Human Lymphocyte Antigens

[The Dude]

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.

Tell us more. You know I eat this stuff up.

Who are the authors?

[cksalmon]

Dude,

(1) 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. (2) 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.

(1) and (2) are functionally equivalent. You're assuming that HLA markers specify Jewish extraction to a high degree of confidence, which is exactly what TD suggested is not the case.

From your previous posts, it sounds like you've conceded that (3) non-Jewish extraction is plausible based on the data, but (4) Jewish extraction is significantly-correlated with the data. So there.

I'm missing the step between (3) and (4). What is it?

Best.

CKS

[livy111us]

OK, to cater to your argument, how many historical accounts are there of groups from the Middle East coming over to mesoamerica, other than The Book of Mormon?

[The Dude]

OK, to cater to your argument, how many historical accounts are there of groups from the Middle East coming over to mesoamerica, other than The Book of Mormon?

Why should I limit myself to known historical accounts from the Middle East to mesoamerica?

What's relevant are possible migrations from anywhere in Northern Africa and Southeast Asia to anywhere in North and South America at any time in the last 10,000 years. How many could there have been?

I dunno. Twenty?

How many do you think there were?

[Bee Eff]

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.

I think many LDS believers are often plagued with too much pride to just say "I don't know." same as all other humans. I do not believe my statement is necessarily true, it is only a possibility. Given the possibility, who knows what actually happened? I would assume the curse of Cain impacted genetics given a belief that the African skin tone is related to the curse of Cain. I would also assume there were some neurological alterations at the time of the confounding of languages, but probably not on a genetic scale as language aquisition follows a similar pattern independent of ancestry.

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

Perhaps both, but I would readily admit I was wrong if there were irrefutable evidence to the fact. Mormons believe that one should be open-minded to truth regardless of where the knowledge comes from, and I hold this as a mantra. I believe that the Jews that did not believe in Christ, the Pharisees and Saducees in particular, were close-minded and believed they knew how the Messiah would come, and when he did not meet their beliefs they could not and would not reconcile the fact.

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.

Yes, it is a possibility, particularly since it would be more simple to follow a pre-existing genetic pattern than to alter randomly. Sometimes the simplest method is the best method to use

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.

One must consider scientific fact. Brigham Young stated that the beliefs of the LDS church would not conflict with scientific fact, if this is the case one must assess the facts and determine if the fact is truly in conflict or merely appears to be. Sometimes one must also assess the amount of inference in supposed fact. Some "facts" are generally true but may be based in inferences that may or not be solid in all context.

I am behavioral in my approach to psychology (my profession). I am highly skeptical of inference and the stance generalizes across much of my scientific opinion. This impacts much of my views concerning existence and truth. If the scriptures do not state absolutes, then assumptions are only assumptions. Much of Christianity as well as many LDS people base beliefs on assumptions of meaning and ignore that the meaning at times is possibly different than our popular perspective states. Absolute statements are absolute statements though, and once made must be as such. Very few religious statements do not leave room for interpretation and misinterpretation, even at the point of the first person spoken to by the Prophet, Seer, or Revelator.

[livy111us]

There COULD have been many, but only one documented, and that is in The Book of Mormon.

[The Dude]

Yes, it is a possibility, particularly since it would be more simple to follow a pre-existing genetic pattern than to alter randomly. Sometimes the simplest method is the best method to use

Speaking of simplicity. The simplest explanation is that appearances are not deceiving us, and the principal ancestry of Native Americans is of south Siberian derivation shortly after the last ice age. That isn't to say other, less significant (in terms of relative numbers and genetic dominance) migrations couldn't have occurred later. As you've seen on this thread, I comfortably concede that possibility.

One must consider scientific fact. Brigham Young stated that the beliefs of the LDS church would not conflict with scientific fact, if this is the case one must assess the facts and determine if the fact is truly in conflict or merely appears to be. Sometimes one must also assess the amount of inference in supposed fact. Some "facts" are generally true but may be based in inferences that may or not be solid in all context.

