:
Another interesting case is the Ashkenazi Jews, who display a frequency of haplogroup K similar to the PPNB sample together with low non-significant pairwise Fst values, which taken together suggests an ancient Near Eastern origin. This observation clearly contradicts the results of a recent study, where a detailed phylogeographical analysis of mtDNA lineages has suggested a predominantly European origin for the Ashkenazi communities [48].

The reason your links aren't the subject of mainstream news stories is that they are trash papers whose authors have no scientific credibility.

Because apparently works by a single geneticist(namely Elhaik) clearly are more valid than the findings of 30+ geneticists. The reason your links are reported more per capita is that they challenge the traditional middle eastern origin of Jews more. You also rebutted your own claim by citing a paper that does support the Jewish connection to the middle east:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

This directly contradicts your claim that Jews resulted from conversions.

those very Middle Eastern genes which you falsely and deceitfully argue identify Jewishness

I never said that, I'm simply saying that it dispels the myth that modern Jewish populations resulted from conversions, rather than 

Your own links contradict many of your claims, including the fact that you were kind enough to find another respected Jewish history professor, in addition to Shlomo Sand, who also espouses the obvious fact that Jews have "intermixed, intermarried, interbred and converted new populations to their religious beliefs", something which you are now disagreeing with!

Nobody claims that modern Hebrews never kept a perfect genetic ancestry to the ancient Hebrews. But genetic studies have revealed that the amount of foreign admixture among Jewish diaspora population is relatively small, meaning that Hebrews today maintained their connection with Hebrews thousands of years ago.

Lmfao. So in the space of a single sentence, you have yo-yoed from "not in the past 2000 years", to "exactly". The way you continuously contradict yourself in a futile effort to maintain your bogus arguments is nothing shy of comical.

Not sure what you mean, after all you are cherry-picking a single word and not even showing full context about what I meant. Typical straw-man tactics.

https://theconversation.com/ashkenazic-jews-mysterious-origins-unravelled-by-scientists-thanks-to-ancient-dna-97962

Proven wrong by numerous studies:
Another interesting case is the Ashkenazi Jews, who display a frequency of haplogroup K similar to the PPNB sample together with low non-significant pairwise Fst values, which taken together suggests an ancient Near Eastern origin. This observation clearly contradicts the results of a recent study, where a detailed phylogeographical analysis of mtDNA lineages has suggested a predominantly European origin for the Ashkenazi communities [48].
 Using these proxy ancestral populations, we calculated the amount of European admixture in the AJ population to be 35 to 55%.
The structure analysis was compatible with the Iranian and Iraqi Jews having predominant Middle Eastern/Central Asian ancestry and the European and Syrian Jews having both Middle Eastern/Central Asian and European ancestry with the proportion of European ancestry ranging between 20% and 40%
Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities.
This pattern is consistent with a major, but variable component of shared Near East ancestry, together with variable degrees of admixture and introgression from the corresponding host Diaspora populations.
These studies show that the Jews form a distinctive cluster in the Middle East, and it is not known whether the factors driving this structure would also involve other groups in the Levant.
Another interesting case are the Ashkenazi Jews, who display a frequency of haplogroup K similar to the PPNB sample together with low non-significant pairwise Fst values, which taken together suggests an ancient Near Eastern origin. This observation clearly contradicts the results of a recent study, where a detailed phylogeographical analysis of mtDNA lineages has suggested a predominantly European origin for the Ashkenazi communities
No particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews to populations from the Caucasus is evident, particularly populations that most closely represent the Khazar region.
Sand, for example, argues that today’s Jews are all descended from Khazars, an idea Ostrer finds unsupported by the evidence, as he explains in the book.
In our view, there are major conceptual problems with both the genetic and linguistic parts of the work. We argue that GPS is a provenancing tool suited to inferring the geographic region where a modern and recently unadmixed genome is most likely to arise, but is hardly suitable for admixed populations and for tracing ancestry up to 1,000 years before present, as its authors have previously claimed. Moreover, all methods of historical linguistics concur that Yiddish is a Germanic language, with no reliable evidence for Slavic, Iranian, or Turkic substrata.
Keep denying the facts.

If I define myself as a unicorn it does not make me a unicorn.

Ethnicity, being a purely social construct, can be defined how anyone likes. How do you define ethnicity so it doesn't rest on personal identity?

What are you blathering about? I didn't so much as mention Greece (or the Ottoman Empire), so kindly put your straw man argumentation away and grow up.

are you blathering about? I didn't say you mentioned Greece, and I simply used it as an analogy to further my argument. Nationality doesn't depend on whether that nationality controls a piece of land or not. And this has been the case historically. You'd be hard pressed to tell me that, for example, under the Soviet Union there was no such thing as Latvian, or Georgian nationalities.

Lmao. Refusing to ignore objective physical differences in appearance between people who are obviously of Chinese heritage and people who obviously are of European heritage has nothing to do with being racist. Stop being an absolute clown.

Jews do tend to look similar if that's what you're saying unites ethnicity. Again, relying on scientific racism to determine ethnicity won't do you any good as such approximations are purely subjective. Today in Africa there can be people with blond hair and blue eyes, but that doesn't make them genetically Swedish.
Ethnicity is also not totally dependent on genetics, different ethnic groups with very similar genetics have been known to exist, like Alawites and Syrian Arabs, or Serbs and Croats.


The fact of the matters are:
Hebrews have a strong national identity, regardless of their control of land or not. Hebrews have also managed to maintain their genetic connection to the middle east and thus have not assimilated into local populations, meaning that they have kept their connection to their ancestors. The Hebrews today are the same Hebrews 3000 years ago. Hebrews today have also managed to maintain throughout history the Hebrew language, and have maintained many cultural practices. My opponent has pointed out Kaifeng Jews as a demonstration of the fact that Hebrews are not an ethnic group. And although they have not kept a genetic connection with their ancestors(as seen by the lack of middle eastern origins), they have managed to keep a cultural and national connection, meaning that they are still Hebrews through that way. If you want to make the argument that ethnicity is purely based on genetics, then they aren't Hebrews, but are Jews by religion. But the vast majority of Hebrews today are both Hebrew genetically/culturally/nationally/linguistically, and Jewish through religion as a .

