"Not A Trace"

[cdowis]

On anther thread, someone posted:

And don't forget the implications of the LGT, which says that the Lamanites were absorbed into the larger existing population of Asian immigrants, so that there is no trace of their DNA today.

I responded:

So say some, but I do not agree with the "no trace". This has been discussed endlessly under the DNA threads. We have the haplogroup X, for example, which cannot be explained by the asian connection. And how does the asian connection explain the native american who has a common ancestor with a woman from Greece.

Finally, we do not know the DNA characteristics of Lehi, et al. They have only used DNA from the tribe of Judah, not Joseph. And we have not even touched on sampling error through selective sampling.

I think "no trace" not only oversimplifies, but is inaccurate.

Any thoughtful ideas here. Is "no trace" accurate?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I do not believe that is accurate, also you would need ancient DNA from all 12 tribes to determine this would you not? Then there is the problem of the 12 Tribes all being men and as such harder to determine as time goes on.

[cdowis]

Comparing Judah to Joseph in terms of DNA, we have to remember Joseph married an Egyptian princess, rather than a close relative. I would suppose that Lehi's DNA would have some significant differences compared to the modern Jews.

"No trace" does not know what he is looking for.

Edited June 8, 2011 by cdowis

[Doug the Hutt]

Wait a second Mr. Dowis, I think the X haplogroup is easily explained --> traced back to a village on the south end of Lake Baikal circa some 30,000 years BCE.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1226041/

So I think your statement "We have the haplogroup X, for example, which cannot be explained by the asian connection" needs modification.

edit:

unlesss....

http://www.pbs.org/s...atures/dna2.htm

edit ii:

Haplogroup X diverged from hapologroup N, which diverged into X1 and X2 30,000 years ago. I think this is a case where we have to make sure we're talking about the right X. Think in Book of Mormon name terms -- there are several characters called "Nephi". It's important to know which one we're talking about. Same goes for X hapologroups.

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29

Edited June 8, 2011 by Doug the Hutt

[LeSellers]

Comparing Judah to Joseph in terms of DNA, we have to remember Joseph married an Egyptian princess, rather than a close relative.

There are those of us, me included, who believe that Asenath was the daughter of his half-sister, Dinah and Shechem. She was adopted by Potiphera, priest of On. "On" was a city in Egypt, not necessarily a god of the Egyptians, so it may have been (although not required by my theory) that Potiphera was not an Egyptian priest. He could have been, like Reuel/Jethro, a priest of El Elyon/Eloheim/Jehovah.

This apocryphal story of Asenath and Joseph is recounted in the annals of Jewish history.

Lehi

[cdowis]

You need to read the articles more carefully

1. "stated that their maternal grandmother had been born in the area considered for this study."

Let's see, that accounts for 100-200 years out of how many thousands of years? The issue is the direction of migration. Is it not possible that these individuals migrated back from the Americas. We note the small population with this characteristic, so counter-migration is certainly a possibility.

2. But here is the killer:

"One of these X mtDNAs (ALT16) also harbored a 215G variant (table 1) that has not been observed in either American Indian or European X haplotypes. It should also be noted that none of the Altaian X mtDNAs harbored the 225A variant, which is a marker for a major part of haplogroup X (Brown et al. 1998)."

As they say, "The glove doesn't fit, you cannot convict." This is not the same haplogroup x found in the Americas.

Indeed the author of the study indicated that more research was needed to find the actual haplogroup x contributors.

Most antimormons miss that point. I corresponded to a PhD in genetics who was boasting about how they had found the source of haplogoup X. When I pointed this tiny defect in her logic, her silence was stunning.

They are unable to prove the direction of migration (outside of grandmother), nor can they demonstrate that this variant is the source for the haplogroup X in the Americas.

3. Finally, I see no mention of the Druze haplogroup x. Dr. Brown mentioned that possibility in a phone interview. Of course this was excluded, since the Druze are in the middle east, and not europe. This is known as sampling bias. "There is no possibility that the middle east is the source of the haplogroup x, so we will ignore it."

I have been discussing this topic for almost ten years. Welcome to the discussion.

Edited June 8, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

edit ii:

Haplogroup X diverged from hapologroup N, which diverged into X1 and X2 30,000 years ago. I think this is a case where we have to make sure we're talking about the right X.

