Jump to content

Human Lymphocyte Antigens


livy111us

Recommended Posts

On top of the evidences Dr. David Stewart has provided of DNA evidences for The Book of Mormon, there are also Human Lymphocyte Antigens. These are protiens attached to white blood cells that carry specific traits in different areas of the world, and are second, only to DNA, in tracing ones ancestory. Oddly enough, in the proposed area of the Book of Mormon (Quiche, Nahua, and Eastern Maya), HLA's determine this people had origins in the Afro-Asiatic area, or the area where Israel is.

Link to comment

I don't want to de-rail the thread already, but I believe the majority have Asiatic ties, but there is evidence of transoceanic migrations, and ties to the middle East. This does not prove or disprove The Book of Mormon, but does strengthen the argument considerably. What do you think of HLA's?

Link to comment

I don't want to de-rail the thread already, but I believe the majority have Asiatic ties, but there is evidence of transoceanic migrations, and ties to the middle East. This does not prove or disprove The Book of Mormon, but does strengthen the argument considerably.

Stating a conclusion would derail the thread? LOL

The ties only strengthen the argument if they fall within the time period of the BoM. The Y chromosome markers cited by David Stewart (if that's what you are thinking of) are actually a subset of the Asian markers that separated from the old world at least 10,000 years ago.

What do you think of HLA's?

Please cite the research and I'll tell you what I think of it.

Link to comment

A summary can be found here:

http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens01.htm

I believe that the headline "biological evidence for The Book of Mormon" would state my position on Native American origins. I think it would be tough to argue that ALL of the NA's are of Israelite descent, but, at least a portion is very plausible.

Link to comment

A summary can be found here:

http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens01.htm

I believe that the headline "biological evidence for The Book of Mormon" would state my position on Native American origins. I think it would be tough to argue that ALL of the NA's are of Israelite descent, but, at least a portion is very plausible.

Okay, I gave the site a brief look over. I'm familiar with it's primary source, a book published by an eminent Stanford professor. I think it supports something that should not be disputed in the first place. Minor groups could have come to the Americas and mixed with the vast civilizations of natives that were already here -- we know the Vikings settled for a time in Newfoundland -- there could have been others for sure.

Is this biological evidence for the BoM? No. It could be biological evidence of additional migrations -- something that is needed for the BoM story to be true, but it isn't at all specific for the BoM story. Because of that non-specificity, it could just as easily be evidence for ten or twenty other colonization sagas, having nothing to do with the BoM, whose records have been lost to modern man.

So I think your stated position is quite over stated and wouldn't pass any academic review process.

I'm not trying to be rude, here. I just think you should state exactly what this is evidence of.

Simply migrations, not Book of Mormon migrations.

Link to comment
But other groups, especially those near sites of former Mesoamerican and Andean urban societies, exhibit HLA alleles that are rare in America but common in certain Afro-Asiatic, South Asian, and European populations. These unexpected genes account, on the average, for 6-7% of the American HLA total, but range as high as 24%. The atypical genes are postulated to have been acquired by assimilation of foreign populations at various times after initial colonization of the hemisphere but prior to the sixteenth-century influx of Europeans and Africans, because they suggest gene-flow from places some scholars claim to have been in ancient contact with the Americas, such as North Africa and Southeast Asia.

So, what does this mean?

Link to comment

So, what does this mean?

It means other contacts were likely made between the initial colonization (>10,000 years ago) and European contact. I don't know any serious critics who currently dispute the possibility of additional contacts, although apologists on this board have used that as a strawman representation of critics' arguments.

Link to comment

So HLA evidence shows migrations that would fit into the Book of Mormon period, from an area where Lehi is said to have left, into an area that is purported by scholars as where the Book of Mormon took place. Explain how this shows absolutely no evidence for The Book of Mormon again?

Link to comment

So HLA evidence shows migrations that would fit into the Book of Mormon period, from an area where Lehi is said to have left, into an area that is purported by scholars as where the Book of Mormon took place. Explain how this shows absolutely no evidence for The Book of Mormon again?

I must have missed the part where HLA evidence says anything about the BoM time period. The only thing I see is a range of about 10,000 years. How many migrations could have happened in that period that have nothing to do with the BoM?

The area is generally Southeast Asia and North Africa. How many migrations could have come from there that have nothing to do with the BoM?

You have no idea where the people with those HLA markers lived during the BoM time period. All you know is that they are there right now.

