New DNA Study Actually Supports Church Essay Claim of Founder Effect

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Good argument if you were right, but you are not. For example Dr. Brian Stubbs has published a book which shows hundreds of cognates in Semitic languages and Egyptian in common with the  Uto-Aztecan native American language family. Here is a link: https://www.scribd.com/doc/254510927/Egyptian-Semitic-in-Uto-Aztecan-by-Brian-Stubbs-for-purchase-of-the-complete-book-go-to-www-bookofmormoncaractorstranslation-com

One problem:

Where in the BoM does it state that they abandoned their native language?  

It was the direct opposite.  For example:

 1 Nephi 1:

"2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians

1 Nephi 3:

 "19 And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers;"

Omni 1

"18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates."

Mosiah 1:

 "2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord."

Mosiah 9:

 "1 I, Zeniff, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites, and having had a knowledge of the land of Nephi, or of the land of our fathers’ first inheritance, and having been sent as a spy among the Lamanites that I might spy out their forces, that our army might come upon them and destroy them—but when I saw that which was good among them I was desirous that they should not be destroyed."

Mosiah 24:

 "4 And he appointed teachers of the brethrenof Amulon in every land which was possessed by his people; and thus the language of Nephi began to be taught among all the people of the Lamanites."

So even in Mosiah (~120 B.C.), it makes note they they were still speaking in the "language of Nephi."  Even Moroni understood and was able to read/write this "language of the Jews/Egyptians" at the end of the Book of Mormon (~400 A.D.), so he clearly didn't abandon the language of his fathers.  They just completely abandoned their native language and made no mention of it whatsoever, despite the fact that they made numerous references throughout the BoM that they were speaking in the language of Nephi?

 

 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

13 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I don't think Johnnie Cake read the fine print of the study he linked to, or the footnotes:

"The origins of the First Americans remain contentious. Although Native Americans seem to be genetically most closely related to east Asians, there is no consensus with regard to which specific Old World populations they are closest to. Here we sequence the draft genome of an approximately 24,000-year-old individual (MA-1), from Mal’ta in south-central Siberia, to an average depth of 1×. To our knowledge this is the oldest anatomically modern human genome reported to date. The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers, and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages. Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians. This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought. Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population. This is likely to have occurred after the divergence of Native American ancestors from east Asian ancestors, but before the diversification of Native American populations in the New World. Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians. Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html

I don't think Rajah Manchou read the Study link I posted, or the footnotes

 

The study I linked to specifically addresses the MA-1 mal'ta  connection...unfortunately the link I provided has now gone dead and is only available on a pay sight.  I was able to gain access.

Major admixture during the formation of the ancestral population of Native Americans Until 2014, efforts to infer demographic parameters for the peopling of the New World based on genetic data focused on modeling Native Americans as an offshoot of East Asian ancestry [17,20,23 ,29–33,34 ]. However, the analysis of the genome of a 24,000 year-old individual from the Mal’ta site near Lake Baikal in Central Siberia revealed that this model is untenable. The Mal’ta indi- vidual shared genetic affinities to both European (West Eurasian) and Native American populations [35 ]. ****- yses showed that a scenario in which Mal’ta descended from an admixture between a West Eurasian population and an ancient population that was also ancestral to Native Americans could not explain all features of the data [35 ]. However, the data was consistent with a model in which Native Americans are admixed between lineages related to Mal’ta on the one hand (between 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 of Native American ancestry) and East Asians on the other hand (Figure 1). Thus, Native Americans and East Asians do not in fact descend from a common ancestral population that separated earlier from a lineage leading to Mal’ta and to West Eurasians [35 ].

