How Conclusive Is Dna Evidence?

[Sargon]

It is basically impossible for DNA to disprove the Limited Geography Theory.

Is this a fair summation of the situation?

Prepare to be ripped to shreds.

Sargon

[SolarPowered]

Prepare to be ripped to shreds.

Sargon

Popping popcorn.

Pouring soda.

Perparing for an entertaining evening.

[The Dude]

Chill out cdowis. I wasn't putting arguments in your mouth -- I was giving my own arguments for why sampling error is not relevant to discussions about the Book of Mormon.

Were you just saying it's important "to provide evidence for the original inhabitants of the American continent," without any attempt to make them relevant to the Book of Mormon? Okay, great. You're right. NOW WHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC?

[cdowis]

Chill out cdowis. I wasn't putting arguments in your mouth -- I was giving my own arguments for why sampling error is not relevant to discussions about the Book of Mormon.

Were you just saying it's important "to provide evidence for the original inhabitants of the American continent," without any attempt to make them relevant to the Book of Mormon? Okay, great. You're right. NOW WHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC?

Did you read the first post in this thread? Did you read where he has 100% certainty of the results of DNA research?

Are you able to comprehend that a significant sampling error can affect the outcome of scientific research? And that has very much to do with this topic.

Also, please STOP USING CAPS UNLESS YOU WANT TO LOOK VERY VERY STUPID.

thankyouverymuch.

[The Dude]

As long as I'm posting a reply, let me correct what I wrote earlier a bit. I was in a hurry. This is the situation as I see it:

It's a dating issue if you're trying to save the Whole-Hemisphere model. Possibly other issues, too. But Stewart's theory (that both NAs and Siberians/Mongolians have an Israelite or Israelite-ish orgin) seems to be the only one trying to save the Hemisphere model, and since the main hang-up it runs into is dating, that's why I say it seems to come down to dating issues.

OR

It's a non-issue if you believe the Limited Geography (or limited genetic influence) model. It is basically impossible for DNA to disprove the Limited Geography Theory.

Is this a fair summation of the situation?

Yep. That's pretty much it!

[The Dude]

Did you read the first post in this thread? Did you read where he has 100% certainty of the results of DNA research?

I agree there were some clumsy overstatments in the OP. I had a hard time telling exactly what PhysicsGuy meant when he said 100% certainty.

But you were responding to me. And I know what I meant.

Are you able to comprehend that a significant sampling error can affect the outcome of scientific research? And that has very much to do with this topic.

And.... whatever. Sure sampling error can affect the outcome of scientific research. That's generally true. Was that the whole point?

[charity]

cdowis, I can't figure out if thedude, who has been said to be a certified geneticist, just doesn't know scientific method or if he is being deliberately obtuse. It is obviously clear to others of us what sampling error has to do with the topic. I cannot figure out his continued denial of the importance of the issue.

[The Dude]

cdowis, I can't figure out if thedude, who has been said to be a certified geneticist, just doesn't know scientific method or if he is being deliberately obtuse. It is obviously clear to others of us what sampling error has to do with the topic. I cannot figure out his continued denial of the importance of the issue.

Charity, you didn't respond to my post #40 on this thread.

[katherine the great]

It seems logical to me that Y Israelite dna circa 600 bc would look pretty much like the dna from modern Samaritan men. It's the mtnda that could be very diverse.

[charity]

Post #40.

These potentially missed haplogroups would be relevant to a limited population model -- something that cannot, in principle, be proven or disproven by DNA studies. Therefore, sampling error is moot in my view. You may disagree.

But do you agree they are irrelevant to conclusions about a global or nearly-global BoM population model? For that kind of model, sampling to this date has painted a picture that won't be changed if/when a few missed haplogroups turn up. Maybe we can at least agree on this much.

This was an edited post. What was the original?

But I will respond to it as it presently stands.

I agree that sampling error is probably not very significant for global or nearly-global Book of Mormon populations. I assume when you use the term global, you are referring to hemi-global? And I don't know of any knowledgeable person who really thinks the hemispheric model is supportable. And please don't use the typical or average member of the Church as your referent group.

So I still see sampling error as a reasonable question in an informed discussion.

[The Dude]

I agree that sampling error is probably not very significant for global or nearly-global Book of Mormon populations. I assume when you use the term global, you are referring to hemi-global? And I don't know of any knowledgeable person who really thinks the hemispheric model is supportable.

So DNA data, as it stands, sampling errors and all, does not and never will support a "hemi-global" model for BoM populations. No matter what quirks and surprises may turn up in some isolated tribe that nobody's looked at yet, there's no way to salvage the notion that Israelites are the main source of Native American origins. Right? IMO that's all we are ever going to get out of DNA and the Book of Mormon, and we agree that sampling error is irrelevant.