I think I need you to prove that dating. It's called "scientific baloney". I know this because of my discussion with Dr. Brown who said that these dates are based on "assumptions".

But that was over a decade ago, so let's see your proof.

Edited June 8, 2011 by cdowis

[Questing Beast]

It isn't a question of absorption by a huge pool of Native Americans. It is a problem of irrefutable, scriptural statement: in the D&C (3:18-20), THE LORD himself says that the Lamanites (Amerinds) are the descendants spoken of in the BoM. So their DNA should at the very least compare in a related fashion to Semitic peoples somewhere. And this is clearly not the case. Speculating on how the Lehites found people here already and how the Lehites got "lost" DNA-wise in the shuffle of centuries, is special pleading; and trying to make sense of the assertions of the BoM without evidence. The evidence apparently satisfies geneticists who are not TBMs

[The Nehor]

It isn't a question of absorption by a huge pool of Native Americans. It is a problem of irrefutable, scriptural statement: in the D&C (3:18-20), THE LORD himself says that the Lamanites (Amerinds) are the descendants spoken of in the BoM. So their DNA should at the very least compare in a related fashion to Semitic peoples somewhere. And this is clearly not the case. Speculating on how the Lehites found people here already and how the Lehites got "lost" DNA-wise in the shuffle of centuries, is special pleading; and trying to make sense of the assertions of the BoM without evidence. The evidence apparently satisfies geneticists who are not TBMs

So God saying Person A is related to Person B = God promising that all the genetic markers of Person A will survive over two millenia or genetic mixing in Person B?

Can you point out the relevant scripture to support this?

[bookofmormontruth]

The mystery of human origins is far from solved, but because DNA may not be as diagnostic as it once seemed, Thorne says, we’re back to the bones”. Kate Wong, Scientific American, August 1999

I always find it very amusing that anti-Mormons and the likes ignorantly claim that the DNA issue is "closed".

Really?

When did phylogenetic dating stop being a "theory"?

And can anyone show me where we have tested each of the 550 recognized Indian tribes in the U.S.? The Political Geography of Indian Country", American Indian Culture and Resource Journal, 15 (2):1–169 (1991).

Cherokee DNA seems very promising.

Anomalous haplogroups from Egypt, Israel and East Mediterranean My link

Even critics are realizing the evidence of the origin of the Americas isn't what is currently thought.

"The first Americans may have taken a maritime route" according to Michael Coe

Bottom line: The DNA issue will prove nothing. Even if there is undeniable direct evidence discovered, those who have the automatic reflex to reject the Book of Mormon - will continue to do so. In the meantime: it is entertaining to discuss.

Edited June 8, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[cdowis]

It isn't a question of absorption by a huge pool of Native Americans. It is a problem of irrefutable, scriptural statement: in the D&C (3:18-20), THE LORD himself says that the Lamanites (Amerinds) are the descendants spoken of in the BoM. So their DNA should at the very least compare in a related fashion to Semitic peoples somewhere. And this is clearly not the case. Speculating on how the Lehites found people here already and how the Lehites got "lost" DNA-wise in the shuffle of centuries, is special pleading; and trying to make sense of the assertions of the BoM without evidence. The evidence apparently satisfies geneticists who are not TBMs

I have a simple question for you. A scientific question, noting to do with TBM, faith, or even the Book of Mormon.

Tell us the characteristics of Israelite DNA. We are talking about DNA of the people living in Jerusalem prior to the Babylonian captivity, prior to the loss of the ten tribes.

So their DNA should at the very least compare in a related fashion to Semitic peoples somewhere.

Now, we can all agree that the DNA of modern Jews are not found among the Native Americans, but let's hear from you the answer to my question. And leave religion, faith, TBM out of the discussion, please.

What exactly are you talking about when you use the phrase "semetic DNA? What is that? Where are you getting your samples to make that comparison? Give us the exact source of "Semitic DNA"?

Give us the scientific answer. Your post here makes it appear that you have a deep and profound ignorance of the of the scientific method. Do you not know that to compare samples, you must have a source of those sample. They have to be validated to represent authentic population.

Now that is science, that is not faith, not TBM, not Book of Mormon, nnor antimormons spouting nonsense....... that is science. We do not care what "satisfies" anyone. Bring one of those "satisfied" geneticists here on the forum, and let him or her explain the source of that sample. Or you can speak to them, and give us their answer.

