Creation Vs Evolution; Exclusive Of One Another?

[Senator]

Senator, please look up the definition of "paragraph". You would have been better to say "post".

Secondly.....

Are you saying these are NOT the tactics of anti Mormons?

I don't care........

[Jeff K.]

IF you don't care to understand what the words mean, then why comment at all.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Jeff K.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is just as authoritative as random statements by general authorities. IE; BRM's "Mormon Doctrine". NONE of which has been accepted by the Church as doctrine. That being said it is a good reference for what is taught to the best of the authors abilities.

[Mariner]

Mariner:

You seem to be forgeting about the caucasian mummies of China. If they could travel thousands of miles. Why couldn't another group not do it.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Tarim_mummies

There were blacks in the Americas before Columbus. If they could do it. Why couldn't another group do it?

http://www.blackhist...om/mexican.html

There were possibly Phoenicians in America before Columbus. If they could sail to the Americas in the same time frame as Lehis' group. Why couldn't Lehis' group do it.

http://www.sfslac.or...overAmerica.htm

There were Norse in America before Columbus. If they could do it in open boats. Why couldn't another group do it?

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Americas

Again Neanderthal DNA is different than modern human DNA, albeit very small. The Modern Human DNA differenences are even smaller. Further with 2600 years of mixing of unknown genetics would be indistinguishable. Heck the best we can do is tell that the proposed children of Thomas Jefferson and Sally were from some male in the Jefferson family, and that was only about 200 years ago not 2600.

thesometimesaint,

I mentioned the Nordic explorers as contributors of European DNA in the pre-Columbian human genome of the New World. This insertion can be readily detected in Native Americans tribes of the Northeast, providing evidence that foreign snippets of DNA do remain detectible in the New World genome (in this case for about at least 1,000 years).

There is no evidence whatsoever of Phoenician DNA in the the pre-Columbian New World human genome. Nor is there any archeological evidence for such a migration.

The idea that black Africans constitute the pioneer or foundational genetic group for the Olmecs, as speculated on the website you referenced, is a bit much. The timelines do not match up with either well researched population genetics or archeology.

The speculation in the article you cite is that this founding group migrated from Africa through Siberia and Baringia approximately 100,000 years ago. Aside from the fact that this is highly unlikely and is not backed by any DNA or archeological evidence, the migration, if it occurred at all, was by land. No transoceanic voyage would have been involved.

This same problem should be obvious with regard to the caucasian mummies in China. These were land migrations. No transoceanic sailing vessels or unpowered semi-submersibles were involved.

None of the references you list provide any support for the Book of Mormon migration hypothesis in any way whatsoever.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Mariner

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

[altersteve]

I mentioned the Nordic explorers as contributors of European DNA in the pre-Columbian human genome of the New World.

That's weird. Earlier you said that pre-Columbian DNA was "exclusively" Asian.

So which is it?

This insertion can be readily detected in Native Americans tribes of the Northeast, providing evidence that foreign snippets of DNA do remain detectible in the New World genome (in this case for about at least 1,000 years).

Please provide evidence that "foreign snippets of DNA" from only 20 people can still be detected 1,000 years later.

You really don't think the DNA from only about 20 people, whose genetic makeup cannot be studied (because we don't know what it looks like; and yes, this is a legitimate argument), would prevail after 1,000 years, especially considering the idea that maybe many of them were likely killed or taken in as slaves by some of the locals (just an idea), do you? That's 20 people out of, what, thousands? Tens of thousands?

And it's not just that we don't know what Nephite or Lamanite DNA looks like. By the time the Nephites were destroyed, the terms "Nephite" and "Lamanite" were political and religious terms, and thus did not describe which of Lehi's sons the people were descendents of. I think it's safe to say that, in light of this fact, "Lehite DNA" did not prevail for more than a few years, since many of them were possibly killed or taken in as slaves by other locals. It's not something the Book of Mormon addresses, but it's something to consider. I also hope you realize that the Book of Mormon never makes the claim that we should find any kind of foreign DNA in the "pre-Columbian New World human genome." If you think it does, please, show me.

I also hope you understand that it's possible for modern Native Americans to be of the "seed of Lehi" without actually being related to him. The "seed of Lehi" refers to Lehi's place in the twelve tribes of Israel, which the Native American peoples are "adopted" into. They are thus a "remnant of the house of Israel," and they all share Lehi as a common ancestor in that sense. When Lehi's group came to America and mixed with the local population, every family of every person that became related to Lehi became his "seed" by adoption. This was perhaps one of the main reasons for God sending Lehi and his family to the Americas, so that the people living there could be saved through that bloodline if they would accept the Gospel. Just as the Jews will one day be restored to their land, so will the Native Americans to theirs. America belongs to them. That is how it is the "promised land," reserved by the Lord for the righteous, and that doesn't mean that no others could have migrated to the New World prior to (or after) the Jaredites' arrival.

The Book of Mormon makes this all very clear. If critics such as yourself actually understood that, they would realize that the DNA problem is actually a total non-issue.

There is no evidence whatsoever of Phoenician DNA in the the pre-Columbian New World human genome.

I agree, because, again, the Book of Mormon never makes the claim that there should be.