Nomenclature

@MineSubCraftStarved

If you are secular, you aren't religious

Why, whenever you read something I reference, do you simply ignore the reference and repeat the exact same fallacy the reference debunks? Secular can indeed mean non-religious, but that is not the context the word is being used in. If it were, we'd have a study in which the majority of European Jews deny being Jewish, which is self-evidently ridiculous. 

It was natively spoken by the Israelites 

I've conclusively proven to you twice that it was a dead language by the 5th century AD. If you want to continue arguing with objective historical fact then there isn't anything I can do about that.

The survey mentioned literally said 68% of Jews said that they identify Jewishness based on parentage

Europe’s Jews see themselves as religious– not ethnic– group

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/report-europes-jews-see-themselves-as-religious-not-ethnic-group/

I understand that you are at least mildly delusional, but there is no universe in which you can distort the crystal clear meaning of that sentence into its linguistic opposite, so my advice is that you stop trying to do that.

If you actually read the papers(which you clearly haven't), they NEVER make a reference to a Roman diaspora

I literally quoted the paper you linked and its direct reference to the Diaspora as a real historical event. Scroll backward and search for the phrase "bingo".

Nobody claims that modern Hebrews never kept a perfect genetic ancestry to the ancient Hebrews

That sentence doesn't even make sense. It's a double negative. Moreover, you claimed that there had not been significant "interbreeding, intermarriage or conversion" with external populations in the last 2,000 years, which is patently false. You further claimed "genetic studies" prove this which, once again, is patently false. It's the exact opposite of the truth.

Not sure what you mean

I mean you should stop pretending to have a valid argument, because you've reached the stage of full-blown comedy.

Proven wrong by numerous studies

None of your "studies" prove anything I have said wrong, and I've warned you at least four times about making dishonest blanket link drops, in which you attempt to drown out specific arguments derived from peer-reviewed research with purposefully vague appeals to quantity. The Ashkenazis are literally named after the Turkish villages they originated from.

I'll address just your first link, because all I need is one example of how you are deliberately twisting and distorting the facts.

Another interesting case is the Ashkenazi Jews, who display a frequency of haplogroup K similar to the PPNB sample together with low non-significant pairwise Fst values, which taken together suggests an ancient Near Eastern origin. This observation clearly contradicts the results of a recent study, where a detailed phylogeographical analysis of mtDNA lineages has suggested a predominantly European origin for the Ashkenazi communities [48].

OK, so the first thing which is painfully evident is that you have not read this paper. I can be certain of this because the "recent study" it claims to contradict is a completely different study to the one you claim it has "proven wrong". The study referenced in the paper is:-

Costa MD, Pereira JB, Pala M, Fernandes V, Olivieri A, et al. (2013) A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages. Nat Commun 4: 2543

The Elhaik study is a completely different study with completely different authors:-

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

So not only are you link farming, but you are not even checking the links you are farming. You are furthermore taking specific sentences out of their original context and affording them weight they were not given within the actual paper. For example, another sentence you avoided mentioning is:-

Haplogroup K was present in almost all populations compared, and its mean frequency in South Eastern Europe and the Near East was around 7%. It reached its highest frequencies in certain populations that have experienced recent population bottlenecks, such as the Askhenazi Jews and the Csángó in Transylvania, Romania [33], [34] and also among Greek Cypriots

Greeks. Exactly one half of Elhaik's conclusion. And the other half:-

The case of N* is especially interesting, because apart from Bulgaria, Crete, Romania and Serbia it was only represented in Near Eastern populations (Iran, Jordan, Near Eastern Jews, Oman, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan and United Arab Emirates). 

Iranians.

So your very first paper does the exact opposite of proving Elhaik wrong. It substantiates his claims. Ashkenazis are the descendants of Greek and Iranian converts who conquered Anatolia (i.e. northern Turkey) and then converted to Judaism.

STOP WASTING MY TIME.

MineSubCraftStarved

@Nomenclature

Secular can indeed mean non-religious, but that is not the context the word is being used in.

Yes, it is, this is literally what secular means in the context of Judaism itself:
Jewish secularism refers to secularism in a Jewish context, denoting the definition of Jewish identity with little or no attention given to its religious aspects.  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_secularism
You're going in a circular pattern of semantics to avoid the flaws in your argumentation. Running is not a good way to debate.

If it were, we'd have a study in which the majority of European Jews deny being Jewish, which is self-evidently ridiculous.

Because it[religion] is not an essential component in European Jewry.

As you can clearly see, belief in god, IE. religion is clearly a minority in what is important to European Jews. Thus European Jewry views their Jewish identity as non-religious. They believe themselves to be Jewish, without being Jewish by religion, meaning it is self-evidently something else, that being an ethnic component.

I understand that you are at least mildly delusional, but there is no universe in which you can distort the crystal clear meaning of that sentence into its linguistic opposite, so my advice is that you stop trying to do that.

I appreciate the kind words given by you. Regardless, the study was predominantly set in Western European groups, where ethnicity has a more geographic component than specific culture. For example, if you were to move to Britain from Nigeria, you would put yourself down as ethnically "Black," if you were to move from Laos, you would put yourself down as ethnically "Asian," similarly, Jews, being a specific ethnic or cultural group rather than a representation of a group of ethnic groups, would probably not be considered an ethnicity in such contexts. They should be considered ethnically middle-eastern.
I also pointed previously out how your own survey mentioned that the leading definition of what a Jew is was by parentage, and thus ethnicity.

You further claimed "genetic studies" prove this which, once again, is patently false

They do:

We find that the Jewish populations show a high level of genetic similarity to each other, clustering together in several types of analysis of population structure.