You insult us with your cute TBM comment, so I am giving you a formal request to answer that question.

Questing beast, we are looking forward to your response.

Edited June 9, 2011 by cdowis

[Questing Beast]

I have a simple question for you. A scientific question, noting to do with TBM, faith, or even the Book of Mormon.

Tell us the characteristics of Israelite DNA. We are talking about DNA of the people living in Jerusalem prior to the Babylonian captivity, prior to the loss of the ten tribes.

Now, we can all agree that the DNA of modern Jews are not found among the Native Americans, but let's hear from you the answer to my question. And leave religion, faith, TBM out of the discussion, please.

What exactly are you talking about when you use the phrase "semetic DNA? What is that? Where are you getting your samples to make that comparison? Give us the exact source of "Semitic DNA"?

I would expect anyone trying to test an asserted link between Amerinds, any of them to east Mediterranean peoples, any of them, to either turn up such a link using DNA, or discover no link whatsoever. So far as I have read (I do not read a lot on this topic beyond discussions, arguments, about it, like most people), there is no such study turning up any DNA link between eastern Mediterranean people and the ancient Americas. Correct me if I am mistaken, but the oldest presence in the Levant is termed "Semitic", and includes Arabs, Jews, Syrians and "Mesopotamians". If any Amerind DNA links exist supporting an ancient connection, I have not heard. I have heard of some Mormon geneticists quitting the Church over this one...

[LeSellers]

I have heard of some Mormon geneticists quitting the Church over this one...

I suggest that you have not "heard of some Mormon geneticists quitting the Church over this one", but of someone using this a his excuse for leaving the Church. As I recall, the person was not, himself, a geneticist at all, LDS or otherwise, but was going on partial "evidence" antimormons had cherry-picked for their polemical presentation.

Lehi

[Questing Beast]

So God saying Person A is related to Person B = God promising that all the genetic markers of Person A will survive over two millenia or genetic mixing in Person B?

Can you point out the relevant scripture to support this?

"Let there be light" includes all manner of thermodynamics and quantum physics that Bronze Age barbarians scratching their revelations onto parchment never had a clue of. So there are not going to be any DNA scripture references. But you knew that when you "asked" your disingenuous question.

It is obvious from the context of the time and place of the D&C revelations that Joseph Smith, et al. KNEW the American Indians to be literally, physically descended Lamanites. The Lord told them so. That modern technology has produced methods of testing physical relationships of literal descent makes such 19th century assertions problematic if taken literally. Which our species tends to do since we are dependent on our sapience and not just our credulity and trust in old written words. Modern knowledge must support the old knowledge or at the very least not call it into question. DNA evidence (and evidence is all it is) certainly creates a problem for the old words being literally true. We can create any number of alternate paradigms to maintain the truth of the scripture, even resorting to metaphysical (open-ended) assertions where "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But that does not satisfy everyone....

[Questing Beast]

I suggest that you have not "heard of some Mormon geneticists quitting the Church over this one", but of someone using this a his excuse for leaving the Church. As I recall, the person was not, himself, a geneticist at all, LDS or otherwise, but was going on partial "evidence" antimormons had cherry-picked for their polemical presentation.

Lehi

Simon Southerton was not only a Mormon but also a bishop. I have not read the book. Okay, "geneticists" (plural) is assumed by me: I do not know of another by name, but assume Southerton is not the only Mormon geneticist who has "quit the Church" because there is zero evidence linking Amerinds with the Middle East....

[bookofmormontruth]

Simon Southerton was not only a Mormon but also a bishop. I have not read the book. Okay, "geneticists" (plural) is assumed by me: I do not know of another by name, but assume Southerton is not the only Mormon geneticist who has "quit the Church" because there is zero evidence linking Amerinds with the Middle East....

Oops. No one leaves over the DNA issue despite how loud they yell it. There is always an underlining "real" reason.

"Simon Southerton has been ordered to appear at a July 31 hearing before church leaders in Canberra, Australia, he said in a telephone interview with the Associated Press. But rather than charge him with apostasy, LDS leaders in his area have charged him with adultery." "I was excommunicated for "having an inappropriate relationship with a woman" when I was a member of the church, married and a priesthood holder". My link

[stemelbow]

cdowis,

So say some, but I do not agree with the "no trace". This has been discussed endlessly under the DNA threads. We have the haplogroup X, for example, which cannot be explained by the asian connection. And how does the asian connection explain the native american who has a common ancestor with a woman from Greece.