The finding of ancient mixture in the ancestry of Native American — before diversification within the Ameri- cas — also has consequences for modeling other features of Native American population history. Genetic debate about the date of the first migrants into the Americas has had, as one of its important themes, estimation of the date of genetic divergence of the lineages giving rise to Native American and East Asian populations [31]. The major admixture related to the Mal’ta lineage in the ancestry of all Native Americans is inconsistent with the assumption of a simple population split between Native Americans and East Asians that has been the basis for the most attempts to date to infer the population split times, and which have suggested dates of around 23,000 years ago [33,34 ]. The substantial contribution of the Mal’ta line- age to Native Americans may have the effect of upwardly biasing estimates of the time of divergence of Native Americans and East Asians. Future models estimating parameters for the founding populations of the Americas will need to consider this admixture explicitly. 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

One problem:

Where in the BoM does it state that they abandoned their native language?  

It was the direct opposite.  For example:

 1 Nephi 1:

"2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians

1 Nephi 3:

 "19 And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers;"

Omni 1

"18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates."

Mosiah 1:

 "2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord."

Mosiah 9:

 "1 I, Zeniff, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites, and having had a knowledge of the land of Nephi, or of the land of our fathers’ first inheritance, and having been sent as a spy among the Lamanites that I might spy out their forces, that our army might come upon them and destroy them—but when I saw that which was good among them I was desirous that they should not be destroyed."

Mosiah 24:

 "4 And he appointed teachers of the brethrenof Amulon in every land which was possessed by his people; and thus the language of Nephi began to be taught among all the people of the Lamanites."

So even in Mosiah (~120 B.C.), it makes note they they were still speaking in the "language of Nephi."  Even Moroni understood and was able to read/write this "language of the Jews/Egyptians" at the end of the Book of Mormon (~400 A.D.), so he clearly didn't abandon the language of his fathers.  They just completely abandoned their native language and made no mention of it whatsoever, despite the fact that they made numerous references throughout the BoM that they were speaking in the language of Nephi?

R U a member of the Church? Apparently not, because you don't know much about the Book of Mormon. The Nephites kept their language, but were killed off. The language of the Lamanites was corrupted early on. While I do also believe that some "Nephites" escaped the final destruction, they would have been left in small isolated groups. In this circumstance it is known that language can change rapidly. Who speaks Latin anymore? How old is English? Where did it come from? In 1500 years languages typically change a lot, and an entire language can disappear. However, it is common to find "loan" words in the new languages that replace them. That is pretty much what we see in these Uto-Aztecan native American language family. It is quite possible that a small band traveled to the area and certain words they used were adopted and spread around. Or perhaps there are just remnants of Egyptian and Semitic languages because those languages were predecessor languages in the area. Hebrew would be an extinct language were it not for the fact that Jewish sribes retained it for the Tanakh, and the Jewish dispersion was only 400 years earlier. To try to argue that the American Natives should still be speaking it if they had come from Jerusalem is an extremely weak position.

[Ouagadougou]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

R U a member of the Church? Apparently not, because you don't know much about the Book of Mormon. The Nephites kept their language, but were killed off. The language of the Lamanites was corrupted early on. While I do also believe that some "Nephites" escaped the final destruction, they would have been left in small isolated groups. In this circumstance it is known that language can change rapidly. Who speaks Latin anymore? How old is English? Where did it come from? In 1500 years languages typically change a lot, and an entire language can disappear. However, it is common to find "loan" words in the new languages that replace them. That is pretty much what we see in these Uto-Aztecan native American language family. It is quite possible that a small band traveled to the area and certain words they used were adopted and spread around. Or perhaps there are just remnants of Egyptian and Semitic languages because those languages were predecessor languages in the area. Hebrew would be an extinct language were it not for the fact that Jewish sribes retained it for the Tanakh, and the Jewish dispersion was only 400 years earlier. To try to argue that the American Natives should still be speaking it if they had come from Jerusalem is an extremely weak position.

Yes, I am a member...don't know what difference that makes.  

The BoM is written primarily for the Lamanites.  

"Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel;"

So it was written for a group of people that disappeared (because we are yet to find DNA) and wouldn't understand the language of the Nephites in the first place because their language was corrupted?

Language can change; however, there is no record in the BoM that they adopted other languages and abandoned the language of their fathers.  

*Let the mental gymnastics begin...

 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yes, I am a member...don't know what difference that makes.  