These results support the view that the Jewish populations largely share a common Middle Eastern ancestry and that over their history they have undergone varying degrees of admixture with non-Jewish populations of European descent.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2797531/ - This study clearly demonstrates how Jews are genetically similar to each other and share a common root in the middle east, although with varying European(presumably Southern European) admixtures. Which I have stated and acknowledged in the past.

These studies show that the Jews form a distinctive cluster in the Middle East, and it is not known whether the factors driving this structure would also involve other groups in the Levant.

Levant: all Jews (Sephardi and Ashkenazi) cluster in one branch; Druze from Mount Lebanon and Druze from Mount Carmel are depicted on a private branch; and Lebanese Christians form a private branch with the Christian populations of Armenia and Cyprus placing the Lebanese Muslims as an outer group. The predominantly Muslim populations of Syrians, Palestinians, and Jordanians cluster on branches with other Muslim populations as distant as Morocco and Yemen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3585000/ - This study not only demonstrates close genetic relationships between Jewish groups. But also demonstrates how Jews form a close genetic similarity with other middle eastern groups.

This pattern is consistent with a major, but variable component of shared Near East ancestry, together with variable degrees of admixture and introgression from the corresponding host Diaspora populations.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23052947/#&gid=article-figures&pid=fig-1-uid-0 - More evidence of a middle eastern and thus Hebrew origin.

Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/ - This demonstrates a strong middle eastern connection of Jewish populations regarding paternal lineage, and the low European admixture once again indicates that Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazic Jews are descendants of the middle east, and had little admixture with local European populations at least paternally. Thus, this demonstrates a common link between Jewish diaspora populations and the middle east, thus making them Hebrew.
These studies clearly show that Jews have a predominantly Near Eastern or middle eastern origin, rather than what you claim as an origin from European converting populations.

None of your "studies" prove anything I have said wrong, and I've warned you at least four times about making dishonest blanket link drops,

Look above, I also list specific quotes from studies that demonstrate a lack of European admixture or admittance of a middle-eastern origin from other sources previously. Which you all have ignored

The Ashkenazis are literally named after the Turkish villages they originated from.

Ashkenazi literally means GERMAN in Hebrew, not TURKIC! Yiddish is a high Germanic language, Ashkenazi Jews are not the descendants of converts from Anatolia, and linguistical evidence is plain enough of this. There is NO trace of Turkic words in Yiddish, so to suggest a Germanic Language somehow arose in an area dominated by Greek/Turkic speakers is not reasonable. To find a few Turkish villages and claim that look similar to the word "Ashkenaz" and claim it to be evidence of an Ashkenazi origin is ridiculous.

I'll address just your first link because all I need is one example of how you are deliberately twisting and distorting the facts.

Very intellectually honest, nit-pick one study and ignore the other eight.

I can be certain of this because the "recent study" it claims to contradict is a completely different study from the one you claim it has "proven wrong". The study referenced in the paper is:-

 Stop trying to slide away... You literally claimed the following:

You claimed that the Ashkenazi Maternal line was European again here:
  
I let you get away with falsely claiming Elhaik supported that most of the maternal line came from Europe. But to completely backtrack your claim regarding maternal lineage and the study you mentioned is patently ridiculous.
I referred to the study that you cited previously, so to imply that my rebuttal towards it was bogus is rather childish.

Greeks. Exactly one-half of Elhaik's conclusion. And the other half:-

Untrue, look:

Greeks, or GRE in the images above cluster closely without European populations in the bottom left.
Meanwhile, Cypriots cluster farther away from the Greeks and closer to Jordanians and Iraqis. Greek Cypriots are closer to middle easterners than Europeans. Ashkenazi Jews cluster even farther from Greek than their close Cypriot relatives, with a very close relationship with Palestinian and Syrian populations, reflecting their middle eastern, rather than what you claim as Greek roots.

So your very first paper does the exact opposite of proving Elhaik wrong. It substantiates his claims. Ashkenazis are the descendants of Greek and Iranian converts who conquered Anatolia (i.e. northern Turkey) and then converted to Judaism.

As seen above, Iranians(IRN) cluster as far from Ashkenazi Jews as Greeks. The study proves a Levantine origin of Ashkenazi Jews, unlike the Greek or Iranian origin theory that you have actively proposed.

STOP WASTING MY TIME.

You've wasted enough of mine. Jews are a middle eastern people, case in point by all the genetic evidence I have produced. Ashkenazi Jews are clearly not the result of mass conversion. For example:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/ - Ashkenazi Jews form a close genetic relationship with each other. Were they to be actively converting different populations, their genetic gene pool would be much more diverse. But it isn't, indicating a lack of assimilation into local cultures as you claim.
Hebrews are an ethnic group as much as any other. The question of Judaism is irrelevant because multiple religions have sprung from ancient Hebrew traditions (Judaism, Karaits, and Sarmatianism). It IS possible for an ethnicity to exist with an associated religion.

Nomenclature

@MineSubCraftStarved

Yes, it is, this is literally what secular means in the context of Judaism itself

No it isn't. You're ignoring my own references and proposing an argument which directly contradicts itself. If what you were saying were true, then a majority of European Jews would be rejecting their own Jewishness, since they purport to view Jewishness only as a religion. The word "secular" is seemingly being used in a political sense, and this can be determined simply by viewing some of the other categories, such as "conservative" and "progressive". 

In any case, the word "secular" can be used in more than one context, and you are being fundamentally dishonest in pretending otherwise because the evidence that I am correct is staring you in the face.

A "secular Jew" may be a religious Jew who espouses secularism in a general context; in the 20th century, American rabbis who endorsed strict separation of church and state were the most prominent example of "secular Jews"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_secularism

Because it[religion] is not an essential component in European Jewry

Again, you are contradicting the very same report you are referencing, which makes it abundantly clear that most European Jews believe religion is the only essential component of Jewry:-

Europe’s Jews see themselves as religious– not ethnic– group

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/report-europes-jews-see-themselves-as-religious-not-ethnic-group/

The above sentence literally could not be clearer, so your continuous efforts to turn it into its precise linguistic opposite are nothing short of delusional.

