Jump to content
aussieguy55

The DNA Issue again.

Recommended Posts

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2055556315Z.00000000040

 

The conclusion-

"It is of course possible that genetic evidence of an
ancient trans-Atlantic migration event simply has not
been found yet. Should credible evidence of direct
gene flow from an ancient Solutrean (or Middle
Eastern) population be found within ancient Native
American genomes, it would require the field to reassess
the “Beringian only” model of prehistoric
Native American migration. However, no such evidence
has been found, and the Beringian migration
model remains the best interpretation of the genetic,
archaeological, and paleoclimate data to date."

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Specifically, there are persistent claims that the presence of mitochondrial haplogroup X2a in Native American populations is evidence for ancient trans-Atlantic gene flow from Europe of the Middle East into North America.

You don't say?  I wonder who is making these claims?

Quote

(Meldrum 2009; Oppenheimer et al. 2014; Smoot et al. 2010; Stanford and Bradley 2012).

Oh.

Share this post


Link to post

Jennifer A. Raff  one of the authors of the paper on another site  is asked the question - How can you say that this proves once and for all that all Native Americans have exclusively Beringian ancestry when you haven’t sequenced all of them? Isn’t that unscientific?

 

https://violentmetaphors.com/2016/08/15/archaeological-fantasies-and-the-genetic-history-of-the-americas/

Her answer-

 

We don’t say that. This work presents our best interpretation of all the genetic evidence currently available that are relevant to this question. In fact, we end the paper saying:

It is of course possible that genetic evidence of an ancient trans-Atlantic migration event simply has not been found yet. Should credible evidence of direct gene flow from an ancient Solutrean (or Middle Eastern) population be found within ancient Native American genomes, it would require the field to reassess the “Beringian only” model of prehistoric Native American migration. However, no such evidence has been found, and the Beringian migration model remains the best interpretation of the genetic, archaeological, and paleoclimate data to date.

We don’t think it’s likely that new evidence will suddenly crop up showing another source of ancestry for Native Americans, but it remains a formal, albeit remote, possibility. Should such evidence be found, it will require us to reexamine our models. But we can’t incorporate hypothetical results into our interpretations. That would be unscientific.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, cinepro said:

You don't say?  I wonder who is making these claims?

Oh.

  Quote

Specifically, there are persistent claims that the presence of mitochondrial haplogroup X2a in Native American populations is evidence for ancient trans-Atlantic gene flow from Europe of the Middle East into North America.

You don't say?  I wonder who is making these claims?

  Quote

(Meldrum 2009; Oppenheimer et al. 2014; Smoot et al. 2010; Stanford and Bradley 2012).

This might enlighten you on those claims:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/90

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2055556315Z.00000000040

 

The conclusion-

"It is of course possible that genetic evidence of an
ancient trans-Atlantic migration event simply has not
been found yet. Should credible evidence of direct
gene flow from an ancient Solutrean (or Middle
Eastern) population be found within ancient Native
American genomes, it would require the field to reassess
the “Beringian only” model of prehistoric
Native American migration. However, no such evidence
has been found, and the Beringian migration
model remains the best interpretation of the genetic,
archaeological, and paleoclimate data to date."

I pose such evidence has already been found. Haplogroup X mtDNA is just such an "ancient" prehistoric population group which has every indication of being a Middle Eastern genome. It's closest matches are from Iran. However, it appears to be too ancient to fit the BoM well. One problem with these types of genetic studies is that unless a sample meets one of the A, B, C, D, or more recently X haplogroups it gets routinely dismissed as non-native DNA. Just how ancient do you want becomes the question. And for the BoM we don't really want ancient at all. I mean we are talking historic times. So they are looking for the wrong thing - other ancient DNA genomes. Look in the right place and they just might find something different like I believe I have. I will not discuss it further. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I pose such evidence has already been found. Haplogroup X mtDNA is just such an "ancient" prehistoric population group which has every indication of being a Middle Eastern genome. It's closest matches are from Iran. However, it appears to be too ancient to fit the BoM well. One problem with these types of genetic studies is that unless a sample meets one of the A, B, C, D, or more recently X haplogroups it gets routinely dismissed as non-native DNA. Just how ancient do you want becomes the question. And for the BoM we don't really want ancient at all. I mean we are talking historic times. So they are looking for the wrong thing - other ancient DNA genomes. Look in the right place and they just might find something different like I believe I have. I will not discuss it further. 

