Simon Southerton Does Smearing Of His Own/Detecting Ne Dna

[Hamilton Porter]

OK, I have a question I want to ask. Please limit your answer on detecting Near Eastern DNA. (Don't mention anything about not knowing Lehi's DNA marker, etc.)

If whatever Near Eastern DNA we are likely to find is mostly due to post-Columbian admixture, then why are critics saying that DNA has disproved the Book of Mormon, when whatever we find will be chucked out? How would Near Eastern DNA be acceptable corroboration of the Book of Mormon?

Also,

A commentator on Southerton's blog said the following about BYU biology chair Keith Crandall:

Also, IIRC, he is the scientist who "converted" to Mormonism at about the same time BYU was considering his tenure. It would not be a stretch to speculate just how liberal he is with his own academic ethics for political-professional expediencies.

This was Southerton's reply:

I would not be at all surprised if Crandall's "conversion" was inspired by attempts to please the panel considering his tenure. A recent technician in my lab and her husband, both worked at BYU in or near the Crandall lab. They were very surprised to hear that he had been "converted" because the lab found out about it a year after his baptism. If he was a genuine convert why was he embarrassed or reluctant to talk about it at BYU of all places?

So I wrote this:

Oh please. Someone with his reputation can go anywhere. If he wasn't genuinely interested in Mormonism, why would he lose sleep over whether BYU grants him tenure?

Also, Rod Meldrum's website looks like an MLM. That is all.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Hamilton Porter

[Calm]

If he was a genuine convert why was he embarrassed or reluctant to talk about it at BYU of all places?

If he was doing it to make himself look good at BYU for the job, why in the world would he keep quiet about it to those he worked with who would have something to say about him staying on? Edited June 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[bu11fr0g]

DNA studies can definitively exclude most of the ancestors of people from the middle east in the last 2000 years as being the genetic forebearers of most of the native americans.

It cannot say there is no contribution.

re chucking: dna provides a clock as well as a source. dna with arrival from a single sephardic spaniard at the time of columbus is readily distinguishable from jewish dna from 600 bc. There has been no evidence of pre-columbus genetic contribution.

[bu11fr0g]

byu doesn't grant tenure anyway.

that being said, sometimes the reason someone starts to closely investigate the church can be dubious. i have met many very good members whose initial reasons for looking at the church were suspicious (like a girlfriend, yet they stayed active long after the girlfriend was gone).

God doesn't seem to withhold his tendermercies unless the motive is evil?

[Hamilton Porter]

re chucking: dna provides a clock as well as a source. dna with arrival from a single sephardic spaniard at the time of columbus is readily distinguishable from jewish dna from 600 bc. There has been no evidence of pre-columbus genetic contribution.

It does provide a clock, but according to Ugo Perego, the clocks aren't precise enough to tell if a Native American's grandma was Jewish or if his ancestor came to the states 2,600 years ago. 10,000 years, yes. 2,600 years, no.

[Mehrdad]

Lets look at the DNA of the people from the region, what DNA is found among the Jewish people today might not be what existed around 600 BC. First we have to consider the words of Nephi, when he stated that his people were fair, of course they would have been fairer in skin color to the Native Americans. But when he described the arrival of Columbus on the American continent and that he looked his people, we have to start thinking about what the ancient Jewish people looked like.

Some people say that we have to look at Abraham's origin to ascertain what the original Israelite DNA is supposed to be. I found this very well written argument, suggesting that Abraham was an Indo-European noble of Horite origin. Now the question one has to ask, was why didn't he have his son marry a Semite? Why did he send his servant to Nahor to find a wife from "his own people".

The DNA of most Western and Eastern Europeans are R1. Most of the ruling class of ancient Mesopotamia were Indo-Europeans and most Indo-Europeans are R1. There's debate as to the origin of R1a and R1b.

So back to the American continent, why are there so many R1's found among the native Americans of the great lakes? Could this be current, meaning Post Columbian as some have proposed, or could this be ancient as some others are now proposing.

