>No need to. The proof is in this post. Look at the folks
>saying “look who’s there now. It’s obvious these are the same
>people from then”. The link you provided is attempting to
>indicate the same thing.

... backed up by scientific evidence.

>Or the same area. Again Turks are closely related according
>to the chart. Also there is no data on the other surrounding
>areas that I pointed out. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and so on.

Turks didn't go into the Levant until the Ottoman period around the 15th century, and even then not as migrants but as conquerers. Afghans and Pakistanis never did as either. So how is this a reasonable hypothesis?

>I misread what you posted earlier. I took what you were
>saying about the Nubians that they were of lower Egypt also
>and was asking what happened to them.

OK, I see.

>Regardless the
>indigenous peoples of lower Egypt still could have displaced.

It's unlikely they were entirely displaced.

>The Arabs in Egypt did
>more intermixing with the indigenous people then the others.

That's the only point I was trying to make. With that said, how could the Arabs have completely displaced the original population and intermixed alot with them as well? Unless you are saying they only displaced a portion of the orignial inhabitants, which I would certainly say is plausible.

>But look at your chart. It’s a slight of hand, Egyptians, and
>Tunisians are just as close to those population as the Saudis.
> The circle around them makes them seem that much farther
>apart.

The Egyptians and Tunisians are more in-between those populations and the Ethiopians.

Now look at the Lem (Lembas) which are marked as
>other than Jewish. There are studies using the same
>technology that show they are jewish . see:
>http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/lemba.htm provided by
>Ahkenaten in this post.

The Lembas are halfway between the sub-Saharan African and Jewish clusters on the chart, and you also have to keep in mind it's an overall population study from a sample of 34 Lembas, so it's not saying that none of them have Jewish heritage. The study you mentioned said it's only one out of every 10 Lembas who have the Jewish marker. So yeah some of the Lembas clearly have Jewish heritage, apparently from one clan in particular.

>Where did the Persians, Hittites, Assyrians, all come from?
>These were invading peoples of that area at one time or
>another.

The Iranian plateau, Mesopotamia, and I dunno about the Hittites, but they were Indo-Europeans. And they all invaded centuries before Jesus... so if they replaced the original Jews, then Jesus himself wasn't an original Jew, he was a Persian or a Hittite or something... so what is the point of all this again?

>Come on man. Uzbekistan wasn’t founded until 1930. When I
>mentioned Uzbekistan I was pointing to the area as a possible
>place of origin for Arabs and todays Jews.

I understand that - I'm saying people from the region of modern-day Uzbekistan did not invade Europe and the Levant in that time period, so how is that a possible place of common origin for Arabs and Jews?

>Based on what you contend that they are? Because they are
>there now?

Based on there being zero evidence to suggest they originated anywhere else.

>That’s like saying jesus was obviously white.

No, it's like saying Jesus was obviously from Judea.

>Look at the picture. Or taking Y-chromosomes from most the
>population of the east coast of North America and they are so
>closely related proves that these people didn’t do a lot of
>intermixing thus originated in this area well over two
>thousand years ago.

The population of the east coast of N.America doesn't have a history in the region stretching back thousands of years with no evidence of them having migrated from elsewhere.

>I’m talking Saudis by chart and their physical location on the
>map. Turks are close why could these people not be migrants
>from that area, Asia Minor?

Because there is zero evidence to suggest this.

>Greeks are close to the
>Ashkenazim again the illusion of a big separation given by the
>circle.

It's not an "illusion", it's a statistical representation. The Greeks are closer to the mid-east populations than the northern Europeans cuz they were in contact with these populations for many centuries. So it's a sliding scale, but the pattern still fits general population clusters of European, Mid-Eastern, African, etc.

>All the chart proves is once in this area the people
>tent to breed amongst themselves for thousands of years. No
>more no less.

But the Ashkenazi were in Germany, Austria and Russia... not Greece. So why aren't they up in between those northern european groups? Why are they closer to the Greeks?

>Not enough to prove definitely but enough to doubt reasonably.

Occam's razor.

> Besides I have skin like burnt brass and hair like lambs
>wool. Not these folks.

But I thought these folks were related to the Lemba? Which is it?

------------------------------------------------------------
Now you know - and knowing is half the battle!