"Not A Trace"

[cinepro]

I don't know a lot about the DNA issue, but I do know it would be really cool if they could find this, but for the Book of Mormon.

A few years after his travels, Parfitt teamed up with a group from The Center for Genetic Anthropology at University College London to look for a genetic counterpart to the Lemba's oral tradition of Jewish descent. Using a relatively new technique in genetic studies, the team identified a particular series of genetic markers on the Y chromosome of Lemba males. They then compared these markers to other groups with whom the Lemba might have shared a common ancestor long ago.

The team collected DNA samples from Bantu (African), Yemeni (Arab), and Sephardic Jews and Azhkenazi Jews (including Cohanim from both communities) to compare the amount of similarity that existed between each of these groups. As we've seen, the more similar the Y chromosome, the more closely related are some individuals in the different groups to a common paternal ancestor. As a consequence, one can establish links between populations.

--------------------------------

What this study shows is that the Lemba, and more specifically some members of the Buba sub-clan, seem to have an ancestral connection to Judaic populations. Like an oral history, but written in the letters of their DNA, the Lemba Y chromosome hands from father to son a living record of the past.

I wonder if the Lemba had apologists ready to go in case the genetic testing was negative.

Edited June 10, 2011 by cinepro

[cdowis]

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.

Well, since you make this point with such confidence and certitude, can we assume that you can provide us your qualifications for making this assertion.

Or is this just another antimormon blowing hot air.

Perhaps Southerton can help you out. I suspect that he would have already made that argument if it made any sense.

Note: Did I happen to mention that during my phone call with Dr. Brown regarding his discovery of haplogroup x among the amerindians, he mentioned haplogroup x occurs among the Druse. Maybe there is a relationship, maybe not. I don't think anyone has looked.

Edited June 10, 2011 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

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

His firstborn son, Ishmael, Abraham begat by an Egyptian concubine, Hagar (Genesis 16:1-16). His great-grandson, Joseph-who-was-sold-into-Egypt, not only became prime minister of Egypt, but he also married a high caste Egyptian woman, Asenath, daughter of Potiphera,¹ the priest of Heliopolis (On), and she was the mother of Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis 41:45,50-52). The Jewish colonists at Elephantine, Egypt, sometimes married Egyptians and even gave their children Egyptian names (the same sort of tendency we have seen for centuries among Near Eastern, European, and American Jews). Judaean King David was a descendant of a non-Israelite woman from Moah named Ruth. Later Jewish legends have sometimes tried to deny these accounts for pious reasons.

In fact, Moses (speaking on behalf of the Lord) provides the required declaration of every Israelite: "My father was a wandering Aramaean" (Deut 26:5 KJV “Syrian” is incorrect), and the Lord later declares that “Thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite” (Ezk 16:3). The Lord is not speaking figuratively. He means it. For no people is truly racially pure, nor should we expect them to be.

However, it is also true that large gene pools are generally distinguishable via DNA testing -- in order to detect those who share certain common genetic characteristics. Some of that testing is used genographically to give time depth to various group migrations as well as to effectively map them and to see how known historical and linguistic data match up. The key to accurate mapping of the data is testing of ancient skeletal remains, since random sampling of modern subjects is too often contaminated by intermarriage before testing even begins.

Then too, in order to do meaningful testing, one must apply far more sophisticated testing than simply mtDNA or the Y-chromosone. The results are quite surprising: One Harvard researcher (David Reich) was astonished recently (in May 2011) to find that European (Ashkenazi) and non-European (non-Ashkenazi) Jews were actually related to one another via DNA – “Population genetics reveals shared ancestries: DNA links modern Europeans, Middle Easterners to Sub-Saharan Africans,” ScienceDaily, May 24, 2011 (Harvard Medical School). Retrieved June 4, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com- /releases/2011/05/110524153536.htm .²

¹ His name means “He-who-is-given-by-Re’,” bearing in mind that Heliopolis means “Sun-city.”

