Bom Theories And Bayes

[robuchan]

I had a thought come to me in the LGT thread.

The mixing populations theory that Brant defends in this thread seems to be the most popular view of the BOM by serious LDS scholars today.

Summary of key points of the theory:

--Lehi's family met a large, existing civilization when they came to America and quickly absorbed into this culture, losing or diluting their Middle Eastern culture, practices, language, etc.

--Lamanite curse was not a color of skin

--the terms Lamanites and Nephites were not lineages or groups of people with like skin color, they were political movements within larger society and phrases like "actual descendant" of Laman and Lemuel should not be taken literally

--Joseph and other future prophets and leaders grossly misunderstood the BOM's historical significance and frequently spoke mistruths about it

--Zelph (actually what is the Zelph take--was Joseph lying, deceived, or do we have the account wrong?)

I read the BOM, and it boggles my mind how someone could interpret things in this way. It completely blows me away that this could be a reasonable interpretation.

But when you look at it in terms of probability theory and lay out all the assumptions, it becomes more understandable.

I would say the probability looks like this when reasonable people look at it, with no other assumptions.

probability mixing populations theory is most natural interpretation: 1%

probability the literal theory is most natural interpretation: 99%

But then you add more assumptions

For a believing scholar:

probability the BOM is true: 100%

probability the science is accurate that says Native Americans are of Asian descent that first came here 10,000 years ago: 100%

and you add the fact that mixing populations theory can coexist with these but literal theory can not

So now you run the two statements above about BOM theory and you logically determine that mixing populations theory is the more probable view.

If I change assumptions to:

probability the BOM is true: undetermined

probability the science is accurate that says Native Americans are of Asian descent that first came here 10,000 years ago: 100%

and rerun the model, the mixing populations theory is completely rejected.

[Brant Gardner]

Summary of key points of the theory:

--Lehi's family met a large, existing civilization when they came to America and quickly absorbed into this culture, losing or diluting their Middle Eastern culture, practices, language, etc.

Correct, though you will find some proponents of a limited geography who wouldn't agree with the idea that they lost Middle Eastern culture and practices. Certainly religious practices continued (evidence for the feast of tabernacles in the Book of Mormon, for example). I know that Sorenson would not agree with the direction of influence that I see. The position is hardly uniform, save that it agrees on a limited region and the gross region where the text would have taken place.

--Lamanite curse was not a color of skin

Not related to the LGT and I might be the strongest proponent. It doesn't represent Sorenson's take, which (as of 1985 and may or may not have changed, I don't know) was that there was a pigmentation change that occurred through natural processes.

--the terms Lamanites and Nephites were not lineages or groups of people with like skin color, they were political movements within larger society and phrases like "actual descendant" of Laman and Lemuel should not be taken literally

That sentence is too packed for a simple answer. I think there is general agreement that the terms Lamanite and Nephite function more politically than genealogically (based on Jacob 1:14).

However, the way certain texts are read is hardly universal. In particular, theories of translation are very different and many that I know in the Maxwell Institute favor Skousen's view more than mine.

--Joseph and other future prophets and leaders grossly misunderstood the BOM's historical significance and frequently spoke mistruths about it

Packed and loaded! The General Authorities don't misunderstand the Book of Mormon's historical significance at all. They might have (and there are some who support the basic principles of the LGT) not understood its history, but I see no reason to expect that the would have. Much depends on information that has only become available since the publication of the book. Similarly, I don't know of very many General Authorities who are very good at biblical history-though I believe they are quite well versed in applying the Bible to our religious life.

Now, as to speaking mistruths, that is the loaded part of the sentence. You must mean that they say things that represent the historical/traditional view of the text. Of course. If you understand the historical development of those ideas, you wouldn't expect anything else. I suppose that there is an undercurrent of "if they are inspired they should know," but I find that an unfortunate and inaccurate representation of the way God has ever worked with his human intermediaries.

--Zelph (actually what is the Zelph take--was Joseph lying, deceived, or do we have the account wrong?)

I'm not sure where this comes from. Let us suppose that everything that Joseph said about Zelph is the one hundred percent truth. It occurs long after the Book of Mormon ended, and "white Lamanite" refers to righteousness in the Book of Mormon (whether you assume skin color or a metaphor). None of that is a problem.

[cdowis]

I personally do not agree with some of these statements.

1. Zelph -- Not sure exactly what you mean here. JS was referring to a location in the southeast for the Hill Cumorah along a line going northwest (the Rocky Mountains). It has been assumed that this line was east to west, but that is a faulty assumption, and does not take into account the Nephite view of directions.

