Simon Southerton On Mormonstories

[Fifth Columnist]

In the sense that within relatively few generations, the descendancy from a certain family can be dispersed throughout a population. That's why you and I both probably have Charlamagne as our ancestor, even though I have no idea who you are.

Therefore, even assuming there were other indigenous people in the Americas at the time Lehi and his family came, it is virtually certain that his lineage was blended with theirs over succeeding generations so that today all their descendants do indeed stem from Lehi.

So, while the Nephites and Lamanites are probably not the "principal" ancestors of the American Indian — as the Book of Mormon introduction used to say — it is reasonable to believe that they are among the ancestors of the American Indian, as the introduction now reads.

(And, as others have pointed out, the word "principal" can have different definitions.)

So, I ask again: What point is Thinking trying to make by posting the Kimball quote, which no one here that I can see contradicts?

Okay, this makes it pretty clear that you don't understand population genetics. You cannot simultaneously argue that everyone in North and South America is a literal genetic descendant of Lehi (or someone in his group) and that his genes would be undetectable in that population. If their genes are in every living native american, then you can bet we would have found them.

[Hestia]

Given the number of complaints and the previous warning ThePhy is taking a break from this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, this makes it pretty clear that you don't understand population genetics. You cannot simultaneously argue that everyone in North and South America is a literal genetic descendant of Lehi (or someone in his group) and that his genes would be undetectable in that population. If their genes are in every living native american, then you can bet we would have found them.

I admit that I am not a geneticist. But I understand enough to know how overconfident you are in the above assertion.

Here's a snippet from from an article by John M. Butler who is a geneticist:

Could other people have lived in ancient America concurrently with Book of Mormon peoples?

Careful examination and demographic analysis of the Book of Mormon record in terms of population growth and the number of people described implies that other groups were likely present in the promised land when Lehi's family arrived, and these groups may have genetically mixed with the Nephites, Lamanites, and other groups.⁴ Events related in the Book of Mormon likely took place in a limited region,⁵ leaving plenty of room for other Native American peoples to have existed.

Does DNA testing of modern individuals detect all previous genetic lineages?

Another way to state this question is "could a group of people vanish without a genetic trace as measured by Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA testing and yet be the ancestors of someone living today?" It is important to realize that examination of Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genetic markers permits only a small fraction of an individual's ancestry to be tracked.

Most genetic analysis studies of human history involve comparing a group of samples of living individuals to another group of living individuals without any detailed knowledge of the genealogy of the individuals in the groups being tested. These types of DNA studies make assumptions about the average time for each generation in the past along with a fixed mutation rate whereby genetic variation may occur over time. Similarities in the modern populations examined are then used to claim a shared origin between the two populations with an estimated time for divergence between the populations.

An interesting study reported in the June 2003 issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics leads me to believe that it is possible for Book of Mormon peoples to be ancestors of modern Native Americans and yet not be easily detected using traditional Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests. This study, conducted by a group of scientists from a company called deCODE Genetics, used the extensive genealogies of people from Iceland combined with probably the most massive population study ever performed. They traced the matrilineal and patrilineal ancestry of all 131,060 Icelanders born after 1972 back to two cohorts of ancestors, one born between 1848 and 1892 and the other between 1742 and 1798.⁶

Examining the same Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers used in other genetic studies, these 131,060 Icelanders "revealed highly positively skewed distributions of descendants to ancestors, with the vast majority of potential ancestors contributing one or no descendants and a minority of ancestors contributing large numbers of descendants."⁷ In other words, the majority of people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed and yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors. To the point at hand, if many documented ancestors of 150 years ago cannot be linked to their descendants through Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests from modern Iceland, then it certainly seems possible that the people who are reported in the Book of Mormon to have migrated to the Americas over 2,600 years ago might not have left genetic signatures that are detectable today.

Shouldn't we be able to detect Israelite DNA if the Lamanites are descended from Lehi and are the principal ancestors of modern-day Native Americans?

First, as discussed above, we do not have enough information from the Book of Mormon to confidently determine a source population for the Lehites or Mulekites, and so we cannot compare this population with modern-day Native American results. Another point to consider is that present-day Native Americans represent only a fraction of previous genetic lineages in the Americas because of large-scale death by diseases brought to the New World by European conquerors. As researcher Michael Crawford concludes in his book The Origins of Native Americans: Evidence from Anthropological Genetics, "This population reduction has forever altered the genetics of the surviving groups, thus complicating any attempts at reconstructing the pre-Columbian genetic structure of most New World groups."⁸ Again, without reliable reference samples from the past, we cannot proclaim the Book of Mormon true or false based on DNA data.