I do have to ask, though; what is, exactly, "Phoenician DNA," and how do you know what the genetic makeup of an ancient Phoenician person looks like? Is there an existing sample of "Phoenician DNA" dating back to 600 BC or prior? If not, then how can you possibly make a claim like this?

This is not meant to assert that there is "Phoenician DNA" among the American Indians, I am simply challenging your claim here.

Nor is there any archeological evidence for such a migration.

If a group of about 20 people sailed from the Old World to the New World in 600 BC, what kind of "archaelogical evidence" would you be expecting to find to support this?

By the way, you have yet to respond to my calls for references on the last page. You've ignored me several times in the past when I've challenged your conclusions and issued a CFR, but I'm serious. Please respond to them or retract your statements, or you will be reported.

Furthermore, your posts are always so full of fallacious arguments that are all based on complete misunderstandings of LDS doctrine and scripture. Honestly, Mariner, the fact that you constantly pull crap like this says a lot. It makes me, and I'm sure several others, question your claim to be a "scientist." No real scientist would ever discuss things the way you do on this forum.

[Mariner]

http://www.jefflinds...DSFAQ/DNA.shtml

thesometimesaint,

Sending a critic to a Mormon apologetics website will have about as much effect as a critic sending a believer to an Evangelical anti-Mormon website.

Yes. I am a critic who will readily admit that there are anti-Mormon websites, some of which can be biased and not entirely accurate when it comes to describing LDS beliefs and practices.

[Jeff K.]

But wait, aren't you simply parroting an anti Mormon website? You certainly aren't a scientist or researcher, you haven't got a very deep grasp of LDS theology or theology in general and so you depend on those anti Mormon websites to inform you. Your question isn't "why send me there" rather your question should be "how accurate is that place" and if its inaccurate "explain why".

[cinepro]

I think Mariner has English as a second language.....

In the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History 1:33-34 Joseph Smith writes (in the first person):

Quote

"The Angel called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do."

"He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent (America), and the source from whence they sprang."

Where is the word "ALL" for "the former inhabitants of this continent?

I am a former inhabitant of the state of Virginia. But I wasn't the only one. The presumption that if it doesn't specify some it must be all is a bit of an illogical stretch. But it is the norm for anti Mormons.

Here is what Joseph Smith says the resurrected Moroni told him, and the scope of the Book of Mormon history:

I was also informed [by the angel Moroni] concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country [America] and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity,....

In this important and interesting book [The Book of Mormon] the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

Depending on how you feel about Joseph Smith and his knowledge of Book of Mormon peoples and events and your understanding of the words "this", "origin", "first", and "distinct", it could mean between something and nothing.

[Jeff K.]

Distinct means different, not only, origin and first can also be attributed to the origin of the group or perhaps first of the group (not the exclusivity of the group in America). From my point of view of course. Which goes back to the question of historical perspective.

[altersteve]

Here is what Joseph Smith says the resurrected Moroni told him, and the scope of the Book of Mormon history:

Depending on how you feel about Joseph Smith and his knowledge of Book of Mormon peoples and events and your understanding of the words "this", "origin", "first", and "distinct", it could mean between something and nothing.

Like the rest of us, Joseph Smith's understanding of the Book of Mormon grew over time. In 1834, he believed Illinois to be the "plains of the Nephites," and later changed his position in 1840 to say that the Book of Mormon took place on the entire Western Hemisphere. A couple years later, in 1842 (the year the Wentworth Letter was written), he began placing it in Central America after reading Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan by John L. Stephens, which he enjoyed, and he discussed this theory, citing Stephens' book, on a few occasions in the Times and Seasons. He wrote in one article, "It will not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stephens' ruined cities with those in the Book of Mormon: light cleaves to light, and facts are supported by facts." He saw the ruins in Guatemala as an example of lost Lamanite civilizations. He also expressed his opinion that Zarahemla was in Central America. This seems to contradict what he wrote in the Wentworth Letter, but that's because the Wentworth Letter isn't meant to be a declaration of precise geographical or archaeological information. It's simply meant to explain the basic beliefs of the Saints to a non-member. That's it.

[cinepro]

Distinct means different, not only, origin and first can also be attributed to the origin of the group or perhaps first of the group (not the exclusivity of the group in America). From my point of view of course. Which goes back to the question of historical perspective.

If you don't agree with what Joseph Smith said, just say it. Just say you don't agree that the Jaredites were the first people to colonize the Americas after the Tower of Babel, or that there were two distinct races of people here. Because if you have to redefine everything he said to make it look like he might have been saying something else, it gets a little embarrassing.

[cinepro]

It's simply meant to explain the basic beliefs of the Saints to a non-member. That's it.

If the Wentworth letter explains the basic beliefs of the Saints, then I guess that answers your CFR about Joseph Smith intending for the Book of Mormon to be interpreted this way.

Also note it was reprinted in the Ensign in the last 10 years, FWIW.

Edited January 24, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

CFR that in LDS doctrine the Flood occurred 4,500 years ago. And don't quote some Church manual, because those don't declare official, binding doctrine.

How many R's do you need? (In addition to Genesis 7 and 8, of course)

[altersteve]

If the Wentworth letter explains the basic beliefs of the Saints, then I guess that answers your CFR about Joseph Smith intending for the Book of Mormon to be interpreted this way.