² Priya Moorjani, Nick Patterson, Joel N. Hirschhorn, Alon Keinan, Li Hao, Gil Atzmon, Edward Burns, Harry Ostrer, Alkes L. Price, and David Reich, “The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews.” PLoS Genetics, 7/4 (2011), online at http://genetics.med....eich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2011Moorjani_PLOS.pdf ; Gil Atzmon, Li Hao, Itsik Pe'er, Christopher Velez, Alexander Pearlman, Pier Francesco Palamara, Bernice Morrow, Eitan Friedman, Carole Oddoux, Edward Burns, and Harry Ostrer, “Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 86/6 (June 2010), 850-859; “Common genetic threads link thousands of years of Jewish ancestry,” ScienceDaily, June 4, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com- /releases/2010/06/100603123707.htm .

[Robert F. Smith]

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

D&C 3:18-20 does not say what you claim -- not even close. There is no reason to assert that Amerinds = Lamanites. The Lamanites constituted a very small proportion of known Amerinds (and that only in a small section of Mesoamerica before the influx of Nahuatl peoples), and there is no reason to suppose that there was ever any hemispheric involvement in Book of Mormon events. Dispassionate scholarly analysis simply makes that impossible.

It is true that, when the Conquistadores arrived in Mexico, they found various peoples totaling about 12 million in population. The most powerful peoples present were Nahuatl (Aztec), who were latecomers to the area. Other civilizations had long since risen and fallen. Within a century of the arrival of the Spanish, only 1 million of the population of Mesoamerica had survived the death by plague and disease brought from Europe. The Spanish even brought in large numbers of African slaves to work the mines and to do other hard labor. The genetic heritage of Mesoamerica is very complex and should be subjected to careful study.

[Robert F. Smith]

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 Lord himself does not say that the Lamanites = all Amerinds, nor is there any indication that some "evidence" (what evidence?) "satisfies geneticists," on that question. Perhaps you could cite your sources (CFR). If you are depending on a sole plant geneticist who is an apostate from Mormonism, you should take a look at his frequent lies enumerated at http://www.fairblog.org/2009/02/06/current-biology-smgf-and-lamanites/#more-418 .

It might be worthwhile to explore what professionals in population genetics have to say about this, and if you want to exclude Mormons and anti-Mormons from those consulted, I'm O.K. with that. To that end, perhaps you could supply this Board with some references to academic journal articles (refereed) on this issue from disinterested third parties.

[Questing Beast]

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.

I actually agree with this. But it can be argued that "there is nothing new under the sun" means NOTHING NEW.

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.

Implied direct descent in the text does not change, ever, not even by the time The Lord is dictating the relevant passages in the D&C. And adoption is for Gentiles only, not Israelites. You can cease with the disingenuous rebuttals.

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?

...

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.

My meager understanding distinguishes between mitochondrial DNA, which is traceable down the ages, and the DNA passed on by the male, which disappears. Please increase my understanding. The daughters of Ishmael, the sisters of Nephi, would pass on their DNA markers to all their descendants, resulting in the DNA studies we hear of today. Without that distinction there would be no DNA tracking to be done. So, again, the Middle Eastern peoples, traceable to their ancient ancestors through their mothers, should retain some connection to "Israelites" - ancient Middle Easterners - descended from immigrants to the Americas; someone, somewhere, and there is no such connection before Columbus.

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

...

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

Regards,

Pahoran

Right...

[Questing Beast]

I don't know a lot about the DNA issue, but I do know it would be really cool if they could find this, but for the Book of Mormon.

I wonder if the Lemba had apologists ready to go in case the genetic testing was negative.

And here we have a clear indicator that I do not know what I thought I knew: that males do not pass on a traceable DNA marker, but that only occurs through the mitochondrial DNA. I have no idea what I am talking about at this point. Like almost all of us, I only read and try to make sense out of what I read. The quote you offered appears to contradict what little I had assumed up to this point....

[bookofmormontruth]

And here we have a clear indicator that I do not know what I thought I knew: that males do not pass on a traceable DNA marker, but that only occurs through the mitochondrial DNA. I have no idea what I am talking about at this point. Like almost all of us, I only read and try to make sense out of what I read. The quote you offered appears to contradict what little I had assumed up to this point....

Yet, you keep making end all conclusions.

Let me re-emphasize what I posted earlier:

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

[Questing Beast]

Well, since you make this point with such confidence and certitude, can we assume that you can provide us your qualifications for making this assertion.

Or is this just another antimormon blowing hot air.

