Neanderthal DNA in modern non-Africans

[Abulafia]

Recent research suggests that Modern Non-Africans carry up to 4% Neanderthal DNA, whilst there is no evidence of Neanderthal DNA in modern Africans.

Here are two links giving an outline of the findings:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7118573.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

Questions.

1) Do you feel the research is valid?

2) If you do feel the research is valid then are there religious and political implications?

3) What does it imply about what it is to be human?

Personally, I find that if this research is correct then the implications are profound both in terms of 19th Century attitudes to race and in the resulting theological discourse and belief that came out of that.

Mary

[44Foxtrot]

Recent research suggests that Modern Non-Africans carry up to 4% Neanderthal DNA, whilst there is no evidence of Neanderthal DNA in modern Africans.

Here are two links giving an outline of the findings:

http://www.timesonli...icle7118573.ece

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/8660940.stm

Questions.

1) Do you feel the research is valid?

2) If you do feel the research is valid then are there religious and political implications?

3) What does it imply about what it is to be human?

Personally, I find that if this research is correct then the implications are profound both in terms of 19th Century attitudes to race and in the resulting theological discourse and belief that came out of that.

1) Given the location of Neanderthal sites and the dating of Neanderthal remains as compared to those of our African ancestors, this is no surprise. There is plenty archeological evidence from the Middle East and Southern Europe that the two groups co-existed in time and place and so interbreeding is to be expected.

2) As to religious implications there is certainly an impact on the claims of apologists related to the DNA that, according to the Book of Mormon narrative, should be present in Native American populations. These findings make it more difficult (I would claim impossible) to support the assertion that Semitic DNA was "washed out" of the Native American genome in a mere 2,000 to 3,000 years, when it is now clear that DNA introduced into the human genome, even by a relatively small population some 30,000 years ago, can still be detected in all human populations where it is expected to be present. The finding gives additionalcredibility to the "out of Africa" view of human evolution bacuse thie DNA was found exactly where it would be expected based on archeological evidence with regard to human migration.

The fact that the populations in which Neanderthal genetic material is detected is entirely consistent with archeological evidence from several sites strengthens the case for the validity of these new scientific findings.

3) As far as the secular scientific view of what it means to be human is concerned, these findings simply confirm that a part of the population carries DNA from a subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalis) that was in many ways quite different than modern homo sapiens. This is interesting and provides further evidence for the validity of modern evolutionary theory.

These findings, as published in one of the most highly regarded peer reviewed scientific journals, will no doubt send many religious fundamentalists and creationists back to the drawing board to figure out an appropriate apologetic response.

[USU78]

Genesis 6:1-4

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

A memory?

[Zakuska]

A memory?

People seem to have a hard time believing the great ages men lived to in those days and look at the Bible account with a skeptical eye. Many Chinese are living that long.

3 such examples.

Ma Wangshi is 121 years old. She enjoys working in her garden daily and prefers to go up stairs unassisted. This boy is her great-great-grandson!

The Hongzhangs are both 110 years old. Their eyesight is still excellent, they have all their teeth, and they have not seen a doctor in years. None of their favorite activities is going to the market.

103 Year-Old Doctor Hikes Three Miles Before Seeing His Patients

The trick? Mother Nature and Diet.

http://www.bestantioxidantjuice.com/

[BookofMormonLuvr]

A memory?

So who which be the sons of God and who which be the daughters of men?

[nicolasconnault]

The trick? Mother Nature and Diet.

http://www.bestantioxidantjuice.com/

Haha nice one Actually I was blown away once when I read that lobsters have no "in-built" senescence. They can theoretically live and keep growing forever. Only injuries and the hazards of getting very large lead to their deaths. But this is going off-track

[Doug the Hutt]

People seem to have a hard time believing the great ages men lived to in those days and look at the Bible account with a skeptical eye. Many Chinese are living that long.

3 such examples.

...

The trick? Mother Nature and Diet.

http://www.bestantioxidantjuice.com/

Hi Zak,

I'm not skeptical about someone living to 120 Earth years old. I'm skeptical about the people mentioned just a few chapters before that living 900+ years and I think most skeptics would agree with the distinction.

[thesometimesaint]

Doug the Hutt:

It MUST be the Millennium we agree.

[california boy]

Just my own opinion on how God created man. I believe that part of what defines God is that he is all knowing. Which means he knows all truth, also all science. For me it is entirely possible that God is well aware of the natural evolution of species. So maybe God just lets things happen here on earth for millenniums. It grows, changes gets populated and then God needs this earth to place his spirit children on. So He wipes out the dinosaurs, refines the body of man and when it is ready to accept one of his spirit children God "breathes in the breath of life" which in my mind means introducing a spirit into this naturally formed body. From that time on, man is now on the earth with spirits coming to those bodies that have been prepared for them.