 

Mormon 9:33-34

[Jude2]

On 2/12/2017 at 5:55 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

"Mitochondrial DNA analyses were the first to document that the ancestry of most Native Americans derives from a population that experienced a profound founder event [10], with a relatively small number of individuals giving rise to a large number of descendants today"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959437X16300910

Unfortunatly...that mitrochondrial DNA came from a relatively small North Eastern Asia migration in 12,000 BCE showing that a small founding population is detectable in today's modern native population

As for any Book of Mormon founding populations( non east-Asian)?  Still nothing

 

Edit: the original link has gone dead...and in its place the study author has put up a pay to see sight...frustrating

 

Oh ya mean that small group of Jaredites!  

[Ouagadougou]

54 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Mormon 9:33-34

Mormon 9:

 32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

Yet another confirmation that they did not abandon their language...

And verse 34:

"34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared meansfor the interpretation thereof."

If no other people knew their language, then that would mean they didn't abandon the language of their fathers and, in turn, learn different languages indigenous to that region by integrating with them.  

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't think Rajah Manchou read the Study link I posted, or the footnotes

The study I linked to specifically addresses the MA-1 mal'ta  connection...unfortunately the link I provided has now gone dead and is only available on a pay sight.

Yes, I read it several months ago.

MA-1 (Mal'ta) is not East Asian it is well within haplogroup U. Present-day distribution of haplogroup U encompasses a "large area including North Africa, the Middle East, south and central Asia, western Siberia and Europe, although it is rare or absent east of the Altai Mountains; that is, in populations living in the region surrounding Mal’ta."

So you are incorrect when you say that the founding populations of the New World are strictly "East Asian" and there is no "middle east" to be found. Exact opposite, MA-1 is Eurasian, or more precisely north Eurasian (ANE). It is not East Asian at all. Mal'ta is closer to Europeans than Han Chinese. The living groups that most closely resemble MA-1 are the Karitiana Indians of Brazil, the Pashtuns of Pakistan, and the Lezgans of the Caucusus Mountaints. These are not East Asians.

This paper (footnote #35 in the article in your OP) explains it: "The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers, and the Y chromosome of MA-1is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages. Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians."

MA-1 is basal to European and Western Eurasian and has no close affinity to east Asians. See how MA-1 lies closer to Europeans in the chart below? See how far MA-1 is from East Asians? 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't think Rajah Manchou read the Study link I posted, or the footnotes

 

The study I linked to specifically addresses the MA-1 mal'ta  connection...unfortunately the link I provided has now gone dead and is only available on a pay sight.  I was able to gain access.

Major admixture during the formation of the ancestral population of Native Americans Until 2014, efforts to infer demographic parameters for the peopling of the New World based on genetic data focused on modeling Native Americans as an offshoot of East Asian ancestry [17,20,23 ,29–33,34 ]. However, the analysis of the genome of a 24,000 year-old individual from the Mal’ta site near Lake Baikal in Central Siberia revealed that this model is untenable. The Mal’ta indi- vidual shared genetic affinities to both European (West Eurasian) and Native American populations [35 ]. ****- yses showed that a scenario in which Mal’ta descended from an admixture between a West Eurasian population and an ancient population that was also ancestral to Native Americans could not explain all features of the data [35 ]. However, the data was consistent with a model in which Native Americans are admixed between lineages related to Mal’ta on the one hand (between 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 of Native American ancestry) and East Asians on the other hand (Figure 1). Thus, Native Americans and East Asians do not in fact descend from a common ancestral population that separated earlier from a lineage leading to Mal’ta and to West Eurasians [35 ].

The finding of ancient mixture in the ancestry of Native American — before diversification within the Ameri- cas — also has consequences for modeling other features of Native American population history. Genetic debate about the date of the first migrants into the Americas has had, as one of its important themes, estimation of the date of genetic divergence of the lineages giving rise to Native American and East Asian populations [31]. The major admixture related to the Mal’ta lineage in the ancestry of all Native Americans is inconsistent with the assumption of a simple population split between Native Americans and East Asians that has been the basis for the most attempts to date to infer the population split times, and which have suggested dates of around 23,000 years ago [33,34 ]. The substantial contribution of the Mal’ta line- age to Native Americans may have the effect of upwardly biasing estimates of the time of divergence of Native Americans and East Asians. Future models estimating parameters for the founding populations of the Americas will need to consider this admixture explicitly. 

