Could The Lamanites Really Have Disappeared

[Helen47]

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/could-lamanite-dna-just-disappear.html

The view of LDS members has been that the lamanites were absorbed in the local population. What science do LDS scholars bring to the table to support this.

[volgadon]

Please tell me where the Jebusites and Perrizites went, as well as the Scythians.

[Traela]

One interesting corollary is Icelandic genetic studies. IIRC, the Icelanders living today display the genes of a surprisingly small number of ancestors. The others exist in the historical record, but they are gone from current DNA. A similar thing could have happened with the Lamanites.

[Kevin Christensen]

http://simonsouthert...-disappear.html

The view of LDS members has been that the lamanites were absorbed in the local population. What science do LDS scholars bring to the table to support this.

All of it.

First, a careful reading of the Book of Mormon to precisely define the problem.

See Roper here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=505

Then consider what realistically to expect from the DNA studies:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=106

See especially John Butler:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=106&chapid=1187

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.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[MormonMason]

http://simonsouthert...-disappear.html

The view of LDS members has been that the lamanites were absorbed in the local population. What science do LDS scholars bring to the table to support this.

For a summary of the data:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookstore/?id=106

For the record, this is something that never bothered me in the least. When you do population studies, typically mtDNA and y-chDNA are used. However, these two forms of DNA only reveal two lines out of thousands in your lineage. You could have thousands of Yemeni ancestors but the mtDNA you possess could be Norwegian. So, from the perspective of mtDNA alone, you are Norwegian.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is only passed in a direct line from mother to child and only passes through a direct female line. Any grandchild you have loses the mtDNA your son inherits from you because it is replaced with the mtDNA of the mother of your grandchild. You could have tens of thousands of Yemeni ancestors and relatives but if your son marries a Norwegian woman the mtDNA test will show Norwegian in the grandchildren.

Are you starting to get a picture of the possibilities?

[Questing Beast]

Yeah, it seems like DNA "proof" is not forthcoming and never will be. Therefore this entire study into tracing BoM populations is a non study from the start? Seems so....

[helix]

To be fair to Simon Southerton, it seems he is advancing his argument somewhat. He is no longer relying on maternal or paternal DNA line testing (via Y chromosome or mtDNA). He is now focused on admixture studies, which use AIMs to bypasses the problem associated with passing on DNA from mother to daughter, or father to son.

From this, he's trying to move his argument from:

"In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today."

To:

"If a small family of Jews mixed with American Indians 3,000 years ago, the Jewish nuclear DNA would spread throughout the adjacent populations like a drop of ink in a bucket of water. It would have spread widely through adjacent populations, be very unlikely to go completely extinct and it would definitely not be undetectable."

But he seems to try and push his argument well beyond that. In a strange way. It seems as if his new argument is "Scientists know of AIMS exclusive to Pima and Maya populations. When sampling modern day Mexican Amerindians, they were able to find AIMs not exclusive to the Pima or Maya populations, and they came from Europe when the Spanish arrived in the last 10-25 generations. This is proof against the Book of Mormon because this study would have still found some Israelite AIMs in the record had there been any."

It's a strange argument, and seems to have the following flaws:

• He never explained in this study how many Europeans were mixing with native Mexican Amerindians in the 1500s onward. Was it just a few? Was it thousands? Just how many results do we expect to find based on the amount of earlier mixing?
  
• He never explains how likely we are to find Jewish DNA among millions of native Mexican Amerindians if interbreeding occurred with just a handful of Isrealites 2600 years ago. Or if it's even possible using these methods.
  
• He never explains what 2600 Israelite DNA looks like. The study itself didn't concern itself with it, as it was looking at something entirely different.
  

One question I have on this...

• The study says it identified 8144 AIMs found only with the the Pimas and Maya. But modern Pima/Maya DNA markers are defined as being distinct from modern European DNA. If AIMs were found between both populations (or other groups, which the paper laid out), then those AIMs *were not used as a marker*. So suppose an AIM of Nephite DNA mixed into the modern day Pima/Maya population, and that same AIM also worked its way up into European samples. Therefore that AIM would be excluded from these tests. As the paper said, it found these Maya/Pima AIMs carefully. "This issue was addressed both by our careful selection of participants and by screening those subjects with small numbers of EUR/ AMI/AFR AIMs, to identify and exclude clear population outliers from these studies (see the “Methods” section)." In other words, there's an implicit assumption that if intermixing occurred thousands of years prior, and those AIMs got within both populations, those AIMs are excluded. Therefore, I wonder how someone can use this study in a way it wasn't intended. To say it would have found markers from 2600 years ago when the study itself would have excluded looking for that entirely. I leave this as a question and not a "flaw", because it's a more complex argument, and it's common to overlook an important detail on complex issues. Am I missing something important here?
  