2. The BOM clearly indicates that the Nephites and Lamanites were distinguishable by skin color.. However, Lamanite became a generic term and applied to anyone who allied themselves with them, such as the Amlikites. Mormon points out how the curse was applied to them when they marked themselves and they were adopted into their tribe, or "descended from Laman".

probability the science is accurate that says Native Americans are of Asian descent that first came here 10,000 years

1. "Science" cannot speak. It has no mouth. Only scientists can speak, and they gather data and draw conclusions from that data.

2. If the data is flawed or incomplete, the conclusions are suspect. In this case, as I have repeatedly pointed out, and has not been contradicted, there are sampling issues which are unresolved.

Ergo, therefore, and we can conclude that your 100% probablity is baloney and hogwash.

[bu11fr0g]

@cowdis: what are the sampling issues that you have repeatedly pointed out that have not been contradicted?

Raff et al. 2011 ancient dna perspectives on american migrations and population history. Am j of phys anthropology. 146:503-514.

The full article is available on line with links to the studies done to date. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21594/full

There was no evidence of an extinguished genotype. The locations and caveats are listed.

Locations if you dont want to look them up of the ancient dna samples:

Xcaret maya, copan maya from up to 600 ad.

Tlateloco from 500 years ago

Various northeastern american and south american from 2000 years ago.

Caribean artic and subarctic populations from a wide variety of times.

The exact populations, dates and references are listed in table 1 of the above reference from dec 2011. It is the best i could find.

The total numbers are listed in table 2 include about 50 from the meso american sites and more from other sites and some from the ohio mound group from 300 ad.

[bu11fr0g]

@robuchan, the key assumption is

"probability the science is accurate that says Native Americans are of Asian descent that first came here 10,000 years ago: 100%"

cowdis is right when he says that science doesn't say anything, but rather scientists come up with theories that match the observed data.

The more accurate pieces to put in are things like:

"probability that observations to date are accurate in calculating that >95% of DNA during the BOM timeframe in the Americas is Asian": very large %

"probability that members of the first presidency & quorum of the 12 are accurate in their interpretation of scripture with regards to the physical world": high %

Running Bayes on this -- the more accurate the observations are estimated to be, the more likely the interpretation was wrong => limited geography

the more accurate the interpretation of scripture is estimated to be, the more likely the observations are wrong =>hemispheric models

Edited June 2, 2012 by bu11fr0g

[mfbukowski]

Your inputs are all interpretations. Interpret them differently, different results. You are trying to put a slab of jello in a vise and grind it within a hundred thousandth of an inch, and all you are getting is mush.

Edited June 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Anijen]

I would posit that people were coming across the Berengia 16K + years ago.

[DBMormon]

Would someone point out a few of the places in the BOM where you feel a hemispheric model is a forced way to see things?

[ERayR]

@robuchan, the key assumption is

"probability the science is accurate that says Native Americans are of Asian descent that first came here 10,000 years ago: 100%"

cowdis is right when he says that science doesn't say anything, but rather scientists come up with theories that match the observed data.

The more accurate pieces to put in are things like:

"probability that observations to date are accurate in calculating that >95% of DNA during the BOM timeframe in the Americas is Asian": very large %

"probability that members of the first presidency & quorum of the 12 are accurate in their interpretation of scripture with regards to the physical world": high %

Running Bayes on this -- the more accurate the observations are estimated to be, the more likely the interpretation was wrong => limited geography

the more accurate the interpretation of scripture is estimated to be, the more likely the observations are wrong =>hemispheric models

I have an interpretation of the DNA evidence that is at odds with yours. I do not dispute that Amerindian DNA leans very heavily to Asian. However Nibley posits that the Jaredite contingent made the trek of several years across the steppes of Asia. That and the probability that upon arrival they intermingled with an indigenous population that had earlier migrated from Asia pretty well assures me that the predominate DNA would be Asian.

[webbles]

--the terms Lamanites and Nephites were not lineages or groups of people with like skin color, they were political movements within larger society and phrases like "actual descendant" of Laman and Lemuel should not be taken literally

By the time of Mormon, is was definitely political (or religious). 4 Nephi 1:36-38 talks about how the people started to separate again. They even use the names Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites. But this separation was not lineage, it was purely based on acceptance/rejection of the gospel. And since Mormon was the main editor of everything from Mosiah to Mormon, his world view would be very influential. And it could easily be that by the time that Mormon was born, the political separation in 4 Nephi was reinterpreted as a descendant separation (there is almost 100 years in between) and so to Mormon, a Lamanite is always a descendant of Laman while a Nephite is always a descendant of Nephi yet by his time (almost 1000 years since Nephi and Laman landed) pretty much everybody is a descendant of both (especially because of the 4 Nephi period of non-ites which lasted 200 years). So when he comes a cross a story about how every body converted except for the known former Nephite groups, he automatically assumes that they are all Lamanites and descendants of Laman.