Not at all, really. I am just as inquisitive about this new stuff as anyone. Logic demands that if the Amerinds are "Israelites" then they are Middle Easterners. And if any of this traceable DNA stuff is real, then Amerinds must, in order to be "Lamanites", bear a DNA connection to some Middle Easterners today. The indigenous populations of the Middle East have largely remained throughout the millennia. Every "diaspora" of the Jews has left a sizable remnant in the Middle East, and they have largely remained separate from the surrounding peoples, marrying within their religious confines. Returning Jews have brought back a similarly segregated DNA, I should think, since Europeans made sure throughout the middle ages that Jews lived alone in their ghettos, and Jews have always retained a self-imposed prohibition toward marrying "Gentiles".

...

Note: Did I happen to mention that during my phone call with Dr. Brown regarding his discovery of haplogroup x among the amerindians, he mentioned haplogroup x occurs among the Druse. Maybe there is a relationship, maybe not. I don't think anyone has looked.

If nobody has looked at an apparently obvious connection to a specific "Jewish-Arab" group that has remained particularly segregated, then what are we talking about?...

[Questing Beast]

D&C 3:18-20 does not say what you claim -- not even close.

Not word for word, but the implication of "preaching" to the surrounding Indians, with the understanding that they are "Lamanites", says that the Lord is saying they are "Israelites", i.e. descended from ancient Middle Eastern people.

There is no reason to assert that Amerinds = Lamanites.

No, none at all: just D&C 19:27

The Lamanites constituted a very small proportion of known Amerinds (and that only in a small section of Mesoamerica before the influx of Nahuatl peoples), and there is no reason to suppose that there was ever any hemispheric involvement in Book of Mormon events. Dispassionate scholarly analysis simply makes that impossible.

That is modern spin to make the LGT make the BoM text work out. Nobody would have ever looked at only Mesoamerica as an answer if the text did not create the problem with travel distances. And the BoM also does not indicate ANY resident "Indians" before the arrival of the Lehites. The previous Jaredites are assumed to have killed off every man, woman and child except Ether and Coriantumr. It is only "our" additions to the textual stories that assert previous inhabitants greatly outnumbering the arriving Lehites, who then get largley absorbed by the indigenous population.

It is true that, when the Conquistadores arrived in Mexico, they found various peoples totaling about 12 million in population. The most powerful peoples present were Nahuatl (Aztec), who were latecomers to the area. Other civilizations had long since risen and fallen. Within a century of the arrival of the Spanish, only 1 million of the population of Mesoamerica had survived the death by plague and disease brought from Europe. The Spanish even brought in large numbers of African slaves to work the mines and to do other hard labor. The genetic heritage of Mesoamerica is very complex and should be subjected to careful study.

I won't bother to search for a source for this: but surely you are aware that the asserted virtual extermination of over 90% of the Indians by diseases brought from Europe, is highly contestable today....

[stemelbow]

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.

But how is the "not a trace" claim refuted? It seems like your explanation is saying, what trace should we expect? (which I agree with) But that doesn't mean the not a trace claim is refuted, afterall there persists no trace, no measelly genetic link between Lehi, his company, and America, right?

[LeSellers]

that doesn't mean the not a trace claim is refuted, afterall there persists no trace, no measelly genetic link between Lehi, his company, and America, right?

Not "refuted", perhaps, but certainly rebutted.

It is impossible to refute an invalid charge. They cannot reasonably say there is no trace because the implication is that we know what it is we're looking for. If we knew, and we could not find it after an exhaustive search, then, and only then, could they make the claim there is no trace. But since we do not know what trace we seek, it may be there (and I believe it is there), they cannot say it isn't.

Lehi

Edited June 10, 2011 by LeSellers

[stemelbow]

Not "refuted", perhaps, but certtainly rebutted.

It is impossible to refute an invalid charge. They cannot reasonably say there is no trace because the implaction is that we know what it is we're looking for. If we knew, and we could not find it after an exhaustive search, then, and only then, could they makle the claim there is no trace. But since we do not know what trace we seek, it may be there (and I believe it is there), they cannot say it isn't.

Lehi

Good point and that's the point I generally stick to. Other than that, i do have concerns that, for the most part, as I recall, the genetic research on Native Americans is claimed to be highly homogenous, overall, and is said to reflect a migration far earlier than Lehi, even earlier than the Jaredites. This supports the notion of no trace. I don't think it totally refutes LDS claims, but it seems to make it hard to defend.