There is only a conflict between creationism and evolution if you don't look at it from a very strict interpretation of the Bible. Something I think was never the intent of its authors. God is simply explaining in a very elementary way how science functions. Starting with the creation of the sun, earth itself, then plants, then fish then animals then man. The sequence is identical to science. Just my thoughts.

[cdowis]

As to religious implications there is certainly an impact on the claims of apologists related to the DNA that, according to the Book of Mormon narrative, should be present in Native American populations. These findings make it more difficult (I would claim impossible) to support the assertion that Semitic DNA was "washed out" of the Native American genome in a mere 2,000 to 3,000 years

Please tell us what "semitic" DNA is, from 600BCE, prior to the Babylonian captivity. Specifically the DNA of Lehi, et al. Do you have samples of this DNA, and where did you obtain it?

Your logic falls flat on its face.

I personally have never used the "washed out" argument. It is unnecessary.

[USU78]

So who which be the sons of God and who which be the daughters of men?

Keine Ahnung

[Eldwynn]

I have always thought the "it got washed out" argument was hogwash. I can't remember exactly where he says it, I think in "The Ancestors Tale" maybe, but I remember reading that if just ONE interbreeding happened; just one time, then it will be present in 80% of the population. I will have to look it up. If there were Israelites in the New World, DNA would easily prove it. The only people that disagree seem to be Mormon Apologists, many of whom lack degrees, and more importantly an understanding, of genetics.

[Pahoran]

Recent research suggests that Modern Non-Africans carry up to 4% Neanderthal DNA, whilst there is no evidence of Neanderthal DNA in modern Africans.

Here are two links giving an outline of the findings:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7118573.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

Questions.

1) Do you feel the research is valid?

I'm not really qualified to comment on that. I'll yield the floor to the scientists.

2) If you do feel the research is valid then are there religious and political implications?

No.

3) What does it imply about what it is to be human?

Nothing.

Personally, I find that if this research is correct then the implications are profound both in terms of 19th Century attitudes to race and in the resulting theological discourse and belief that came out of that.

Mary

Of course you do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

2) As to religious implications there is certainly an impact on the claims of apologists related to the DNA that, according to the Book of Mormon narrative, should be present in Native American populations. These findings make it more difficult (I would claim impossible) to support the assertion that Semitic DNA was "washed out" of the Native American genome in a mere 2,000 to 3,000 years, when it is now clear that DNA introduced into the human genome, even by a relatively small population some 30,000 years ago, can still be detected in all human populations where it is expected to be present.

Thank you for that expression of faith, DrW. I find it to be almost as valid as your previous attempt to argue that a mentally ill mother killing her children represented the "logical consequence" of believing LDS doctrine.

However, your attempt to resuscitate a dead argument, romantically attractive as it must be to you, fails immediately. The two problems are entirely unlike each other; in fact, Simon Southerton himself, the patron saint of the failed DNA argument (and who, unlike your good self, is actually a geneticist) admitted that there is simply no likelihood of finding Semitic DNA in current NA populations if the Lehi colony was a small insertion into an established population, which has long been the dominant view of serious Book of Mormon scholars.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stargazer]

I think that the idea that I have a little Neanderthal DNA in me is rather charming!

I don't think that it has any affect on the fact that we are the offspring of God. Neanderthal DNA is no less startling than 50,000 year old Cro Magnon man. If the one doesn't provide a "killing blow", then neither will the other.

The Garden of Eden story, along Adam and Eve, seems mostly allegory to me, with elements of fact, just as the Parable of the Good Samaritan does. Did this Good Samaritan actually exist and did the events Jesus described actually happen? I don't know, and much less care. The principle of the story is what is most important.

Nice to see you posting again, Mary!

[Eldwynn]

I think that the idea that I have a little Neanderthal DNA in me is rather charming!

I don't think that it has any affect on the fact that we are the offspring of God. Neanderthal DNA is no less startling than 50,000 year old Cro Magnon man. If the one doesn't provide a "killing blow", then neither will the other.

The Garden of Eden story, along Adam and Eve, seems mostly allegory to me, with elements of fact, just as the Parable of the Good Samaritan does. Did this Good Samaritan actually exist and did the events Jesus described actually happen? I don't know, and much less care. The principle of the story is what is most important.

Nice to see you posting again, Mary!

Do you think humans originated in Missouri?

[Eldwynn]

Thank you for that expression of faith, DrW. I find it to be almost as valid as your previous attempt to argue that a mentally ill mother killing her children represented the "logical consequence" of believing LDS doctrine.

However, your attempt to resuscitate a dead argument, romantically attractive as it must be to you, fails immediately. The two problems are entirely unlike each other; in fact, Simon Southerton himself, the patron saint of the failed DNA argument (and who, unlike your good self, is actually a geneticist) admitted that there is simply no likelihood of finding Semitic DNA in current NA populations if the Lehi colony was a small insertion into an established population, which has long been the dominant view of serious Book of Mormon scholars.

