Article by Stephen Phillips followed by Reply from Yair Davidiy.
Stephen Phillips wrote us the following missive in response to our article:
The Jeanson Hoax? Old-Time Prejudice and Pseudo-Science.
https://hebrewnations.com/articles/jeanson1/hoax.html
We are publishing what Steven wrote in full followed by a reply by ourselves:
Stephen Phillips says:
The trouble with you Yair is that you see everything as being black and white. Like a lot of people, you fail to understand the difference between evidence and INTERPRETATION. Yes, I have met Nathaniel Jeanson and he is a genuinely sincere person and your vilification of his character is totally unjustified. First of all, let me stress that I MYSELF DO NOT AGREE with a lot of Jeanson's interpretations of his mitochondrial tree, and I have already told you that the largest node of his genealogical tree represents the offspring of both Shem and Yaphet. The bottom node is Ham and the middle node appears to be the descendants of Ham's son Canaan. This supports the claim that has already been made by a number of Theologians that Canaan was the result of an illicit act by Ham with Mrs Noah, arguing that this is what is meant in the Tanakh by the "uncovering" of someone's nakedness (as in Lev, 18:6). See, for example, Noah's Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan, John Sietze Bergsma and Scott Hahn, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 124, No. 1 (Spring 2005). It still does not change the fact that Jeanson has performed ground-breaking research which no one else has even attempted, but you are prepared to REJECT EVERYTHING because you disagree with his INTERPRETATION of the data! That is NOT how science is conducted!
Let me point out that Jeanson has tracked the MITOCHONDRIAL lineage. In case you did not know, the mitochondria traces the FEMALE line. Note that Joseph married an Egyptian. This means that his offspring will carry the mitochondria of Egyptian women. Abraham's second wife Hagar was also Egyptian, so there is again a mixing of the gene pool. Esau likewise had Hamitic wives. When looking at Jeanson's data it is necessary to keep these facts in mind. Even Jeanson makes this fundamental error. Nevertheless, the data has to speak for itself. This is assuming, of course, that it has been correctly recorded in the first place and this is a big if because the sample data was not produced by Jeanson himself but is taken from a public sample library. I notice, for example, that the Ethiopian Jews appear both as a branch both of the main node (Shem and Yaphet) and as a branch of the node at the bottom of his chart (Ham). This supports other genetic data which shows that a certain group of Ethiopian Jews are descended from Judah through the maternal line. The Y-Chromosome data, however, quite clearly shows that they are totally Hamitic through their male line.
You seem quite happy to verbally attack and vilify people you disagree with without actually considering what is actually being said. Most of the time it appears that you don't even bother to read what is written. It is a completely different story when evolutionist scientists come up with highly contrived explanations of how we have evolved by genetic mutations.
You have, for example, completely accepted Horizontal Gene Transfer without understanding the difficulties inherent in the theory. Evolutionists look at SIMILAR DNA structures of two fish and claim that they have inherited genetic traits from each other and you soak it all up thinking that it provides a satisfactory explanation for the differences we see in genetic make-up between Jews and the western nations, even though there is a different explanation for these changes which have occurred: It is a process known as epigenetics. All animals as well as humans have an inbuilt system which allows them to adapt to environmental conditions. Genetics is showing, for example, that brown bears, polar bears and grizzly bears are all related. They are all derived from the one original bear which went on the Ark. They have simply adapted to their environment. This, however, is epigenetics, NOT HGT! Note that the only way scientists could get mRNA vaccines to work is by using nano-particles to override the body's immune system so that it can get the mRNA information to the cell. For Horizontal Gene Transfer to accomplish this, it would need some similar form of attack mechanism. Currently, no known mechanism exists in nature. Evolutionist scientists manipulate the genetic information to fit around their theory.
Jeanson has demonstrated that 'Mitochondrial Eve' lived somewhere between 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. This in itself is a massive step towards proving the authenticity of the Bible. Mark Stoeckle and David Thaler have also shown that all animals appeared on this planet at the same time as man, though they have used a very slow DNA error rate and calculate that this occurred around 100,000 years ago. They can't cope with these results, so they postulate that there must have been some sort of population bottleneck which saw a mass extinction of all life apart from a small remnant. This, however, requires that all humans apart from one male and one female survived the catastrophe, whatever that catastrophe may have been (they have no idea), and at the same time, that same catastrophic event will have wiped out all animals apart from one male and one female of each and every species!!! There is no known natural process that can be that selective!
People will ALWAYS interpret the evidence according to what they want to hear. I notice that the new translation of the Tanakh that you refer to at https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165 starts off with "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth". This is bowing down to the world view which says that the earth is billions of years old. Creationist scientists (the people who you keep slating) are proving that the millions or billions of years are being IMPOSED on the rocks by evolutionist scientists who need their millions of years to support their theory of evolution. Dr Andrew Snelling and his team have recently taken samples from the folds of a rock with a ninety degree bend in it and put them under the microscope. Evolutionist scientists sit behind a desk and conclude that the rock was originally flat when it was formed and then, over millions of years, through a process known as metamorphosis, it bent upwards. The scientific evidence now clearly shows that there has been no metamorphosis of the rock, that the bend was formed whilst the mud was still wet! This removes more than 500 million years from the evolutionary timeframe! Okay, I don't agree with everything Dr Snelling says and one often has to allow their Christian views to wash over you, but you cannot ignore the EVIDENCE.