So when you bring up sampling error, you are thinking about a limited model, where Israelites were just a small input into the Native American gene pool. You are thinking that just maybe we've missed that piece of data. How would you know it if you saw it? Would it look like that Greek woman cdowis keeps bringing up? Would it look like a Samaritan's Y-chromosome? Would it look like the Cohen haplotype? All the credible LDS apologists (who've written for FARMS and are linked from the LDS website) stand united in the belief that genetic science cannot identify Lehi's DNA. So what are you hoping to find in the missing samples?

Put those two paragraphs together and you will see why sampling error isn't relevant to Book of Mormon questions. Unless there is a third question I'm missing. That's a possibility, I guess. Help me out here since it's so obvious to you.

(BTW, when you say "I don't know of any knowledgeable person who really thinks the hemispheric model is supportable," are you forgetting David Stewart?)

[charity]

the dude, This is what I said in my post #73. "I don't see any LDS trying to prove anything with DNA. I just see anti's trying to disprove a lot with DNA."

This is where sampling error comes in. The statements by those who say that DNA evidence so far conclusively proves against a small Israelite population are the ones who are not seeing sampling error as a significant problem.

And you know apologists have long maintained that we don't know the DNA represented in the Lehite group. So we don't disagree on that. But when some Israelite DNA shows up that is pre-Columbia the "only Asian DNA" group is down the drain. This is where they should be worried about sampling error.

So, do you see that sampling error is something that should be considered by the "only Asian DNA" group, especially those with such absolutlist positions that will cause them to say "100% certainty?" (See the OP.)

And you are undoubtedly aware of the "principal" argument. "Principal ancestor" does not have to show up in DNA, according to one side of the debate. There are those of us who argue that the word means most important, in terms of the covenants and promises, and not necessarily in terms of amount of DNA. Out of my millions of progenitors, I consider Abraham (Ephraim) to be my principal ancestor. I don't know how much DNA still remains with all the millions between him and me. But I am an heir to the promises made to him, therefore I consider him to be my "principal" ancestor.

[livy111us]

PhysicsDude,

I have a few problems with your statement. First, you say (this is for you The Dude, BLUE!) Mitochondrial DNA does not change generation to generation, it is passed unchanged by the mother to both daughters and sons, mtDNA is maternal, which means it is passed from Mother to daughter, not Mother to daughter and son. Your statement is false. If someone had all sons (like me), my wifes mtDNA would be forever lost. This one little problem can have effects on the transfer of mtDNA through the generations.

You also say that DNA evidence as inconclusive. FARMS has NEVER said DNA evidence is inconclusive, only that which pertains to the accusations against the Book of Mormon. When DNA is brought up in a court of law to convict a murderer, rapist, etc... DNA is VERY valuable. However, when you are using DNA (or attempting to) to show evidence against The Book of Mormon, 2,000 years ago, you run into MANY problems. To name a few, you have a small population that is absorbed into a larger one, you have wars, famine, and eventually the edict of death of "every Nephite". This can Definitely have an effect on DNA studies. You also have the conquistadors wiping out tribes of people left and right, and then disease which wiped out most as well. You know as well as I do (at least I hope you do) what bottlenecking can do.

You continue It was found that 99.4 of native Americans HAD east-Asian Mitochondrial DNA I would like to see where you obtained your figures. They are quite liberal, and I have seen them much lower, and challenge you for a resource.

You also know the problem with sample testing.

So, this is absolutely accurate proof that Indians came from east Asia.

I suggest you read the recent work on Human Lymphocyte Antigens which show a DIRECT tie from the Middle East, to Central America. The Dude and I discussed it here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=21998

If there "absolute" proof as you say, then perhaps you should broaden your horizon a bit and look at other studies as well. Like I said, a direct link.

"it may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant

The term Lamanite carries many meanings. It is not confined to just a lineage of people. There have been many works on the topic that I suggest you read.

[Fly Fisherman]

Oh - and also this: Apparently, there ARE genetic links between various populations in the Americas, and various populations in the middle east:

* Non-Mormon scientists have found Semitic DNA among Native Americans. (See Steve Olson, Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through Our Genes, [boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 2002], p. 114.)

* Non-Mormon scientists have found new genetic links between Native Americans and Middle Easterners. (See Virginia Morrell, "Genes May Link Ancient Eurasians, Native Americans," Science, 280:520 [April 24, 1998 and April 11, 2004] ).

* Non-Mormon scientists have found the presence of several indicators of Jewish ancestry among Antiquian populations of Colombia. (See Carvajal-Carmona, L.G., et.al."Strong Amerind/White Sex Bias and a Possible Sephardic Contribution among the Founders of a Population in Northwest Colombia," American Journal of Human Genetics, 67 [5] 1287-1295 [Nov.2000]. Available online.)

