Stephen Hawking boycotts Israeli academic conference

[Anomalocaris]

I think mouse has a legitimate point in that through much of Euroasia, genetic evidence suggests much of the "displacement" of one population by another that had been supposed in both archeology and suggested by written history in fact involved every little actual displacement of people. These was in most cases no large scale inflow of new people. Instead, only a few new people arrived, but succeeded in imposing new languages, new customs, new social structures, and new technologies onto the existing population. In time, the old population appeared to have been displaced through historical and archeological records because their languages, cultures, customs, and technologies appear to have become extinct in the area and replaced by those of a different people from a different area. But genetically most of the population remained of essentially the same lineage as the natives, the new comers adding only small contributions.

Evidence of this is found through Europe, middle east, south Asia and east Asia.

For example, the spread of indoeuropean languages from russian steppe to much of euroasia has long been supposed to been done through physical conquest by indoeuropean speaking steppe horsemen displacing native populations. Genetic evidence tells a totally different story. In many areas where indoeuropeans languages are spoken now, there is a genetic continuity with local population who had been there before indoeuropean languages are thought to have arrived. This shows while indoeuropean languages and culture spread and displaced local language and culture, the original indoeuropean speaking people did not displace local populations.

Evidence of similar displacement of culture and technology without accompanying displacement of genetic lineage is also found when agriculture first spread from the near east to Europe.

The genetic heritage of the population of British isles is now thought to descent primarily from Neolithic populations who had been there since shortly after the end of the last ice age. There were subsequent while sale culture displacement, first by the culture of the megalith, then by the celts, then the Romans, Anglo Saxons, Normans, etc. yet genetic tests suggest through all the infusion of new new cultures, technologies, and languages, the genetic make up of the British isle remain dominated by the descendants of its first post iceage neolithic hunter gathered.

However, while genetic evidence does not suggest wholesale replacement of one population by another on a large scale across large regions, say province sized, had been common through history, it does not say it had never taken place. It also does not say whole sale displacement of population by another on smaller scale, say displacement of one tribe by another, or population of one county sized refion by those of another, rather than the population of a province sized region by those of another, did not occur more frequently.

As to the Jews. Genetic evidence does show most modern men who claim jewish descent can trace their y chromosome to y chromosome lineages common in Palestine. This means on their fathers side, they can trace their origin to Palestine. So the notion of Jewish diaspora having been driven out of Palestine is supported. however, most who claim to be Jews show mitochondria DNA traceable to the area of the world where their recent ancesters spend much of their time. This means Jewish lineages, wherever they are, are heavily conditioned by intermarriage with local women. This is why Jews world over look more like non-Jews for the same area they live, then they do to Jews from other areas.

Essentially, genetic evidence tells a story of Jewish diaspora which is heavily dominated by repetition of the following scenario: Jewish men move to a new area. Jewish women stay behind. When first reaching a new location, the primarily male jewish community take local wives. once several generation passed, and Jewish community now has plenty of marriageable men and women, then the Jews resort to marriage amongst themselves, until social force compel Jewish men to go to a new area, and the cycle begins again.

Since y chromosome is passed only for father to son, the y chromosome in Jews show the ancient link with palestine because most Jewish men can trace a continuous paternal lineage of Jews all the way palatine.

But mitochondria DNA is only passed from mother to offspring, most Jews therefore can trace their mitochrondria DNA to the local brides jewish men took when they first arrived at a region, since Jewish women primarily stayed behind.

Because the paternal lineage of many Jewish communities have been insular for very long, probably since biblical times, while mitochrondria lineage of many Jewish community is thoroughly intermingled with those of the local population, Jews actually offer many opportunities of genetic studies, and these studies have produced some remarkable results concerning Jewish history.

[Tiberius]

Caucasian, Mongoloid, Amerind, Australoid and three distinct races in sub-Saharan Africa. There are no Jews in the list of races. Why do you post like a Nazi? Which race was the Jew Sammy Davis Jr.?

Firstly, you can quit it with the Nazi crap. I'm not a Nazi, nor do I think I'm posting like one, especially seeing how I am defending the Jewish people.

Secondly, Sammy Davis Jr was not an ethnic Jew; he was a religious Jew. "Jew" can refer to either the race (the Jewish people) or to followers of the religion of Judaism.

Jews are NOT a race, period.

No, some Jews belong to the Jewish race, period.

You can google races. There are other divisions. None of the divisions or listings included Jews as a race.

Jews are NOT a race, period.

You can also google "Jewish people" and find hundreds of links to articles including then as a race or ethnic group.

That Jews have adopted it as their own does not change the meaning nor force anyone else to go along with their usage of it.

True, I don't have to use their definition, but its the commonly accepted one, and on these forums, we follow the definitions as found in dictionaries.

[Cato]

Louse,
If you are true to your passions, then I would expect to see an equal invocation that all non-indians on the American continents make their way to the nearest shore for immediate debarkation. Of course, we won't hear this from you because the land grabbers aren't jewish.