You aren't making much sense here, Rev.  Without adequate documentation, no one will take the indications of any middle eastern genomes seriously.  Nor does dismissal of ancient DNA seem rational.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You aren't making much sense here, Rev.  Without adequate documentation, no one will take the indications of any middle eastern genomes seriously.  Nor does dismissal of ancient DNA seem rational.

There is lots of documentation that X haplogroup mtDNA is middle eastern in origin. The closest it comes to east Asia is the Altai mountains - probably because Ghengis Khan hauled back captive women there. Studies have indicated this group is not related to the haplogroup X groups in the Americas. All the rest is in the Middle East or very sparsely dispersed in Europe and N. Africa. Sorry, I don't have the documentation for it right now, but can get it. I keep that data away from internet access. Here are some distribution charts which show this basic truth though:

 http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_X_mtDNA.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

Why would we want to look for ancient DNA? We aren't trying to disprove the Bering Strait crossing, although to me it is quite evident this was not the only means of immigration to the Americas. Looking for ancient DNA is missing the boat. The oldest we are looking for is Jaredite DNA which is historical rather than "ancient." Nevertheless, it could potentially be the source of some haplogroup X mtDNA. I believe there is evidence that man was in the Americas over 20,000 years ago. So we are essentially looking for a needle in a haystack. At the time of the Jaredites there were millions of people in the Americas. By the time of the Nephites there was probably close to 50 million people in the Americas. By the time of Columbus there was easily around 100 million people in the Americas - making the "pure" Nephites a 1% minority at their peak. I won't go more into this train of thought at this time. Suffice it to say I believe there are DNA haplogroups which have been overlooked. We are looking for fairly minor genetic mutations because only about 2000 years to 3000 years has passed. I have only scratched the surface here, as I don't have the resources to do my own studies. I am dependent upon what I can glean from published studies.

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, katherine the great said:

met up and mixed there. Together they account for all the major NA haplogroups. 

Yawn.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

 

We don’t think it’s likely that new evidence will suddenly crop up showing another source of ancestry for Native Americans, but it remains a formal, albeit remote, possibility. Should such evidence be found, it will require us to reexamine our models. But we can’t incorporate hypothetical results into our interpretations. That would be unscientific.

 

SneakyHandsomeAssassinbug-size_restricte

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

https://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/haplogroup-x2a-and-the-peopling-of-the-americas

 

 .

Haplogroup X is found in living populations in Europe, west Asia, and northern North America.  Studies in the late 1990s began to ask whether the geographic distribution of Haplogroup X among living populations was telling us something about the origin of at least some New World peoples. A widely-read 1998 popular article titled "Genes May Link Ancient Eurasians, Native Americans" (Science 280(5363):520) helped popularize the idea that peoples from the Near East or Europe contibuted to Native American ancestry.  This idea was very popular among Mormons looking for evidence of a migration of Near Eastern peoples to the New World several thousand years ago (it is regarded with less enthusiasm now, especially after the publication of genetic data from Kennewick Man: see this blog post, for example).  

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2018 at 12:02 PM, aussieguy55 said:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2055556315Z.00000000040

 

The conclusion-

"It is of course possible that genetic evidence of an
ancient trans-Atlantic migration event simply has not
been found yet. Should credible evidence of direct
gene flow from an ancient Solutrean (or Middle
Eastern) population be found within ancient Native
American genomes, it would require the field to reassess
the “Beringian only” model of prehistoric
Native American migration. However, no such evidence
has been found, and the Beringian migration
model remains the best interpretation of the genetic,
archaeological, and paleoclimate data to date."

