Simon Southerton's response to ....

[charity]

Kevin, if you know how genealogy works, you know that there has not been anywhere near the population needed to provide for the individual pedigrees of every person on earth. Just for one little example, by 20 generations back one person has over 2 million ancestors. My husband's family came from England. There weren't even 2 million people in all of England 20 generations back. So how do we account for that? Shared ancestry!

It would be statistically unlikely for an individual 4,000 years ago not to show up in the pedigrees of millions and millions and millions of people.

As for "ever wonder how it is that every single person who joins the Church turns out to be a member Jacob? Give me a break." Do not act so naive. That was Abraham's promise. We join the Church because we are the children of the promise. Was the promised posterity of Abraham only mere numbers of people. We are the people of the covenant. "John 10: 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:"

[Who Knows]

It would be statistically unlikely for an individual 4,000 years ago not to show up in the pedigrees of millions and millions and millions of people.

Including that person's Y/mtDNA?

[Nighthawke]

The LDS scientists emphasize how small Lehi

[Pahoran]

It would be statistically unlikely for an individual 4,000 years ago not to show up in the pedigrees of millions and millions and millions of people.

Including that person's Y/mtDNA?

That's where it gets tricky.

That person's mtDNA is only going to persist if two strict criteria are met: (1) where that person is female, and (2) where they have descendants that are exclusively matrilineal, i.e. the line of descent is entirely female without a single male interruption.

OTOH, that person's Y chromosome is only going to persist if two strict criteria are met: (1) where that person is male, and (2) where they have descendants that are exclusively patrilineal, i.e. the line of descent is entirely male without a single female interruption.

So we don't expect to find anyone with Lehi's mtDNA, and Sariah's DNA is not passed down through Laman, Lemuel, Sam, Nephi, Jacob or Joseph.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Who Knows]

It would be statistically unlikely for an individual 4,000 years ago not to show up in the pedigrees of millions and millions and millions of people.

Including that person's Y/mtDNA?

That's where it gets tricky.

That person's mtDNA is only going to persist if two strict criteria are met: (1) where that person is female, and (2) where they have descendants that are exclusively matrilineal, i.e. the line of descent is entirely female without a single male interruption.

OTOH, that person's Y chromosome is only going to persist if two strict criteria are met: (1) where that person is male, and (2) where they have descendants that are exclusively patrilineal, i.e. the line of descent is entirely male without a single female interruption.

So we don't expect to find anyone with Lehi's mtDNA, and Sariah's DNA is not passed down through Laman, Lemuel, Sam, Nephi, Jacob or Joseph.

Regards,

Pahoran

I know that, I just said Y/mtDNA since charity used the word 'individual' - and didn't specify whether she was talking about a man or a woman. So Y if she was talking about a man, or mtDNA if she was talking about a woman.

If a person 4000 years ago is going to show up on the pedigree of millions and millions and millions of people, then I'd say it's likely that that persons Y/mtDNA would also show up (at least on some portion of that millions and millions and millions).

But again, I'm in way over my head in this DNA stuff...

disclaimer for my ignorance

[charity]

Who Knows, you don't sound off base. When you think about it, as Pahoran explained, in a pedigree where you have 2 million in the 20th generation, only 1 will show Y chromosome and 1 will show mtDNA, if you are male. If you are female, you only have mtDNA from one of that number. You will have at least 1,999,998 anceestors who are not represented in the only two types of factors which can be tested for. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

[Greg Smith]

It would be statistically unlikely for an individual 4,000 years ago not to show up in the pedigrees of millions and millions and millions of people.

Including that person's Y/mtDNA?

I don't think this is true at all.

Most genetic signatures tend to either ramify broadly throughout an inter-breeding population, or they tend to get completely lost.

This isn't to say that SOME DNA from an individual ought to be seen, but when DNA testing for descent is done in these studies on specific loci (ie. one or a few genes). The whole genome is not sequenced.

So, while the chance of having SOME DNA somewhere in the genome from the individual might be pretty good (I don't know), the chance of having a given marker is almost zilch--or, very common, if that marker has spread throughout the population.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Who Knows]

Who Knows, you don't sound off base.  When you think about it, as Pahoran explained, in a pedigree where you have 2 million in the 20th generation, only 1 will show Y chromosome and 1 will show mtDNA, if you are male.  If you are female, you only have mtDNA from one of that number. You will have at least 1,999,998 anceestors who are not represented in the only two types of factors which can be tested for.  Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Well, yes, when you're looking back upstream. But the example you gave was looking downstream - ie., from the original person 4,000 years ago. Looking downstream from an individual 4,000 years ago you could perhaps find hundreds, thousands, millions of people in the paternal/maternal line. (i think)

[The Dude]

It would be statistically unlikely for an individual 4,000 years ago not to show up in the pedigrees of millions and millions and millions of people.

Including that person's Y/mtDNA?

I don't think this is true at all.

Most genetic signatures tend to either ramify broadly throughout an inter-breeding population, or they tend to get completely lost.