Finally, we do not know the DNA characteristics of Lehi, et al. They have only used DNA from the tribe of Judah, not Joseph. And we have not even touched on sampling error through selective sampling.

I think "no trace" not only oversimplifies, but is inaccurate.

I"m not sure how this explanation refutes the "not trace" position. Care to clarify? It seems to me that if haplogroup X somehow pointed to Lehi and co, then there'd be a refutation of no trace, but it deosn't seem like that's the case. And the woman in Greece allusion doesn't seem to respond so a trace either. What trace refutes the no trace mantra?

[cdowis]

I would expect anyone trying to test an asserted link between Amerinds, any of them to east Mediterranean peoples, any of them, to either turn up such a link using DNA, or discover no link whatsoever. So far as I have read (I do not read a lot on this topic beyond discussions, arguments, about it, like most people), there is no such study turning up any DNA link between eastern Mediterranean people and the ancient Americas. Correct me if I am mistaken, but the oldest presence in the Levant is termed "Semitic", and includes Arabs, Jews, Syrians and "Mesopotamians". If any Amerind DNA links exist supporting an ancient connection, I have not heard. I have heard of some Mormon geneticists quitting the Church over this one...

I do not think you answered my question, but you made a mighty pretense at doing so.

We are not talking about faith, TBM, or even the BOM. We are talking about science. Are you willing to address my specific question on the scientific methodology, rather than how many genetiticists have left the church. There are many reasons to leave the church, even for a former bishop.

You can answer the question or use smoke and mirrors to avoid it.

What are the characteristics of "semitic DNA" as related to Lehi, et al. Tell us what we are looking for, instead of modern Jewish DNA.

Edited June 9, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

cdowis,

I"m not sure how this explanation refutes the "not trace" position. Care to clarify? It seems to me that if haplogroup X somehow pointed to Lehi and co, then there'd be a refutation of no trace, but it deosn't seem like that's the case. And the woman in Greece allusion doesn't seem to respond so a trace either. What trace refutes the no trace mantra?

See my fundamental question == what exactly are you looking for? What are the characteristics of Lehi's DNA? Once you give us that answer, we can then look to see if there is any trace.

Someone awhile back posted a news article that there was supposed to be traces of Neanderthal DNA in modern man. Since we know what we are looking for, we can then see if there is indeed such a trace in homo sapiens.

I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept.

[cdowis]

Simon Southerton was not only a Mormon but also a bishop. I have not read the book. Okay, "geneticists" (plural) is assumed by me: I do not know of another by name, but assume Southerton is not the only Mormon geneticist who has "quit the Church" because there is zero evidence linking Amerinds with the Middle East....

Have you read what he has to say recently? This is pretty old stuff, and he found other excuses for leaving the church.

I remember corresponding with him years ago, asking him a few questions, similar to our discussion here.

[Questing Beast]

...

What are the characteristics of "semitic DNA" as related to Lehi, et al. Tell us what we are looking for, instead of modern Jewish DNA.

Could I change "Semitic" to Middle Eastern then? I was using "Semitic" as a generalization for the ME peoples. Have they been heavily replaced since c. 600 BCE? I do not believe so. Therefore, any ancient connection in the Amerinds to any ancient ME peoples would be close enough to show a ME genetic relationship. That would satisfy the BoM claim that the Lehites originated from the ME, of which "the land of Jerusalem" is unarguably a part....

[Pahoran]

It isn't a question of absorption by a huge pool of Native Americans. It is a problem of irrefutable, scriptural statement: in the D&C (3:18-20), THE LORD himself says that the Lamanites (Amerinds) are the descendants spoken of in the BoM.

Does he?

Let's see what that actually says, shall we?

18 And this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, whom the Lord has suffered to destroy their brethren the Nephites, because of their iniquities and their abominations.

19 And for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records—that the promises of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to his people;

20 And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and be glorified through faith in his name, and that through their repentance they might be saved. Amen.

So it does.

But once again you demonstrate the entertaining spectacle of an unbeliever telling us what our scriptures mean.

