Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

Greek language and culture btw seemingly did not exist until possibly 2000 bc with neolithic movements into Greece of Indo European peoples. See the Kurgan hypothesis.

Idiot!

Which haplotypes are identified as suddenly speaking the "Greek language" 4,000 years ago?

[GreekIslandGirl]

Why have the writers been so coy about highlihghting the actual Greek contribution?

Because they haven't tested enough migratory markers and they don't have ANY so-called Mycenaean markers but somehow that didn't stop them making some stupid final comment that you have latched on like a dog with an old bone.

The records suggest that around neolithic times most European stock spread from the middle east regions via Cyprus/Crete/Aegean - but you would somehow exclude Greek elements from this migration and plant them in from some alien locus and at a much later date. Everybody went through the Middle-east/Mediterranean/Aegean but not the Greeks!

I am under no illusions why they stopped taking such publications for this journal and closed it down....

[Sotos]

What does "genetically Greek" mean?

As I have said this is not a subject in which I have much personal interest to be honest. What I mean by 'genetically Greek' is to what degree does someone descend from ancient Greeks. I assume location wise the group that today most, on average, descends from ancient Greek forebears, is somewhere in Greece, though that is an assumption only.

What became Greece also had prehistoric people (who were not Greek) and who were not the exact same kind of people in all parts of "Greece". The first Greek speaking people that came into Greece were not a single entity either, but 4 separate groups that spoke different dialects of Greek and came into Greece in different waves at different times. So there isn't one single "birthplace" or "birthday" for the Greek Nation. And this is the same for ALL nations. The DNA of people in a nation does not remain constant .. there are invasions, migrations, assimilation, famines and wars that wipe out large parts of the population etc etc. What unites people in nations is not a DNA analysis, where they spit in some bottle and then somebody tells them "OK, you are Turk, you are Greek, you are French" but a similar language and culture and the desire to be united.

[Sotos]

Not even contemporary "Greeks" have any linkage with the so-called “ancient Greeks” these fools claim to be related to, let alone Cypriots!

When Greece was created in the early 1800s, they took 2 million Ottoman turncoats and two million mixed regional people (Bulgarians, Slavs, Gypsies, Albanians, etc) and invented a nation!

They then set about to form an IDENTITY by pinching myths and garbage from the region which they put together to give their bastardized kids some value. Or so they thought…

And how is that different in Cyprus? In Cyprus we also had a greater population of Muslims, many of whom were Greek crypto-Christians and became Christian again after the end of Ottoman rule. The rest formed the TC minority. Exact same thing in mainland Greece... some of the Muslims changed back to Christianity after the end of Ottoman rule, while the rest formed the Muslim minority. And regarding Slavs etc, again the same is true in Cyprus with a different mix of peoples. Or maybe you think that nobody ever came to Cyprus since the Chirokitians, or that they only came as "visitors" and they left without leaving a trace? No nation is genetically the same today as it was 1000s of years ago... everybody is affected by migrations, invasions etc. What makes people one nation is their commonality in culture and language and their desire to be united, and not any kind of pure DNA relationship.

[erolz66]

I don't care what people without data say. The sad fact is, among other studies, The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is only able to distinguish between GCs and TCs precisely BECAUSE they have genetic differences.

When you say 'The CMP in Cyprus is only able to distinguish between GCs and TCs precisely BECAUSE they have genetic differences.', do you mean the only way the CMP is able to establish if given remains belong to a TC or GC is by identifying genetic differences by DNA testing, or do you mean something else ?

Do you have any evidence that the CMP is even able to determine if remains belong a GC or a TC purely from identifying genetic differences by DNA testing ?

[Lordo]

I don't care what people without data say. The sad fact is, among other studies, The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is only able to distinguish between GCs and TCs precisely BECAUSE they have genetic differences.