You got 30 Semites in a gene pool of hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, I don't know.

Good luck finding that or even proving the relevance of the question.

Not THIS again, cheech 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Boring?  Or just something you don’t want to read?

No, just boring. ;)

The Native Americans were already here when they came. There's 30 people mixed into the population. You're not going to find evidence  of that.

The paradigm is based on faith anyway, Alma 32, Moroni 10

It's just the spiritually irrelevant historicity problem again.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You got 30 Semites in a gene pool of hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, I don't know.

Good luck finding that or even proving the relevance of the question.

Not THIS again, cheech 

If we just stick with what the text of the BoM really says, and not what apologist wish it would say, these 30 semites came to an land empty of others and then over a thousand years grew into a population that could supposedly field million men armies.   This is from a plain reading of the text.  It takes all kinds of spin to claim otherwise.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, just boring. ;)

The Native Americans were already here when they came. There's 30 people mixed into the population. You're not going to find evidence  of that.

The paradigm is based on faith anyway, Alma 32, Moroni 10

It's just the spiritually irrelevant historicity problem again.

How did these Native Americans get to America?

When did they arrive? 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/12/2018 at 1:36 AM, RevTestament said:

There is lots of documentation that X haplogroup mtDNA is middle eastern in origin. The closest it comes to east Asia is the Altai mountains - probably because Ghengis Khan hauled back captive women there. Studies have indicated this group is not related to the haplogroup X groups in the Americas. All the rest is in the Middle East or very sparsely dispersed in Europe and N. Africa. Sorry, I don't have the documentation for it right now, but can get it. I keep that data away from internet access. Here are some distribution charts which show this basic truth though:

 http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_X_mtDNA.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

Why would we want to look for ancient DNA? We aren't trying to disprove the Bering Strait crossing, although to me it is quite evident this was not the only means of immigration to the Americas. Looking for ancient DNA is missing the boat. The oldest we are looking for is Jaredite DNA which is historical rather than "ancient." Nevertheless, it could potentially be the source of some haplogroup X mtDNA. I believe there is evidence that man was in the Americas over 20,000 years ago. So we are essentially looking for a needle in a haystack. At the time of the Jaredites there were millions of people in the Americas. By the time of the Nephites there was probably close to 50 million people in the Americas. By the time of Columbus there was easily around 100 million people in the Americas - making the "pure" Nephites a 1% minority at their peak. I won't go more into this train of thought at this time. Suffice it to say I believe there are DNA haplogroups which have been overlooked. We are looking for fairly minor genetic mutations because only about 2000 years to 3000 years has passed. I have only scratched the surface here, as I don't have the resources to do my own studies. I am dependent upon what I can glean from published studies.

Geneticist Dr. Ugo A. Perego, made a number of points in reply to this claim on Jan 22, 2016, 

Quote

1. Lineage (haplogroup) X in the America is an unusual marker, but there is absolutely no evidence to link it to Book of Mormon people.
2. As far as science has been able to determine to date, lineage X has been in the Americas probably long before Book of Mormon times (based on both carbon dating and the molecular clock).
3. It is not true that the first four lineages in the Americas prior to the discovery of haplogroup X are identical to lineages found in Asia. They are related with each other, but the ones in the Americas have their own unique characteristics.
4. Likewise, lineage X in Northern North America has its own unique characteristics and it is not found anywhere else in the world. The one in the Americas is know has lineage X2a.
5. There are other lineage X's in the world (Europe, North Africa, Middle East and Asia) but none of them is the same as their American counterpart X2a.
6. It is not true that lineage X was identified in the Americas in 2003. Data on a fifth lineage in the America has been widely published since 1991.
7. All the DNA that has been talked about in this video is referred to a genetic molecule known as mitochondrial DNA that is transmitted exclusively along the unbroken maternal line. This means that this approach cannot be easily used to determine the genetic ancestry of male lineages ....and in the Book of Mormon. In other words, this is not the DNA we would expect to find today from Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Lehi, Nephi, etc.
............It is too early to know for sure what the actual relationship of lineage X in the Americas with the Old World is and we need to be careful to jump at any conclusions at this time.