[jskains]

I just read D&C 3.... And I do not see ANYTHING that has God saying Lamanites are blood decedents of Jews. I think that's a FORCED interpretation.

And once again, that CLEARLY ignores the passages which talk about adoption and eventually everyone against the Nephites were declared Laminates.

Seems like some are bending the words to fit their goals... If you have to declare that something "implies" something else, then I think you have failed to prove your case.

JMHO.

JMS

[Questing Beast]

My "agenda" is to understand the facts, just the facts. Hubris? Possibly. I don't really care where the facts lead to. As I am devoted to living in a real world I don't need the facts to lead anywhere but there.

Factually, as the written words state, "Lamanites" are ISRAELITES. Now you can go on about there being no genetic connection required. Fine with me. Adoption always works to cover the gaps in consistency. But, if there is any empirically REAL connection between Amerinds living in the areas around where the Mormon missionaries came from in the 1830's, and the Middle East (where the Lehites came from), it has to show up in the DNA evidence. So far, nothing doing....

[jskains]

Oh so phrases like "But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi," can only be used fill in gaps by desperate LDS trying to justify failed DNA evidence.... In reality, they should be ignored?

JMS

[cdowis]

Good point and that's the point I generally stick to. Other than that, i do have concerns that, for the most part, as I recall, the genetic research on Native Americans is claimed to be highly homogenous, overall, and is said to reflect a migration far earlier than Lehi, even earlier than the Jaredites.

You memory is based on the antimormon claims. Here are some facts to consider in your "homogenous" claim:

1. It was discovered that a Native American has a common ancestor with a woman from Greece. This was only found when one specific individual was tested with another specific individual. Most of the research is based on broad generalizations, and not tested, as far as I know, with specific individuals from the Middle East..... certainly not with possible modern ancestors of Lehi, et al.

2. Haplogroup x -- its source is still unexplained. This was admitted even by the researcher who found haplogroup x among asians.

3. Large groups of native American have gone extinct. Probably less than 50% of the total gene pool from 400AD are present in modern amerindians.

4. Yes, the asians came to America in large groups. They intermarried with the descendants of the Lamanites (the Nephites were largely destroyed).

Even Southerlen admits that there would be little evidence of Israelites based on this genetic dilution. But "no trace" to my mind is unproven, if not an exaggeration.

[cdowis]

Not word for word, but the implication of "preaching" to the surrounding Indians, with the understanding that they are "Lamanites", says that the Lord is saying they are "Israelites", i.e. descended from ancient Middle Eastern people.

I agree. The issue is whether there is a trace. You will not find genetists talking about the greek connection to the Amerindians, even though this link was discovered. I would suggest that this is an area that has been largely ignored.

That is modern spin to make the LGT make the BoM text work out. Nobody would have ever looked at only Mesoamerica as an answer if the text did not create the problem with travel distances.

Your ignorance of church history is interesting.

And the BoM also does not indicate ANY resident "Indians" before the arrival of the Lehites.

May I ask if you have ever actually read the BOM itself, or this something that you just made up. There are several threads on this subject of "others", where many verses in the BOM have been quoted.

Why don't you start a thread on this question, and we will be happy to educate you.

The previous Jaredites are assumed to have killed off every man, woman and child except Ether and Coriantumr. It is only "our" additions to the textual stories that assert previous inhabitants greatly outnumbering the arriving Lehites, who then get largley absorbed by the indigenous population.

Start a new thread, please.

I won't bother to search for a source for this: but surely you are aware that the asserted virtual extermination of over 90% of the Indians by diseases brought from Europe, is highly contestable today....

Perhaps not 90%..... May I suggest that you read a book by a non-LDS author. It's called "1491". I did the work for you.

[bookofmormontruth]

I just read D&C 3.... And I do not see ANYTHING that has God saying Lamanites are blood decedents of Jews. I think that's a FORCED interpretation.

And once again, that CLEARLY ignores the passages which talk about adoption and eventually everyone against the Nephites were declared Laminates.

Seems like some are bending the words to fit their goals... If you have to declare that something "implies" something else, then I think you have failed to prove your case.

JMHO.

JMS

Thank you for your wanna be "expertise" in LDS doctrine. What would we do without your OUTSIDE interpretations of our own scriptures?