[ERayR]

By the time of Mormon, is was definitely political (or religious). 4 Nephi 1:36-38 talks about how the people started to separate again. They even use the names Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites. But this separation was not lineage, it was purely based on acceptance/rejection of the gospel. And since Mormon was the main editor of everything from Mosiah to Mormon, his world view would be very influential. And it could easily be that by the time that Mormon was born, the political separation in 4 Nephi was reinterpreted as a descendant separation (there is almost 100 years in between) and so to Mormon, a Lamanite is always a descendant of Laman while a Nephite is always a descendant of Nephi yet by his time (almost 1000 years since Nephi and Laman landed) pretty much everybody is a descendant of both (especially because of the 4 Nephi period of non-ites which lasted 200 years). So when he comes a cross a story about how every body converted except for the known former Nephite groups, he automatically assumes that they are all Lamanites and descendants of Laman.

However, that is not to say that there were not direct descendents who could trace their genealogies to various members of Lehi's family.

[Freedom]

I read the BOM, and it boggles my mind how someone could interpret things in this way. It completely blows me away that this could be a reasonable interpretation.

Well, I read the same book and I am boogled by those that suppose that the Nephites and Lamanites were the only ones. The book clearly presents the two groups as political and not biological. Both science and religion come from God so we have to apply the book to what is known of the region. I asked you this before but you did not answer. Have you read any ancient texts? Have you read the mayan writings that have been translated into english? Have you read the dead sea scrolls?

[Buzzard]

By the time of Mormon, is was definitely political (or religious). 4 Nephi 1:36-38 talks about how the people started to separate again. They even use the names Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites. But this separation was not lineage, it was purely based on acceptance/rejection of the gospel. And since Mormon was the main editor of everything from Mosiah to Mormon, his world view would be very influential. And it could easily be that by the time that Mormon was born, the political separation in 4 Nephi was reinterpreted as a descendant separation (there is almost 100 years in between) and so to Mormon, a Lamanite is always a descendant of Laman while a Nephite is always a descendant of Nephi yet by his time (almost 1000 years since Nephi and Laman landed) pretty much everybody is a descendant of both (especially because of the 4 Nephi period of non-ites which lasted 200 years). So when he comes a cross a story about how every body converted except for the known former Nephite groups, he automatically assumes that they are all Lamanites and descendants of Laman.

I heartily endorse this post. It is evident that after the appearance of Christ in the New World, that the populations mixed, "and there were no matter of -ites" at all. When you consider the racial mixing that has gone on in the last two centuries just in this country, and the almost indisputable fact that the cataclysms described in 3 Nephi would have befallen the entire population, whether or not mentioned in the BOM, even if Nephites and Lamanites were seperate cultural groups from other populations around them before the appearance of Christ, by the time they divided again two centuries later, actual lineage would be pretty well scrambled.

[cdowis]

@cowdis: what are the sampling issues that you have repeatedly pointed out that have not been contradicted?

Raff et al. 2011 ancient dna perspectives on american migrations and population history. Am j of phys anthropology. 146:503-514.

The full article is available on line with links to the studies done to date. http://onlinelibrary...ajpa.21594/full

There was no evidence of an extinguished genotype. The locations and caveats are listed.

Locations if you dont want to look them up of the ancient dna samples:

Xcaret maya, copan maya from up to 600 ad.

Tlateloco from 500 years ago

Various northeastern american and south american from 2000 years ago.

Caribean artic and subarctic populations from a wide variety of times.

The exact populations, dates and references are listed in table 1 of the above reference from dec 2011. It is the best i could find.

The total numbers are listed in table 2 include about 50 from the meso american sites and more from other sites and some from the ohio mound group from 300 ad.

Thank you, but as you are well aware, almost none of these samples are from the known BOM time period or location.

There are two possible exceptions two groups with a total of 33 samples, and these are also outside the BOM time period.

Being generous, there are probably less than five samples that have anything to do with BOM peoples, but, according to your sources, falling outside the time of the extinction of the Nephites.

Finally, there is not middle eastern valid sample for comparison.

Nice try but I have seen this before, the baloney and "let's waste our time" technique.

Edited June 3, 2012 by cdowis

[bu11fr0g]

I think I understand your position now: limited geography, limited timespan with at most trace impact on the overall population. The genotypes of originals are also unknown making exclusion impossuble.

This is a very reasonable position consistent with the data and held by some very good Mormon geneticists.