Edited May 25, 2013 by helix

[CA Steve]

For a summary of the data:

http://maxwellinstit...okstore/?id=106

For the record, this is something that never bothered me in the least. When you do population studies, typically mtDNA and y-chDNA are used. However, these two forms of DNA only reveal two lines out of thousands in your lineage. You could have thousands of Yemeni ancestors but the mtDNA you possess could be Norwegian. So, from the perspective of mtDNA alone, you are Norwegian.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is only passed in a direct line from mother to child and only passes through a direct female line. Any grandchild you have loses the mtDNA your son inherits from you because it is replaced with the mtDNA of the mother of your grandchild. You could have tens of thousands of Yemeni ancestors and relatives but if your son marries a Norwegian woman the mtDNA test will show Norwegian in the grandchildren.

Are you starting to get a picture of the possibilities?

I am just curious. Did you read the OP link?

[omni]

http://simonsouthert...-disappear.html

The view of LDS members has been that the lamanites were absorbed in the local population. What science do LDS scholars bring to the table to support this.

I would be careful to say this is the view of LDS members. The idea that their were other inhabitants of the Americas outside of those described in the BoM has not caught on until relatively recently as more and more archeological evidence has proved this to be true. On my mission just over ten years ago when I would tell the other Elders that their were other groups of people on the American continent outside of the Nephites and Lamanites they would usually look at me like I had two heads or was an apostate.

[gree0232]

Yeah, it seems like DNA "proof" is not forthcoming and never will be. Therefore this entire study into tracing BoM populations is a non study from the start? Seems so....

Mestizo Indians.

There are plenty of modern South Americans with European genetic code in their bodies. How you separate out the ones that resulted from Spanish conquest 500 years ago and the smattering of possible descendants from 2,000 years ago? Good luck.

But the evidence of European ancestry in Native Americans is literal;y staring you in the face.

[MormonMason]

I am just curious. Did you read the OP link?

I confess I actually did not. I saw "Simon Southerton" in the link and figured it was more of the same which I had already read from him in the past. I just read the linked page. It turns out that it is more of the same kinds of argumentation, with a new twist.

I noticed that only 24 samples were used. Out of how many millions? There are estimates I have read that place early populations at 90 millions at the time a small handful of Book of Mormon people would have arrived. I admit that SNPs look interesting so it will be of interest to see just what can be found once millions have been tested.

Now, for the fun part. We need to isolate genuinely Israelite SNPs, take them apart and look over the nDNA of many others to make some comparisons. Herein is the problem. Such DNA never really existed. There is no such thing as Israelite DNA. Israelites are descended from other peoples, have long taken in converts of other peoples, and Babylonian soldiers came in and raped a great many women. There were also intermarriages with Persians. In other cases later in time Israelites who migrated to Africa intermarried with African women. There are many variables.

We would need somehow to isolate Jacob's exclusive SNPs. The problem is that his nDNA derives from another culture, the precise region of which remains undetermined. Abraham's birthplace is said to have been in the region of Aram-Naharaim but this region has had several turnovers of populations over the centuries. Of what race was Sarai? She had the same father as Abraham but a different mother. Of what lineage was she descended? Two of Jacob's wives were servants, the races of which are unknown. The groups of Jacob's children all three potentially differing groups from which SNPs could be derived. How many of those were from Central Asia? Do we know? Can we know with any degree of certainty?

Another problem is that the earliest Israelites intermarried immediately. There were wives who were of Canaanite extraction, as well as possibly Egyptian extraction or Central Asian extraction from the Hyksos period. As you might already know, the Hyksos were Semites who invaded Egypt with an army from several regions, some members of which may have been Central Asian mercenaries.

Look over the studies involving what scientists think is Neanderthalian nDNA and SNPs very carefully. The scientists involved in these studies and this line of research had viable samples of Neanderthal remains with which to provide a starting point of reference. The same goes for the Denisovan nDNA and SNPs. Now, look at what will be involved in trying to find "Israelite" DNA. There is a lot of work to be done in this area before anyone can pontificate.

