Dna Revisited

[maklelan]

Has anyone read the new Farms Review? It's got an incredible article about the DNA issue with a bunch of information that I've never heard before. I'll see if I can summarize, but here's the link:

http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=MjA0...p;type=cmV2aWV3

OK, here goes. Basically, the premise of the polemics is that comparing Ancient Native American blood to Ancient Asian blood shows a relationship thta is close, while Jewish blood is far from having a relationship. Here are the problems with the premise: Modern Asian blood is being tested, not ancient. That blood could have any number of admixtures in it (and some evidence seems to indicate that some of the lost ten tribes may have ended up in Asia). There a mummies from 1,000 BC in China with European features and reddish hair.

The other problem is that modern Israeli blood is being tested, and it has been all but completely dilluted since exilic times. Most modern Jews have problems being traced back to common ancestors through their mitochondrial DNA, but a certain line (the Cohen haplotype - not mitochondrial) that can show Ancient Jewish lineage is found only in descendants of Levites. Mulek was the only person known to have been from the Levitical line. Not a single other person is known to have had a drop of that blood in them. The Lemba are an African tribe that claim Levitical heritage. It is one of the only groups that can be shown to be directly descended from Ancient Jews, but they have no links at all to ancient Jews through mitochondrial DNA, which is the kind of DNA that is being used to show the alleged problem with the Book of Mormon. A group that can be definitively traced to a single tribe in Ancient Israel has no trace of ancient Israeli blood through the mitochondrial branch. Interesting.

There has also been found a Y-chromosome marker (Q-P36) that is postulated as a founding marker of Ashkenazi, Iraqi and Iranian Jews. It happens to also be a founding marker of about a third of Native Americans. This proves nothing, really, but it's interesting. A mutation of it (M-242) is found concentrated in central Eurasia and Turkistan, just north of Iran. It corresponds with the assumed destination of the lost ten tribes. The two together are found in over 3/4 of Native Americans. Six other Eurasian markers are found in Native Americans, but cannot be definitively dated before Columbian times.

From the article:

"The finding of two dominant Y-chromosome lineages in Amerindian

populations is harmonious with traditional Latter-day Saint

views of Lehi and Ishmael representing the principal male ancestors

of Native Americans, with Zoram and the Mulekites contributing

minor lineages. The discovery of a founding Y-chromosome lineage

prevalent at a very high frequency among Native Americans corresponding

to a founding lineage present at a lower frequency in world

Jewish populations demonstrates remarkable consistency with the

Book of Mormon account."

Another section mentions an Icelandic study that traced the geneology of over 131,000 Icelanders back to known ancestors born between 150 and 250 years ago. Most of the ancestors showed one or no ancestors, while the smallest group showed the most ancestors. Wierd, huh? It's like The Mormons at BYU having four descendants in Provo in 200 years and the non-Mormons having the rest of the population. Doesn't make sense, does it? The scientists concluded that haplotype frequencies can fluctuate severely.

The results that were paraded about as a "Galileo event" were grossly misinterpreted, apparently. The scientists involved stated that Mongolians or a common ancestor to Mongolians (modern Mongolians, mind you. There is no DNA for Mongolians before the Jewish dispersian) and Native Americans is most likely responsible. The only ancient Chinese and Japanese DNA available for study is strikingly different than modern Chinese DNA, also. Only 13 percent of the ancient Chinese DNA we have have any of the haplotypes pointed out as common to Native American DNA, and that 13 percent only has 2 of the 4 haplotypes. The further back the ancient Chinese DNA goes, the more it resembles European DNA over modern Chinese. It is illustrated this way in the article: If really ancient Chinese people moved to an Island and lived there completely isolated from the world their DNA would today show European ancestry. Then we'd have evangelicals screaming about how they aren't Chinese at all.

It seems impossible to conclude that matching Lehi's DNA with modern Jews would be ridiculous, so trying to match Native American DNA with modern Israeli DNA is equally as ridiculous. Concluding that the evidence shows all Native Americans came straight from a single tribe in Southern Asia just because their DNA is close to that modern tribe's is also ludicrous.

This "Galileo event" vanished like a you-know-what in the wind.

[Jan]

Has anyone read the new Farms Review? It's got an incredible article about the DNA issue with a bunch of information that I've never heard before. I'll see if I can summarize, but here's the link:

http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=MjA0...p;type=cmV2aWV3

You may then be interested in the discussion going on in this thread between the author, David Stewart, and "The Dude."