You see, QB, I've looked through those verses carefully. They say that the Lamanites have modern descendants. Do they say that those descendants are descended from them and no-one else?

Do you know how population geneticists go about determining descent?

How would a population geneticist establish your line of descent from your maternal grandfather?

How about your paternal grandmother?

So their DNA should at the very least compare in a related fashion to Semitic peoples somewhere.

Really?

Why?

And this is clearly not the case. Speculating on how the Lehites found people here already and how the Lehites got "lost" DNA-wise in the shuffle of centuries, is special pleading;

Really?

How do you know? Have you actually made an effort to understand the arguments?

and trying to make sense of the assertions of the BoM without evidence. The evidence apparently satisfies geneticists who are not TBMs

"Satisfies" them in what way? That everyone can stop looking and go home?

I don't see that happening anytime soon, do you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

"Let there be light" includes all manner of thermodynamics and quantum physics that Bronze Age barbarians scratching their revelations onto parchment never had a clue of. So there are not going to be any DNA scripture references. But you knew that when you "asked" your disingenuous question.

Oh yes. Those stupid Bronze Age barbarians. What did they ever do for us?

Okay, so they invented writing. But hey, it's not like that's any big deal, is it? Who uses writing anyway? What good is it to the world?

And okay, yes, they gave us metal tools. They invented the wheel, the lever and the inclined plane. They invented mathematics. And science. But they were just barbarians, right?

What could they possibly know that could teach a modern, enlightened intelligence like QB anything?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Questing Beast]

"There is nothing new under the sun and all is meaningless."

Awareness of DNA is something "new" since that pessimistic observation was written down for the first time. It's new since Joseph Smith's day. It's one of our newest things.

And yes, I am making an effort to understand the validity of the DNA argument vis-a-vis the BoM (and D&C) claims that Amerinds are Israelites. There is, of course, adoption. But the BoM does not say that the descendants of the Lehites will require adoption. Quite clearly the intervening centuries, since the "Lamanite" portion exterminated the "Nephite" portion, have not diluted the genetic identifier as given in scripture. Only the pesky arrival of DNA testing has thrown a wrench into the works that requires removal or incorporation somehow.

Pahoran is not in a position to expound on anyone's belief or otherwise....

[Pahoran]

"There is nothing new under the sun and all is meaningless."

Awareness of DNA is something "new" since that pessimistic observation was written down for the first time. It's new since Joseph Smith's day. It's one of our newest things.

I don't think the preacher was talking about technology. AFAICT, people have been inventing new gadgets since the first caveman pounded two rocks together. It is human nature that does not change. New morals -- new rationalisations -- new excuses -- none of them are really new.

And yes, I am making an effort to understand the validity of the DNA argument vis-a-vis the BoM (and D&C) claims that Amerinds are Israelites. There is, of course, adoption. But the BoM does not say that the descendants of the Lehites will require adoption.

Which makes it a red herring. There is no need to bring it up.

Quite clearly the intervening centuries, since the "Lamanite" portion exterminated the "Nephite" portion, have not diluted the genetic identifier as given in scripture.

I'm sorry, but where is there a "genetic identifier" given in any scripture? I've carefully read the passage you cited. To be doubly sure, I've re-read it. It doesn't say anything about gene loci or SNP's.

And where do you get your "quite clearly" from? Since it is less than clear to me what you are even talking about, I fail to see what you are "quite clearly" concluding.

It's time for you to spell out a few of your assumptions, I think. Merely presenting us with your magisterial conclusions doesn't actually help much.

Only the pesky arrival of DNA testing has thrown a wrench into the works that requires removal or incorporation somehow.

Really?

Again, I draw your attention to the questions you ignored last time:

Do you know how population geneticists go about determining descent?

How would a population geneticist establish your line of descent from your maternal grandfather?

How about your paternal grandmother?

Now if you don't know the answers, you can of course ignore them again, and everyone will understand. Alternatively, if you don't see the relevance, please say so.

If you are truly "making an effort to understand the validity of the DNA argument" then I suggest you start with these questions, because they have a direct bearing upon it.

Pahoran is not in a position to expound on anyone's belief or otherwise....

Fear not; Pahoran has not tried to expound upon your belief or otherwise.

Regards,

Pahoran