In forensic science, a documented "chain of custody" is crucial to verifying a link between the DNA profile produced in the lab with the original crime scene evidence. No such "chain of custody" exists with DNA or genealogical records connecting people from Book of Mormon times to people living today.

Part of the problem in this whole contrived controversy is the oversimplification of results from DNA studies that are being conducted by scientists in an effort to examine potential patterns of human migration throughout ancient history. The impact of this oversimplification is in many ways similar to the impact that the popular TV show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation has had over the past few years on forensic laboratories. In the name of entertainment, the CSI television shows have created a perception in which the general public now thinks that forensic scientists go to crime scenes, work in fancy and well-equipped laboratories, question suspects in a case, and obtain conclusive results on every complex case in a matter of a few minutes. The truth is that scientists work in poorly supplied labs, are underpaid, and in many situations have large backlogs of samples that prevent rapid responses to new individual cases. In addition, forensic scientists never interrogate the suspects of a crime, and many cases are never solved. The public perception of CSI has now created an expectation in many juries that DNA evidence should be present in every case.

Even with this oversimplification of its portrayal of forensic laboratories, there is some truth within the set of the CSI shows. For example, the instruments on the TV show are real. However, they do not collect data and generate results as rapidly as portrayed nor are complex cases solved so succinctly. Likewise, oversimplification of DNA results and what they are capable of revealing in examining the authenticity of the Book of Mormon has been greatly exaggerated by critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For the many reasons stated above, DNA testing results from modern Native Americans do not negate the possibility of Book of Mormon peoples having existed anciently on the American continent.

[jwhitlock]

Depends on how you define apologist, I suppose. Some are better than others, but an apologist, by definition, is a defender.

I don't view the term as a pejorative, though anti-Mormons have tried to make it one.

Wonder how the designation "anti-Mormon apologist" would be received.

Since a good chunk of the anti-Mormon industry is Christian related, and Christian Apologetics is viewed as a non-pejorative term, it would seem that the anti-Mormon camp is somewhat divided on the word.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wonder how the designation "anti-Mormon apologist" would be received.

Since a good chunk of the anti-Mormon industry is Christian related, and Christian Apologetics is viewed as a non-pejorative term, it would seem that the anti-Mormon camp is somewhat divided on the word.

It's my observation that it's primarily apostates from Mormonism who use apologist as a snarl world.

[jwhitlock]

Okay, this makes it pretty clear that you don't understand population genetics. You cannot simultaneously argue that everyone in North and South America is a literal genetic descendant of Lehi (or someone in his group) and that his genes would be undetectable in that population. If their genes are in every living native american, then you can bet we would have found them.

A number of mathematical and probability studies have been done on the concept of a single ancestor for everyone living today, and a common group ancestry for everyone living today. Some took into account widely dispersed migrations, probabilities of population mixing over time, etc. The results were rather surprising; today's world population is extremely diverse when it comes to genetics. If you go back 2500 years, there is a high probability of a great deal of common ancestry for virtually anyone you would meet, without regard to race or nationality.

Since there are only a limited number of genetic markers - which can mutate over time - that can be reasonably identified as they are passed down, it's no surprise that the genetic makeup of some of my probable Egyptian ancestors, for example, wouldn't be evident in me. That doesn't mean they're not my ancestors; it means that the science attributed to DNA is limited to sampling of what we have from 2500 years ago (little to none) against a sampling of populations today - and only for the appropriate markers.

As has been noted, lack of a marker does not denote lack of ancestry. Only a very simplistic viewing of the DNA evidence at hand would lead one to assume that the predominance of Asian markers in native American peoples must, by necessity, exclude any other ancestry.

Edited May 26, 2012 by jwhitlock

[jwhitlock]

It's my observation that it's primarily apostates from Mormonism who use apologist as a snarl world.

So, how about Apostate Apologetics? "The defense of apostasy".

[cdowis]

The BoM itself claims that Lehi's group was less than 20 people.

This is just another assumption that members have had for over a century.

The BOM, as a matter of fact, does not tell us how many disenbarked from the ship when they landed in America. Several have questioned that assumption

[cdowis]

However, if you look at a map of worldwide DNA haplogroups, you will quickly see that middle eastern haplogroups are totally different than native american haplogroups.

CFR. Assertions are easily made, so let's see what you got ==>>

Specifically, I would be interested in a comparison of haplogroup X of the pre-columbian Amerindians with with the corresponding ancient Druze (middle east)

Thanks..

[bcuzbcuz]

bcuzbqcuz:

Way back I've got some Viking blood in me. They had a merry olde time in England and Ireland where my ancestors came from. But my point still remains until the remains of the Vikings were discovered the world at large believed Columbus "discovered" the New World. TTBOMK the Amerids were the first to really discover it.