I appreciate the kind words given by you

Spend less time on sarcasm and more time on learning to accept the meaning of words. 

They do

No, they do not. Your squiggly diagrams show no evidence that Jews are an ethnic group. In fact, they appear to provide supporting evidence that the Ashkenazis originate from Northern Turkey, in direct contradiction to what you have been arguing, and in direct support of Dr Elhaik's research. 

Ashkenazi Jews descended from ancient Turkey

Dr Eran Elhaik of the University of Sheffield used a computer modelling system to convert Ashkenazi Jewish DNA - the Jewish communities historically located in Europe - data into geographical information, which revealed that 90 percent of Ashkenazi Jews descend from the Greeks, Iranians and others who colonised northern Anatolia (now northern Turkey) more than 2,000 years ago before converting to Judaism.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ashkenazi-jews-descended-ancient-turkey-new-research

Why do you continue to argue when you are so self-evidently and objectively wrong? 

We find that the Jewish populations show a high level of genetic similarity to each other

The entire human race shows a high level of genetic similarity to each other. Cherry-picking sentences like this, taking them out of their intended context, and affording them weight they were not intended to hold offers zero support for your argument that Jews are an ethnic group. Your own diagrams illustrate that Ashkenazi Jews are most similar genetically to Turks. 

Moreover, the very same paper you have extracted (i.e. cherry-picked) this one sentence from, literally begins:-

Genetic studies have often produced conflicting results on the question of whether distant Jewish populations in different geographic locations share greater genetic similarity to each other or instead, to nearby non-Jewish populations.

And so what is patently clear from your very own paper is that you are fallaciously presenting mixed results as a settled argument, which is nothing more than raw dishonesty. You are intentionally misrepresenting the data.

This study clearly demonstrates how Jews are genetically similar to each other and share a common root in the middle east

They do not share a common root, as evidenced by Das et al:-

Ashkenazi Jews exhibit dominant Iranian (88%) and residual Levantine (3%) ancestries, as opposed to Bedouins (14% and 68% respectively) and Palestinians (18% and 58% respectively). 

Overall, the combined results are in strong agreement with the predictions of the Irano-Turko-Slavic hypothesis (Table 1) and rule out an ancient Levantine origin for Ashkenazi Jews.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

Literally 3 percent of Ashkenazi DNA comes from the Levantine (i.e. Middle East), compared to 68 percent of Bedouin DNA and 58 percent of Palestinian DNA.

Of course, since this study, published in the most highly respected genetics journal there is, directly contradicts the fallacy you are trying to push, it is little wonder that you have avoided any mention of it. It is furthermore little wonder that you have not mentioned your own paper is from an open access journal, and the link you have provided is not its original source. 

More evidence of a middle eastern and thus Hebrew origin.

Absolute rubbish. Who exactly do you think you are going to fool by taking a confusing, complex diagram out of its original context, slapping it on a page and claiming it evidences something which it very clearly does not? Who do you think you are going to fool by claiming everybody in the Middle East is a Hebrew?

Christ, you're literally delusional. Narcissistic and delusional.

Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/

Once again, you continuously and repeatedly contradict yourself and your own claims. You denied fervently that you had linked any paper which claimed the Diaspora was a real historical event and further accused me of not reading your links, as evidenced here:-

If you actually read the papers(which you clearly haven't), they NEVER make a reference to a Roman diaspora

Yet here it is in the very first paragraph:-

Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of the Jewish Diaspora.

And again, in the very first paragraph:-

A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora.

You are telling falsehood after falsehood, misrepresenting data, selectively picking and choosing the data you acknowledge, deriving false conclusions from the data you do acknowledge, abusing fallacy after fallacy and posting unreliable sources published in open access journals which are then archived to the NCBI database. It is abundantly obvious that the authors of this paper have received their version of history from Jewish and/or Christian religious scripture, so for you to present it as though it is some kind of religiously neutral, scientifically authoritative source on genetics is quite simply baffling to me.

I mean, it's just simply laughable. Simply checking this paper via its original source rather than the national database you have linked it under, reveals that every single one of its authors has a declared affiliation to to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. That's like linking the "research" of the Catholic Church into whether Jesus really rose from the dead.

This demonstrates a strong middle eastern connection of Jewish populations regarding paternal lineage

You are just going on and on and on, relinking the same papers I have meticulously read and debunked as the absolute horse crap they are. Not one of the papers you have linked has been published in a respectable, peer-reviewed, specific genetics journal like Frontiers in Genetics or similar. 

As already explained by Das et al:-

Ashkenazi Jews exhibit dominant Iranian (88%) and residual Levantine (3%) ancestries, as opposed to Bedouins (14% and 68% respectively) and Palestinians (18% and 58% respectively). 

Overall, the combined results are in strong agreement with the predictions of the Irano-Turko-Slavic hypothesis (Table 1) and rule out an ancient Levantine origin for Ashkenazi Jews.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

And as explained by Aptroot in Genome Biology and Evolution, Volume 8, Issue 6:-

The origin of Ashkenazic Jews can be located in ancient Iran.

https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/8/6/1948/2574117?login=false

The non-Jewish origins of modern Jewish populations extends far beyond just the Ashkenazis also, as evidenced for example by Professor Wexler (1996):-

The non-Jewish origins of the Sephardic Jews.

Following in the pattern of his earlier works on the origins of Ashkenazic Jewry, Professor Wexler presents a fascinating, but controversial linguistic study on the origins of Sephardic Jewry. Finding that many of the language patterns of Sephardic Jewry have their origins in non-Jewish languages, the author suggests that many Sephardic Jews are actually descendants of the converts who brought with them the language of their birth and integrated it into Sephardic speech patterns and dialects.