It is would seem more complex, I think, than finding Neanderthalian SNPs in a population of Europeans and Denisovan SNPs in Africans. Good luck with that and with obtaining the funding. There is not even a starting point of reference to begin this endeavor.

Edited May 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[Dan Vogel]

The apologetic that the Lehi and Mulekite colonies shared the promised land with Asiatic populations is wishful thinking and seriously flawed. Apologists like Nibley once denied the Asiatic origin of Native Americans. Now that DNA has nailed it down apologists want to contort the Book of Mormon to make it fit. It all adds up to another excuse for not coming up with the evidence.

[MormonMason]

The apologetic that the Lehi and Mulekite colonies shared the promised land with Asiatic populations is wishful thinking and seriously flawed. Apologists like Nibley once denied the Asiatic origin of Native Americans. Now that DNA has nailed it down apologists want to contort the Book of Mormon to make it fit. It all adds up to another excuse for not coming up with the evidence.

Nibley may have denied it but some before him accepted the possibility as early as the 1920s-1940s. I would love to narrow it down for you but cannot do so at present. Perhaps someone else here might be able to do so before I could ever get to it.

[Storm Rider]

The apologetic that the Lehi and Mulekite colonies shared the promised land with Asiatic populations is wishful thinking and seriously flawed. Apologists like Nibley once denied the Asiatic origin of Native Americans. Now that DNA has nailed it down apologists want to contort the Book of Mormon to make it fit. It all adds up to another excuse for not coming up with the evidence.

The science is not complete and it is not able to pinpoint heritage with any degree of certainty. Your proposition assumes there is evidence that disproves it, but even you would have to admit there is no viable evidence to claim one way or the other. Pot meet kettle. I suspect there will be some that will be dragged kicking and screaming and will not believe until they thrust their hands into his side and touch the wounds on his hands and arms. Some find faith more easily than others; that is such a painful existence. Others having no faith become engaged in the adventure of being a critic and skeptic. Each of us gets to decide who we will be and what we will do and it is okay that poor choices are made. Its life; you're okay, you just have little faith.

[Helen47]

"The science is not complete and it is not able to pinpoint heritage with any degree of certainty."

The escape hatch for many LDS. When will it ever be complete?

[ERayR]

The apologetic that the Lehi and Mulekite colonies shared the promised land with Asiatic populations is wishful thinking and seriously flawed. Apologists like Nibley once denied the Asiatic origin of Native Americans. Now that DNA has nailed it down apologists want to contort the Book of Mormon to make it fit. It all adds up to another excuse for not coming up with the evidence.

And you base this Regal pronouncement on what?

[Kevin Christensen]

The apologetic that the Lehi and Mulekite colonies shared the promised land with Asiatic populations is wishful thinking and seriously flawed. Apologists like Nibley once denied the Asiatic origin of Native Americans. Now that DNA has nailed it down apologists want to contort the Book of Mormon to make it fit. It all adds up to another excuse for not coming up with the evidence.

I suppose if Nibley once said something about anything, no further thought on the topic should be made by anyone. And if he was wrong about something he said, then we can safely leave the fold.

It does happen that Nibley's thought was open to further light and knowledge. In his 1988 Book of Mormon talk at Sunstone, he said this:

One point that every passing year makes clearer is the complete ethnic mix, not only of the people of the Americas, but no less of those in the Book of Mormon. With Lehi we already have a rich mixture of Near Eastern blood. He was of the tribe of Half-Manasseh, which may mean that he was half Aramaic or Arabic to begin with.¹¹ The family of Ishmael belonging in that same tradition, with a name like that, should almost certainly have been of the desert strain. The Manasseh part was in turn half Egyptian, and the Egyptians from the beginning were a blend of "nomads, cattle raisers, farmers, Africans, Asiatics, Semites, and Hamites."¹² The infiltration of these people began in the earliest times and mounted steadily through the centuries, families of every class enjoying strong infusions of "foreign" blood. In Lehi's day both Egypt and Palestine were swarming with Greek mercenaries and sailors (the Egyptian fleet was Corinthian), which may explain the few Greek names that pop up in the Book of Mormon. Zoram was a servant or slave and hence probably not an Israelite. To the very end his descendants form a distinct ethnic group in the New World. So Lehi's company and the Mulekites, and especially the Jaredites from the primal mixing and mustering center of the Tower, were already about as mongrel a people as you could find when they arrived in the New World.