In this case, it seems clear that traditional inference about the Book of Mormon text must be, in some way, mistaken. I find it hard to disagree with LDS geneticists and biologists like as David McClellan, Scott Woodward, John Butler, Michael Whiting, and Keith Crandall.

Very few religious statements do not leave room for interpretation and misinterpretation, even at the point of the first person spoken to by the Prophet, Seer, or Revelator.

Certainly. The LDS scientists I just mentioned happen to agree with this, and given their background in genetics they find that a reinterpretation of prophetic statements and traditional BoM understanding is the way to resolve the DNA question. In fact, they generally express no surprise that Native American DNA appears the way it does, since it falls right in line with earlier secular understanding about Native American origins (based on anthropology, blood groups, linguistics and archaeology). Given all of this, I do think it's unreasonable to hold to the idea that DNA was changed as part of a divine miracle. You're fighting more than just DNA.

But then again, I'm a crooked nosed critic.

There COULD have been many, but only one documented, and that is in The Book of Mormon.

And that is the document we are questioning! Don't you see how this is begging the question?

If you already consider it "documented" then why do you even care about evidence vs. possibility?

[juliann]

livy111us:

CFR

Oh, not the part about David Stewart. I've already seen that.

So did we. You abandoned the debate. I think it is important that people know that when you say things like the above.

Maybe but don't take the bait. ~ Mods.

[Bee Eff]

Speaking of simplicity. The simplest explanation is that appearances are not deceiving us, and the principal ancestry of Native Americans is of south Siberian derivation shortly after the last ice age. That isn't to say other, less significant (in terms of relative numbers and genetic dominance) migrations couldn't have occurred later. As you've seen on this thread, I comfortably concede that possibility.

In this case, it seems clear that traditional inference about the Book of Mormon text must be, in some way, mistaken. I find it hard to disagree with LDS geneticists and biologists like as David McClellan, Scott Woodward, John Butler, Michael Whiting, and Keith Crandall.

Certainly. The LDS scientists I just mentioned happen to agree with this, and given their background in genetics they find that a reinterpretation of prophetic statements and traditional BoM understanding is the way to resolve the DNA question. In fact, they generally express no surprise that Native American DNA appears the way it does, since it falls right in line with earlier secular understanding about Native American origins (based on anthropology, blood groups, linguistics and archaeology). Given all of this, I do think it's unreasonable to hold to the idea that DNA was changed as part of a divine miracle. You're fighting more than just DNA.

But then again, I'm a crooked nosed critic.

But, how did God alter their skin color, and how did the alteration result in the behavioral changes stated? God works through the same principles science employs, only with a perfect understanding of said principles. Given this, how would one go about achieving the result that the Book of Mormon states? I believe that the people of the Book of Mormon were not the only peoples to inhabit the Americas, but we are not solely discussing who existed here, we are addressing our ability to assess whether any native Americans are of Israeli descent. I believe it was necessary for some genetic alteration to occur to achieve the result claimed by the Book of Mormon. It may not have been as grand a change as I have proposed, but some change occurred on a genetic level.

I am not stating absolutes, only possibilities. I am participating in this forum for fun, I enjoy the banter somewhat and the speculation. I believe the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and all the words of the Prophets. I am mainly presenting my opinion based on my reading and study, not based off the texts and information I have yet to read and assess. The possibility I state is a possibility is it not? If it is a possibility then regardless of any other argument, the arguments to genetics are not sufficient to sway belief.

You come across well. This is enjoyable so far, and I will continue discussion with you as I am able.

[livy111us]

If you already consider it "documented" then why do you even care about evidence vs. possibility?

To answer the endless criticism from those like yourself.

[livy111us]

Let's look at this again, The Book of Mormon says that a group from the Middle East travelled to the Americas about 600 B.C. Scholarship has pointed to the area of Mesoamerica. There are NO other documented similar travels from the Middle East, to Mesoamerica. Human Lymphocyte Antigens says that there were people who travelled from the Middle East to Mesoamerica.