NB: Creationists are too quick to attribute everything to the Noahide Flood when there were in fact two subsequent substantial floods, the Flood of Ogyges (this being the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Agag) which occurred during the time of Joshua, when the sun stood still in the sky all day, and the Flood of Deucalion (read Duke Elon), which occurred during the time of Sennacherib king of Assyria, when Hezekiah was king of Judah, when the sun's shadow receded by 10 degrees on the clock of Ahaz. According to my calculations, this will have been when Atlantis, a continent which Plutarch says was the size of north and south America combined, sank beneath the sea leaving just a mudbank. We even have a map of America showing a huge lake on the western side of the north American continent which existed right up to the 16th Century CE. The presence of such a lake is confirmed by geologists who would have us believe that it only existed until a few million years ago.
You might(?) also be interested to know that Jeanson has also done a lot of excellent work on the history and movement of American Indians. I certainly cannot fault it. Ian Juby has also done an in depth study of the Wallam Olum, which likewise is interesting, though I have to disagree with some of his interpretations as well as his timeframe. The Wallam Olum (meaning Red Record) is the historical record of the Lenni Lenape or Delaware Indians who refer to themselves as the red people. Their own records show that they crossed the Bering Straits from Siberia. As I have demonstrated that Siberia is named after Duke Shobal, it adds additional interest to the origin of the name 'redskins'.
Anyhow, I will leave you with these thoughts.
So, in short, you are rejecting the scientific data simply because you do not agree with the interpretations. What sort of research are you actually doing?
"The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge." (Prov. 18:15.)
Steve Phillips.
Reply by Yair Davidiy:
It is good that you replied. Nevertheless you should have related to the points I took most offense at rather than other matters.
1. Genetics etc.
Jeremiah (TCT Tanakh) 13:
23 WILL A CUSHITE CHANGE HIS SKIN, OR A LEOPARD HIS SPOTS? SO WILL YOU BE ABLE TO IMPROVE, YOU WHO HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO DO EVIL.
Changes however do sometimes occur. Red Deer from Britain transported to New Zealand within a few generations become almost twice their previous size!
For numerous similar examples see:
Inbuilt Adaptation. Changes in Animal Populations According to Environment Needs
https://hebrewnations.com/articles/pygmies1/giants1.html
Some aspects of what Jeanson writes may or may not have value.
MtDNA (female transmitted) is said to be more susceptible to change due to external stimuli.
Horizontal Gene Transfer is the proposed movement (similar to that of a virus) of a gene from one organism to another.
This could perhaps explain many DNA changes.
Alternately, as you seem to suggest, epigenetic mechanisms may be responsible. This would be analogous to grasshoppers changing into locusts sometimes going through several intermediate stages with each stage behaving like a separate species in its own right. Each intermediate stage of grasshopper-to- locust is in effect a type on its own and in theory could stay that way forever if needed. This in effect is similar to the Theory of Evolution, One type changes to another in response to environmental influences. In the case of grasshoppers-to- locust the change is inbuilt, inherited, and predictable.
I do not see your problem. If epigenetic changes can take place without the DNA changing so in principle can the DNA change if needed.
Whatever works best. This in effect, as far as I understand, must be what happens.
2. Jews are Jews, Britons are Israelites, Black people are Black People,
Jeanson says that the Jews are not descended from Israelites but rather from Turks or others. Who then are the "Real Israelites" spoken of in the Bible according to Jeanson? Does he actually deny Scripture? Do you?
Jeanson has no real proof concerning the Jews only an imaginary scenario based on his own special data that nobody else knows about.
That was what mainly aroused our ire and what we mostly complained about. Why, Steve Phillips, did you not address this?
Similarly Jeanson says that the British are recent descendants of black people who secretly infiltrated the British Isles over the past centuries. They then increased and multiplied changing their black skins to white ones and took over the country!
The offspring of mixed race people he says increase at a faster rate than others do , so the Black newcomers who had turned White had an advantage!
In WW2 the British fought the Germans and Italians and defeated them. Jeanson descends from those peoples as he often mentions. Maybe he is carrying a grudge?
There is nothing wrong with being black or white. We all have our own task to fulfill.
Nevertheless saying that all of certain white peoples are descended in recent centuries from black ones whereas others did not, could have negative connotations.
In principle it may be that something like that could happen. Populations can change with some types increasing and others dieing out. Very dark peoples may well become somewhat lighter after moving to a different climate. BUT if you want to say all this did happen in a specific instance you have to document, find others who commented on it, explain and prove it. And even then expect to be pushing uphill! The early settlers to North America were reported to have more blond children than their parents, so too in the early days of Australia, so too amongst early Jewish settlers of "Palestine" in the time of the Turks. Maybe there is something to this? It could also work in the opposite direction with white people becoming darker.
Nevertheless, If there is something to what Jeanson claims why is only Jeanson saying it? And even he does not try to prove it or bring any supportive evidence. He only slips it in, makes sure it is there, and then moves on to the next subject. Jeanson impugning the Israleite heritage of Judah and Britain was the main point we took umbrage at. The letter of Steve Phillips however, in purported defence of Jeanson, dealt with other matters of less importance in our eyes!
See:
Why the Jews are Judah.
https://hebrewnations.com/articles/jew/judah.html
Jeanson is denying the Bible while pretending to defend it!