"Until 2014, efforts to infer demographic parameters for the peopling of the New World based on genetic data focused on modeling Native Americans as an offshoot of East Asian ancestry. However, the analysis of the genome of a 24,000 year-old individual from the Mal’ta site near Lake Baikal in Central Siberia revealed that this model is untenable. The Mal’ta individual shared genetic affinities to both European (West Eurasian) and Native American populations [35]."

Then click on Footnote #35:

Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans

The dual ancestry of Native Americans that was revealed in the study is east Asian and western Eurasian (European). Native Americans have east Asian and European ancestry.

[Johnnie Cake]

26 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

"Until 2014, efforts to infer demographic parameters for the peopling of the New World based on genetic data focused on modeling Native Americans as an offshoot of East Asian ancestry. However, the analysis of the genome of a 24,000 year-old individual from the Mal’ta site near Lake Baikal in Central Siberia revealed that this model is untenable. The Mal’ta individual shared genetic affinities to both European (West Eurasian) and Native American populations [35]."

Then click on Footnote #35:

Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans

The dual ancestry of Native Americans that was revealed in the study is east Asian and western Eurasian (European). Native Americans have east Asian and European ancestry.

How exactly does this support the BoM narrative?

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

How exactly does this support the BoM narrative?

For starters it shows how critics are incorrect when they say that the founding populations of the New World are strictly Asian with no traces of Middle Eastern or European.

The three modern groups most closely resembling MA-1 (Mal'ta) are:

(1) Karitiana of Brazil
(2) Pashtuns of Afghanistan
(3) Lezgins of the Caucusus

Let's say for sake of argument that the Jaredites were ANE and genetically resembled the proto-Pashtun, proto-Kurd or proto-Lezgin populations. They reach the New World but their genes are almost indistinguishable from the other ANE already present. 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

For starters it shows how critics are incorrect when they say that the founding populations of the New World are strictly Asian with no traces of Middle Eastern or European.

The three modern groups most closely resembling MA-1 (Mal'ta) are:

(1) Karitiana of Brazil
(2) Pashtuns of Afghanistan
(3) Lezgins of the Caucusus

Let's say for sake of argument that the Jaredites were ANE and genetically resembled the proto-Pashtun, proto-Kurd or proto-Lezgin populations. They reach the New World but their genes are almost indistinguishable from the other ANE already present. 

22,000 BCE is 18,000 years before written history. If the Jaredites existed, it wasn't in 22,000 BCE. Here in 2017, we're much closer in time to the Jaredites (if they existed) than people living in 22,000 BCE. 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Gray

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

For starters it shows how critics are incorrect when they say that the founding populations of the New World are strictly Asian with no traces of Middle Eastern or European.

The three modern groups most closely resembling MA-1 (Mal'ta) are:

(1) Karitiana of Brazil
(2) Pashtuns of Afghanistan
(3) Lezgins of the Caucusus

Let's say for sake of argument that the Jaredites were ANE and genetically resembled the proto-Pashtun, proto-Kurd or proto-Lezgin populations. They reach the New World but their genes are almost indistinguishable from the other ANE already present. 

Ok I understand the need to connect MA-1 to the Jaredites...I guess what I'm trying to wrap my head around is how a 23,000 year old admixture fits in with a claimed Tower of Babel, post flood, ocean crossing migration to the America's in the year 2,200 BCE?  Science is fairly clear on when the MA-1 admixture took place. It was BEFORE native populations migrated to the Americas via the land bridge from Asia...so help me understand how exactly this fits with the BoM narrative again?  But what I think you are suggesting is that Native American populations and Jaredites descended from the same parents carrying the Mal’ta (MA-1) DNA.  Is that correct?  If so can you back this theory up with any evidence?  Do we find Mal’ta (MA-1) DNA in modern day Iraq the claimed site of the fabled tower?  I don't think so...but maybe you could provide the evidence to support your premise.  I'm willing to be convinced. Or are you just speculating?