Do you see the unmistakable and irrefutable pattern? Multiple history professors, genetics professors and linguistic professors have all taken different routes to the exact same conclusion!! That Jewishness is a religion being misrepresented as a racial and/or ethnic group.

Ashkenazi literally means GERMAN in Hebrew, not TURKIC!

Just stop talking. The linguistic origins of the word Ashkenazi are indisputable:-

The three villages all derive from the word "Ashkenaz", which is the root of the word "Ashkenazi". Elhaik told Wired that north-east Turkey is the only place where the four place names exist.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ashkenazi-jews-descended-ancient-turkey-new-research

As are the genetic origins:-

Thus far, all analyses aimed to geo-localize Ashkenazi Jews (Behar et al., 2013, Figure 2B; Elhaik, 2013, Figure 4; Das et al., 2016, Figure 4) identified Turkey as the predominant origin of Ashkenazi Jews, although they used different approaches and datasets.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

Previously, it had been thought Yiddish had originated from German, but that hypothesis has been debunked by modern scholars:-

The historical evidence in favor of an Irano-Turko-Slavic origin for Yiddish is paramount (e.g., Wexler, 1993, 2010, Robert, 2014, Cansdale, 1996, 1998, Hadj-Sadok, 1949; Khordadhbeh, 1889; Hansen, 2012, Rabinowitz, 1945, 1948; Das et al., 2016, Baron, 1952, Khordadhbeh, 1889; Wexler, 2011, 2012, 2017).

I mean, watching you twist and turn in a continuous process of self-contradiction and denial is just simply bizarre. You don't believe the Ashkenazis originated from Germany, so why on Earth would you attempt to use the meaning of the word Ashkenazi "in Hebrew" as a denial that the Ashkenazis originated from Turkey?

There is NO trace of Turkic words in Yiddish

Are you having some sort of mental health episode? 

New DNA tech traces origins of Yiddish to Turkey

https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-dna-tech-pinpoints-yiddish-origins-to-north-turkey/

Since north-east Turkey is the only place in the world where the place names of Iskenaz, Eskenaz, Ashanaz, and Ashkuz exist this strongly implies that Yiddish was established around the first millennium at a time when Jewish traders moved goods from Asia to Europe. This was done by developing the language of Yiddish, which very few can speak or understand other than Jews.

https://theconversation.com/uncovering-ancient-ashkenaz-the-birthplace-of-yiddish-speakers-58355

Very intellectually honest, nit-pick one study

Don't make me laugh you utterly absurd clown. If any of your "studies" provided any evidential support for your fallacious and disproven argument that Jews are an ethnic group then you would have gone to the trouble of quoting the relevant passages, not simply dumped a bunch of random links on the page and expected me to do 20 hours of reading just to refute you. Just what is actually wrong with you that you believe I'm going to spend 20 hours reading material I am already fully aware you are selectively and purposefully misrepresenting? Your attempted Freudian projection is ridiculous, and your dishonesty abundantly clear, given the fact I had already warned you at least three times about blindly dumping links with no relevant context.

 Stop trying to slide away

Please explain in which schizophrenic universe is pointing out that you are not even reading your own material, trying to "slide away"?? You claimed your paper "proved" Elhaik's study wrong, but when I checked the paper what it actually said is that its results contradicted a completely different study, which you simply assumed -- incorrectly -- was Elhaik's (i.e. the source of the article I had originally linked). I have caught you repeatedly misrepresenting material in this same way. 

Untrue, look

Your own paper said it was true. I quoted it directly. Nobody is interested in your silly diagrams which illustrate absolutely nothing and which nobody -- including you -- understands. I'll stick to plain old English:-

Haplogroup K was present in almost all populations compared, and its mean frequency in South Eastern Europe and the Near East was around 7%. It reached its highest frequencies in certain populations that have experienced recent population bottlenecks, such as the Askhenazi Jews and the Csángó in Transylvania, Romania [33], [34] and also among Greek Cypriots.

I mean, this conversation is just absolutely, utterly ridiculous. You linked a paper, ostensibly in support of your own argument, and when I quoted that same paper (above) you have chosen to respond by telling me it is "untrue"?? By means of a squiggly, complex diagram which clearly nobody outside of a geneticist understands? What is actually wrong with you? You are absurd. Your responses, and the inexplicable effort you are putting into maintaining the demonstrably false idea that Jews are a legitimate ethnic group, are simply an outright joke. A joke which is made even funnier by the fact that even most Jews agree you're absolutely full of crap:-

Europe’s Jews see themselves as religious– not ethnic– group

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/report-europes-jews-see-themselves-as-religious-not-ethnic-group/

STOP WASTING MY TIME.

jack

Nomenclature said:

@MineSubCraftStarved

STOP WASTING MY TIME.

Hello hater:

Obsess much???

excon, still Jewish

Nomenclature

@jack

Obsess much?

Nobody is obsessed with you. You're a learning disabled fantasist. 

MineSubCraftStarved

@Nomenclature

In any case, the word "secular" can be used in more than one context, and you are being fundamentally dishonest in pretending otherwise because the evidence that I am correct is staring you in the face.

Looking for the little footnote at the bottom of the Wikipedia page does not support your argument in the least... Pioneers of Jewish secularism and progressivism were not at all adherents of Judaism, and today this is true for the vast majority of the world's Jewish population. To point to a few American rabbis as the exception does not make it a rule. This is a fallacy.

If what you were saying were true, then a majority of European Jews would be rejecting their own Jewishness, since they purport to view Jewishness only as a religion.

No, they wouldn't, according to the survey you posted, 68% of Jews view their Jewish identity, not as a religion, but as parentage. In fact, over 40% of them in the survey did not find Judaism as a key aspect of their Jewish identity.
It seems you read the heading of the article without even looking at your own source... Jews in Europe are highly secular, just take a look at the numbers(Haaretz):
- "Just Jewish" and Progressive/Reform being non-religiousJews.