And since you stated it with CAPITAL letters, it must be true.

[stemelbow]

You memory is based on the antimormon claims. Here are some facts to consider in your "homogenous" claim:

1. It was discovered that a Native American has a common ancestor with a woman from Greece. This was only found when one specific individual was tested with another specific individual. Most of the research is based on broad generalizations, and not tested, as far as I know, with specific individuals from the Middle East..... certainly not with possible modern ancestors of Lehi, et al.

Thanks for the info. I don't see how a Native American having a common ancestor with a woman from Greece refutes a homogenous anestry among Native Americans pre-Columbus. Can you expand on that for me? And provide sources?

2. Haplogroup x -- its source is still unexplained. This was admitted even by the researcher who found haplogroup x among asians.

Do you have any links for me on this?

3. Large groups of native American have gone extinct. Probably less than 50% of the total gene pool from 400AD are present in modern amerindians.

Good. Recently I had engaged Simon Southerton and he reported to me that recent research was conducted on Mesoamerican populations. It was his consluion that this study deflates the LGT argument to near nothing, since Mesoamerican remains does not indicate anything to refute the homogenous claim.

4. Yes, the asians came to America in large groups. They intermarried with the descendants of the Lamanites (the Nephites were largely destroyed).

I can agree that this is a possibility, but it does tend to suggest there remains no trace.

Even Southerlen admits that there would be little evidence of Israelites based on this genetic dilution. But "no trace" to my mind is unproven, if not an exaggeration.

The only way "no trace" is to be unproven is to verify a trace. But you, and I, concede there is no verified trace since, as it is, we don't know what exactly we'd be looking for. In my estimation, they have a case for claiming there is no trace, in that we can't provide a trace. That doesn't suggest a whole lot though, since we don't know much.

[cdowis]

Thanks for the info. I don't see how a Native American having a common ancestor with a woman from Greece refutes a homogenous anestry among Native Americans pre-Columbus. Can you expand on that for me? And provide sources?

He was a full-blooded American Indian.

Do you have any links for me on this?

It was on the Discover channel, as I remember, and on its web site. But that was a few years ago. I had a link here on the forum way back.

Good. Recently I had engaged Simon Southerton and he reported to me that recent research was conducted on Mesoamerican populations. It was his consluion that this study deflates the LGT argument to near nothing, since Mesoamerican remains does not indicate anything to refute the homogenous claim.

We would be happy to speak with him here on the forum to address his conclusions. For example, did he ever answer my question? Did he support your assertion that we can use the entire population of the modern middle east for a sample?

So many questions, and we need him here to answer our questions.

The only way "no trace" is to be unproven is to verify a trace. But you, and I, concede there is no verified trace since, as it is, we don't know what exactly we'd be looking for. In my estimation, they have a case for claiming there is no trace, in that we can't provide a trace. That doesn't suggest a whole lot though, since we don't know much.

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy, "arguing from ignorance"? You prove something because you don't know.

It would be interesting, for example, to take a look at the haplogroup x in the druse population. I am suggesting that there is alot of work to be done.

[jskains]

Thank you for your wanna be "expertise" in LDS doctrine. What would we do without your OUTSIDE interpretations of our own scriptures?

And since you stated it with CAPITAL letters, it must be true.

Oh, I am sorry. I guess acting like a jerk, quoting "expertise" and failing to have a valid response to why I am wrong makes your position true?

Is there some reason you just did that? Did I insult your mother or attack your dog?

JMS

[bookofmormontruth]

Oh, I am sorry. I guess acting like a jerk, quoting "expertise" and failing to have a valid response to why I am wrong makes your position true?

Is there some reason you just did that? Did I insult your mother or attack your dog?

JMS

You aren't fooling anyone. In your "superior" eyes, there is no "valid response".

As the wanna-be "expert", can we expect you to teach us more on our own doctrines? Can't wait!

[jskains]

You aren't fooling anyone. In your "superior" eyes, there is no "valid response".

As the wanna-be "expert", can we expect you to teach us more on our own doctrines? Can't wait!

Seek anger management.

JMS

[bookofmormontruth]

Seek anger management.

JMS

I wouldn't flatter yourself. You aren't that important (even in your imagined "expertise" role) to be "angry" at.