This is  backed up by Martin Jones, “Ancient DNA in pre-Columbian archaeology: a review,” Journal of Archaeological Science, 30/5 (May 2003):629–635.  Haplotype X markers found in several thousand year old specimens from South America.  Although 'for a brief time, the identification of mtDNA haplotype X fueled European origin theorists', the European haplotype X is unrelated phylogenetically to the Amerindian haplotype X. 

See also the interactive DNA map at http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/ .

Any authentic Nephite-Lamanite DNA is going to look like the ancient and modern DNA of the Canaanites (including Lebanese), as shown by Marc Haber, et al., “Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences,” American Journal of Human Genetics, July 27, 2017, and in print 101/2 (Aug 3, 2017):274-282; DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.013, online at http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30276-8 .  Table 1 shows the haplogroups.  "Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites, and Phoenicians, each achieved their own cultural identities but all shared a common genetic and ethnic root with Canaanites."

This is reiterated by Fred Lewsey, “Genetic study suggests present-day Lebanese descend from biblical Canaanites,” ResearchNews, Cambridge Univ, July 27, 2017, online at http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/genetic-study-suggests-present-day-lebanese-descend-from-biblical-canaanites .

As for your definition of "ancient DNA," the term is used by archeologists to refer to any DNA from skeletal remains which are not modern.  Thus, ancient DNA is crucial to the identification of Jaredite, Nephite, and Mulekite DNA.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

https://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/haplogroup-x2a-and-the-peopling-of-the-americas

Haplogroup X is found in living populations in Europe, west Asia, and northern North America.  Studies in the late 1990s began to ask whether the geographic distribution of Haplogroup X among living populations was telling us something about the origin of at least some New World peoples. A widely-read 1998 popular article titled "Genes May Link Ancient Eurasians, Native Americans" (Science 280(5363):520) helped popularize the idea that peoples from the Near East or Europe contibuted to Native American ancestry.  This idea was very popular among Mormons looking for evidence of a migration of Near Eastern peoples to the New World several thousand years ago (it is regarded with less enthusiasm now, especially after the publication of genetic data from Kennewick Man: see this blog post, for example).  

This idea was and is popular only among those who know nothing of genetics.  Mormon scholars like Ugo Perego, John L. Sorenson, Brant Gardner, et al., certainly did not buy into that flawed notion.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

If we just stick with what the text of the BoM really says, and not what apologist wish it would say, these 30 semites came to an land empty of others and then over a thousand years grew into a population that could supposedly field million men armies.   This is from a plain reading of the text.  It takes all kinds of spin to claim otherwise.

Show me the quote that there were no others.  From the text of the BOM, not comments.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

How did these Native Americans get to America?

When did they arrive? 

I wasn't there couldn't tell you

But the land bridge is as scientific a hypothesis as we have so far.

Quote

When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There? John L. Sorenson Abstract: A number of statements in the Book of Mormon text are examined, which indicate the presence in Lehi's "promised land" of peoples other than those descended from Lehi's party. Reasons are considered why the topic is not addressed more explicitly in the record. It is concluded that there is clear evidence for the presence of "others."

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1001&context=jbms

Quote

 

The account of Sherem's encounter with Jacob reiterates the question. "Some [ten more?] years had passed away," and Jacob was now verging on "old" (cf. Jacob 7:1, 20-26). At that time "there came a man among the people of Nephi whose name was Sherem" (Jacob 1:1). Upon first meeting Jacob, he said, "Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might -speak unto you; for I have heard . . . that thou goest about much, preaching" (Jacob 7:6). Now, the population of adult males descended from the original group could not have exceeded fifty at that time. This would have been only enough to populate one modest-sized village. Thus Sherem's is a strange statement. Jacob, as head priest and religious teacher, would routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural center at least on all holy days (see Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek "much opportunity" to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved. Moreover, from where was it that Sherem "came ... among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 1:1)? The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase. The reports of intergroup fighting in these early generations also seem to refer to larger forces than growth by births alone would have allowed. At the twenty-five-year mark of their history, Nephi already reported that they had had "wars" with the Lamanites (see 2 Nephi 5:34), yet the male descendants of the original Nephites could not reasonably have numbered more than a score by the time these "wars" are mentioned. Later, in Jacob's old age, the "wars" mentioned in Jacob 7:26 would have been fought with a maximum of fifty on his side and not dramatically more for the attackers. Either the expression "war" was being used loosely at this point in the account or else the popUlation springing from the original Lehites had already been augmented by "others," it appears to me.