I don't know about you, but other documented alterior travels do not exist. Therefore, the case is strongest FOR The Book of Mormon.

[The Dude]

So did we. You abandoned the debate. I think it is important that people know that when you say things like the above.

I let Stewart have the last word. It's no surprise that some small-minded partisans take that as the most important event of the entire debate, even though, as a mathematical certitude, somebody will have the final post.

[The Dude]

Let's look at this again, The Book of Mormon says that a group from the Middle East travelled to the Americas about 600 B.C. Scholarship has pointed to the area of Mesoamerica. There are NO other documented similar travels from the Middle East, to Mesoamerica. Human Lymphocyte Antigens says that there were people who travelled from the Middle East to Mesoamerica.

I don't know about you, but other documented alterior travels do not exist. Therefore, the case is strongest FOR The Book of Mormon.

You just can't help overstating things. Isn't it getting through to you? From your own link, HLAs only suggest people traveled from some very general parts of the old world to some general part of the new world. Go and read it again, please!

May I suggest you graciously take your possibility home for the evening and enjoy your certitude that the BoM is already documented.

You are saying you mean this to answer critics like me, but my only criticism is for your strained overstatements.

[livy111us]

How is saying that a group from the Middle East travelled to Mesoamerica overstating? That is exactly what the study says.

[The Dude]

How is saying that a group from the Middle East travelled to Mesoamerica overstating? That is exactly what the study says.

Where?

[livy111us]

Are you reading the same study as I am? This is what we've been discussing this whole time. Those of Afro-Asiatic origins made their way to Mesoamerica.

[PacMan]

The Dude,

I think you're taking this for what it isn't. Anything that affords the possibility of the BoM experience IS evidence...although a far cry from proof.

The simplest explanation is that appearances are not deceiving us, and the principal ancestry of Native Americans is of south Siberian derivation shortly after the last ice age.

Please tell us what "principal" means. I daresay that this word in reference to BoM genealogies tends to be conflated.

Real quick: What's your opinion on Southerton? Do you agree with the staunch conclusion that the BoM needs be false? Do you believe that he really "proved" anything?

PacMan

[livy111us]

The fact of the matter is, we could not ask for better HLA evidence in behalf of The Book of Mormon. If there were ANY variables, that would cast doubt, but there are not. If there were other documented travels from the Middle East to Mesoamerica, it would be possible that these HLA's could have come from them, but there isn't. If HLA's said they came from Lithuania instead of the Middle East, we couldn't say that it would be possible that Lehi brought these HLA's over, but it doesn't. If the transfer ended up in Oregon, we would have a tough time showing that it was Lehi who brought them over because they were found in the wrong area, but it didn't. All the evidence points to The Book of Mormon story of a family leaving the correct area, in the correct time period, to the correct place in the Americas. Simple as that.

[The Dude]

Are you reading the same study as I am? This is what we've been discussing this whole time. Those of Afro-Asiatic origins made their way to Mesoamerica.

I'm reading the same study -- the one you linked to. It doesn't say "Middle East" and it does't say they came to Mesoamerica in the BoM time period; it only says they were there by the time of the european conquest. You've got to at least state the data correctly. You repeatedly state it in a biased form that makes it sound more specific than it really is.

I guess you could consider this to be "evidence" in the weakest possible sense, in that it doesn't contradict the BoM hypothesis in any way. I don't think you could use the word "evidence" in any weaker way than this.

[The Dude]

Please tell us what "principal" means. I daresay that this word in reference to BoM genealogies tends to be conflated.

"Principal" can mean many things, and the meaning is determined by the person who uses it. When I used it earlier, I was referring to genetics and not a spiritual geneology.

Real quick: What's your opinion on Southerton? Do you agree with the staunch conclusion that the BoM needs be false? Do you believe that he really "proved" anything?