Edited February 14, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[cdowis]

On 2/13/2017 at 11:19 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

This is a tired and true LDS apologetic rabbit hole....but I'll answer your question.  Lehi was a fictional character, fictional characters don't produce DNA...so of course we would not expect to find fictional DNA from a fictional character in the evidentiary record and we don't.  However if something turns up that supports the BoM narrative, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

Are you familiar with the term "tautology" :

!. I can disprove the BOM from the DNA evidence

2. What was Lehi's DNA that you are basing your conclusion?

3. I am basing my conclusion that Lehi was a fictional character.  His imaginary DNA does not match AmerIndian DNA.  QED

A brilliant analysis from a confirmed antiMormon ==>> Johnnie  "Don't confuse me with questions, please" Cake

Mr Cake ===>>>>  Pahoran, Paanchi, sheum, Valley of Lamoni, Land Bountiful, written records (codex) 
You now officially have "something" that supports the BOM narrative, so we expect your formal admission forthwith.

Edited February 14, 2017 by cdowis

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

But what I think you are suggesting is that Native American populations and Jaredites descended from the same parents carrying the Mal’ta (MA-1) DNA.  Is that correct?  If so can you back this theory up with any evidence?  Do we find Mal’ta (MA-1) DNA in modern day Iraq the claimed site of the fabled tower?  I don't think so...but maybe you could provide the evidence to support your premise.  I'm willing to be convinced. Or are you just speculating?

I'm speculating. But my speculation is partly founded in evidence. This is as far as science has gone in answering your question:

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

"We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 44 ancient Near Easterners ranging in time 86 between ~12,000-1,400 BCE, from Natufian hunter-gatherers to Bronze Age farmers. We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia."

I could be reading that wrong, in fact I'm pretty sure I'm not understanding that paper, but my initial reaction is that yes, it looks as if the Levant was at least half Eurasian, and then around the time of the Jaredites some spread north (and east) into the Eurasian steppe and beyond. The Gutians were one such group:

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov cited W. N. Henning to the effect that the ancestors of the Tocharians could be identified with the Gutians from the Zagros, a people that attacked the Sumerians and founded a dynasty. As usual, I don't presume to know the linguistic evidence for this, but this hypothesis would place the ancestors of the Tocharians in the "right spot": virtually all of their Caucasoid Y-chromosome gene pool could be explained with an origin in north Iran. (source)

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

Are you familiar with the term "tautology" :

!. I can disprove the BOM from the DNA evidence

2. What was Lehi's DNA that you are basing your conclusion?

3. I am basing my conclusion that Lehi was a fictional character.  His imaginary DNA does not match AmerIndian DNA.  QED

A brilliant analysis from a confirmed antiMormon ==>> Johnnie  "Don't confuse me with questions, please" Cake

Mr Cake ===>>>>  Pahoran, Paanchi, sheum, Valley of Lamoni, Land Bountiful, written records (codex) 
You now officially have "something" that supports the BOM narrative, so we expect your formal admission forthwith.

Did I touch a nerve?  Why is everyone mischaracterizing me today?  I'm am not an anti Mormon BTW.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm speculating. But my speculation is partly founded in evidence. This is as far as science has gone in answering your question:

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

"We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 44 ancient Near Easterners ranging in time 86 between ~12,000-1,400 BCE, from Natufian hunter-gatherers to Bronze Age farmers. We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia."