[The Dude]

*sigh*

It seems impossible to conclude that matching Lehi's DNA with modern Jews would be ridiculous, so trying to match Native American DNA with modern Israeli DNA is equally as ridiculous. Concluding that the evidence shows all Native Americans came straight from a single tribe in Southern Asia just because their DNA is close to that modern tribe's is also ludicrous.

Please stay tuned. I do believe you've been led to the wrong conclusion.

[why me]

*sigh*

Please stay tuned. I do believe you've been led to the wrong conclusion.

Sometimes the dude, wrong is subjective. Who can say at this moment if someone's conclusion is wrong when it comes to the dna issue. Much will be discovered and conclusions will change. However, perhaps the summary and the poster's conclusions were off the mark but then again maybe the conclusion hit the mark.

[Magyar]

I second the motion to cheer this beautiful piece of scholarship. Hopefully, some of the folks who jumped overboard on the DNA issue will be ready, humbled and soaking wet, to get back on the ship of truth.

[maklelan]

*sigh*

Please stay tuned. I do believe you've been led to the wrong conclusion.

Staying tuned.

[The Dude]

I second the motion to cheer this beautiful piece of scholarship. Hopefully, some of the folks who jumped overboard on the DNA issue will be ready, humbled and soaking wet, to get back on the ship of truth.

So this is the cheerleading section? Great. Stewart and I haven't even started to talk about the science in his paper -- the match has just been set up and Stewart's position clarified -- so you might want to withold your cheers for several more days.

Also, one point of Stewart's paper that I definintely agree with is that virtually nobody leaves the Church because of the DNA issue or any other single material issue. They were going to leave anyway for personal reasons. It's always personal, IMO, and material reasons are mainly used to justify the life-changing decision to friends and family whose world-view does not accept personal reasons.

[maklelan]

Also, one point of Stewart's paper that I definintely agree with is that virtually nobody leaves the Church because of the DNA issue or any other single material issue. They were going to leave anyway for personal reasons. It's always personal, IMO, and material reasons are mainly used to justify the life-changing decision to friends and family whose world-view does not accept personal reasons.

I agree. All the evidence in the world never seems to convince someone who says they made the decision based on what meager shred of evidence to the contrary. It's not about objectivity, it's about justifying a move that is based on (as William James would say) your passional side.

[Tarski]

So this is the cheerleading section? Great. Stewart and I haven't even started to talk about the science in his paper -- the match has just been set up and Stewart's position clarified -- so you might want to withold your cheers for several more days.

Also, one point of Stewart's paper that I definintely agree with is that virtually nobody leaves the Church because of the DNA issue or any other single material issue. They were going to leave anyway for personal reasons. It's always personal, IMO, and material reasons are mainly used to justify the life-changing decision to friends and family whose world-view does not accept personal reasons.

I'm not so sure about that. What counts as personal? Does simply not being able to believe based on life experienece and knowledge count as personal? My reasons for not believing are many but they do include the conflict between the DNA thing and the traditional teachings--though it is just part of a big picture in my mind.

What do you make of someone that wishes it were true and would be an active member if only they felt it were true?

[The Dude]

I agree. All the evidence in the world never seems to convince someone who says they made the decision based on what meager shred of evidence to the contrary. It's not about objectivity, it's about justifying a move that is based on (as William James would say) your passional side.

Right, it's not about objectivity. If you ask Juliann, conversion to a religion is the same thing as deconversion. I agree with her; this is true in most cases. I think in both cases material reasons are used as props.

Unfortuantely, it is common for people in the group being left behind (in this case, the LDS left behind by the ex-) to invent disparaging personal reasons in place of the real one. They suspect secret sins. The ex- found LDS-style righteousness too difficult. The ex- doesn't want to pay tithing. The ex- isn't sufficiently reading/praying/fasting/attending/sacrificing. I believe for many, the very personal reason for deconversion is simply "I'm not happy in the Church," and that should be enough. This is hard for many true-believing LDS to accept (for how can an honest, righteous, sincere person not be happy in the Church??), and the apostate knows this, having been among the LDS long enough to know what they think of apostates. So material reasons are presented and endlessly debated. Some of us get over the personal reasons and continue the debates just for the intellectual challenge.

In the case of DNA and the Lamanites, there is a scientific question/answer that should be (and I believe is) material and non-subjective. Dr. Stewart's position is that Book of Mormon people *could have* been the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. My position, the position of LDS critics, and the position of the majority of LDS apologists (who favor Limited Geography/Genetics Theories) is that BoM people *could NOT have* been the principal ancestors. It seems that nobody, anywhere, is willing to say that Book of Mormon people *were* the principal ancestors. For whatever reason....