Also note it was reprinted in the Ensign in the last 10 years, FWIW.

Basic LDS beliefs and what Joseph Smith intended are not the same thing. The only thing that Joseph seemed to have "intended" was that we accept the Book of Mormon as another testament of Jesus Christ.

How many R's do you need? (In addition to Genesis 7 and 8, of course)

I didn't ask for a reference that the Flood was global. I asked for a reference that it happened 4,500 years ago. Your link has nothing to do with that.

[Mariner]

Altersteve,

With regard to your CFRs "from the previous page" that you claim I did not answer, I understand that you are referring to:

But once again, please show me the Book of Mormon explicitly says that the entire Western Hemisphere was empty prior to the arrival of the Jaredites. This is a CFR.

and

CFR that Joseph Smith "intended" for the Book of Mormon to be interpreted this way.

These are the only two CFRs that I could find on the "previous page" and both have been answered with materials from LDS sources such as the LDS Scriptures online and articles from the Ensign.

The general pattern in the overall responses from you and Jeff, and to a lesser extent from thesometimesaint, indicate that you may not have an adequate grasp of population genetics to be engaged in any kind of useful discussion on the topic. I have addressed this before after previous mention by one of you that the mtDNA introduced by 20 people from one (Middle East) population - one separated by 10,000 miles and 10,000 years, would not be detectable in the new host population 3,000 years later.

So rather than continue to spend time chasing down your CFR requests because you are unable or unwilling to look this stuff up for yourself, my time (and yours) would probably be better spent in describing a few overall concepts that could make things a lot easier for you.

As the human species evolves (and yes, we are evolving) genetic mutations occur at a fairly constant and predictable rate and are passed on to offspring, thus providing a sort of "clock" that can be interpreted by geneticists. This "genetic timepiece" allows various human populations to be tracked, not only in time, but also in place.

Ancient human migrations were slow and allowed time for migrating populations to become relatively isolated from one another and thus develop distinctive mutations or mutation patterns that could later be used to identify their offspring. This is how scientists come up with genetic maps showing the migration of humans out of Africa and through the rest of the world.

These maps and timelines are created by detecting and understanding evolving patterns of specific mutations. Consideration of mitochondrial (mtDNA -: inherited only from the mother) and Y chromosomal DNA (inherited only from the father) has allowed these maps have become very detailed and specific.

While the Native American (or Amerindian) genome carries mutations that originated outside of Asia, the distinctive mutations, those that set Native Americans apart from European and African and west Asian populations, were acquired in Eastern Asia, over thousands of years (as I have stated several times) in Siberia and / or Beringia.

Some Mormon apologists have pointed to the mtDA hapologroup X variant(s), found in a few widely scattered Native American tribes, as evidence that there could have been migrations from the Middle East to the New World. The problem with this apologetic is that the timelines do not fit.

Again, as I have mentioned, the distinctive mutations that are present in the pre-Columbian Amerindian genome were acquired in the period starting some 30,000 years ago up to approximately 15,000 years ago. Any pre-Columbian variants of the mtDNA hapoloid X genetic markers in the Amerindian population got here by way of slow human migration across Asia before about 15,000 years ago.

Since the Jaredites did not migrate until approximately 2,500 BCE as I recall, they would have been distinct in that they would not have carried any of the set of mutations that were acquired by the populations in Eastern Asia before or during the Beringia migrations starting some 15,000 to 30,000 years ago. The same holds true for the Lehites. You should do some reading on this for yourself. I have provided references.

Now to the claim that the DNA from a migration of 20 people would surely "wash out" and not be detectable in the pre-Columbian Amerindian genome. Firs,t you have to understand that genetic markers (mutations) are very persistent in our genome. Humans have been carrying around some of their mutations for hundreds of thousands years (and before that were carrying around mutations of our hominid ancestors) . As I mentioned earlier, for example, we can still reliably detect Neanderthal DNA that was acquired through very limited cross breading some 38,000 years ago.

It is theoretically possible that the mtDNA from a single female from one genetic population, passed on to one child in another genetic population more than 1,000 years ago, could be detected in the offspring of that single child yet today. We are not talking about 20 people here. We are talking about one single female.

Such detection of mtDNA markers can be done, and in fact has been done. This is because the mother carried one or more mutations that were different from those in the population into which her child was born. The mother's unique pattern was passed to the single child and can still be detected, 1,000 years later, in the offspring of that child in the child's new population.

Would the mtDNA of a female who made a transatlantic migration to the New World from the area around Jerusalem a few thousand years ago be detectable against the background of the pre-Columbian Amerindian genome? Absolutely. And no such genetic mutation, or marker, or pattern or variant, is there - period.

Since I know that you are going to CFR me on this single female example, here are two references.

http://www.smithson.../vikings.html

http://www.allvoice...dian-to-europe

Your remark about my using anti-Mormon websites was uncalled for. If you would bother to check the references that I provide because you seem unable to do a simple search, you will find that the vast majority, in fact, come from LDS approved sources such as the LDS Scriptures online and the Ensign. You will find nothing from an anti-Mormon website, unless you consider scientific publications to be anti-Mormon.

If you even bother to look at the references I provided above, you will see that they are from technical journals (which I suppose could be considered anti-Mormon websites if they contradict with your unfounded beliefs).