Speaking of jews, you always seem to be shy regarding the Six Days War in 1967. What's that? Oh yeah, the six days where the peace loving muslim neighbors tried to wipe out Israel only to get their assess kicked.

Let me guess, you've actually never been to Israel.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Chuck

Europe has been described as the most genetically homogeneous continent. Haplogroup maps give us the best picture of any mass migrations or displacements initiated by them from the period of time roughly 40k years ago to about 5-9k years ago, as europe appears to have been populated (by homo sapiens anyway - our first displacement targets in the region were other hominids, apparently helped along by our wonderful changing environment). At this point we see a major displacement event pushing the genetics of hunter gatherers to the fringes of europe - the spread of agriculture. People weren't buying hoes from one another - a specific group of people were carrying them from one place to another, and in a big way. The ag haplogroup (west african, some area of contention here as it's always possible that the haplogroup and ag were coincidence - but regardless of this the arrival and domination of the haplogroup is beyond question and occurred far later than the original wave of migration, and it is -not- the haplogroup isolated to h/g's). Sure, most of europe is descended - in part- from some portion of the intial wave of expansion, but all of europe is descended from a couple of choice - later- waves of expansion. I doubt that the people on the clines of these expansions thought it was all well and good, and that they were essentially the same people, though as the descendants of both groups now - it's easy for us to consider them as such, eh?

Nevertheless, "most geneticially homogeneous" can be a slightly misleading distinction, as there are - as yet- 6 major haplogroups connected to successive waves of expansion and genetic displacement - and a large handful of minor ones . In truth, the title simply means -one of the least muttly mutts we know of. All of this is really only useful to describe and identify mass displacements by a genetically dissimilar populations, however - and won't tell us much about the sort of inter cultural/ethnic conflict or competition that might move a camp to one side or another of a river. Of course, with the spread (and improvement) of agriculture and it's methods we now see an impetus to stay put in a very small area, and frankly, a means to do so. Not that this stopped us from pushing each other across the map - and in major ways it enabled us to do so in an altogether different way. After all, if you want to push a major amount of people into a occupied area you're going to need a major amount of food - but you'll need other things as well. Things which don't seem to have been present directly following the influx of our "friendly" farmers. So we see a lull and a sort of stasis for a period directly after the imposition of ag on the landscape. It won't last long. After this point displacement events -are- mostly concerned with two peoples of a broad genetic similarity because of the totality and success of earlier waves. These future displacements did often include cultural transfer, and yes, they even fucked some of the locals (leading to even greater homogenization of the pool). But genetic similarity, cultural transfer, and fucking the locals doesn't have the effect of making displacement "not displacement", and it was going on long before the celts, or the romans make their way to the scene (both, themselves, a product of this same haplogroup migration btw- and roman displacement apparently had little to no effect on genetics, and ultimately on the area itself, as it was temporary-though the culture persisted in part) It's also interesting to note here, that central europeans do not appear to be significantly descended from either indigenous hunter gatherers -or- later neolithic farmers (admittedly we have less than comprehensive sample populations- but reasonable estimations- and the sample populations of contemporary c. europeans are "contaminated" if you will, for well understood and well documented reasons).

The british isles (in lock step with the rest of the fringes of europe) does appear to have resisted the major early influxes, at least a little better than the majority of the mainland going by those haplogroups. They had the benefit of being too far out, and ended up adopting ag as part of the backwave of it's expansion - in a period that can very much be described as cultural transfer, for example. Nevertheless, they've had plenty of displacement events in their history that are not defined by genetics -some that are- (and were a major contributor in one fantastic displacement event after another as we continue along into the present that were defined by genetics). So yes, genetic evidence does suggest (not suggest, in truth, but firmly demonstrates) that at a few key points the genetic makeup of an entire continent was drastically altered by singular waves of expansion (but it also places outliers and fringes to those expansions). This isn't limited to the very distant past - or europe, of course, I did link a wonderful little study on the effect of the Mongol invasion on the -entirety of the asian gene pool-....but in defense of earlier proto-european waves...the mongols had help from some horses. With civilization, with tying ourselves down to the land we do see fewer instances of this for a time - and we would expect that, but after that lull displacement exploded as our means of transportation becames more advanced. I think that if any point could be made it;s that at a period between right around the end of the neolithic up to some point into the iron age we see a marked decrease in displacement of a scale large enough to alter the genetic makeup in the way that it appears to have done before and after this period. IMO, that probably has at least a little to do with their not being any barriers to displacement at first, then later finding a way to overcome those barriers that arose. But I'm a random joe..so, that only goes so far.

I think that you're being far too generous to Nony in concluding that he has a point to make. The only point Nony has been attempting to make is that displacement is a "zionist lie". Unfortunately, for Nony anyway, it isn't. Further, as I also mentioned, whether or not a culture is on one end or another of any displacement event has very little value or weight with regards to what should happen going forward, imo. Particularly when that event is a -past- event.