I'm not so sure about that. What counts as personal? Does simply not being able to believe based on life experienece and knowledge count as personal? My reasons for not believing are many but they do include the conflict between the DNA thing and the traditional teachings--though it is just part of a big picture in my mind.

What do you make of someone that wishes it were true and would be an active member if only they felt it were true?

Do you really wish it were true? I don't.

By "felt" do you mean they had a supernatural experience?

What do you make of active members who are just as smart and intelligent and informed as you, Tarski?

There are exceptions to what I'm saying, I suppose. A person could behave like a computer and have no fundamental "personal" reasons. But I think in a lot of cases the apparent exceptions are people who haven't distanced themselves enough from their LDS past to have time to reflect and realize that the reasons were personal.

[katherine the great]

<<I believe for many, the very personal reason for deconversion is simply "I'm not happy in the Church," and that should be enough. >>

I completely agree with the Dude on this. I also think that for many, "I AM happy in the church" should be enough to stay in spite of scientific reasons to not believe.

[why me]

<<I believe for many, the very personal reason for deconversion is simply "I'm not happy in the Church," and that should be enough. >>

I completely agree with the Dude on this. I also think that for many, "I AM happy in the church" should be enough to stay in spite of scientific reasons to not believe.

Of course there are no scientific reasons to leave the church. What pray tell, are those scientific reasons not to believe??

Also, one point of Stewart's paper that I definintely agree with is that virtually nobody leaves the Church because of the DNA issue or any other single material issue. They were going to leave anyway for personal reasons. It's always personal, IMO, and material reasons are mainly used to justify the life-changing decision to friends and family whose world-view does not accept personal reasons.

Not true my friend. Mr. Simon Southerton has led many out of the church based on his lectures and writings. During his heyday, he gave seminars and wrote much about the falseness of his beliefs when he was a member and how he was led down the yellow brick road, when actually, he claims that it was a false road because of DNA. The countermos also gave him a banner and led the charge to get members to resign over the dna issue.

Such is life as an active countermo.

[katherine the great]

Of course there are no scientific reasons to leave the church. What pray tell, are those scientific reasons not to believe??

Well maybe you weren't taught that all Native Americans and Polynesians are Lamanites, but I did. I had friends who were in "The Lamanite Generation" at BYU and it was a requirement that one must be of Native American, Mexican or Polynesian descent. They later changed the name of the group. The dna issue has been disturbing to me. But I'm happy in the church, it's true to me, and I have no desire to leave it just because scientific evidence seems to oppose the beliefs I was taught when I was young. If people really leave over the dna debate and nothing more then I feel sorry for them.

[The Dude]

Of course there are no scientific reasons to leave the church. What pray tell, are those scientific reasons not to believe??

Not true my friend. Mr. Simon Southerton has led many out of the church based on his lectures and writings. During his heyday, he gave seminars and wrote much about the falseness of his beliefs when he was a member and how he was led down the yellow brick road, when actually, he claims that it was a false road because of DNA. The countermos also gave him a banner and led the charge to get members to resign over the dna issue.

Such is life as an active countermo.

But I'll bet he didn't lead a single "happy" person out of the Church.

There's no way to scientifically prove this, of course. Just my opinion.

[YH8]

But I'll bet he didn't lead a single "happy" person out of the Church.

There's no way to scientifically prove this, of course. Just my opinion.

[bolding added]

Interesting how we can eloquently rehearse the ideals of science (objective and neutral) when pressed, but under normal circumstances the reality (subjective and biased) shines through. Semantics, you say? Hardly, I say.

[why me]

But I'll bet he didn't lead a single "happy" person out of the Church.

There's no way to scientifically prove this, of course. Just my opinion.

Actually one can't be so sure. I remember that when I read about the dna issue I was quite shocked by it all. And yes, it did have an affect on me. Although I was not active in the church, this dna issue caused me some depression. It was not until I began to read the other side at FAIR, I suddenly realized that there is more to this issue than meets the eye. Now I am normal, still inactive but not because of doctrine.

I assume that many happy mormons were quite shocked by simon's charge. And yes, some hit the road...becoming a person of doubts. At the time, one could read such simon converts on the exboards. Were they happy campers at the time in the church? Who knows...but good ol' simon still preached his so called 'truth' nonetheless. Speaking as a man with 'true' and 'undisputable' facts.

Well maybe you weren't taught that all Native Americans and Polynesians are Lamanites, but I did. I had friends who were in "The Lamanite Generation" at BYU and it was a requirement that one must be of Native American, Mexican or Polynesian descent. They later changed the name of the group. The dna issue has been disturbing to me. But I'm happy in the church, it's true to me, and I have no desire to leave it just because scientific evidence seems to oppose the beliefs I was taught when I was young. If people really leave over the dna debate and nothing more then I feel sorry for them.