Finally, your response regarding the "new" apologetic meaning of "Lehi's seed" ( i.e. "not necessarily Lehi's seed") speaks for itself. It is so ridiculous that no response from me is required.

________

ETA: Nephi's to Lehi's.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Mariner

[Jeff K.]

The general pattern in the overall responses from you and Jeff, and to a lesser extent from thesometimesaint, indicate that you may not have an adequate grasp of population genetics to be engaged in any kind of useful discussion on the topic. I have addressed this before after previous mention by one of you that the mtDNA introduced by 20 people from one (Middle East) population - one separated by 10,000 miles and 10,000 years, would not be detectable in the new host population 3,000 years later.

Oh, we have an adequate grasp alright. It just appears you seem to miquote apostles and mistake your opinion for science.. Feel free to parrot what you don't understand, but parrots aren't sure what they are saying and can only repeat, never critique.

[Jeff K.]

Now to the claim that the DNA from a migration of 20 people would surely "wash out" and not be detectable in the pre-Columbian Amerindian genome. Firs,t you have to understand that genetic markers (mutations) are very persistent in our genome. Humans have been carrying around some of their mutations for hundreds of thousands years (and before that were carrying around mutations of our hominid ancestors) . As I mentioned earlier, for example, we can still reliably detect Neanderthal DNA that was acquired through very limited cross breading some 38,000 years ago.

Here is what I am looking at.... Allow me to parrot, as you do

Some

Some wonder if ancient DNA samples might shed additional light on the history of ancient populations such as the ancestral Native Americans. This approach can be valuable when the necessary samples are available and the DNA is of good quality. Note, however, that several limitations must be carefully considered when studying ancient DNA:

1. Accessibility to the ancient remains: in many cases, Native American and First Nation groups consider their burial grounds sacred and are quite resistant to DNA testing being performed on their ancestors. (Moreover, they are often even resistant to testing being done on themselves).²⁸
   
2. Contamination: skeletal remains found in museums or from personal collections may have been handled improperly over time. Thus any attempt to retrieve endogenous DNA from them may be compromised by the presence of DNA belonging to those who have touched the samples since the time of their excavation.
   
3. Confidence that the data obtained is genuine: a general practice when analyzing ancient DNA samples is to compare the data obtained with samples from the modern population. If identical or similar haplotypes are found in the modern population, then it is assumed that the data obtained from the ancient specimen is reliable. However, if no matches are found in the modern population, it can become difficult to ascertain if the data obtained belongs to a lineage no longer in existence or if the genetic signal come from contamination or post-mortem damage.
   
4. Failed sequencing because of environmental factors: even in cases when bone fragments are found and proper excavation techniques are in place, the success rate of extracting and analyzing ancient DNA is approximately 1 in 3. Extreme heat, high humidity, gamma rays from the Sun, etc. can accelerate DNA degradation. During the last decade, thanks to new technological advancements and a better understanding of how to work with ancient DNA,²⁹ results have improved and the data are more reliable. However, much of the data published in the 1990s was susceptible to less rigorous collection and lab procedures that may have resulted in unreliable DNA data and conclusions.
   
5. Limited quantity of data obtained: because ancient DNA is highly degraded, only small fragments of genetic material can be sequenced. Most of the ancient DNA data available in the public literature comes from sequencing short segments of the control region. To date, only a few complete mtDNA sequences (the full 16,569 bases of the mtDNA genome) from ancient human remains have been successfully produced (e.g. five Neanderthals and the Tyrolean Ice Man, Ötzi).³⁰
   

In summary, even though ancient DNA data has the potential to be extremely helpful in phylogenetic studies and in reconstructing past population events, scientists are still limited by the amount and quality of data they can obtain from ancient remains.

The absence of proof is not proof.

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

Another serious lim

Another serious limitation comes from possibly inappropriate ***umptions of what mtDNA candidate haplogroups to expect from the small groups described in the Book of Mormon. A survey of modern populations—including Middle Easterners and Asians—would reveal a certain number of mtDNA lineages that occur at high frequencies and are therefore labeled as region-specific for the modern population, but would also uncover a number of mtDNA haplogroups that are more rare. Most likely, these less frequent mtDNA lineages are the results of relatively recent migratory events, an occurrence very common throughout history because of international trade routes (such as those that took place along the Silk Road) or military expansions (e.g., the Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman, or Mongol empires, just to cite a few). These important historical events are responsible for a partial reshuffling of the DNA compositions of geographic regions throughout the world, adding to the genetic diversity of affected locations. Although the majority of lineages in one region could be considered the typical mtDNA expected to be observed in a specific location in modern populations, the reality is that potentially any given mtDNA lineage could be also found at low frequencies in the same geographic area. Any of these low-frequency haplogroups could be candidates for genetic types that may have been more common during any previous time period within the last few thousand years.