* Non-Mormon scientists have found Haplogroup 1c and 4 among Jews and among the Cheyenne and Zapotec tribe of America. (See M.F. Hammer, et.al., "Jewish and Middle Eastern Non-Jewish Populations Share a Common Pool of Y-Chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 97[12]:6769- 74 [June 6, 2000]. [Available online.] and T.M. Karafet, et.al., "Ancestral Asian Source(s) of New World Y-Chromosome Founder Haplotypes," American Journal of Human Genetics, 64[3]:817-831 [March 1999]. [Available online.]

* Non-Mormon scientists have found Haplogroup X among Algonquin-speaking groups, such as the Ojibwa and in the Middle East. (See Roger Highfield, science editor for Britain's The Electronic Telegraph News Service, April 11, 2004.)

* Non-Mormon scientists have found DNA Haplogroup X, sometimes referred to as Haplotype N, in the Middle East and among the Fremont Indians. (See Brown, M.D. et. al., "mt DNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link Between Europe/Western Asia and North America?" American Journal of Human Genetics, 63 [6]: 1852-1861 (Dec.1998); also P. Forster, R. Hardin, A. Torroni, and H.J Bandelt, "Origin and Evolution of Native American mt DNA Variation: a Reappraisal, "American Journal of Human Genetics, 59: 935-954 [1996]; also R.L Parr, S.W. Carlyle, and D.H. O'Rourke, "Ancient DNA Analysis of Fremont Amerindians of the Great Salt Lake Wetlands," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 99:507-518 [1996].)

* Non-Mormon scientists have found significant evidence of Middle Eastern genes entering America before Columbus by analyzing human lymphocyte antigens. These HLA genetic codes represent the histocompatability of antigens on the surfaces of cells. Unlike mt DNA and Y chromosomes, HLA genes are not passed only along purely maternal lines, making it easier for minority genes to persist. They found that the A*1 antigen was found in Palestine and in the Andes. They found that the B*14 allele was carried from the Near East to the Eastern Maya, the Nahua, and the Cherokee populations. They found the B*21 allele in frequencies greater than 15% in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Palestine as well as in Uto-Aztecan populations as a Central Amerind composite. See James L. Guthrie, "Human Lymphocyte Antigens: Apparent Afro-Asiatic, Southern Asian, and European HLAs in Indigenous American Population," Pre-Columbiana, Vol.2, Nos.2 and 3, Dec. 2000/June 2001, pp.90-163.

HSR

Those sources you listed seem quite significant. Have they been discussed or referenced by either critics or apologists?

[The Dude]

This is where sampling error comes in. The statements by those who say that DNA evidence so far conclusively proves against a small Israelite population are the ones who are not seeing sampling error as a significant problem.

I think I see what you are saying -- you aren't really arguing we me. The people who say "DNA conclusively proves a small Israelite population couldn't have ever been here" are wrong for more basic reasons than sampling error. Even if we had 100% coverage of every Native American alive today and completely eliminated sampling error, genetic drift in past generations would have (could have) been enough to erase the Israelite signature. This is the reason genetics cannot disprove a limited genetics model. You want to pile sampling error on top of that -- well, okay, now I see what you mean. It's not necessary, if you ask me, but it complements rather than contradicts what I was saying.

And you are undoubtedly aware of the "principal" argument.

I'm trying very hard to eliminate that word from my vocabulary since all it does is trigger a side-debate about definitions. Notice how I went out of my way to say "main source of Native American" instead of the habitual "principal ancestors of Native Americans." In doing so, I was using that language to define the model that DNA disproves, not trying to pigeonhole LDS beliefs. Come on now, I'm not one of those critics.

[The Dude]

Those sources you listed seem quite significant. Have they been discussed or referenced by either critics or apologists?

I've looked at this pair of papers:

* Non-Mormon scientists have found Haplogroup 1c and 4 among Jews and among the Cheyenne and Zapotec tribe of America. (See M.F. Hammer, et.al., "Jewish and Middle Eastern Non-Jewish Populations Share a Common Pool of Y-Chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 97[12]:6769- 74 [June 6, 2000]. [Available online.] and T.M. Karafet, et.al., "Ancestral Asian Source(s) of New World Y-Chromosome Founder Haplotypes," American Journal of Human Genetics, 64[3]:817-831 [March 1999]. [Available online.]

The problem here is a separaration of at least ten thousand years. If you go back in time far enough, everyone is related, but not in a way that fits a BoM timeline (which ought to be ~2500 years of separation).

It's the same problem for the X-haplotype of mtDNA. It's closest relatives may now be found in Europe instead of Asia, but the relationship is too old for a BoM timeline.