There's a site that was taken down last year, called the DNA-forums, where many have argued these theories and still no one can say whether the R1 DNA in the American great lakes found among the native tribes there are post Columbus. Personally, until evidence proves otherwise I am suggesting that these could be Nephite or ancient Jewish.

A Jewish author by the name of Lawrence Lipton has suggested that the original Jewish DNA is R1, and those that are found in high concentrations among the current Jewish population which are J1, J2, Eb1 etc are from servants and ancient converts to the religion who far outnumbered the house of Jacob and who were adopted into the house of Israel, which made their numbers rise drastically.

R1 or specifically R1b, is Joseph Smith's DNA. If he is a direct descendant of Joseph who was sold into Egypt, then we can argue that the Y-DNA found among the native tribes of the great lakes R1b could also be of ancient Israel.

This is just a theory of mine.

[Mehrdad]

Lets look at the DNA of the people from the region, what DNA is found among the Jewish people today might not be what existed around 600 BC. First we have to consider the words of Nephi, when he stated that his people were fair, of course they would have been fairer in skin color to the Native Americans. But when he described the arrival of Columbus on the American continent and that he looked his people, we have to start thinking about what the ancient Jewish people looked like.

Some people say that we have to look at Abraham's origin to ascertain what the original Israelite DNA is supposed to be. I found this very well written argument, suggesting that Abraham was an Indo-European noble of Horite origin. Now the question one has to ask, was why didn't he have his son marry a Semite? Why did he send his servant to Nahor to find a wife from "his own people".

The DNA of most Western and Eastern Europeans are R1. Most of the ruling class of ancient Mesopotamia were Indo-Europeans and most Indo-Europeans are R1. There's debate as to the origin of R1a and R1b.

So back to the American continent, why are there so many R1's found among the native Americans of the great lakes? Could this be current, meaning Post Columbian as some have proposed, or could this be ancient as some others are now proposing.

There's a site that was taken down last year, called the DNA-forums, where many have argued these theories and still no one can say whether the R1 DNA in the American great lakes found among the native tribes there are post Columbus. Personally, until evidence proves otherwise I am suggesting that these could be Nephite or ancient Jewish.

A Jewish author by the name of Lawrence Lipton has suggested that the original Jewish DNA is R1, and those that are found in high concentrations among the current Jewish population which are J1, J2, Eb1 etc are from servants and ancient converts to the religion who far outnumbered the house of Jacob and who were adopted into the house of Israel, which made their numbers rise drastically.

R1 or specifically R1b, is Joseph Smith's DNA. If he is a direct descendant of Joseph who was sold into Egypt, then we can argue that the Y-DNA found among the native tribes of the great lakes R1b could also be of ancient Israel.

This is just a theory of mine.

I also forgot to mention, that the Gypsies who are originally from India, now only have traces of autosomal dna from their land of origin. This happened around 1000 years ago. Think of what may have happened after 2000 years, I believe any traces of their South Indian ancestry would have totally disappeared, ie autosomal speaking. So to try and measure the autosomal DNA of any native American now, is impossible.

Here's a website called Harappadna.org it has the dna make up of several gypsies aka Roma who participated and some of them hardly have traced of Indian heritage, this is only after 1000 years. The book of mormon was 2600 years ago.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Mehrdad

[CASteinman]

re chucking: dna provides a clock as well as a source.

Seems, as I recall, there are some serious, real world problems with the "clock" concept -- if by "clock" we are referring to something consistent and systematic.

[Hamilton Porter]

Lets look at the DNA of the people from the region, what DNA is found among the Jewish people today might not be what existed around 600 BC. First we have to consider the words of Nephi, when he stated that his people were fair, of course they would have been fairer in skin color to the Native Americans. But when he described the arrival of Columbus on the American continent and that he looked his people, we have to start thinking about what the ancient Jewish people looked like.

Some people say that we have to look at Abraham's origin to ascertain what the original Israelite DNA is supposed to be. I found this very well written argument, suggesting that Abraham was an Indo-European noble of Horite origin. Now the question one has to ask, was why didn't he have his son marry a Semite? Why did he send his servant to Nahor to find a wife from "his own people".