This issue touches on the people of the Book of Mormon in that we don't know their mtDNA affiliation. Lehi's group could have belonged either to a typical Middle Eastern lineage or to a rare one, including some that might have had a close Asian affinity. To elucidate this point, I use my own Y chromosome (Ycs) haplogroup as an example. As explained earlier, Ycs is a uniparental marker that, similarly to mtDNA, can be traced along one specific family tree branch (in this case the direct paternal line) and for the most part it does not recombine with the other chromosomes (Figure 2). Ycs haplotypes can also be grouped in a large phylogenetic tree based on common characteristics that in most cases can be associated with specific geographic regions. I was born and raised in Italy and can trace my paternal ancestry back several generations to the mid-17th century AD. However, my Ycs belongs to haplogroup C, which has a frequency in Southern Europe of less than 0.05%. Haplogroup C is mostly found in East Asia with a branch (C4) found among the aborigines of Australia. How did haplogroup C become part of my paternal ancestry? One possibility is that it could be a remnant from an ancient military expansion from the East (e.g. Mongols or Huns) that reached to northern Italy. With my three sons, we contribute four instances of this particular Ycs haplotype in the state of Utah, where we currently reside. If someone took a survey of Italians in Utah with the purpose of reconstructing the typical Italian genetic composition, they would include my three sons and me as part of that count. This would contribute a higher than normal haplogroup C frequency found among Utah-Italians that would in turn provide a different scenario from the one observed in Italy. What if I was the first and only Italian that migrated to Utah? What was considered a rare lineage in the source population (Italy) becomes the totality of the Ycs lineages for the same population in Utah. By looking at these data one may reach the incorrect conclusion that Italians are paternally related to eastern Asian populations. This is a direct result of another principle of population genetics, the founder effect. So, what was Lehi's family mtDNA contribution to the modern Native American population? It is not possible to know the mtDNA affiliation that was brought with them to America—either a typical Middle Eastern haplogroup, or a rare, even a potential Asian-like subclade.³³

The p

The process of discovering additional pre-Columbian lineages in the Americas is somewhat limited by the pre-conceived notion that if a lineage does not fit with the classical Native American haplotypes, it is most likely the result of a recent migratory event from the Old World. For example, a 1999 study on the Cayapa tribe of Ecuador revealed a number of lineages that did not fit with the five known Native American haplogroups.⁵⁸ Although the authors believed it could have been a newly identified pre-Columbian lineage and called it the "Cayapa haplotype," others dismissed it as a possible case of European mtDNA introgression.⁵⁹ However, it was only when mtDNA data became available from the ~10,000 year old Alaskan skeleton described earlier that the Cayapa haplotype was confirmed as a genuine pre-Colombian novel lineage.⁶⁰ From the initial four Amerindian mtDNA haplogroups discovered in the early 1990s, at least thirteen Native American founding lineages are currently catalogued and it is very likely that more will be identified in future studies.⁶¹ Additionally, detailed studies based on complete mtDNA sequences of haplotypes belonging to peculiar branches of the four pan-American haplogroups may reveal interesting distribution patterns reflecting novel migratory events that could not be detected based on control region data only.

A rec

A recent study based on a small section of DNA found on chromosome 9 had the objective of determining the origin and number of Paleo-Indian migrations. Based on their analysis, the authors concluded that "all modern Native Americans [...] trace a large portion of their ancestry to a single founding population that may have been isolated from other Asian populations prior to expanding into the Americas."⁶³ This study was recently mentioned as further demonstration that conclusions by critics of the Book of Mormon in the past are indeed correct, based on the fact that the study purportedly reported that all Native American populations and all individuals analyzed carried the same autosomal polymorphic mutation found also in Asian populations.<a href="http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA.html#en64">⁶⁴ Book of Mormon opponents, however, disregard several key points in their arguments. First, as already discussed, the presence of indigenous populations of Asian origins prior to the arrival of Book of Mormon people does not affect the historicity of the book itself. These autosomal findings are in line with what is already known about Native American populations, and do not change arguments, already presented, that propose that Book of Mormon events are compatible with the Asian-dominated genetic landscape found in Native Americans today. Population bottleneck, founder effect, genetic drift, and other population-altering forces affect all genetic systems, including autosomal DNA. It would not be unusual to expect that the small autosomal contribution of Lehi and his followers could be lost over time when mixing with an already established population of Asian origin. Additionally, the authors concluded that "a large portion" and not all the Native American ancestry can be traced to a single population with Asian affinity. A further important point comes from the idea of hypothesis construction. This research was not designed to identify a possible presence of Western Eurasian-specific markers in the Amerindian populations, and thus it is not surprising that none was found.

The fact that the DNA of Lehi and his party has not been detected in modern Native American populations does not demonstrate that this group of people never existed, nor that the Book of Mormon cannot be historical in nature. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Further, the very idea of locating the genetic signature of Lehi's family in modern populations constitutes a truly un-testable hypothesis, as it is not possible to know the nature of their genetic profiles. Without knowing the genetic signature to be located, any attempt at researching it will unavoidably result in further assumptions and non-testable hypotheses. What were the characteristics of Lehi's DNA and the DNA of those who went along with him? What haplogroup(s) did they belong to?

[altersteve]

You're avoiding some of the questions I asked. I would like you to answer them, if you please.

You claimed, "There is no evidence whatsoever of Phoenician DNA in the the pre-Columbian New World human genome."

I replied, "I do have to ask, though; what is, exactly, "Phoenician DNA," and how do you know what the genetic makeup of an ancient Phoenician person looks like? Is there an existing sample of "Phoenician DNA" dating back to 600 BC or prior? If not, then how can you possibly make a claim like this?"