Regards,

Pahoran

What he actually says:

7. The bottleneck effect, genetic drift, and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes.

In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years.

Let's not forget the number of prophets, and church leaders past and present who lied and said that native americans are decendents of the Book of Mormon peoples.

Do not use this board to call anyone a liar. If you can't be civil about leaders Mormons hold in high regard you will not be allowed to post on it.

[Calm]

From Ugo Perego, an expert in the field:

A recent example from a study in Iceland based on genetic and genealogical data clearly demonstrated how the majority of people living in that country today are just a small representation of people that lived just 300 years ago.<a href="http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA.html#en23">'>http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA.html#en23">²

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA.html

[caudicus]

Thank you for that expression of faith, DrW. I find it to be almost as valid as your previous attempt to argue that a mentally ill mother killing her children represented the "logical consequence" of believing LDS doctrine.

However, your attempt to resuscitate a dead argument, romantically attractive as it must be to you, fails immediately. The two problems are entirely unlike each other; in fact, Simon Southerton himself, the patron saint of the failed DNA argument (and who, unlike your good self, is actually a geneticist) admitted that there is simply no likelihood of finding Semitic DNA in current NA populations if the Lehi colony was a small insertion into an established population, which has long been the dominant view of serious Book of Mormon scholars.

Regards,

Pahoran

So, because someone else might possibly be wrong, you are definitely right?

[Jeff K.]

I have always thought the "it got washed out" argument was hogwash. I can't remember exactly where he says it, I think in "The Ancestors Tale" maybe, but I remember reading that if just ONE interbreeding happened; just one time, then it will be present in 80% of the population. I will have to look it up. If there were Israelites in the New World, DNA would easily prove it. The only people that disagree seem to be Mormon Apologists, many of whom lack degrees, and more importantly an understanding, of genetics.

So you don't believe in allelic drift? Scientists do. You may wish to read up on it.

In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years.

Your interpretation seems somewhat befuddled, and more to the point, your personal interpretation is not automatically the only one or the correct one or even the one generally understood. Try not to confuse doctrine with opinion. There is nothing that states plainly that the Nephites were not a small group relative to American populations, or a large group relative to American populations. They could be an "important group" perhaps, or a group with great influence, and so on....

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually, I've met a number of people who I am quite confident have substantially more than 4% Neanderthal DNA.

The reason we can test for Neanderthal DNA is that we have discovered burials with surviving Neanderthal DNA to compare with.

The reason we cannot test for Lehite DNA is that we have no source for original Lehite DNA. (Comparing with modern Jewish DNA simply won't work. It is methodological nonsense.) Unless one does complete genome analysis with both source and target DNA, you're not going to be able to make the types of conclusions found in the Neanderthal case

Most ancestry tests are not full DNA analysis (as the Neanderthal case), but tests for mitochondrial and X DNA from father an mother. That can disappear rather quickly. For example, of my father's 25 descendants, only 5 can transmit his X DNA; of my mother's, only 5 can transmit her mitochondrial DNA. The rest are either sons of daughters or daughters of sons. While these types of test can establish some descendants, they cannot establish all ancestry. (That is, you know that everyone with a particular mitochondrial DNA is descendant from a particular woman, but not all her descendants will have that mitochondrial DNA. Likewise, while you can trace the main line of female ancestry with mitochondrial DNA, you cannot trace male ancestry, nor can you trace subsidiary female lines. You get your m-DNA from your mother and your maternal grandmother, but not your paternal grandmother, etc.

Descent and DNA are two different things. Likewise, language, religion, culture, tribe, etc. are the same as DNA nor genealogical descent. There are lots of descendants of Israelites who are not Jews today, and there are lots of contemporary Jews who have no Israelite DNA. These are overlapping concepts but not the same.

It is odd that after all the discussion of this issue so many people still don't get it.

[Stargazer]

Do you think humans originated in Missouri?

No, I think they originated somewhere else. Not on earth.

[Stargazer]

Let's not forget the number of prophets, and church leaders past and present who lied and said that native americans are decendents of the Book of Mormon peoples.

This is a nicely leftish tactic, itself a form of lie. Thus the pot calls the kettle black.

Semantics is a wonderful field of subject. If I were clever enough with words I could call you vile names and leave you thinking I had given you a great compliment. Fortunately, I am neither clever nor vile enough to do so.

A lie is an untruth. To believe an untruth and repeat it, however, is not "lying". Those who in olden days were convinced the sun and other celestial bodies orbitted the earth were not lying, they were merely wrong, which is quite neutral. It is a slander used by the "Bush lied" crowd, not to descend into politics so much as to illustrate a recent egregious instance of the same.

"You are a liar" is a much worse pronouncement than "you are mistaken."

I hope you employ the terms "to lie" and "liar" more appropriately in the future.

[Jeff K.]

Best of luck getting him to do that.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Do you think humans originated in Missouri?

Yes.

Whatcha gonna do about it?