Other scientists have inadvertently disproved a common LDS interpretation of the Book of Mormon that was expressed in a way that could be falsified. Simon Southerton reviewed their research findings and raised public awareness of the problem. The BoM is not necessarily false, but one predominant interpretation of Native American (and Polynesian) origins has been disproven.

[The Dude]

But, how did God alter their skin color, and how did the alteration result in the behavioral changes stated? God works through the same principles science employs, only with a perfect understanding of said principles. Given this, how would one go about achieving the result that the Book of Mormon states? I believe that the people of the Book of Mormon were not the only peoples to inhabit the Americas, but we are not solely discussing who existed here, we are addressing our ability to assess whether any native Americans are of Israeli descent. I believe it was necessary for some genetic alteration to occur to achieve the result claimed by the Book of Mormon. It may not have been as grand a change as I have proposed, but some change occurred on a genetic level.

Sure. The principle science employs is genetic drift. If it became a Lamanite practice to intermarry with native tribes who possessed a different genetic signature, we would expect one genetic signature to become dominant in the gene pool over time and the other to diminish and ultimately vanish. This is genetic drift. Based on this idea, it is now a common apologetic notion that the Lamanites acquired their darker skin and degraded cultural practices over a period of many generations as a consequence of intermarrage with native tribes. Critics of the idea point out that every city and civilization in that Book of Mormon period can be traced to Israelite origins; the book doesn't mention native "others" who could have intermarried with the Lamanites. But aside from that, it sounds like an explanation that could account for the modern Native American gene pool and the described change in Lamanite skin and culture.

Is this the first time you've heard this idea? What do you think?

I am not stating absolutes, only possibilities. I am participating in this forum for fun, I enjoy the banter somewhat and the speculation. I believe the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and all the words of the Prophets. I am mainly presenting my opinion based on my reading and study, not based off the texts and information I have yet to read and assess. The possibility I state is a possibility is it not? If it is a possibility then regardless of any other argument, the arguments to genetics are not sufficient to sway belief.

You come across well. This is enjoyable so far, and I will continue discussion with you as I am able.

Good attitude Bee Eff. I hope you stick around.

Your attitude isn't going to be around much longer. I don't see anyone talking to you rudely and I am seeing "small minded partisan, dum da dum, crazy faces and rolling eyes " insults from you. If you can't be courteous leave our board. ~ Mods

[YH8]

So did we. You abandoned the debate. I think it is important that people know that when you say things like the above.

It is also important for people to know regarding Dr. D . . . ,

1) S/he acts as if s/he only presents facts without any interpretation.

1a) That science is bias-free, for all intents and purposes.

2) S/he focuses on the size of N as if that is the only determinant in power to detect a relationship. That if enough observations are made some sort of relationship will be found. While there is serious truth to this, Dr. D . . . focuses on this as if it is the only relevant issue. Thus, according to Dr. D . . ., if people keep looking and collecting data they are bound to accumulate supportive observations, but it doesn't matter because that is what we can statistically expect. What s/he overlooks is that there are many things that go into power to detect a relationship. Operational definition, effect size, occurance of phenomena, etc. By his/her logic, we wouldn't know half of what we know because we should've stopped looking long ago when not enough was being found. Focusing on one aspect of a complex and dynamic issue (in this case, statistical power) as if it was the only aspect is known as bias. Imagine that, Dr. D . . . has a bias. And just imagine the endless implications.

Please don't take The Dude's bait to start talking about other posters. ~ Mods

[Bee Eff]

Sure. The principle science employs is genetic drift. If it became a Lamanite practice to intermarry with native tribes who possessed a different genetic signature, we would expect one genetic signature to become dominant in the gene pool over time and the other to diminish and ultimately vanish. This is genetic drift. Based on this idea, it is now a common apologetic notion that the Lamanites acquired their darker skin and degraded cultural practices over a period of many generations as a consequence of intermarrage with native tribes. Critics of the idea point out that every city and civilization in that Book of Mormon period can be traced to Israelite origins; the book doesn't mention native "others" who could have intermarried with the Lamanites. But aside from that, it sounds like an explanation that could account for the modern Native American gene pool and the described change in Lamanite skin and culture.