I could be reading that wrong, in fact I'm pretty sure I'm not understanding that paper, but my initial reaction is that yes, it looks as if the Levant was at least half Eurasian, and then around the time of the Jaredites some spread north (and east) into the Eurasian steppe and beyond. The Gutians were one such group:

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov cited W. N. Henning to the effect that the ancestors of the Tocharians could be identified with the Gutians from the Zagros, a people that attacked the Sumerians and founded a dynasty. As usual, I don't presume to know the linguistic evidence for this, but this hypothesis would place the ancestors of the Tocharians in the "right spot": virtually all of their Caucasoid Y-chromosome gene pool could be explained with an origin in north Iran. (source)

 

I appreciate this...thanks.  Several years ago I read the book "The Journey of Man" which traced man's journey out of Africa.  There is no question that the human migration from Africa went through what became the cradle of civilization in the Tigris and Euphrates River Basin and the supposed site of the Tower of Babel.  I'm willing to be wrong...and may possibly be...but I am unfamiliar with any evidence of the human migration from Africa =>Iraq=>South Central Asia/Siberia=>Iraq again...this is why I asked if you were aware of evidence in the scientific record of the MA-1 either originating in the Iraq region and thus finding its way onto South Central Siberia via this human migration or a return migration from South Central Siberia where the MA-1 mutation originated back to the Iraq region where it could have then been transmitted to the Jaredite's and then made it way unmutated from its 23,000 BCE origination to the Americas to merge again with a descendant of the Siberian migration?

[ERayR]

On 2/12/2017 at 8:15 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

Move along...you certainly don't need to read the study or this thread, it won't dissuade you, you've already formed your conclusions and I'm guessing nothing could change your mind. Fair enough...have a nice evening

Seems to fit a person who goes by Johnnie Cake.  Go look in a mirror.

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Did I touch a nerve?  Why is everyone mischaracterizing me today?  I'm am not an anti Mormon BTW.

And every con man I have ever known is my friend.

[Johnnie Cake]

13 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Seems to fit a person who goes by Johnnie Cake.  Go look in a mirror.

Clever...but taken completely out of context

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, ERayR said:

And every con man I have ever known is my friend.

If you have a bone to pick with me pick away...

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

If you have a bone to pick with me pick away...

Not a bone, just an invisible nail.

Edited February 15, 2017 by cdowis

[readstoomuch]

I really don`t want to get too much into this thread and I am not after any one, but since sometimes I just have to say something, I will.  Does DNA evidence shape how I might perceive the Book of Mormon?  Sure.  Has it made me look at it differently?  Yes.  Do I think that the Lehites were the sole founding population for North and South America? No.  Have I read some books including Southerton`s and genetic articles.  Yes.  Is there enough consistent coherent information yet to change my belief in the Book of Mormon as a significant religious document?  No.  Do genetic studies and archeology make me look at the Bible differently?  Yes.  Have I been in a room and heard scientists argue about scientific studies, including DNA studies?  Yes.  

Some things I assume.  The earth is at least 4.5-5 billion years old.  Organic evolution is a fact and the backbone behind the study of genetics.  We should learn by study and by faith.  If certain evidence really convinces me about the Book of Mormon being different than I had thought, I will change my mind.  It won`t change my spiritual belief because I received a witness of it.  I follow the most closely with Blake Ostler`s Dialogue article of 1987 called The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Document.  Well worth the read and forms my world view of looking at the Book of Mormon in addition to what it actually says about itself.  

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I appreciate this...thanks.  Several years ago I read the book "The Journey of Man" which traced man's journey out of Africa.  There is no question that the human migration from Africa went through what became the cradle of civilization in the Tigris and Euphrates River Basin and the supposed site of the Tower of Babel.  I'm willing to be wrong...and may possibly be...but I am unfamiliar with any evidence of the human migration from Africa =>Iraq=>South Central Asia/Siberia=>Iraq again...this is why I asked if you were aware of evidence in the scientific record of the MA-1 either originating in the Iraq region and thus finding its way onto South Central Siberia via this human migration or a return migration from South Central Siberia where the MA-1 mutation originated back to the Iraq region where it could have then been transmitted to the Jaredite's and then made it way unmutated from its 23,000 BCE origination to the Americas to merge again with a descendant of the Siberian migration?