And I never said anything about "Nephi's seed," I was talking about "Lehi's seed." Nor did I ever suggest that Lehi's seed does not necessarily Lehi's seed. Read what I said again:

I also hope you understand that it's possible for modern Native Americans to be of the "seed of Lehi" without actually being related to him. The "seed of Lehi" refers to Lehi's place in the twelve tribes of Israel, which the Native American peoples are "adopted" into. They are thus a "remnant of the house of Israel," and they all share Lehi as a common ancestor in that sense. When Lehi's group came to America and mixed with the local population, every family of every person that became related to Lehi became his "seed" by adoption. This was perhaps one of the main reasons for God sending Lehi and his family to the Americas, so that the people living there could be saved through that bloodline if they would accept the Gospel. Just as the Jews will one day be restored to their land, so will the Native Americans to theirs. America belongs to them. That is how it is the "promised land," reserved by the Lord for the righteous, and that doesn't mean that no others could have migrated to the New World prior to (or after) the Jaredites' arrival.

If you read what the Book of Mormon actually says instead of interpreting in light of how some Church leaders interpret it, you would know this. The Book of Mormon makes this all very clear. It's no "apologetic argument." I got all this information straight from the Book of Mormon itself.

Simply put, the Book of Mormon gives us no reason to expect to find any kind of Jewish DNA in modern or ancient Native Americans. The Nephites and Jaredites lived in very small areas, and did not reside in the entirety of North and South America. Please understand this. There is absolutely nothing in the Book of Mormon that suggests that they did, nor is there anything in the Book of Mormon that precludes the migration of peoples of Asiatic origin. The Book of Mormon takes place entirely in Mesoamerica, so unless you can find out 1) what Lehi's genetic makeup was composed of and 2) that this DNA (whatever that is) is not found in the ancient Mayan genome, then we're done here.

[Mariner]

Jeff K. and altersteve,

Rather than respond to your several claims and comments in another megapost, I will address one or two issues at a time in individual posts. Since the two of you seem to be toeing the same apologetic line, my responses are addressed to both of you.

My ultimate intent is to focus back on population genetics and help you understand how it is that the descendants from a single individual (say an Amerindian) from lineage carrying mutations different from those found in, for example, Northern Europe, can be identified in the Northern European population even after 1,000 years have passed. But for now back to by CFR responses with which you seem unhappy.

Regarding the CFR to show that Joseph Smith thought that the North American Indians were Lamanites please see the following from Church sources:

"The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western Tribes of Indians... By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph that was sold into Egypt…".

- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Letter to Rochester, New York, newspaper editor N. C. Saxton, January 4, 1833

"In this important and interesting book, the history of America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."

- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Official Church Publication Times and Seasons, (March 1, 1842) III:707.

You were apparently not convinced by the conversation that Joseph Smith claimed to have had with the angel Moroni, even though is recorded as scripture in the PoGP. I trust that the above two statements by Joseph Smith himself, as well as the story of Zelph below, will be sufficient evidence that Joseph Smith himself believed the American Indians to be the descendents of the Lamanites and that their geographic distribution in Book of Mormon times extended far beyond "a very limited area".

As to the claim that the Book of Mormon civilizations were limited to a small geographies area, please see the following from Church sources.

"And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east."

- Helaman 3:8

And there is always the saga of Zelph the white Lamanite:

In June 1834, the Prophet Joseph Smith recounted the discovery of the skeleton of 'Zelph, the white Lamanite' in a mound in Illinois, referring to "the mounds which had been thrown up by the ancient inhabitants of this country - Nephites, Lamanites, etc., subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains. .. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites."

- Documentary History of the Church, II:79-80; Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1:482-83, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City.)

If the range of the Lamanites was restricted to a small area in Mesoamerica, then what was a white Lamanite doing in the North American Midwest?

By the way, what exactly is a "white" Lamanite?

Edited January 25, 2012 by Mariner

[Jeff K.]

Seems to me you are avoiding the subject matter and simply repeating what has already been countered. Not sure why, but it does reflect you either don't understand the post and references or refuse to acknowledge the post.

Care to counter the argument? It pretty much undermined your stance.

[Mariner]

Jeff K and altersteve,

This and the following couple of posts will constitute yet another attempt to help you understand the science involved here.

The fact that Jeff copied and pasted a long apologetic explanation about the problems with sequencing and analysis of DNA from ancient remains indicates that he may have no idea about what is going on here. The issues at hand have nothing to do with DNA extracted from ancient remains. The DNA at issue here is that from modern humans as acquired from the living.

The second copy and paste from an LDS apologetic website regarding mtDNA is also pretty much irrelevant. Jeff has not been paying attention.

Here, in the simplest terms I can possibly use, are the central points that Jeff and altersteve appear to be missing.

Starting some 30,000 years ago, the founding populations of the Amerindians were isolated either in Siberia or Beringia long enough (some 10,000 years or more) for specific mutations to accumulate.

These specific mutations allow the Amerindians and their descendants to be readily distinguished from their Asian sister clades or lineages (and from lineages originating anywhere else, as well). So the Asian populations that moved into North America carried with them a variety of specific genetic "ID tags". If an individual is found without any of these specific mutations or genetic ID tags, then they are not descended from a New World founder lineage. (High resolution mtDNA analysis show that there are 4 subclades in this founding lineage.)