 

And of course there is more

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Show me the quote that there were no others.  From the text of the BOM, not comments.

Alma 48:2

2 And thus he did inspire their hearts against the Nephites, insomuch that in the latter end of the anineteenth year of the reign of the judges, he having accomplished his designs thus far, yea, having been made king over the Lamanites, he bsought also to creign over all the land, yea, and all the people who were in the land, the Nephites as well as the Lamanites.

Anyone else mentioned here besides Nephites and Lamanites? Nope. Try again using the Book of Mormon, instead of using Dr. Sorenson.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

If we just stick with what the text of the BoM really says, and not what apologist wish it would say, these 30 semites came to an land empty of others and then over a thousand years grew into a population that could supposedly field million men armies.   This is from a plain reading of the text.  It takes all kinds of spin to claim otherwise.

Sigh

1. Give us the reference to "30 semites" in the BOM.  Is that from the missing 114 pages?   How many were on that boat?

2.  Where is the reference to "land empty of others" where they landed.   I suppose you are reading the antiMormon edition of the Book of Mormon where it removed the verse that refers to the discovery of domesticated animals 

1 Ne 18 [25] And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the a_s_s and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat,

3. Population growth -- intermarriage explains it.

3 Nephi 5 [20] I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi.

 

 

 

Edited by cdowis
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Paiute said:

Alma 48:2

2 And thus he did inspire their hearts against the Nephites, insomuch that in the latter end of the anineteenth year of the reign of the judges, he having accomplished his designs thus far, yea, having been made king over the Lamanites, he bsought also to creign over all the land, yea, and all the people who were in the land, the Nephites as well as the Lamanites.

Anyone else mentioned here besides Nephites and Lamanites? Nope. Try again using the Book of Mormon, instead of using Dr. Sorenson.

"And so Trump sought to rule over America, both the Republicans and Democrats".

I guess that means there is no one else on earth or even just in America?  You want maybe a list of every possible ethnic group and make this a racial thing instead of a religious difference?

There were no "Nephites" who were not descended from Nephi after all the mixing of Lamanites and Nephites?   And Jacob saying from now on he was speaking only about religious issues and not racial ones?

Come on!

That is really reaching for it.  I don't know what you are defending in arguing against science and logic when the gospel embraces all truth.  It is a very odd position

And as I have told you before we have nothing to talk about - because we cannot communicate well regarding these areas.  I regard you as my brother in the gospel but this is just not a good area for us to discuss.  I can bear my testimony all day to you about the gospel and the miracles I have seen, but the historicity and your conservative ways just don't jell with mine.  It's like politics- there are good Mormons on both sides of nearly every political question except maybe abortion directly, but that does not mean we can convince the others of our views

So my brother, this is just the kind of topics we should not bother discussing because we will inevitably disagree and the discussion will go nowhere but downhill.  :)

That's the way it is with brothers sometimes!

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Sigh

1. Give us the reference to "30 semites" in the BOM.  Is that from the missing 114 pages?

2.  Where is the reference to "land empty of others"  I suppose you are reading the antiMormon edition of the Book of Mormon where it refers to the discovery of domesticated animals 

 

1 Ne 18 [25] And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat,

 

He got the number 30 from me as a very rough estimate of the population on Nephi's ship.

How may do you think there were?

But of course the point is that there were others there and the DNA of those on the ship was a drop in the ocean.  Sorensen estimates 50 I think in that article I linked to above.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×