Point well taken.

[bcuzbcuz]

I'm not a geneticist, nor do I play one of television,

Love that comment! Can I steal it? I'm going to use it the next time I get in an argument with my sons!!!!

Sure it was middle eastern, but no one knows what admixtures went into Lehi's individual DNA make up. We do know the religious connection, but DNA is not concerned with religion. For instance I may well have Viking blood in me, but it would be very difficult if not impossible to prove it using just genetics.

It seems to me that if someone is claiming a direct DNA link then it would be incumbent that they have a well recognized base population to gauge against. We don't.

I do, actually, have a 2 cents to add to this one. My oldest child married a member of the Haida nation (Haida Gwai, Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, Canada) and did a DNA analysis on their first offspring. The 'Viking' DNA of my child, as opposed to the Haida (aboriginal) DNA, showed up with 99.9997% clarity. The two DNA's are entirely distinctive and singular with innumerably many markers that absolutely define lineage.

[bcuzbcuz]

I admit that I am not a geneticist. But I understand enough to know how overconfident you are in the above assertion.

Here's a snippet from from an articleby John M. Butler who is a geneticist:

I read Butler's article and then went back to the source article.

A Populationwide Coalescent Analysis of Icelandic Matrilineal and Patrilineal Genealogies: Evidence for a Faster Evolutionary Rate of mtDNA Lineages than Y Chromosomes

"]Agnar Helgason, "]Birgir Hrafnkelsson, "]Jeffrey R. Gulcher, "]Ryk Ward, and "]Kári Stefánsson

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180299/

After reading the article, I am not at all convinced that Butler's conclusions are to be found in the original research. Iceland and Islanders provide a rather unique population study because there is considerable "inbreeding" due to the isolation of the population. We would be hard pressed to find similar populations that could persist over long periods of modern travel and communication that would have so few factors of "contamination".

I don't really see what the original article, by Helgason, Hranfnkelsson, Gulcher, Ward and Stefansson, has to do with native populations of North, Central or South America

[noel00]

Interesting letter in response to Simon's interview

.

"Mj on May 25, 2012 at 8:40 pm

Years ago I attended a fireside at the Monument Park singles ward here in Salt Lake City where Dr. Scott Woodward presented on science based support for the Book of Mormon. As I recall, he didn’t really deliver any hard evidences rather he spoke of theories that explain why, in today’s modern world, science doesn’t yield any hard evidence to support the book. It was a rather intriguing presentation that I wish I could have recorded.

I remember his explanation of the small geography theory, complete with visuals, and his fervent, testimony promoting teaching that the foot print of the Nephites and Lamanites was so small and their genetic contribution to the gene pool so isolated that any DNA traces of them are simply lost in today’s human populations. [/b]He then went on a bit about his own genographic projects and other genetic research to sort of substantiate and lend credence to what he was teaching us.

The other thing I remember vividly is his pulpit pounding lashing of Simon and Tom Murphy. And yes, he literally pounded his fist on the pulpit as he aired his frustration at Simon’s book and Tom’s dissertation. I don’t know if many of the folks at the fireside had been exposed to either of these two sources of information. Further, I don’t know if many of those folks even knew of Simon or Tom. I think this emotional outbreak caused some uneasiness in the room because folks couldn’t really understand what he was getting at. But then again, a few of us did. It was rather entertaining there for a bit. At the same time it was public slander against two members of the scientific community who had published honest and straightforward research. My guess is that these two publications possibly have caused Scott to question his own testimony. Perhaps he was using us in the audience as group therapy to vent his personal dilemmas and come to peace with himself.

Overall, I think if anything, most people came away from the presentation with more questions in their minds. Not that Scott is a bad speaker it’s just that his material was somewhat confusing and full of apologetic mumbo jumbo. There were no amazing revelations. No reports of data from any field of science to lend support for the Book of Mormon. He closed with a rather teary eyed testimony and that was that. Since then I haven’t heard of any firesides that address topics like this. I think this was a rare one for sure."

The bolded section is interesting.

[Nemesis]

Thephy's break is over. Let's try to stay on topic and address the issues. Id also like to see the cheap shots and personal attacks to stop.

Nemesis

[CASteinman]

As has been noted, lack of a marker does not denote lack of ancestry. Only a very simplistic viewing of the DNA evidence at hand would lead one to assume that the predominance of Asian markers in native American peoples must, by necessity, exclude any other ancestry.