I don't know about the time of separation for Human Lymphocyte Antigens, or if that's even been calculated. I guess I'll have to look that up since livy111us keeps posting it.

[SolarPowered]

Here is a simple test that I think pulls a lot of this into perspective: If dug up a 2600 year-old grave that just happened to contain the remains of Lehi, would we be able to conclusively determine by DNA testing that we had found a Lehite? I think the answer to this is, "No."

[livy111us]

The Dude,

Please let me know what you find.

[charity]

I think I see what you are saying -- you aren't really arguing we me. The people who say "DNA conclusively proves a small Israelite population couldn't have ever been here" are wrong for more basic reasons than sampling error. Even if we had 100% coverage of every Native American alive today and completely eliminated sampling error, genetic drift in past generations would have (could have) been enough to erase the Israelite signature. This is the reason genetics cannot disprove a limited genetics model. You want to pile sampling error on top of that -- well, okay, now I see what you mean. It's not necessary, if you ask me, but it complements rather than contradicts what I was saying.

I'm trying very hard to eliminate that word from my vocabulary since all it does is trigger a side-debate about definitions. Notice how I went out of my way to say "main source of Native American" instead of the habitual "principal ancestors of Native Americans." In doing so, I was using that language to define the model that DNA disproves, not trying to pigeonhole LDS beliefs. Come on now, I'm not one of those critics.

Oh, my, the dude. What a way to start a morning. We agree? I may have to go back to bed.

[cdowis]

cdowis, I can't figure out if thedude, who has been said to be a certified geneticist, just doesn't know scientific method or if he is being deliberately obtuse. It is obviously clear to others of us what sampling error has to do with the topic. I cannot figure out his continued denial of the importance of the issue.

It's partially a personal thing. He's still upset at me for challenging his "it's only a coincidence" position. And now I am doping out his "sampling error doesn't matter" in his field of expertise. Notice his use of the caps key -- he's really really upset.

I've noticed when one of these scientific antimormons get challenged, they really get upset. They view themselves as intellectually superior, and have their "pat" arguments against the BOM. I pick holes in their argument and they just blow up (in this case, use the caps key). They reject the BOM and the unwashed masses just don't "understand" their intellectually superiority.

The prob here is that I've been down this road many times with these guys. I already know their arguments, and the logical flaws. Just another day at the office for me.

[SolarPowered]

I may have to go back to bed.

You wouldn't want to do that. You're on track to hit your 10,000th post today!

[Zakuska]

Beleive me. 10,000 posts is not all its cracked up to be.

[why me]

I've noticed when one of these scientific antimormons get challenged, they really get upset. They view themselves as intellectually superior, and have their "pat" arguments against the BOM. I pick holes in their argument and they just blow up (in this case, use the caps key). They reject the BOM and the unwashed masses just don't "understand" their intellectually superiority.

This is so true. I have experienced it myself. Many intellectual former lds come across as the most open-minded of individuals, willing to embrace the cosmos in one big serenedipity kiss, moving along the waves of life, open to all waves that the ocean may bring their way, until.....they are challenged in their new visions by a lds person. Then, suddenly, something blows and vile about the church spews out in rapid motions...belittling everything lds until the volcano subsides and the the intellectual former lds critic returns to his or her journey of self discoveries filled with all sorts of butterfly wings and starfish.

I just can't understand the psychology of it all but maybe I do not have to. But you do have a good point...and hopefully, the intellecual former lds critic can take a good look in the mirror and see what we see.: a not so open minded individual outside their own understandings of their new life.

[The Dude]

It's partially a personal thing. He's still upset at me for challenging his "it's only a coincidence" position. And now I am doping out his "sampling error doesn't matter" in his field of expertise. Notice his use of the caps key -- he's really really upset.

I've noticed when one of these scientific antimormons get challenged, they really get upset. They view themselves as intellectually superior, and have their "pat" arguments against the BOM. I pick holes in their argument and they just blow up (in this case, use the caps key). They reject the BOM and the unwashed masses just don't "understand" their intellectually superiority.

The prob here is that I've been down this road many times with these guys. I already know their arguments, and the logical flaws. Just another day at the office for me.

Thanks for the psychoanalysis. You have a special mind-reading talent, which accounts for much of your ability to exasperate the critics (IMO).

You may notice, however, that Charity and I don't disagree quite so much after all. Could it be that you and I don't disagree either? You might look over our latest exchange and see what you think. Or you might not. You seem warmly satisfied with your self-congratulations.

[why me]

Beleive me. 10,000 posts is not all its cracked up to be.

Oh come on...you know that it feels great. Soon you will be joined by charity and no longer will you be alone. Your achievement will be shared and this is only the beginning of more successes in your life and in charity's life. I take my hat off to both of you....