Sorry to have wasted your time, wasn't intended and certainly was without knowing malacious intent.

[cdowis]

"wasting time" == sorry about that comment. I have put ""learning patience" at the top of my to do list, and I apologize.

Again, even assuming that many of those samples are indeed related to the BOM peoples, we are stilll stuck with the problem of the House of Joseph sampling problem. Those samples have a wide range of results, and the only real way of identifying the founding source is to look for common ancestors.

The discovery that a full blooded Amerindian has a common ancestor with the woman from Greece that is interesting, the source of haplogroup x, etc. It is the anomolies that we are looking for -- the outliers.

Speaking of which, have there been a comparison research study on the haplogroup x between the druze and amerindians?

Edited June 3, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

I am not a scientist, genetist or statistician, but let's look at table 2. We should see some difference between the arctic and mesoamerican samples, with an eye on South America.

We see a fairly close affinity to haplogroup A percent, .453 and 629, but South America is only .134. The main difference between the two locations is with C with 0% in the arctic group and .172 with mesoamerica. B shows a relative affinity between mesoamerica and South America, and D seems to be a large difference between arctic and mesoamerica.

Again, I am not competent to give a detailed analysis of these differences, but the arctic and the mesoamerican samples appear to me to have significant differences, as I would expect from the BOM perspective.

Perhaps you can give us some insight into these differences on the table.

[bu11fr0g]

The current status of haplogroups has recently been organized into a website: http://www.phylotree.org/

This website should is expected to be updated with all new information as it comes in, and usually the scientists who run these types of websites do a good job. It includes the information from all complete mitochondrial sequences. The page for haplogroup X is found here: http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_N.htm

Being part of this group means that they carry a certain set of mutations. The Amerindian X is on a different background than the Druze x -- this means that they likely have a common ancestor. The similarity with Greeks is even more remote and can be discarded as a nonrelationship.

See this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180497/?tool=pmcentrez.

More on the Druze, Samaritans and Israelis common genetic heritage with mitochondrial and Cohan implications: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/humu.20077/abstract

The best, most recent paper is found here: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/pii/S0960982208016187

Another interesting paper from PLoS Genetics covering autosomal genetics is found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082466/?tool=pmcentrez

I think more interesting for cowdis might be the identification of an autosomal polymorphism that is unique to the Native Americans and Western Beringians: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/5/995.short; The full article is very interesting and found here: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/5/995.full.pdf+html. This more directly points to a middle eastern origin for the group that migrated into North America. But the estimated timing of this migration doesn't match the Book of Mormon.

One of the most knowledgeable scientists writing on this topic is Ugo Perego, some of whose first-tier publications have been noted. He is also LDS, and he writes in FAIR his interpretation of the present data: http://www.fairlds.org/authors/perego-ugo/the-book-of-mormon-and-the-origin-of-native-americans-from-a-maternally-inherited-dna-standpoint

Edited June 5, 2012 by bu11fr0g

[cdowis]

I think more interesting for cowdis might be the identification of an autosomal polymorphism that is unique to the Native Americans and Western Beringians: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/5/995.short; The full article is very interesting and found here: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/5/995.full.pdf+html. This more directly points to a middle eastern origin for the group that migrated into North America. But the estimated timing of this migration doesn't match the Book of Mormon.

Let's see what they say about their methodology of dating.

We introduce a new method for estimating the

TMRCA of all sampled copies of a new allele using haplotypic

data in the neighborhood of the new allele (fig. 7).

Given an estimate of the number of recombination events in

the sampled chromosomes (ˆ E) and an estimate of the recombination

rate in the haplotype upon which the allele

arose (ˆr), we estimate the length (L) in generations of

the intra-allelic genealogy (i.e., the sum of all branch

lengths in the genealogy) for the haplotype since the

TMRCA as ˆL5ˆE=ˆr. Conditional on our best demographic

models, we then estimate the relationship between the genealogy

length and the height of the MRCA (i.e., the sum of

all branch lengths from a terminal tip to the MRCA) of all

High-Frequency Private Haplotype in the Americas 1001

Downloaded from http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on June 4, 2012

snip

................................

Hence, we conclude that it is likely all sampled

copies of the 9-repeat allele descend from a single mutation

that occurred on a chromosome with the AMH, and that

recombination events within the AMH have since created

the additional haplotypes associated with the 9-repeat allele.

I do not have the knowledge to evaluate their method of estimating the dating, but I do understand that words like "new" method, "estimated" and "it is likely" does not appear to have ta high level of confidence.

I agree with you that it is estimated and let's see what another 25 to 50 years brings us in dating technology.

Edited June 5, 2012 by cdowis