Are some Jews descendants of Armenians?

[Armenian]

Italy, like Spain, contains a composite of racial types. The southern part of Italy has a darker complexion because at one time the Moors ruled Sicily and souther parts of Italy, and that would explain while some Italians look more Mediterranean, resemling some Arabs or Armenians. The northern part of Italy was conquered by a Germanic tribe called the Lombards who had light hair and light eyes and when you go to northern Italy you will see a stark contrast from southern Italy. In other words, the effects of racial mixing destroyed the original Romans who created the Roman empire and where replaced by different peoples. Northern Italy is also where the Renaissance began, and to anyone who believes that races and the degree of purity do not matter, then they do not need to be bothered with. Spain likewise was occupied by the Moors, but then reconquered by the Gothic descendents found in Ferdinand and Isabella.

I apologize for the late reply, I just noticed that I have a little problem with this statement of yours.

The reason why Italians for instance have darker complexion than Scandinavians has nothing to do with mixing with non-Europeans. The genetic core of all Italians are Greco-Roman and Etruscan. Physically, Greco-Romans and Etruscans tended to be predominantly dark haired and dark eyed brunettes, take a close look at their self-depictions upon ancient murals and paintings (especially Greek pottery).

Genetically, Greco-Romans, Etruscans and various Anatolian nations such as the Hittites, Sumerians and the Urartians were generally speaking Mediterranean/Alpine types (two of the four or five major sub-groups of the white race). The Mediterranean/Alpine type tends to be darker pigmented when compared to his/her Nordic brethren (another sub-group of the white race). According to biologists and geneticists, the differences in pigmentation and even certain physical composition of various European nations are due to climate factors and environmental stresses.

Blonde haired and blue eyed Nordics are only a sub-group within the greater Caucasian/white race. Thus, blondes do not set any standards for being Caucasian/white. However, it is unfortunate that since the early twentieth century the Nordic type has managed to high-jack the representation of Caucasian/white race. Incidentally, peoples of northern Europe have an admixture. This northern European admixture is Asiatic (Turanid, Bulgar, Hun, Mongol, Sami, ect.) and that is precisely why many northern Europeans have the high cheek bones, narrow eyes and lack of body hair.

Nevertheless, you are right that a north African admixture did enter the Italian peninsula. However, this occurred more-or-less during the classical period and in relatively small numbers. Modern genetic surveys reveal around five to ten percent north African admixture within Southern Europe and the Britannic Isles. However, there is five to twenty-five percent Asiatic admixture within northern and eastern Europe. I may be wrong, but I think we Armenians do not have any significant African and/or Asiatic admixture within our nation. However, we do have a bit of Mesopotamian admixture - by way of Assyrians I presume.

In final thought, northern European Caucasians look lighter than southern European Caucasians not only because of climatic and environmental stresses, as I previously mentioned, but also because their "Asiatic" admixture which also tended to be light skinned Asian. Please, realize that there are no "pure" nations, especially within Eurasia. There are nations, however, that have a relatively less admixture than others. The least mixed peoples on earth only exist within the remotest areas of Africa, south America and south eastern Asia.

[IAmMadAtAC]

I may be wrong, but I think we Armenians do not have any significant African and/or Asiatic admixture within our nation. However, we do have a bit of Mesopotamian admixture - by way of Assyrians I presume.

According to biology, and I should know because I just took my final in it, the best theory on humans is that we came "out of Africa" and then moved all around. So I think we all have a littel African in us, so to speak, way back then billions of years ago, and how far away we got from it into various other climates determined how "less African" we got. Armenia (make that Anatolian Plateau) isn't that far from Africa so it's not surprising for us to be darker than say British and such. That can be an explanation on why we are somewhat dark people overall, though there are lots of theories on who Armenians came from. Mostly likely that's because of the many groups that intermarried with us over the years, everything from Mongols and Turks, all sorts of Caucausus and Anatolian peoples, the occasional Arabs and such (and there were ancient Jewish settlements found in Armenia so don't rule out Jewish ancestors). When you really think about ancestry, we have so many of them that it gets mind-boggling and we could have all kinds of nationalities hiding back there. We have 32 great-great-grandparents alone, 64 great-great-great-grandparents, 128 great-great-great-great-grandparents, and it keeps doubling! So if you go back a couple hundred years, it's very unlikely that every single one is pure Armenian every time.

[Thai-Samurai]

That expanded my mind. Especially the way you laid out looking back.

[Armenian]

According to biology, and I should know because I just took my final in it, the best theory on humans is that we came "out of Africa" and then moved all around.

I do not believe in this theory which has been forced upon us all for several years now. There is no fossil evidence suggesting what you said to be true. The only so-called "hominid" fossils that have been unearthed in Africa are that of extinct apes - not humans.

I sincerely believe that humans developed or were created within Asia Minor - more specifically Caucasus. Therefore, further out you go from the Caucasus - the less Armenian you look.

Nevertheless, your African theory has so baring on the topic at hand.

[IAmMadAtAC]

1. Take a biology course and learn about the subject before discounting it. "Theories" as they are known in science are not random guesses but rational explanations backed up by known facts. You saying things like "I don't believe the fossils" gives no actual background or proof as to why this was wrong. Secondly...