This isn't to say that SOME DNA from an individual ought to be seen, but when DNA testing for descent is done in these studies on specific loci (ie. one or a few genes). The whole genome is not sequenced.

So, while the chance of having SOME DNA somewhere in the genome from the individual might be pretty good (I don't know), the chance of having a given marker is almost zilch--or, very common, if that marker has spread throughout the population.

Kind regards,

Greg

You are correct. Given enough time, genetic drift will drive a given marker to 100% or 0%. How much time depends on what percent it was to start with. If Lehi & Co immediately started interbreeding with millions of Asians, it wouldn't take very long at all to end up at 0% for some given marker. But there are millions-billions of theoretically possible markers.

You are also correct that even if Lehi & Co started interbreeding with millions of Asians, some genetic signature (of all the theoretical possibilities) would be found in every one of their blood-descendants. It might be hard to find. It would not be found on the Y chromosome or mtDNA. But it would be there if you knew what to look for.

[Who Knows]

Given enough time, genetic drift will drive a given marker to 100% or 0%. How much time depends on what percent it was to start with.

I'm still having trouble with this genetic drift and percentage thing.

When you say percent, are you saying, for example, lehi and his 30 family members, vs. 100,000 asian inhabitants, thus the percent is .03% to start off with? And as they mix, that .03% goes to .02%, then .01%, then 0%?

[The Dude]

Given enough time, genetic drift will drive a given marker to 100% or 0%.  How much time depends on what percent it was to start with.

I'm still having trouble with this genetic drift and percentage thing.

When you say percent, are you saying, for example, lehi and his 30 family members, vs. 100,000 asian inhabitants, thus the percent is .03% to start off with? And as they mix, that .03% goes to .02%, then .01%, then 0%?

Yes.

[Who Knows]

Given enough time, genetic drift will drive a given marker to 100% or 0%.

[Greg Smith]

Actually, BRM offered "isolated remnants of the Jaredites," among other groups, as a possibility for dilution of "pure Lamanitish blood," not a conclusion.

[Dan Vogel]

CI,

Butler

[Dan Vogel]

Greg Smith,

Note to Dan Vogel: you'll see in the following that this invokes no geography whatsoever. It follows from the genetic data itself.

[Moksha]

Why does it matter whether it is true or not? As long as true blue faithful members believe that the American Natives are decenndants of ancient mariners from Israel, isn't that good enough?

[Greg Smith]

mistakenly claiming this assumes geography:

* why we are justified in concluding that "Middle Eastern" populations now (after 2600 years of deportion, intermarriage, migration, etc.) are sufficient benchmarks for a circa 600 BC population of extremely small sample size.

I don't think you understood the question.

This has nothing to do with the Americas at all. Consider:

1) Lehi and his colony are a small group (no debate, right?)

2) All DNA markers and frequencies in the Middle East today is not necessarily the same as the frequencies of markers 2600 years ago (and the history of the region would seem to argue that we would expect some differences)

Therefore, it is fallacious to expect a small sample of a different DNA (Lehi's group names only 2 potential mtDNA markers, for example) mix of 2600 years ago to match a modern Middle Eastern sample, without justifying and qualifying that assertion, which the critics have not.

No American geography required.

This reinforces my perception that the critics don't have a good grasp of the DNA issues involved.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Greg Smith]

All great questions, but irrelevant since Asiatic DNA has been identified, which without the limited geography and local colonization theories is difficult to explain. Despite your denial, one of your questions directly assumes the two theories in question.

Um, no, they don't. As I said, they are intrinsic to the question of DNA evidence itself.

As I show above, that question has nothing at all to do with geography, at all.

And, there has been extensive work by Dr. David Stewart, who does NOT reject the HGT on the many genetic pitfalls of the critics:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom12.html

Again, please tell me:

- where do Jaredites come from?

- what do their allele frequencies look like, and how will that impact the DNA data?

When you've explained those (and the third about sampling issues from 2600 years ago, see previous post) we can move on to the others (which also do not require geography).

These three questions alone have NOTHING to do with geography.

(Lest we forget, Nibley used to argue that Jaredites were Oriental. I never really bought it one way or the other, but when I heard about the DNA links years ago, my first thought was, 'Dang, maybe he got it right!')

[incidentally, none of this is news. DNA just reinforces what we already knew from blood type analysis. Personally, I think the critics are just trying to exploit the 'cachet' of DNA, which is more complicated, and thus more intimidating to the average reader. With blood groups, one can make the arguments much more clear, with less hand-waving.]

LGT and the genetics arguments are mutually reinforcing, but neither is required to make the case for the other. [in fact, the fact that they intersect so nicely from totally disparate sets of principles is a nice bonus for both...]

Genetics arguments can function just fine in the absence of LGT, and LGT was around long before genetics.

That is why I say those who think DNA is at all 'damaging' to LDS truth claims understand neither the Book of Mormon OR the DNA.

A knowledge of either should tell you it's a no win.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Tarski]

My oh my we have a lot of Ph.D. genetic anthropologists here

Why, I guess I don't need to write to a few experts to get a concensus after all.