And yet, those same scientific reasons are now being disputed. What to do? Yes, people would leave over this debate, which hasn't been much of a debate with good ol' simon speaking from a pulpit of 'truth' and 'facts'. Simon has been a carrier of the doubt virus to all who may listen to him. It is just a question how many saints would have been affected by the such a virus prematurely.

[The Dude]

[bolding added]

Interesting how we can eloquently rehearse the ideals of science (objective and neutral) when pressed, but under normal circumstances the reality (subjective and biased) shines through. Semantics, you say? Hardly, I say.

I have many opinions I cannot prove, if you would like to hear more. Just pick a topic!

[YH8]

I have many opinions I cannot prove, if you would like to hear more. Just pick a topic!

You've been sharing enough already.

[Who Knows]

What's with the Simon bashing? All his work did was help people realize that some people's previous conceptions of a Hemospheric theory was unlikely (something that Stewart is trying to counter now i suppose). Simon even admitted that a small group of 30 immediately mixing with a pre-existing population would likely lead to undetectable DNA. DP even loved Simon's quote so much, that he used it as his signature for a while.

All Simon did was help people realize that what they were taught (whether they were taught the right things or not) was improbable.

And he was right about that, and most apologists agree with that (except for Stewart apparently).

[awyatt]

What's with the Simon bashing? All his work did was help people realize that some people's previous conceptions of a Hemospheric theory was unlikely...

All Simon did was help people realize that what they were taught (whether they were taught the right things or not) was improbable.

But, of course, that wasn't all that Simon did. He also went further and said that it proved the Church wasn't true and publicly stated that it was the reason for his personal apostasy.

That's not bashing; them's the facts!

-Allen

[Who Knows]

But, of course, that wasn't all that Simon did. He also went further and said that it proved the Church wasn't true and publicly stated that it was the reason for his personal apostasy.

That's not bashing; them's the facts!

-Allen

And?

If people left the church because Simon left the church, then that's their problem. But that has yet to be demonstrated.

If people left the church because of what Simon pointed out, and if what Simon pointed out was in error, then I'd think you'd have a point. But that has yet to be demonstrated either.

[katherine the great]

And yet, those same scientific reasons are now being disputed. What to do? Yes, people would leave over this debate, which hasn't been much of a debate with good ol' simon speaking from a pulpit of 'truth' and 'facts'. Simon has been a carrier of the doubt virus to all who may listen to him. It is just a question how many saints would have been affected by the such a virus prematurely.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think that the "hemispheric model" stands up to science. Absolutely nothing that has been argued against dna science (that I've read) argues well or completely. All I have seen is half truths and "red herrings." (I hate that phrase, but I can't think of a better one.) I really lose respect for some of these LDS scientists who do this because they have to know that they aren't telling the whole story. Why even throw in an argument for the "Lamanite first" model? It's a physical impossiblity. I wish they would focus simply on the argument of a small group entering an already inhabited continent. It's the only possibility.

[Who Knows]

It seems impossible to conclude that matching Lehi's DNA with modern Jews would be ridiculous, so trying to match Native American DNA with modern Israeli DNA is equally as ridiculous. Concluding that the evidence shows all Native Americans came straight from a single tribe in Southern Asia just because their DNA is close to that modern tribe's is also ludicrous.

To me, the big issue - the elephant in the room - is the timing issue. It seems to me that a lot of people just kind of glance over this, and tend to focus on matching native american dna to isreali dna. Who cares about that when the timing is substantially off?

[awyatt]

And?

If people left the church because Simon left the church, then that's their problem. But that has yet to be demonstrated.

If people left the church because of what Simon pointed out, and if what Simon pointed out was in error, then I'd think you'd have a point. But that has yet to be demonstrated either.

Then you don't understand my point. You minimized what Simon did ("All he did..."), which is common among those who see him as a valiant, persecuted scholar. The fact that other scholars looked at the same data and didn't apostatize (or lead others out of the Church) should say something about Simon's choices in the matter.

So my point, which you missed, is that minimization of Simon's actions and their effect on others is probably not appropriate.

-Allen

[The Dude]

If people left the church because Simon left the church, then that's their problem. But that has yet to be demonstrated.

I would be interested in hearing about some of those people, if anyone knows them personally. I'm sure there are some for whom DNA was an issue, I'm just not sure it could ever be a sufficient reason for leaving the Church.