Jews today clearly have very little Judaism tied to their identity. Violation of Kosher laws and Shabbat(15% observe Shabbat) are in direct violation of Jewish law. Even believing in god was described as a small part of Jewish identity to European Jews... With only 33% describing it as a personal part of their identity. Were Jews to be a purely religious group, why is it that most Jews today are considered to be Jews despite their lack of Judaism? Soviet Jews could not practice Judaism, yet they were still considered Hebrews/Jews, why?
As stated previously, the survey demonstrated Jews view Jewish identity more as parentage and less as religion. Were Judaism to be based completely on religion, then around 85% of the respondents should not be considered valid. Yet they are because Jewish/Hebrew identity is not just based on religion.
The reason they didn't choose ethnicity is that ethnicity in Western Europe is seen more as a race-related idea. For example, Kurds would likely not identify as Kurdish on a question about their ethnicity, but rather middle-eastern, as should Jews.

No, they do not. Your squiggly diagrams show no evidence that Jews are an ethnic group.

It's rather simple but since you have trouble interpreting data, ill explain it. 
When dots or ethnic groups/populations are closer, that means they are more closely related, at least with that specific chrome/gene/allele. So if Jews are closer to Palestinians, but farther from Greeks and Iranians, that means they are more related to the former, rather than the latter. Ingenious, huh?
I seriously don't think I need to school regarding simple graphical analysis...

In fact, they appear to provide supporting evidence that the Ashkenazis originate from Northern Turkey, in direct contradiction to what you have been arguing, and in direct support of Dr. Elhaik's research. 

Demonstrate how they do that before you can make such a claim.

The entire human race shows a high level of genetic similarity to each other.

Easy, and when comparing human populations to each other, we can find distinct similarities and differences. Relative to other populations, Jews have a remarkable level of genetic similarity, this is not hard to grasp.

Cherry-picking sentences like this, taking them out of their intended context, and affording them the weight they were not intended to hold offers zero support for your argument that Jews are an ethnic group.

So when I provide quantitative analysis, you say they are too hard to understand. But when I quote the first sentence of the RESULTS of the study, you start screaming "cherry-pick." You dishonestly reject every single bit of evidence I provide in an effort to fuel your own biases and likely anti-Semitism.
Here's the full context of the passage BTW, it doesn't change the meaning of it too much:

We find that the Jewish populations show a high level of genetic similarity to each other, clustering together in several types of analysis of population structure. Further, Bayesian clustering, neighbor-joining trees, and multidimensional scaling place the Jewish populations as intermediate between the non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations.

^ From the results section of the study.

And so what is patently clear from your very own paper is that you are fallaciously presenting mixed results as a settled argument, which is nothing more than raw dishonesty. You are intentionally misrepresenting the data.

In nearly every scientific study, the evidence of a near-Eastern origin of modern Jewish/Israelite populations are never ignored. The question is the level of admixture of Europeans(particularly Southern and Eastern Europeans) unto Jews, most studies typically put this number from 20% to as high as 60%. However, to imply that Elhaik's study that most Jews come nearly entirely from Turkic lands, Iran, and Greece is the sole gospel of Jewish genetics is rather ridiculous(and then to proceed to discredit all refutations as disingenuous without proper reasoning as to why). The paper[which you referred to] also went on to support the existence of a majority near-Eastern origin, rather than a European one after that initial clarification.

most highly respected genetics journal 

And whose study has been done by a 4 geneticists, opposing the view of dozens if not hundreds of others. BTW, the vast majority of studies I have linked to to the NCBI, which is reputable in it's own right.

It is furthermore little wonder that you have not mentioned your own paper is from an open access journal, and the link you have provided is not its original source. 

LMAO, you hardly ever link your sources and instead rely on secondary accounts of the actual numbers and data. The vast majority of your links have been articles, not studies, as I have done. The NCBI(where I primarily get my sources) is not open-access and I cannot just change it at a whim. I also don't really get what you mean by it's original source. Studies are published to multiple places, and your own Eran Elhiak published his study on this site as well. You never actually address the data or arguments I put forth. You just play games of strawman and selective argumentation and rarely ever address my sources in a meaningful way. Every time you have either dismissed it as a loaded Jewish conspiracy, as in fact supporting your argument, or as a bad study and source overall. Yet you can never demonstrate any of this! Funny how you're nitpicking only one of my sources, and ignoring the rest. You have made little to no real argument to actually address my own.

Who exactly do you think you are going to fool by taking a confusing, complex diagram out of its original context, slapping it on a page and claiming it evidences something which it very clearly does not?

It's not confusing, and more often then not I also include a qualitative assessment of the graph right after... You asked me not to take statements from the authors for the sake of context, so I didn't, and instead included their actual data. The graphs aren't very hard to analyzes in terms of comparison, populations that have less distance between them are more related, simple.

Diaspora was a real historical event and further accused me of not reading your links, as evidenced here:-

A diaspora is simply defined as a spreading of a particular group of people. There is a Muslim diaspora today, just like there is an Arab one as well. The authors did not address the Roman diaspora which you claim never happened, so your point is mute. They refer to diaspora in a scientific sense, that being the spreading of Jewish people across the globe, rather than a historical event like the Roman Expulsions/Diaspora.

It is abundantly obvious that the authors of this paper have received their version of history from Jewish and/or Christian religious scripture, so for you to present it as though it is some kind of religiously neutral, scientifically authoritative source on genetics is quite simply baffling to me.

They aren't basing it off of history, they simply compare and contrast different alleles unique to populations, do even understand genetics at all? Where they lived 2000 years ago is irrelevant to what kind of genetic they have and to what similarities they own to other groups. The data stands by itself.

