Actually, one of those primary sources are from the goats own mouth. Are you saying that King Joseph's testimony of his heritage is a biased spin of the truth? I think he knew his heritage better than we do now. The letters he exchanged with a Jewish man have been proven authentic and is no longer questioned as a fact.

Now you call me and my sources biased yet you quote a source that only gives one aspect of things. I think your source is the bias one. If you read the "13th Tribe" you would find that the author gives all sides of the current (at his time) debate, while your source gives a one-sided view of the matter. Which therefore could be considered biased, a source that only gives views supporting his argument, or the one that gives all of the arguments and sifts through?

Also, most of the sources given were Jewish. Are you saying that the Jews are anti-semitic and biased?

Now on to this Y-chromosome foolishness. This studies has so many flaws in it, it is foolish to even present it as a reliable source.

Starting out with the historical aspect of it. The DNA of the mother's tell a completely different history than that of the fathers. This argument states that the chromosome from the father shows that they all descend form one man, from the middle east. But on the other hand, the mitochondrial DNA from the mothers contradicts that. It reflects that the women were local converts. For some reason, Jews today believe descent is from the mother only weakens the argument. So were their fathers from the middle east but their mothers from somewhere else?

This Y chromosome is also found in african tribes. For example the Lembe of South Africa, have claimed to be Israelites for centuries but were not believed. They did a study and found out that they have the same Y-chromosome as those in the study you cling to. Some even possess the "kohen" gene. How many of those African, Indian, and Asian tribes do you also accept to be Jews?

This requires all kinds of questions. For example, how many different people possess this Y-chromosome that have not been included in the studies? Mexians, Africans, African-Americans, South Americans, people from the Carribeans, etc? A good portion of Eastern Europeans do. Hey, everyone is a Jew, according to this insufficient evidence.

According to the study, Muslim Kurds are more closely related, DNA wise, to Sephardic Jews than Ashkenazi Jews are. So, for the purpose of this discussion. Let say
Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmeal.

Wouldn't the children of Isaac be more closely related to each other than to children of Ishmael, DNA wise? Certainly. Yet their data shows Sephardic Jews to be more closely related to Islamic Kurds than to Ashkenazi Jews who are more closely related to Palestinians that Muslim Kurds, with Sephardic Jews being the furthest from them. If anything, that would make Muslims Kurds closer kin to Sephardic Jews and Palestinians closer kin to Ashkenazi Jews.

At the same time the Ash Jews are closely related to Eastern European while the Sephardic are not. How many contradictions must an argument have before you put your biases to the side and judge clearly. Did you even notice the percentages given to how closely they relate. A lot of the similarities are less than 5% while the person acknowledges that there is a significant difference between the Ashkenazi and Sephardic, but not the Sephardic and the Muslim Kurds, or didn't report it.

Also, it should be noted in other studies, it shows that the DNA of Jews around the world more closely resembles the DNA of the people around them more so than Jews across the world. There is too much contradiction within the Y-chromosome argument to take it seriously. Then when compared to other DNA studies done, it becomes nothing more that crack-pot conspiracy.

Now you can believe the words of men who wrote some books, but I think DNA which was coded by God trumps your sources.

You fault me, while at the same time you believe the words of men who wrote the book or site you quoted from. Do you think that bias didn't shape their view of the matter? Oh, the people you quote are unbiased lovers of the truth, while my sources are biased Jewish anti-semitics? Look at how foolish you present yourself.

The history of Catholicism versus other historians is apple and oranges. How do you compare one giving information about his own heritage to one of historians studying the past and trying to piece together a history? That is madness, but not surprising that you speak confusion. How could you speak anything else?

There is DNA evidence that suggests that gay children come from mothers who retain two X-chromosomes, thereby making homosexuality genetic and not by choice. Should we call DNA evidence faultless in this claim?

It is DNA evidence that suggest we are the descendants of monkeys by way of evolution. Is that DNA evidence flawless and perfect? By george, God didn't create man, man came from monkeys, if we let DNA tell the story. You are just trying to use a study believe what you already believe. Rather than putting aside your prejudices and examining a matter objectively. You act as if DNA is flawless in this situation, but do you accept it when it says the bible is a lie? Of course you don't accept it then, you find one source to suit your agenda and rely on that.

Now, your source says nothing about the facts given by the author he is trashing. You've said nothing about the various Jewish sources that have been quoted. Birds of a feather, huh? Rather than addressing the facts, you tend to bad mouth those who disagree with you, so it isn't strange that you run to sources that do the same.

This is what I think happened. I'm not saying this is a truth, but I think you, being faced with things you don't know about, ran off to find any source that would support your argument. In turn you came upon this and thought you could present a fact and quiet me. But you ended up presenting something that you have not taken the time to look at thoroughly and have only provided something with so many leaks in it, the health department would shut it down if it were a place for living.

Now, let's look at something you don't know.

There are DNA studies that "prove" Europeans are descendants of Africans. If I gave you info on those studies would you accept it because they have the same Y-chromosome? What do you know, African-anglo-saxons. Look at the wonders of DNA evidence. It says that all of us are children of Africans. Thank Yah for the Y-chromosome right Aineo? Or would you pick and chose when the DNA testing of Y-chromosomes are acceptable? And guess what, more Europeans in the study have the west African y-chromosome than African americans. Wow, isn't it something how infallible DNA y chromosome test are. I think I've made my point.

Now, let's talk about how faulty DNA testing is when determining ancestry. Do you know that DNA test can only reveal results when compared to other peoples DNA. If you do a test of four groups, of course you will find similarities between those four because you have nothing else to compare them with. I've already made this long enough, though I haven't even had a chance to fully address the issue of how faulty the test are. Maybe next time, I can elaborate. Go into detail of the presence of the Y-chromosome in the UK and other european countries, speak more about the contradictions in this study of Y in middle easterners, the similarities of Jews being closer to the people of the land they inhabit than others throughout the world, and the unreliability of DNA testing to determine ancestry.

But honestly, you don't care about the truth. You care only about what you thinks supports your prejudice and beliefs.