So, while one could come up with a list of the possible haplogroups to which the Lehites and Jaredites would have belonged had they actually existed as described in the Book of Mormon, their specific haplogroup simply does not matter. Because of 10,000 years or more of reproductive isolation from the Amerindians, they would have developed distinguishing mutations in their DNA, including their mitochondrial DNA.

One need only refer to a population genetics migration map to see which haplogroups the Lehites and Jaredites might have represented. The point is that that whatever old world derived genetic lineage they represented would have been detectable against the unique genetic background of the Native Americans that migrated from the old world some 15,000 to 35,000 years before via Berengia.

That this is the case is illustrated by any number of examples, including the one I provided in a earlier post of the single child from America whose descendants in Europe could be identified 1,000 years later.

In the simplest terms as I can put this, the Native American genome and the Lehite genome would have been substantially different from one another because the two groups would have been in reproductively isolated from one another for something between 10,000 and 20,000 years.

If indeed the Lehites had reproductively re-merged with the Native Americans from Baringia (after at least 10,000 years in reproductive isolation), as the post DNA probem Mormon BoM apologetic claims, the Lehite mtDNA genetic markers would be detectable in the pre-Columbian genome.

And when I am talking about the pre-Columbian genome in the Western Hemisphere, I am not talking about fossil DNA. I am talking about DNA taken from modern Native Americans. Just as it is possible to detect European DNA that was introduced into the Amerindian genome by the Spanish after Columbus, for example, it would be possible to detect foreign DNA (i.e. that that was not developed during reproductive isolation in Siberia) introduced before Columbus.

If you would now kindly read just one the scientific articles I suggested instead of cutting and pasting Mormon apologetics, you will see that the strong consensus among hundreds of credible non-LDS scientists is that, except as noted in my earlier post regarding a Viking settlement in eastern Canada and possible isolated Polynesian settlements on the South American west coast, there is no genetic or archeological evidence for pre-Columbian trans-oceanic migration to the New World - period. There is no evidence that even one old world female made a pre-Columbian trans-oceanic migration.

What is it about this simple statement of scientific fact that is so hard for you to understand?

My next post will address the deep problems with the Mormon apologetic " Absence of Evidence in not Evidence of Absence" aphorism.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Mariner

[Lachoneus]

What is it about this simple statement of scientific fact that is so hard for you to understand?

How many of the following articles have you read?

Steve Olson, Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through Our Genes, [boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 2002], p. 114 (semitic DNA found among Native Americans)

Virginia Morrell, "Genes May Link Ancient Eurasians, Native Americans," Science, 280:520 [April 24, 1998 and April 11, 2004]

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] (several indicators of Jewish ancestry found among Antiquian populations of Colombia)

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] (haplogroup 1c and 4 among both Jews and the Cheyenne and Zapotec tribes of America)

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].

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)

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]

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].

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.

[Jeff K.]

He didn't read any of them. He doesn't care. Basically he is on a tape loop, can't be bothered with the facts.

[Mariner]

Lachoneus,

Thanks for your reading list. I was familiar with some (but not all) of these papers. Since reading your post, I have become familiar with each of them.

For several, there was no need to move beyond reading the abstract because the conclusions reached in the work were of no help to the Mormon apologetic position on the issue. And quite frankly, the fact that several of these were even cited as supporting the Mormon apologetic position regarding DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon migrations indicates that whoever selected these references lacks a basic grasp of the science and issues involved.

Without repeating yet again the scientific consensus regarding the origins and pre-Columbian contributions to the Native American (Amerindian) genome, I have provided comments below as to why none of these works helps the Mormon apologetic case. In fact, all of them except one are fully in agreement with the scientific consensus on this issue, which is, yet again (and with the two exceptions noted in my last post), there is no credible genetic, linguistic, or archeological evidence whatsoever for pre- Columbian trans-oceanic migration from the Old World to the New World. Your references are now in Blue.

Steve Olson, Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through Our Genes, [boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. 2002], p. 114 (semitic DNA found among Native Americans).

This is an enthusiastic, but unfortunately not all that accurate, work on the population genetics and gene maps. As reviewed by Lynn Jorde in Am J Hum Genet. 2002 December; 71(6): 1484–1485

The one assertion I found troublesome—in part because it appears in multiple places in the book—is that all humans alive today are direct descendants of virtually everybody who lived more than a few dozen generations in the past. Thus, we are all said to be direct descendants of Confucius, Julius Caesar, Nefertiti, and even Kennewick Man.

This assertion is, of course, patently ridiculous. Otherwise this is pretty conventional consensus view of the genetic origin of the pre-Columbian Amerindians. There is no help here for the Mormon apologist’s case.

Virginia Morrell, "Genes May Link Ancient Eurasians, Native Americans," Science, 280:520 [April 24, 1998 and April 11, 2004]

No help here either. Again we are talking about the presence haplogroup X in the Amerindian genome as it was introduced into the New World at least 10,000 years before the claimed Lehite migration. I have already mentioned and discussed this haplogroup X data in an earlier post.