I mean, it's just simply laughable. Simply checking this paper via its original source rather than the national database you have linked it under, reveals that every single one of its authors has a declared affiliation to to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Chaolong Wang, Marcus Feldman, nor Noah Rosenberg have a professional affiliation with Israel... Actually check your arguments before you send them off this website. Furthermore, if Jews weren't an ethnic group, why, by your logic, would Jews try to argue that we in fact are?

posting unreliable sources published in open access journals which are then archived to the NCBI database.

Explain to me how BMC Genomic Data is a biased source.
Mind you, your own source is itself also open-access, it states at the bottom:
© 2017 Das, Wexler, Pirooznia and Elhaik. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

Not one of the papers you have linked has been published in a respectable, peer-reviewed, specific genetics journal like Frontiers in Genetics or similar. 

The NCBI, being a branch of the National Institute of Health is a rather respectable source in this field. Far more than something far more ambiguous and privatized like Frontiers.

relinking the same papers I have meticulously read and debunked as the absolute horse crap they are.

LOL, every source I cite you dismiss as bias. Your entire argument to every study I link is "Made up of orthodox pseudo-scientific Jews, it's too complicated, and it supports my argument because I say so, yet it is also un-reputable." And you don't even apply this flawed logic to all of my sources. You pick on one or two and proceed to go hay with them, ignoring the rest.

The non-Jewish origins of modern Jewish populations extends far beyond just the Ashkenazis also, as evidenced for example by Professor Wexler (1996):-

The non-Jewish origins of the Sephardic Jews.

Which is why Sephardic Jews don't cluster around levant populations, except they do(especially with Lebanese Druze, for reference)! BTW, I'm not denying that some Europeans didn't convert and mix with local Sephardic populations. But the close relationship between Sephardic and Levantine populations cannot be overlooked as proof of their inherent origin.

Mind also linking your source next time?

The linguistic origins of the word Ashkenazi are indisputable:-

Finding a few villages in Turkey and saying that they look similar to the work 'Ashkenaz' isn't evidence of a linguistic connection. Ashkenazi in Hebrew means German, why doesn't it mean Turkish or Anatolian then if Ashkenazi Jews descended from there?

Previously, it had been thought Yiddish had originated from German, but that hypothesis has been debunked by modern scholars:-

That begs the obvious question. Why is Yiddish is considered a dialect of German today or at least a very closely related High Germanic language if it came from vastly different sources?

then you would have gone to the trouble of quoting the relevant passages, not simply dumped a bunch of random links on the page and expected me to do 20 hours of reading just to refute you.

I DID you d*mb@ss, look!
Another interesting case is the Ashkenazi Jews, who display a frequency of haplogroup K similar to the PPNB sample together with low non-significant pairwise Fst values, which taken together suggests an ancient Near Eastern origin. This observation clearly contradicts the results of a recent study, where a detailed phylogeographical analysis of mtDNA lineages has suggested a predominantly European origin for the Ashkenazi communities [48].
 Using these proxy ancestral populations, we calculated the amount of European admixture in the AJ population to be 35 to 55%.
The structure analysis was compatible with the Iranian and Iraqi Jews having predominant Middle Eastern/Central Asian ancestry and the European and Syrian Jews having both Middle Eastern/Central Asian and European ancestry with the proportion of European ancestry ranging between 20% and 40%
Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities.
This pattern is consistent with a major, but variable component of shared Near East ancestry, together with variable degrees of admixture and introgression from the corresponding host Diaspora populations.
These studies show that the Jews form a distinctive cluster in the Middle East, and it is not known whether the factors driving this structure would also involve other groups in the Levant.
Another interesting case are the Ashkenazi Jews, who display a frequency of haplogroup K similar to the PPNB sample together with low non-significant pairwise Fst values, which taken together suggests an ancient Near Eastern origin. This observation clearly contradicts the results of a recent study, where a detailed phylogeographical analysis of mtDNA lineages has suggested a predominantly European origin for the Ashkenazi communities
No particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews to populations from the Caucasus is evident, particularly populations that most closely represent the Khazar region.
Sand, for example, argues that today’s Jews are all descended from Khazars, an idea Ostrer finds unsupported by the evidence, as he explains in the book.
In our view, there are major conceptual problems with both the genetic and linguistic parts of the work. We argue that GPS is a provenancing tool suited to inferring the geographic region where a modern and recently unadmixed genome is most likely to arise, but is hardly suitable for admixed populations and for tracing ancestry up to 1,000 years before present, as its authors have previously claimed. Moreover, all methods of historical linguistics concur that Yiddish is a Germanic language, with no reliable evidence for Slavic, Iranian, or Turkic substrata.
My links are LITERALLY made up of quotes from there. And when asked to provide further evidence, I provided more, specifically quantitative rather than qualitative evidence. But when you did that you cried that it was too complicated. You really are the most insufferable person I have met on the internet so far, and a disingenuous trool.
As a matter of fact, I provide more context and support from my links then you ever had. Unlike you, I provide graphs and many quotes from it to support my argument, you on the other hand send the same study linked from half a dozen different sources with the largest possible font size in order to make it seem like you actually sent more evidence then me.
It's getting tiering of you claiming I simply dumped a bunch of links here without looking at them. While you provide far less sourcing and context within your own arguments.

You claimed your paper "proved" Elhaik's study wrong, but when I checked the paper what it actually said is that its results contradicted a completely different study, which you simply assumed -- incorrectly -- was Elhaik's (i.e. the source of the article I had originally linked). I have caught you repeatedly misrepresenting material in this same way. 

My first paper was specifically regarding the maternal chrosomal structure of Ashkenazi Jews, from which you posted a previous study which claimed of a European origin. Which true, was not specifically in regards to Elhiaks paper. But it did demonstrate a maternal connection to the middle east, which does to an extent counteract Elhiak's argument of non-Near-Eastern origin. You ignored the other 8 studies funnily enough as well.

Greek Cypriots.

Who are more closely clustered with other middle eastern populations... 