When you say 'The CMP in Cyprus is only able to distinguish between GCs and TCs precisely BECAUSE they have genetic differences.', do you mean the only way the CMP is able to establish if given remains belong to a TC or GC is by identifying genetic differences by DNA testing, or do you mean something else ?

Do you have any evidence that the CMP is even able to determine if remains belong a GC or a TC purely from identifying genetic differences by DNA testing ?

she is talking out of her arse again as per usual. the only way people can be identified is if relatives of the missing have given dna samples. the witch is out of her depth again and she dont even know it.

[GreekIslandGirl]

I don't care what people without data say. The sad fact is, among other studies, The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is only able to distinguish between GCs and TCs precisely BECAUSE they have genetic differences.

When you say 'The CMP in Cyprus is only able to distinguish between GCs and TCs precisely BECAUSE they have genetic differences.', do you mean the only way the CMP is able to establish if given remains belong to a TC or GC is by identifying genetic differences by DNA testing, or do you mean something else ?

Do you have any evidence that the CMP is even able to determine if remains belong a GC or a TC purely from identifying genetic differences by DNA testing ?

"Purely"? No. It depends on many circumstances.

But, I've presented two abstracts (above, page 11) which show how they are building up their banks of markers from TCs and they state:

The Turkish Cypriot autosomal STR population study will find immediate use in the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus Project

and

The Turkish Cypriot Y-STR haplotype dataset will find an immediate use in the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus Project

Depending on time/circumstances of death, I believe it's more likely they would first compare DNA fingerprints with family members, if available.

[erolz66]

"Purely"? No. It depends on many circumstances.

Well it remains unclear to me what your were trying to say when you chose to use the word 'only' when you claimed 'The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is only able to distinguish between GCs and TCs precisely BECAUSE they have genetic differences'.

But, I've presented two abstracts (above, page 11) which show how they are building up their banks of markers from TCs and they state:

And I take note of those that I had not seen previously despite you having posted them, so thank you for pointing them out again. However I am still of the view that whilst they indicate that such markers as have been identified (reported in 2014 and 2015) are of 'use' in the work of the CMP, I doubt that they alone allow definitive classification of remains as TC or 'not TC'. I suspect the reality is they can be clues, a piece of the jig saw puzzle as it were, as to the likely chance that given remains are from a TC or not and I remain to be convinced otherwise so far, though my mind is not closed to the possibility. If I were to re write you claim above it would probably be something along the lines of "the CMP is only able to get an indication or probability of if given remains may be those of a TC or GC via DNA testing and in the absence of any DNA to match it against, by the use of markers that are statistically more prevalent in some sections of the TC community than the GC community."

Depending on time/circumstances of death, I believe it's more likely they would first compare DNA fingerprints with family members, if available.

As someone who's murdered uncle's remain were found and identified by the CMP, I have some personal knowledge of the process in his case. The first indication that my uncles remains had almost certainly been found were nothing to do with DNA testing. DNA testing and matching against samples given by my family was the last and final part of the process that provided near absolute proof. Long before that highly probably identification had been made based on a description of the clothes and a ring that my uncle had been wearing on the day of his abduction. Principally a distinctive nylon neck tie, that largely withstood bio degradation because of the material it was made from and his wedding ring, which were both found with the remains. It was at this stage that my family was first informed by the CMP that it was highly likely that my uncles remains had been located and my aunt was invited to come view both the tie and the ring found, long before DNA testing proved with near absolute certainty that the remains were my uncles. From these items my family had not doubt that the remains were those of my uncle and the subsequent DNA testing was to them a formality. It is also my understanding that the information that was given to the CMP that led them to investigate the well were my uncles body was dumped, itself was specific that remains located there were those of TC's and what is more there was an indication of from what location those TC had been abducted from prior to their murder.

[GreekIslandGirl]

"Purely"? No. It depends on many circumstances.

Well it remains unclear to me what your were trying to say when you chose to use the word 'only' when you claimed 'The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is only able to distinguish between GCs and TCs precisely BECAUSE they have genetic differences'.

