1. There is in Judaism a distinction between a Cohen (a priest) and a Levite.
2. A Cohen is a descendant of Aaron, and thus of Levi, and a Levite is a descendant of Levi, but not necessarily a descendant of Aaron.
3. Behar et al found in 2003 that both Ashkenazi (Eastern European) and Sephardi (Iberian) Cohanim tend overwhelmingly to belong to haplogroup J, but that the majority of Ashkenazi Levites belong of haplogroup R1a. A significant number of Sephardi Levites belong to haplogroup T.
4. But if all of these men descend from the one man, then how in can one group of Cohanim or Levites possibly have a different type of Y-DNA than another?
5. And how, given that all Cohanim are Levites, can Cohanim have a different male heritage than Levites? (Note that one cannot become a Cohen or a Levite except by birth.)
6. The only available answer, given typical assumptions about Y-DNA mutation rates, is that no more than one of these lineages can be truly that of Levi and/or Aaron, and therefore that at certain points in history non-Levites and non-Cohanim must both have assumed this role, or been appointed to it, and have subsequently have founded false bloodlines.
7. A more general form of the same problem concerns Jewishness and -more generally- descent from Abraham: the Y-DNA of Jewish men and Arabic men is very diverse.
8. Given typical assumptions, there is no genetic basis for the existence of Jewishness in the sense of descent from Jacob (Israel).
9. And there is no genetic basis for the idea of a chosen people in the sense of a line that descends from one man -Abraham-with whom G-d made a covenant:
“I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your G-d and the G-d of your descendants after you.”
10. Same thing with David and the Levites with whom G-d made a similar covenant:
“I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars in the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.”
11. But what we find in the general case -a conflict between genealogical tradition and the chronology given by Darwinian genetics- we find also in the particular case.
12. Y-DNA extracted from a skeleton unearthed from beneath a car park in 2012, and belonging with near-certainty to English King, Richard III, doesn’t match the Y-DNA of contemporary Plantagenets.
13. And -worse- the Y-DNA of some contemporary Plantaganets doesn’t match the Y-DNA of others.
14. In another case involving Ancient DNA, the Y-DNA of Louis the XVI and his paternal ancestor Henry IV doesn’t match the Y-DNA of living descendants of the House of Bourbon.
15. Then -using contemporary DNA alone- we find that the Y-DNA of some contemporary descendants of the Livingstons of Callendar doesn’t match the Y-DNA of other descendants…
16. These considerations by themselves are insufficient to motivate the abandonment Darwinian chronology, but there are independent reasons -reasons drawn from computation, logic, mathematics and physics- to believe that the mathematical model used to create this chronology in the first place is a special case of a more encompassing model.
17. From mathematical principles that work well in others area comes an alternative model (f2) according to which genetic change follows -instead of straight lines- spiral-waves, waves whose amplitude and frequency diminishes in the direction of the future:
18. In the light of (f2), we find that the conflict between biblical genealogy and genetics simply disappears…