Is this the first time you've heard this idea? What do you think?

I understand genetic drift, and it is a definite possibility. IMO, genetic drift could not have had enough time to occur at this point, unless the Lamanites did begin to intermarry with other peoples immediately upon arrival.

1 Nephi 1 - About 600 B.C.

1 Nephi 18 - About 590â??589 B.C.

2 Nephi 5 - Between 588 and 559 B.C.

Genetic drift could not occur on the scale spoken of in the Book of Mormon without intermarrying occurring immediately.

They could have intermarried with existing dark skinned peoples and their offspring would be darker complected. This is probable, and more easily accepted by the skeptic.

Regardless, my presented possibility exists, and genetic research resulting in a perceived conflict does not threaten belief given the lack of information available.

Good attitude Bee Eff. I hope you stick around.

We'll see, I may tire of the depth of reference often shown here. I am required to do research in my profession and in my free time I prefer less structured, hypothetical and speculative, discussion. But then there are few decent LDS/Religion discussion threads that are not populated by extremely close-minded anti/pro LDS individuals, and thus far this one seems slightly biased, but not overly so.

[The Dude]

I understand genetic drift, and it is a definite possibility. IMO, genetic drift could not have had enough time to occur at this point, unless the Lamanites did begin to intermarry with other peoples immediately upon arrival.

1 Nephi 1 - About 600 B.C.

1 Nephi 18 - About 590â??589 B.C.

2 Nephi 5 - Between 588 and 559 B.C.

Genetic drift could not occur on the scale spoken of in the Book of Mormon without intermarrying occurring immediately.

They could have intermarried with existing dark skinned peoples and their offspring would be darker complected. This is probable, and more easily accepted by the skeptic.

I know what you are saying. I agree that this explanation demands that the Lamanites being intermarrying immediately, and not only that. If the Nephites didn't intermarry on a similar scale for approximately 600 years, they would have grown into a large civilization in their own right, with a tremendous gene pool of nearly pure Israelite DNA (after all, they remained "white" and "pure"). When Christ came and all the people became one, the mixing of Nephite/Israelite and Lamanite/Asian DNA would have not so easily have led to the genetic extinction of Nephite/Israelite markers. (The BoM does say that in the end all the Nephites were killed by their brethren, but as this occurred only after their several generations as "one people," the Nephite genocide should have removed them as a political force -- but not as a lasting genetic imprint.)

It seems the Lamanites and the Nephites must have intermarried with natives almost from the start. That's the only sure way for this explanation to work out.

Regardless, my presented possibility exists, and genetic research resulting in a perceived conflict does not threaten belief given the lack of information available.

Again, I have to marvel at the immovability of your faith, and disagree about "the lack of information available".

I have yet to see an LDS apologist at FARMS, FAIR or elsewhere, come out in support of the proposition that God transmuted the Israelite DNA into Asian. I've seen it suggested by a few members of the Church, as a first hunch on the matter, but not by any who have really studied genetics or conducted research in this area.

If anyone knows of a formal examination of the "transmutation" hypothesis, I'd like to see it.

[The Dude]

It is also important for people to know regarding Dr. D . . . ,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings about me, YH8. But, since I've already been warned by the moderators, I think it's best if I just put you back on "ignore" until the heat dies down. This hurts me as much as it hurts you.... "click"

You didn't need to post this, either. Please review how many posts have resulted from you "sharing your thoughts and feelings" about a poster who isn't even here. What did you think was going to happen? What was the point in this---->"Again, I have to marvel at the immovability of your faith". What did that have to do with the topic? It is more off-topic personal "sharing" that just brings on more off-topic personal sharing. Stop it or find a board that likes it. ~ Mods