There are huge ranges involved in each of these parameters: >10,000 years, two continents of origin, and two continents of arrival. From that you are trying to connect the dots and call it evidence for the Book of Mormon which claims 600 AD, ancient Israelite origin, and Mesoamerican arrival. The only way you could call this evidence is if you take the position that there must have been just one migration event within the HLA parameters, and it was the one described in the BoM.

Do you have any idea how many non-BoM migrations would fit within the parameters set by the HLA data?

Link to comment

HLA's do tell us that there were other migrations as well, I am not arguing that. As Severian pointed out, the study states that "these atypical genes are postulated to have been acquired by assimilation of foreign populations at various times after initial colonization of the hemisphere but prior to the sixteenth-century influx of Europeans and Africans". Does not The Book of Mormon take place in that time period? Is it at least possible in your mind that this could have ties to The Book of Mormon peoples? Does The Book of Mormon not fit into ALL the categories provided? Of course it does. Then how can you state that this has nothing to do with The Book of Mormon?

Link to comment

HLA's do tell us that there were other migrations as well, I am not arguing that. As Severian pointed out, the study states that "these atypical genes are postulated to have been acquired by assimilation of foreign populations at various times after initial colonization of the hemisphere but prior to the sixteenth-century influx of Europeans and Africans". Does not The Book of Mormon take place in that time period? Is it at least possible in your mind that this could have ties to The Book of Mormon peoples? Does it not fit into ALL the categories provided?

Yeah but as I pointed out the categories are huge. Sure it's possible, but you are hitting the broad side of the barn.

Saying something is possible does not mean you have evidence that it happened (per your headline). Don't you agree?

Link to comment

I completely agree. But, I believe, when HLA's are taken in account with NHM, Hebraisms in the BOM, possible linguistic ties, etc.... It makes the Book of Mormon case that much more solid. There would just have to be to many coincidences that all say the same thing, to say otherwise. The possibilities are mounting in favor of The Book of Mormon.

Link to comment

The DNA argument is a wasted argument for anti-LDS to take, imo.

My rationale for these position:

God altered the genetics of the Lamanites in some manner. Evidence is that their skin color changed, and their offspring continued such a change. From an LDS perspective, genetic tests cannot be held as a necessarily valid evidence on the subject of if the native Americans were or were not descended from Lehi.

Given this, an LDS perspective must be that we do not know the extent of the genetic alterations made by God, thus all biological tests of native Americans are, for us, inconclusive.

Link to comment

The DNA argument is a wasted argument for anti-LDS to take, imo.

My rationale for these position:

God altered the genetics of the Lamanites in some manner. Evidence is that their skin color changed, and their offspring continued such a change. From an LDS perspective, genetic tests cannot be held as a necessarily valid evidence on the subject of if the native Americans were or were not descended from Lehi.

Given this, an LDS perspective must be that we do not know the extent of the genetic alterations made by God, thus all biological tests of native Americans are, for us, inconclusive.

Skin color is determined by specific genes. Genetic lineage is determined by a different set of DNA markers. The two do not overlap at all so there's no rationale to extend God's supposed skin-color mutations as an explanation for this. You have no rationale to reject the DNA evidence except that you don't like it's implications, and that's no way to be honest with yourself my friend.

Link to comment

I completely agree. But, I believe, when HLA's are taken in account with NHM, Hebraisms in the BOM, possible linguistic ties, etc.... It makes the Book of Mormon case that much more solid. There would just have to be to many coincidences that all say the same thing, to say otherwise. The possibilities are mounting in favor of The Book of Mormon.

Ahh, I see how it is. Now you're going to chalk this up as part of a pattern of convergence.

The pattern I see is this: the more data we accumulate, the more chances there are for seekers to identify parallels between the BoM and different aspects of the real world. As the volume of data continues to increase in the future, we can surely expect this pattern of correspondences to continue. It has nothing to do with evidence, and everything to with opportunities to find possibilities.

Link to comment

So it is very possible that the very HLA's that Lehi and his party took with them, were found in Mesoamerica, precisely where they should be found. There is nothing that says otherwise. This will be one of the greatest victories for The Book of Mormon yet.

Link to comment

Ahh, I see how it is. Now you're going to chalk this up as part of a pattern of convergence.

And what is there to pesuade me otherwise? The evidence IS in my favor.

The pattern I see is this: the more data we accumulate, the more chances there are for seekers to identify parallels between the BoM and different aspects of the real world. As the volume of data continues to increase in the future, we can surely expect this pattern of correspondences to continue. It has nothing to do with evidence, and everything to with opportunities to find possibilities.