[exegete]

Hi Brant,

You mention that it's the "official position of the [LDS] church ... that there is ultimately no conflict between science and religion"; I'm wondering where that "official position" is articulated and in what way that "official position" is more "official" than the 1845 Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints that explicitly affirms that the BoMor discloses the "Israelitish origin" of the American Indians (see B. Metcalfe, "Reinventing Lamanite Identity," Sunstone 131 [March 2004]: 23).

Hi Greg,

Please understand that your and David Stewart's view that the lack of a blood sample from Lehi means we can never reasonably include or exclude a Lehite or Mulekite genetic contribution to Amerindian populations is at odds with both LDS and non-LDS specialists. Note the appraisal by Dean Leavitt (Master's student in the department of Integrative Biology, BYU), Jonathon Marshall (Ph.D. candidate, BYU, specializing in speciation and phylogenetics), and Keith Crandall (Thomas L. Martin Professor of Biology, BYU):

• One potential problem in testing the above hypothesis is that we must make assumptions about the genetic makeup of the immigrant parties. Uncertainty over the exact genetic makeup of Lehi's party has led some to suggest that this lack of knowledge presents a considerable obstacle in resolving the Book of Mormon controversy. While the genetic data reflect the Middle East's crucial role in human dispersal, Y-chromosome data have revealed remarkable continuity among both contemporary Jewish populations as well as their historic Middle Eastern neightbors [sic]. The Book of Mormon gives little or no reason to suppose that the genetic makeup of Lehi's group was drastically different from that of other Middle Eastern groups historically or contemporarily.
  [D. Leavitt, J. Marshall, and K. Crandall, "The Search for the Seed of Lehi: How Defining Alternative Models Helps in the Interpretation of Genetic Data," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 36.4 (Winter 2003):

142, emphasis added]

Also, as I've noted on multiple occasions,

• In my view the idea of Jaredite survivors is a fiction popularized by Hugh Nibley. There is no sound exegetical evidence of such survivors; if anything, the opposite is the case. Prompted by God, Ether tells a recalcitrant Coriantumr

[Brant Gardner]

exegete:

There is no sound exegetical evidence of such survivors

That kind of reading of the text presumes that it has no relationship to any actual history. Any text from history making the same claims would not be read the way you read it.

As long as you understand that your exegesis is theologically based and has no relationship to the way ancient histories work, you can argue the position. It will be more effective, however, with those who assume a similar fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Of course Elder McConkie said this.

Precisely, and I offered it up to give insight into what was likely meant by the word "principal" in the BofM Introduction.

You ignore, though, that Jaredites were assimilated into "Lamanites" ....

I did not ignore it. It was not relevant to the purpose for which I offered BRM's quote -- i.e., "predominant blood lineage" as such relates to "principal."

I pointed this out to you in a previous thread, but you ignored it there.

[Dan Vogel]

Greg Smith,

I don't think you understood the question.

This has nothing to do with the Americas at all. Consider:

1) Lehi and his colony are a small group (no debate, right?)

2) All DNA markers and frequencies in the Middle East today is not necessarily the same as the frequencies of markers 2600 years ago (and the history of the region would seem to argue that we would expect some differences)

Therefore, it is fallacious to expect a small sample of a different DNA (Lehi's group names only 2 potential mtDNA markers, for example) mix of 2600 years ago to match a modern Middle Eastern sample, without justifying and qualifying that assertion, which the critics have not.

No American geography required.

This reinforces my perception that the critics don't have a good grasp of the DNA issues involved.

But I do grasp the fact that Native American DNA can be linked to Asia. That

[Dan Vogel]

Brandt Gardner,

That kind of reading of the text presumes that it has no relationship to any actual history. Any text from history making the same claims would not be read the way you read it.

As long as you understand that your exegesis is theologically based and has no relationship to the way ancient histories work, you can argue the position. It will be more effective, however, with those who assume a similar fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

Hopefully, these other texts have more positive evidence than the BOM does. In such case, making the kinds of speculative allowances and adjustments you call for makes sense. Otherwise you are caught in a vicious circle of assuming historicity to explain away unhistorical claims.

We both agree that the BOM makes unhistorical claims, but have different explanations for them. You appeal to the fact that some authentic documents make unhistorical claims, and I appeal to the fact that Joseph Smith had an unrealistic view of ancient American history, as attested by among other things his 1842 letter to John Wentworth. Given the fact that the BOM has not made a direct connection to ancient America, contains both literary and historical anachronisms, and increasingly relies on ad hoc and tenuous explanations, does it seem wise to give it the benefit of the doubt and treat it the same as one would a document that has much more credibility?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

Jaredite survivors is another apologetic assumption and hence another circular argument.

But not an unreasonable assumption.

Do we think that we should accept the Merneptah stele at face value and decide that long before the Babylonian exile of Israelites, that Israel as a nation had ceased to exist?

Again, as Brant pointed out, this criticism can only work if we assume that this is not a real history - and isn't subject to the same sorts of challenges that other historical claims of cultural annhiliation are subject to.

Ben