Kennewick Man's cranial measurements are most similar to those of a Japanese group called the Ainu, who have a different physical makeup and cultural background from the ethnic Japanese. Kennewick Man remains are estimated to be between 8,400 and 9,300 years old. Again, this is no help for the Mormon apologists since the Nephite migration was said to have occurred several thousand years later.

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] (several indicators of Jewish ancestry found among Antiquian populations of Colombia)

This paper does not even refer to proposed a pre-Columbian migration, so it does not help the apologetic case. However, it does help the critic’s case. The findings simply help make my point that DNA from populations that did not originally move into the Americas during the Berengia migrations up to approximately 15,000 years ago can be indentified against the background of the Amerindian genome. Great reference.

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] (haplogroup 1c and 4 among both Jews and the Cheyenne and Zapotec tribes of America)

After reading this paper and two other articles commenting on its contents, I really have no idea why you would think this supports the Mormon apologetic case. This paper is concerned with the genetics of the Jewish Diaspora in the Old World.

If you had a reason to include this paper in the reading list, I would be glad to hear it.

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].

From the paper:

The contrasting distribution patterns of the two major candidate founder haplotypes in Asia and the New World, as well as the results of a nested cladistic analysis, suggest the possibility of more than one paternal migration from the general region of Lake Baikal to the Americas.

Once again, this article provides no help for the Book of Mormon apologetic. It does provide support for what I have stated in earlier posts. These studies support the idea that origin of the distinct Amerindian genome was developed in eastern Asia.

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)

The contents of this paper were mentioned in one of my earlier posts discussing the presence of the haplotype X in widely distributed Amerindian tribes. The paper is no help for the Mormon apologist. It supports yet again, the origin of the Amerindian founding lineages as I have described.

From the paper:

Time estimates for the arrival of X in North America are 12,000-36,000 years ago, depending on the number of assumed founders, thus supporting the conclusion that the peoples harboring haplogroup X were among the original founders of Native American populations.

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]

Abstract: The timing and number of prehistoric migrations involved in the settlement of the American continent is subject to intense debate. Here, we reanalyze Native American control region mtDNA data and demonstrate that only an appropriate phylogenetic analysis accompanied by an appreciation of demographic factors allows us to discern different migrations and to estimate their ages. Reappraising 574 mtDNA control region sequences from aboriginal Siberians and Native Americans, we confirm in agreement with linguistic, archaeological and climatic evidence that (i) the major wave of migration brought one population, ancestral to the Amerinds, from northeastern Siberia to America 20,000-25,000 years ago and (ii) a rapid expansion of a Beringian source population took place at the end of the Younger Dryas glacial phase approximately 11,300 years ago, ancestral to present Eskimo and Na-Dene populations.

Again, why provide this paper as a reference? It does not help the Mormon apologetic case in the least.

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].

Abstract:

Skeletal remains of 47 individuals from the Great Salt Lake Wetlands, affiliated principally with Bear River (A.D. 400—1000) and Levee Phase (A.D. 1000—1350) Fremont cultural elements, were assessed for four mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) markers that, in particular association, define four haplogroups (A, B, C, and D) widely shared among contemporary Amerindians groups. The most striking result is the absence of haplogroup A in this Fremont series, despite its predominance in contemporary Amerindian groups. Additionally, haplogroup B, defined by the presence of a 9bp deletion in region V, is present at the moderately high frequency of 60%. Haplogroups C and D are present at low frequencies. An additional haplotype, "N, observed in some modern populations and two other prehistoric samples, is also present in this Fremont skeletal collection.

Yet again, why do you think this supports the Mormon apologetic position? Really. If you think that I am missing something here that helps the Mormon apologetic position, please tell me specifically what you think that would be.

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.

As you must realize, this is a data mining exercise by an amateur, who states this fact up front. As far as NEARA is concerned, you might have looked up something about the organization before you cite a “report” by one of its members.

Wikipedia on NEARA:

NEARA lacks scientifically qualified members and is regarded as historical revisionist organization by trained archaeologists and anthropologists. Despite the total lack of any artifacts of European origin at NEARA sites, or any sites in Northeastern USA other than a handful of dated Viking items from Newfoundland, NEARA amateurs insist that their supposed man-made structures are European-made.

From the paper:

What has been done in this report is sometimes called data-mining, and it is well known that the dangers of finding spurious patterns increase as data sets become larger and more complex. After finding patterns, one should apply inferential statistics to distinguish valid patterns from those that arise by accident. It seems to me that the genetic data base at present is insufficient for rigorous validation of the patterns that various investigators have noted, but that it is nevertheless worthwhile to call attention to patterns that need to be tested.

In summary: Lachonmeus, none of the peer reviewed papers or the book that you cited help the Mormon apologetic case in any way whatsoever when it comes to the Book of Mormon DNA problem.

Claims made in the final “report” you cited might appear, at first glance, to warrant some further investigation. However, I note that no professional has followed up on this, and can only assume that there is good reason for not doing so. As the author himself notes, there is no shortage of pre-Columbian contact advocates who have a bad habit of making claims far beyond what the data will support. For now, this “report” would appear to be one of those cases.

FInally, if you feel that I have missed something in any of these papers that really does help the Mormon apologetics case with regard to the Book of Mormon DNA problem, please describe specifically the content at issue and how you think it supports the LDS position to the detriment of the secular science consensus position as I have described it several times in earlier posts.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Mariner