The more data we accumulate, the more evidence we will find. It is not just possibilities that we are finding, as you know, and critics are finding it harder and harder to come up with answers to these evidences.

Link to comment

Skin color is determined by specific genes. Genetic lineage is determined by a different set of DNA markers. The two do not overlap at all so there's no rationale to extend God's supposed skin-color mutations as an explanation for this. You have no rationale to reject the DNA evidence except that you don't like it's implications, and that's no way to be honest with yourself my friend.

No, it is merely that I do not know what God did. It is entirely possible that the skin color change was only a bi-product of the alteration made. Regardless of what genes are implicated in the determination of skin tone, I do not know exactly what God did.
2 Nephi 5:21-25

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

The curse also made them "an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey." It was more than just a skin color alteration that occurred. Which genes were implicated in the behavioral alteration? How much of their genetics remained that would point back to Lehi given these changes? I do not know.

So, DNA evidence is inconclusive from an LDS perspective. It is not that I dislike the implications, it is that the implications are not strong enough to deny my belief.

Link to comment

If The Book of Mormon is true, and there were groups in Mesoamerica that had Israelite blood, the Human Lymphocyte Antigen evidence looks the exact way as it should.

You are still just claiming a possibility. This becomes apparent when you ask yourself the harder question: If the Book of Mormon is not true, is there any reason to think the HLA evidence wouldn't look just the same?

Link to comment

Dude,

How many historical accounts are there of Jews making it to the Americas, more specifically, Mesoamerica, in that time period? Other than The Book of Mormon, I know of none. Not only that, but the groups of Indians that have this biological marker, are the same ones that have been purported to be the descendants of the Nephite civilization. The odds of someone just guessing is is astronomical.

Link to comment

So, DNA evidence is inconclusive from an LDS perspective.

Yes, from one extreme LDS perspective... but you will find few LDS believers on this board who agree with that perspective. Out of curiosity, are their other scriptures that indicate sweeping alterations in DNA? In the Bible, perhaps? I'm just wondering how generally you apply this view.

It is not that I dislike the implications, it is that the implications are not strong enough to deny my belief.

It may be that your belief is iron clad, or it may be that you aren't fully aware of the DNA evidence.

Native American DNA isn't of a scrambled, cluless composition. The markers scientists use to trace human lineages the world over are structured in Native Americans (broadly speaking) in a way that places their lineage most closely related to natives of the Altai mountains in southern Siberia. Using the same reasoning here as is used elsewhere in the world, scientists conclude that Native Americans descended from the same lineage as those people of the Altai mountains. In Native American samples, both male (Y chromosome) and female (mtDNA) markers converge on this same Asian population. You are suggesting that a God-driven mutation used to curse the Lamanites also, just happened, to make them appear closely related to this specific Asian lineage.

Your suggestion is astounding, really. Most astounding when you actually take a minute and think about its implications, instead of, you know, glibly stating it as a reason not to think about DNA any longer.

Link to comment

For those interested, if you want to learn of differing opinions on the subject of DNA and The Book of Mormon other than the Dude, there is a forthcoming book on the subject of DNA and The Book of Mormon by a couple of geneticists that give some great information on the issue.

Link to comment

Dude,

How many historical accounts are there of Jews making it to the Americas, more specifically, Mesoamerica, in that time period? Other than The Book of Mormon, I know of none. Not only that, but the groups of Indians that have this biological marker, are the same ones that have been purported to be the descendants of the Nephite civilization.

Dum, da-dum, dum. Right on schedule, a mere possibility is bootstrapped without justification into the position of evidence that critics must account for:

The odds of someone just guessing is is astronomical.

To repeat: the odds of someone hitting the broad side of a barn are quite high.

The HLA evidence indicates a target 10,000 years deep, and two continents X two continents. That's pretty big.

But you are trying your best to shrink it back down to something specific to the BoM. You are now claiming Jewish specificity when the HLA evidence only indicates North African and Southeast Asian in general. The time period is not a BoM time period, but is some time between intial colonization (at least 10,00 years ago) and european colonization. That's a long, long, long time. You are trying to claim this is about Mesoamerica, but in fact you don't know those people were even there during the BoM time period. You only know they are there right now. (Obviously you haven't paid careful attention to David Stewart's lectures on ethnohistory!)

It's a possibility, my friend. It's nothing more than that, and your claims that this could be "evidence" are becoming more and more strained as the afternoon wears on.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...