I am not a scientist and cannot say how this works, but I think that genes might be a bit like homeopathic medicine. You start with some strong ingredient over time and then mix it with other things, repeatedly. Over time the dilution is so great that, quite literally, there is a vanishingly small chance that even one molecule of the original substance is in the homeopathic solution. I think the same thing can happen in Genetics and the genes of a common ancestor may be swarmed by other genetics and 'disappear'.

At that point, I believe the Anti-Mormon/Mormon argument is a bit like the Theseus Paradox:

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.

However, anti-Mormons do not seem to get this and think that the issue is not one of interesting paradox, but is actual proof that the original ancestor does not exist. A silly, illogical conclusion, but it seems convincing to them.

Of course the fact that, if you had the data, you could actually form a family tree back to the individual in question does not change the fact that the genetics may be impossible to identify.

Another thing that I do not quite understand is that the scientifically identified Most Recent Common Ancestory of all humans lived somewhere between 6000 and 2000 years ago (I hear). How is that? Australian Aborigines too?. African Hutu and Alaskan Inuit share a common ancestor perhaps as recently as 80 generations ago and no more than 240 generations ago.

How does that happen? But that's the science at work.

[jwhitlock]

Another thing that I do not quite understand is that the scientifically identified Most Recent Common Ancestory of all humans lived somewhere between 6000 and 2000 years ago (I hear). How is that? Australian Aborigines too?. African Hutu and Alaskan Inuit share a common ancestor perhaps as recently as 80 generations ago and no more than 240 generations ago.

How does that happen? But that's the science at work.

The studies I read were quite interesting; over a lengthy period of time, isolated communities still have people wander in and out. Genetic mixing happens.

As far as the communities in question (middle eastern, Mesoamerican), none of them were particularly isolated. Given the European incursions into the Americas and the Jewish diaspora, it is very probable that you and I have common ancestry with any random current day Jew or native American well within the last 2600 years (which is the time frame we're interested in here.) Given the Chinese incursions into the Americas over time, the same applies there as well.

The question with DNA tracking is which markers predominated over time, and whether they mutated or not. We don't have the necessary samples from 2600 years ago, and while we can look today at what markers are predominant, we really can't say that it precludes any particular ancestry. As you and others have noted, much of the genetics gets swallowed up over time with more dominant characteristics.

What we have here with Southerton is not a conflict of science with religion; we have the misapplication of scientific evidence to come to conclusions that the evidence doesn't really have anything to do with. It's irrelevant at this point.

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

When we count the number of people mentioned by Nephi in his group it comes to less than 20. But let's be very generous and call it less than 50 at landfall. Even that number would disappear quite quickly into the background population. Laman and Lemuel along with all those who followed them sure did.

[bcuzbcuz]

cdowis:

When we count the number of people mentioned by Nephi in his group it comes to less than 20. But let's be very generous and call it less than 50 at landfall. Even that number would disappear quite quickly into the background population. Laman and Lemuel along with all those who followed them sure did.

I'm going to butt in. Wouldn't the superior technology of steel swords or even a steel bow technology make Nephi and his group stand out?

[Log]

I'm going to butt in. Wouldn't the superior technology of steel swords or even a steel bow technology make Nephi and his group stand out?

Because 1 steel sword and 1 broken steel bow make ALL the difference.

[bcuzbcuz]

Because 1 steel sword and 1 broken steel bow make ALL the difference.

No but technology does.

[Log]

No but technology does.

Because I have a Playstation 3, I can make a Playstation 3.

[thesometimesaint]

bcuzbcuz:

There could be any number of reasons a certain technology doesn't get passed down. Give someone a live cow and how many today would know how to make a buggy whip?

[Buzzard]

Since this thread has wandered down so many paths, I thought I would throw another random thought in here. According to this blog: http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-stake-in-mongolia.html "One interesting note about members who have served as missionaries from Mongolia and received their Patriarchal blessings in other countries where there are stakes and patriarchs: All but the tribe of Zebulun have been found among the declared lineage of Mongolia missionaries (as of December 2003)."

So, since Lehi was not from Judah, but Manesseh, it would seem to fall within the realm of possibility that Asian lineage and Israelite lineage are not mutually exclusive.

[bcuzbcuz]

bcuzbcuz:

There could be any number of reasons a certain technology doesn't get passed down. Give someone a live cow and how many today would know how to make a buggy whip?

I would be one of those not able to make a buggy whip and my first experience of even milking a cow was hardly a success, let alone milking a goat. Point well taken.

[thesometimesaint]

bcuzbcuz:

In the summers of long ago I'd visit with my relatives that had cows. Got pretty good at milking, and making butter from the cream, but that was so long ago that I forgotten just about everything but which end to milk.

Edited May 26, 2012 by thesometimesaint