The DNA of most Western and Eastern Europeans are R1. Most of the ruling class of ancient Mesopotamia were Indo-Europeans and most Indo-Europeans are R1. There's debate as to the origin of R1a and R1b.

So back to the American continent, why are there so many R1's found among the native Americans of the great lakes? Could this be current, meaning Post Columbian as some have proposed, or could this be ancient as some others are now proposing.

There's a site that was taken down last year, called the DNA-forums, where many have argued these theories and still no one can say whether the R1 DNA in the American great lakes found among the native tribes there are post Columbus. Personally, until evidence proves otherwise I am suggesting that these could be Nephite or ancient Jewish.

A Jewish author by the name of Lawrence Lipton has suggested that the original Jewish DNA is R1, and those that are found in high concentrations among the current Jewish population which are J1, J2, Eb1 etc are from servants and ancient converts to the religion who far outnumbered the house of Jacob and who were adopted into the house of Israel, which made their numbers rise drastically.

R1 or specifically R1b, is Joseph Smith's DNA. If he is a direct descendant of Joseph who was sold into Egypt, then we can argue that the Y-DNA found among the native tribes of the great lakes R1b could also be of ancient Israel.

This is just a theory of mine.

Do the clocks say whether R1 has been in America for a long time, or is it post-Columbian admixture?

Edited June 28, 2012 by Hamilton Porter

[Mehrdad]

Do the clocks say whether R1 has been in America for a long time, or is it post-Columbian admixture?

Here's a study that makes this claim. This study is claiming that R1 was pre columbian, there are other studies that claim otherwise.

[Mehrdad]

Seems, as I recall, there are some serious, real world problems with the "clock" concept -- if by "clock" we are referring to something consistent and systematic.

I agree, the science of DNA is in its infancy even though we've made considerable strides the past decade. However, to measure something as a clock is definetly unambiguous.

Take for example, my own DNA, which is totally mixed, my father's father is of Pashtun Afghan background, my father's mother is Jewish through the Bene Israel people and my mother is Polynesian with asian admixture. Now when I got my autosomal results it was all over the place. Dr McDonald who does autosomal testing told me that while looking at my autosomal DNA without knowing me he'd have a hard time pin pointing a direct heritage, because it went from Ocenia, South East Asia, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. I did ask the question about my progeny having any traces of my Asian DNA if none of them ever marries an Asian decendant in say 500 years. He said it would be hard to pin point it, but it would show up as traces of 2% or less, and in some cases people might just call it an echo, or noise. In 1000 years, it would totally dissapear from any decendants of mine.

So if the Nephites mingled with Mulekites who were probably already mingling with the native people, I assume their autosomal DNA would be diluted as we can see from the Roma (Gypsies) on the Harappa dna project. After 2600 years, their autosomal would resemble that of the surrounding populations. The only true measure of their heritage would be through Y DNA or mtDNA testing.

[cdowis]

DNA studies can definitively exclude most of the ancestors of people from the middle east in the last 2000 years as being the genetic forebearers of most of the native americans.

OK, and wWe had an entire thread on that subject and I note your careful use of "most" of the people from the middle east.

Who here in this forum disputes that statement? You make that proclamation as if it meant anything.

Edited June 28, 2012 by cdowis

[bu11fr0g]

The article from ajhg just above my comment is very good and specifically talks about and identifies the clock issues and readily differentiating precolumbian and postcolumbian dna.

DNA clocks are not like mechanical or radiation clocks. There are lots of problems. DNA clocks are very good at identifying the order that mutations occurred. In some places a mutation can be expected within 100 meioses/ childbirths. Other spots are much more resistant to mutation. Since the mutations happen by chance, the exact timing is uncertain. However, with enough dna sequence, the order of dna mutations can separate a relatively midern western european from an eastern european.

Migrating population isolates can cause some problems too. This is why excluding ANY contribution is nearly impossible but excluding a major contribution is relatively straightforward.

[Hamilton Porter]

Here's a study that makes this claim. This study is claiming that R1 was pre columbian, there are other studies that claim otherwise.

Must...take...genetics...class.