Cypriots, represented by CYP on the table, are far more closely related with the Near Eastern populations around cluster 3(C3). While are quote far from the European Cluster C1, where Greeks sit right next to. They are more related to Jordanians and other Levant Groups then actual Greeks. Making your point invalid.

By means of a squiggly, complex diagram which clearly nobody outside of a geneticist understands?

I don't think I need to school you more on whether or not points are closer or farther away from each other. The graph above represents genetic variation or divergence of different populations, farther groups means that the groups are less related to each other. And closer ones mean they are, so when Ashkenazi Jews are closer to Levantine groups rather than Greek, Turkic or Iranian ones, that indicates an origin from the former rather than the latter. Simple.

A joke which is made even funnier by the fact that even most Jews agree you're absolutely full of crap:-

Except of course the Jews on this very site... But no, our opinion regarding the existence of our own people is irrelevant, of course.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-dna-tech-pinpoints-yiddish-origins-to-north-turkey/
https://theconversation.com/uncovering-ancient-ashkenaz-the-birthplace-of-yiddish-speakers-58355
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full x 2
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ashkenazi-jews-descended-ancient-turkey-new-research x 2
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/8/6/1948/2574117?login=false

Posting the same exact study in massive font letters seven times from different sources does not make your argument any more nuanced.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

Discredited by various studies:
https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints - Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987117/ - We argue that GPS is a provenancing tool suited to inferring the geographic region where a modern and recently unadmixed genome is most likely to arise, but is hardly suitable for admixed populations and for tracing ancestry up to 1,000 years before present, as its authors have previously claimed. Moreover, all methods of historical linguistics concur that Yiddish is a Germanic language, with no reliable evidence for Slavic, Iranian, or Turkic substrata.

Dee

@MineSubCraftStarved

Wow! You''re still on here typing nonsense  all night trying to prove you're a Kike , listen buddy a heads up the Israeli government have already decided this without the help of 3 bigoted plastic Kikes like you and your felloe American plastic Kikes.......

What did the Israeli  government decide I wonder?

A Jew is one who practices the Jewish religion, Judaism. This includes both converts and those who have been members of the Jewish religion since birth.....


So I suggest you show the Israeli government your novels including maps and diagrams explaining how their wrong and confused Americans are right.

Must make you and the guys feel extra " special " knowing if anyone who converts  to  Judaism they are automatically regarded asa citizen of Israel.

Nomenclature

@Dee

Wow! You''re still on here typing nonsense  all night

I've given up even trying to reason with that delusional clown and his 20,000 word essays. He's arguing with what Jews (European Jews, at least) themselves believe, which is absurd.

jack

Argument Topic: Haters gonna hate

@Nomenclature said:

I've given up even trying to reason with that delusional clown

@Dee said:

Wow! You''re still on here typing nonsense  all night trying to prove you're a Kike

Hello Lantzmen:

Haters gonna hate.  But, we knew that, didn't we?  The question is, what's next.. The world is headed towards another realignment.  I'm ready. 

באַפאַלן

excon, Jewish Warrior

Nomenclature

@jack

excon, Jewish Warrior

You're neither Jewish, nor a warrior. You're an 80 year old incontinent man with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature ;You're an 80 year old incontinent man with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old.

Wow I really like that argument because it is so original and you seam to come out with some thing different all the time that is so full of intellect and deep and meaning full meanings and really shows that you really handle the subject and dont devert from whats going on like oh yeah bring it on

Nomenclature

@Barnardot

Gee thanks Barnie. Just confirm for people that I haven't paid you to say all those nice things.

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: There are no races. Next question

The concept of race was invented in the 16th century. https://news.osu.edu/race-is-an-invented-concept-but-an-impactful-one-researchers-say/

We should rid our mankind of the concept of race because it only serves to divide us by arbitrary factors.
There is only 1 race, the human race who are all descended from Adam and Eve.

Jews are however an ethnic group. 

* They have a common lineage(Abraham)
* They have a common language(Hebrew)
* They have a common religion(Judaism)
* They have a common culture with traditions and values.

Jews will come in all shapes and colors.

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: The rules for Jews(According to Halakha).

@Nomenclature

Not the same race but the same ethnic group. According to (traditional) Halachic law:

A Jew is either a person in the religion of Judaism or the child of a Jewish woman.

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: Irish Americans

@Dee
There are more Irish descended folks in America than Ireland itself: https://overlandirelandtours.com/why-are-there-more-irish-in-america-than-in-ireland/#:~:text=34.7%20million%20Americans%20identify%20as,Northern%20Ireland%20has%201.85%20million).

Nomenclature

@Pepsiguy

A Jew is either a person in the religion of Judaism or the child of a Jewish woman.

Really strain yourself and see if you can follow basic common sense.

According to Jewish religious law -- and nothing else -- the child of a Jewish woman is a Jew. Hence, on the one hand, you're arguing that Jewishness is more than a religion, while on the other, you're qualifying that claim with the beliefs of the Jewish religion.

Jews are not a race and Jews are not an ethnic group. They are the followers of a religion.

Dee

@Pepsiguy

Your point being?
 

MineSubCraftStarved

@jack
I agree, the arguments on this forum of a lack of Jewish identity and thus a connection to Israel are just the newest form of anti-Semitism today.
60 years ago today they were saying we were foreigners and we should go back to Palestine. Now they are saying we are imposters and not a people that have no right to Israel.
The same melody, just different words.

We survived the last 3000 years, we're ready to survive 3000 more.

Nomenclature

@MineSubCraftStarved

I agree, the arguments on this forum of a lack of Jewish identity and thus a connection to Israel are just the newest form of anti-Semitism today.

Christ, you are just so offensively ridiculous, and playing the anti-Semitism card only discredits you further. Your argument fractions down to: "Agree with what I'm saying -- however scientifically and historically inaccurate it is -- or you hate Jews". Take a running jump pal. Jews are the followers of a religion, just like Christians and Muslims. That remains objectively true regardless of your cynical and crude attempts at emotional blackmail.