48 replies to this topic

[Robert F. Smith]

Carborendum, on 20 August 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

With all the mixing that has happened in the past 3000 years, especially all the UNRECORDED mixing and migration throughout human history, I'm just not buying this as an accurate science.  Perhaps for a largely known population with a known history of little to no migration.  But not for large portions of the world where we have no verifiable information for thousands of years.

We have plenty of "verifiable information" from the ancient world consisting of DNA extracted from skeletal remains, and we do it with animals, plants, and humans.  This gives us good data on the rate of change in DNA over time (the molecular clock) and enables us to provide good estimates of patterns of migration of humans and other animals.  Isolated populations do very little mixing, but where interbreeding has occurred, we can detect it, e.g., the mixing of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon upwards of 30,000 years ago.

[ANACO]

ERayR, on 20 August 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

False premise.  The NG conclusions do not have to be either or.  It is in your limited view that it must be so.

Thank you for your extreme knowledge.

[ANACO]

Robert F. Smith, on 20 August 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Yes, and Natl Geog put me on the map in Europe with my haplogroup.


Most of what the Natl Geog DNA migration maps provide is the same as found now in most anthropology textbooks, clearly taking us back to Africa.

Lucy is non-human and much too early to be considered in that grouping.

The Natl Geog test results are straightforward and do not in any way run contrary to reasonable religious beliefs.  Of course there are fringe belief systems out there which contradict the Bible, for no good reason that I can understand -- except for failure to master biblical languages and archeology.

Interesting. Thank you. Do you believe personally the Nat. Geo. to be correct about Africa?

[Robert F. Smith]

bu11fr0g, on 21 August 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

From my perspective, there are three tough DNA problems that directly contradict the theories of some church leaders.
1-  the vast majority of the dna from american indians came from eastern asia much earlier than Lehi

If this is such a tough problem, why doesn't anyone oppose it nowadays?   Certainly Archbishop Ussher might oppose it today based on his faulty biblical chronology.  Is he one of the "church leaders" you had in mind?

Quote

2-  there was no genetic botttleneck or loss of human populations at the time of a worldwide flood within the last 6000 years.

Once again, why is this considered a "tough DNA problem"?  And for whom?  Perchance you are attacking the faulty evangelical position?  To assume a worldwide instead of a regional flood and recent creation is indeed a popular view in the evangelical community, but I know of no reason to support them.

Quote

3-  there was no de novo human group within the last 10,000 years that is genetically distinct.

Again, presumably based on faulty evangelical assumptions of recent creation.  See http://maxwellinstit...d=40&chapid=162 .

[ERayR]

ANACO, on 21 August 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

Thank you for your extreme knowledge.

Your welcome all you have to do is ask.   On second thought i'll just volunteer if I see a need.  Thank you anyway.

[Robert F. Smith]

ANACO, on 21 August 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

Interesting. Thank you. Do you believe personally the Nat. Geo. to be correct about Africa?

Yes, of course.  It is  not, however, Natl Geog which is correct.  It is rather the work of the geneticists about whom they report.

As for the ultimate truth on human origins, I think that the Great Plains of North America is Eden, and that the Garden planted on the east edge of the Eden is at Adam-ondi-Ahman in western Missouri.

[Mehrdad]

Glenn101, on 17 August 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

Lehi was of the tribe of Manasseh. Remember that Joseph's wife was an Egyptian. There is no telling what his DNA would look like. There is no telling what the DNA of any of the other nine northern tribes would have looked like in 600 B.C. There is too much that we don't know.

Glenn

Lately after doing further research I find it plausible but not definte that the servants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their decendants were adopted into the house of Israel, and these genetic pool could have been drawn from the Semites that lived in the land of Canaan thus inflating the numbers of the Israelites into a numerous multitude.  Also any daughters they may have had that married outside and their husbands covenanted with the lord could have been adopted into the house of Israel.

I for one am a strong proponent of Y-DNA testing, because I believe that R1 is Jacobs Y-DNA.  Why I say this, is because R1 is found in the middle east and all over the world, including the American Indians of the great lakes have this Y-DNA in large numbers.  R1 is also found in small numbers among the Polynesian peoples, but only in New Zealand and the Cook Islands.  The New Zealand Maori's are the only ones of the Polynesian people that have a legend that would date back to Christ and the Americas.

Now, finally I considered the story about the Prophet Joseph Smith in the BOM, which said he is a direct decendant of Joseph who was sold into Egypt, now what is the Prophets Y-DNA?  Its R1, but this can be debated again, if we take the Orthodox version of a Jew, and it could be his mother, but I haven't seen any studies dating this practice to 600 bc when Lehi left Jerusalem.  

Like I say, this is a theory I am working on, today, the Jew's Y DNA are heavily Semitic with J and E being the dominant, R1 is approx 10% of the pool.

[hagoth7]

Mehrdad, on 30 August 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

I for one am a strong proponent of Y-DNA testing, because I believe that R1 is Jacobs Y-DNA.  Why I say this, is because R1 is found in the middle east and all over the world...

Including northern Europe

[Mehrdad]

hagoth7, on 30 August 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Including northern Europe

Right, and now if only someone would start testing STR's we would start to get a clearer version of whether these R1's found in North America and the Polynesian islands are recent or ancient.  Also SNPs would be a good indication of mutation that has occurred overtime if the STR tests do prove ancient lineage.

Edited by Mehrdad, 31 August 2012 - 08:02 AM.