I sincerely believe that humans... were created within Asia Minor.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that he will attack evolution based on "lack of evidence", and yet believes humans were created in their current forms?! You absolutely cannot say evolution has no proof, which it does, and yet advocate creationism instead which has absolutely no proof beyond the Bible. I am not saying it didn't happen, but if we are going on this based on "proof", evolution has a lot more going for it.

Nevertheless, your African theory has so baring on the topic at hand.

Yes it did, I was explaining reasons for the differences in races.

[pezeveng]

http://www.haruth.com/JewsArmenia.html

dont know if anyone has already posted this too lazy to check.

[Armenian]

1. Take a biology course and learn about the subject before discounting it. "Theories" as they are known in science are not random guesses but rational explanations backed up by known facts. You saying things like "I don't believe the fossils" gives no actual background or proof as to why this was wrong. Secondly...

Since I am much older than you I can confidently state that I have taken enough biology, chemistry and physics courses in my life to know that evolution is just a hoax forced upon unsuspecting "sheeple" and that Darwin was a hallucinatory lunatic and so are his followers.

There is absolutely no fossil evidence that even remotely suggests that evolution is a reality. On the contrary, the fossil evidence suggests that species have suddenly appeared and disappeared throughout primordial history. The theory of "evolution" as taught, in other words organism jumping for one species to the next, is against all laws of nature and logic. Evolution simply cannot occur within this universe without am intelligent source guiding it.

You may want to believe that your forefather were monkeys, but they were not. Man did not evolve from little monkeys; little monkeys did not evolve form little fury creatures; little fury creatures did not evolve for little slimy amphibians; little slimy amphibians did not evolve from little fish; little fish did not evolve from little plankton; little plankton did not evolve from little ameba; little ameba did not evolve from inorganic elements in a primordial ocean soup. Evolution simply can not take place within this universe - it is as simple as that.

Until science gives mankind a better explanation as to how life developed on earth, I am going to continue believing in a universal creator God. The tooth fairy has more evidence behind it than the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, this thread has nothing to do with evolution, or monkeys in Africa, if you want to promote lies as reality, start your own thread.

[IAmMadAtAC]

On the contrary, the fossil evidence suggests that species have suddenly appeared and disappeared throughout primordial history. The theory of "evolution" as taught, in other words organism jumping for one species to the next, is against all laws of nature and logic. Evolution simply cannot occur within this universe without am intelligent source guiding it.

Oh come on! First of all there is much in the fossil record that shows the development of various things that slowly caused animals to change. Look what you just suggested though, throughout history species appeared and disappeared. Are you to suggest that there was not one but many creation events?! Does this mean every time a new species arose it neede to be created and just appeared? So one day a fish just appeared in the ocean, another day a rhinocerous just appeared, then another day a elephant appeared, another day a monkey came out of nowhere?! If that's the case, why have, throughout recorded history, there been absolutely no recorded incidents of animals spontaneously appearing? How do you also explain the fact that humans and monkies share 99.9% of the same DNA, and that there is DNA showing common descent of all the different species and similarities amongst them all. There are many signs of evolution, not least of which is that all mammals have tails (yes humans have a tailbone, the bit that's left of it). Why would humans be created with a useless tailbone that seems to be clear evidence as it to be the remnant of a tail that evolved away.

[Armenian]

Oh come on! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Darwin, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, tailbone, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, monkey, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

I said: Start your own thread and I will meet you there!

[Anonymouse]

Oh come on! First of all there is much in the fossil record that shows the development of various things that slowly caused animals to change. Look what you just suggested though, throughout history species appeared and disappeared. Are you to suggest that there was not one but many creation events?! Does this mean every time a new species arose it neede to be created and just appeared? So one day a fish just appeared in the ocean, another day a rhinocerous just appeared, then another day a elephant appeared, another day a monkey came out of nowhere?! If that's the case, why have, throughout recorded history, there been absolutely no recorded incidents of animals spontaneously appearing? How do you also explain the fact that humans and monkies share 99.9% of the same DNA, and that there is DNA showing common descent of all the different species and similarities amongst them all. There are many signs of evolution, not least of which is that all mammals have tails (yes humans have a tailbone, the bit that's left of it). Why would humans be created with a useless tailbone that seems to be clear evidence as it to be the remnant of a tail that evolved away.

The fossil record doesn't show anything other than what evolutionists want to believe it shows. There is no evidence that species evolved as there were no intermediate forms. Darwin spoke of a gradual evolution in which species evolved gradually. The fossil record could not be made to accomodate this, but in order to hold fast to an immutable theory they had to re-write it by adding "punctuated equilibria" and making excuses that Darwin somehow mentioned "punctuated equilibria" when he clearly did not. The bending of words, and concepts is exactly how dogmas stay alive, and evolution is as good a dogma as a Christianity. Also, the fact that humans and monkeys share 99.9 % of the DNA doesn't mean anything. The questions are you asking are inquisitive and thought provoking however, coming up with "evolution" as the answer to all those questions is as much a leap of faith as saying we were created.