I can see you want to turn this round to being about *YOU* - but I'm pretty sick of your time-wasting butting-in sessions. I was making the point to stud that if there weren't any differences, then why would something like the CMP Turkish brigade be looking for markers that differentiate between TCs and GCs?

The fact is, there are still several hundred unidentified bodies and any further tools that help identify these poor victims and give closure to families ( or society) can only be a good thing even if it exploits inherent differences between GCs and TCs. As I said, the process of identification is many-fold, but you are determined to give us your side of it as though that's all there is. Fine if they find signs (clothes, rings etc) of identification, but after so many years, these are very likely to be unreliable. So DNA matches are a major forensic identification method.

I only hope the politicians with vested interests do not jump in and *revise* the findings.

[erolz66]

I can see you want to turn this round to being about *YOU*

All down to interpretation again then. You interpret my comments as being about me trying to 'make it all about me'. I view them as commenting on how the CMP operates based on actual person experience as part of a dialectic initiated by your prior assertions as to how they operate, based on what other than your narrative needs, it is far from clear.

- but I'm pretty sick of your time-wasting butting-in sessions.

As I am sick of so many of your behaviours and techniques you systematically use here on this forum and have done for years.

I was making the point to stud that if there weren't any differences, then why would something like the CMP Turkish brigade be looking for markers that differentiate between TCs and GCs?

Well it looked to me like you were trying to rubbish the opinion of Professor Deltas because you did not like what his expert opinion was / is. He claims there is little genetic difference and I think the differences found by those working on the CMP probably do fit within that definition of 'little'. Given the right circumstances I think it is is the realms of possibility that some statistically useful differences could be found amongst GC from different areas of Cyprus, for example. In any case despite what point you now claim you were trying to make, what you actually wrote is clearly less than correct imo. I doubt any person working on the CMP would agree with the statement "The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is only able to distinguish between GCs and TCs precisely BECAUSE they have genetic differences." without need for significant qualification. I think there is a very high chance that you specifically exaggerated and tailored you claim to suit your narrative needs.

The fact is, there are still several hundred unidentified bodies and any further tools that help identify these poor victims and give closure to families ( or society) can only be a good thing even if it exploits inherent differences between GCs and TCs.

Absolutely agree. Anything that helps this work is welcome. However agreeing that such (little) differences recently identified and documented is one potential tool amongst a whole array of such tools is to my mind very different from claiming that one is "only able to distinguish between GCs and TCs precisely BECAUSE they have genetic differences".

As I said, the process of identification is many-fold,

Or to interpret it a different way, as you modified your original position in light of my questioning of that original position. Saying the only way the CMP is able to distinguish between GCs and TCs is because they have genetic differences, did not sound to me when you said it as saying that the process of identification is many fold. In it's original form it sounds pretty single fold I would claim. Still I welcome you now agreeing that this is not the case.

but you are determined to give us your side of it as though that's all there is.

No I gave my experience of the process as it was in the case of my uncle as a balance to your claims as to how the CMP works, based on what I am not sure. I do not claim this is the only way they work but it is a fact that this is how it work in this one real case.

Fine if they find signs (clothes, rings etc) of identification, but after so many years, these are very likely to be unreliable. So DNA matches are a major forensic identification method.

Yes they will of course use DNA testing to match against a sample given by families of the missing to get definitive identification results along with all the other work that goes into getting to that stage, and so they should. What remains far from clear is that they do, or even can to any precise degree, determine if those that have been found and for which they have been unable to identify by DNA matching with missing families samples, they determine if these remains are 'GC' or 'TC' using the method you described (as the 'only'). If they can and are doing this they certainly are not publishing how many of those exhumed and for which identification has not been achieved are GC and how many are TC. I strongly suspect the reason why they are not doing this is that the use of such markers as have so far been discovered are from definitive or even close to such and are in fact at best statistical probabilities.