MA-1 is the name given to the sample taken from the remains of the boy in Mal'ta. It is not itself a haplogroup or a mutation but belongs to haplogroup U (maternal) and haplogroup R (paternal). Haplogroup U has its origins in the Middle East long before Mal'ta Boy. I don't think much is known about the origins of haplogroup R because it hasn't turned up in anything older than MA-1. It is believed that R* has its origins in South/Southeast Asia around Bhutan/Burma. So it is possible that the maternal line of MA-1 came from the Middle East and the paternal line came up from SE Asia.

But your question seems to be, where did maternal U and paternal R go after Mal'ta. I think the consensus is that there is no real direct lineage from Mal'ta Boy. At least nothing has turned up. But we can look at distribution of haplogroup U and haplogroup R to get an idea of where MA-1's close relatives went. Of course, some (represented in haplogroup Q) went east and admixed with the groups that were living in China at that time and they continued on to the Americas. It looks like others went southwest to Iran/Iraq (Zagros Mountains) and likely became the Indo-Europeans.

"R1a could have migrated directly to eastern Europe (European Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), or first southward through Central Asia and Iran. In that latter scenario, R1a would have crossed the Caucasus during the Neolithic, alongside R1b, to colonise the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. In the absence of ancient Y-DNA from those regions the best evidence supporting a Late Paleolithic migration to Iran is the presence of very old subclades of R1a (like M420) in the region, notably in the Zagros mountains." (source)

Since we're discussing how this relates to the Book of Mormon narrative, we need to determine if there are any Indo-European-like groups in the Zagros Mountains around the time of the Jaredites. Turns out there are. The Gutians were a proto-Indo-European group that conquered Sumeria (Babylon) around 2200 BC. Afterwards they migrated northeast and across the Tarim Basin where they were called the Yuezhi by the Chinese they encountered. They may have crossed all the way to the Pacific Ocean bringing their horses, chariots and bronze technologies with them. It was around this time that the Austronesian expansion was setting off from East Asia and across the Pacific Ocean eventually reaching as far as Easter Island and possibly South America.

So it seems like there is a very strong case to be made that the Jaredite narrative in the BoM is not so crazy. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[dberrie2000]

On 2/12/2017 at 10:23 PM, Tacenda said:

My husband just asked about the plates and if they were physically handled by the witnesses and not under a blanket. I thought they were not seen, but lifted in a covering so I decided to read an article on FairMormon to refresh my memory.

They have a quote from a witness that the witnesses did handle them and turn the pages. I can see how this would be some good evidence that the church is true, as long as the witnesses or the person in the quote isn't lying about it. I know that "Why Me" on this board, always brings the 8 witnesses up, for proof that Mormonism is true. 

Hi Tacenda:

I have read that on a number of occasions(saw plates under a cloth--or not with natural eyes).

Researching that--I traced that claim (seen under cloth) event to another incident(s) and testimony ---separate from the actual event of the eight witnessing the plates. Some, separate from the eight witnesses event--did testify they actually saw what they believed were the plates--under the cloth. Oliver Cowdery and Emma Smith I believe are two which come to mind.

The Lord--in all His wisdom--gave the witnesses two separate kinds of witness:

1) A physical, earthly witness--where they actually handled the golden plates, as they witnessed--stuck their fingers along the engravings of the plates.

2)But then--the cry of Joseph Smith making the plates himself would soon surface--so the Lord gave a different kind of witness--a heavenly witness--where a heavenly being came out of heaven, and in vision(so I take it)--revealed the plates to the Three Witnesses--in a heavenly manner.

There is a critical acclaim the three witnesses really didn't see the plates with their own, physical eyes--as the position of David Whitmer usually was.

I agree, that might be true--they did see a heavenly witness--and might have seen them with their spiritual eyes--but the fact is--they still testified they saw the plates--and plainly so.

On an interesting note--I believe during the history of the translation period--where Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were located at the Whitmer farm--Mother Whitmer also claimed an angel appeared to here--and revealed the plates to her, openly--which infuriated Emma Smith. The angel stated to Mother Whitmer--that since she was wearing herself to exhaustion in the furtherence of the work--it was decided to also give her a witness--to strengthen her to continue. Emma Smith was curious as to why she was not privy to that same logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by dberrie2000