But it is in the New World itself that the mixing really goes on. Nephites and Lamanites from time to time freely mingle. Lamanite warriors favored stolen Nephite brides, and Nephites, like the priests of Noah and the people of Amulon, gladly took Lamanite wives. Throughout the Book of Mormon, there are from time to time massive migrations toward the north and east, the equivalent of the American frontier and the Western movement. These found extensive evidence of previous inhabitants in the land—not all of them Jaredites, though the Jaredites were swarming by the millions while Zarahemla flourished as a great city to the south. Though Zarahemla is the center of the action in the Book of Mormon, it was not a Nephite city at all, but one of the Mulekites'; and the Mulekites brought no records with them from Jerusalem—they were apparently more numerous and heterogenous than Lehi's company.

What everyone has overlooked, however, is that the Mestizos of both North and South America, whether from the Spanish or Portuguese side, are as qualified to be called Israelites as the Nephites themselves were. For, as is well known, for seven centuries the people of Spain and Portugal mingled and intermarried with their large and important Jewish populations. We have underestimated or rather completely ignored the European strain of Jacob in the New World. Ethnically, what we find in Mesoamerica is what the Book of Mormon should expect us to find if we read it with any care:

These Pacific basin people whom the Spanish invaders found in Mexico showed a cross-bred physiognomy embracing every physical feature and skin color known anywhere around the Earth. They were so crossbred that they could no longer be spontaneously differentiated into separate "color" races. This crossbreeding is most advanced in Mexico and India today, but now embraces all the European features as well. Every variety of angular pattern variation in physiognomy is found in both countries in every skin color and every shade from intensely dark to intensely light. Hair ranges through every known variety between straight to tight curly, in every hue from black to platinum blond, and all varieties of hair adorn all varieties of skin color in all degrees of shading from dark to light, which in turn adorn all varieties of facial features and head shapes, wherefore few Mexican individuals can be identified as being of any hybrid race. They are simply worldians.¹³

The worldian theme is very prominent in the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith said that the Mormons were not bound by any creed, and should be open to further information at all times. Nibley, in The World of the Jaredites said "Only laziness and vanity lead the student to the early conviction that he has the final answers on what the Book of Mormon contains." (p 237. After quoting Joseph Smith on how the Saints "fly to piece like glass as soon as anything comes along contrary to their traditions." (p 238)

Nibley then goes on and says things like this: (From The World of the Jaredites, 1952 published in the Improvement Era):

And by the same token the fact that the Jaredites were led to the land of promise at the time of the dispersion gives us no right to conclude that no one else was ever so led, either earlier or later than they. It is nowhere said or implied that even the Jaredites were the first to come here, any more than it is said or implied that they were the first or only people to be led from the tower. Long after the Book of Mormon appeared Joseph Smith quoted with approval from the pulpit reports of certain Toltec legends which would make it appear that those people had come originally from the Near East in the time of Moses;⁷ whether such a migration ever took place or not, it is significant that the Prophet was not reluctant to recognize the possibility of other migrations than those mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited May 26, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Calm]

Apologists like Nibley once denied the Asiatic origin of Native Americans.

CFR please. Sounds like information I would like to add to my collection. Edited May 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[MormonMason]

"The science is not complete and it is not able to pinpoint heritage with any degree of certainty."

The escape hatch for many LDS. When will it ever be complete?

We know exactly the genome of Jacob himself and have definitive SNPs from his very remains. Yes or no? Your answer defines the answer as to whether this can be made into a valid criticism of the Book of Mormon. Until we have this definitive information, no definitive case can be made--for or against.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yeah, it seems like DNA "proof" is not forthcoming and never will be. Therefore this entire study into tracing BoM populations is a non study from the start? Seems so....

A lot of things "seem" to be so, to you. Yet, you know nothing about population genetics, nor about genetics at all, and you brag about speaking from a position of ignorance. Is this what substitutes for real discussion?

[Storm Rider]

"The science is not complete and it is not able to pinpoint heritage with any degree of certainty."

The escape hatch for many LDS. When will it ever be complete?

It will be complete when the actual scientist say this is complete, this is not hypothesis or theory, this is law. Now let's look at the flip side, when will the critics stop using faulty science to support their claims? Why is it so hard to just look for truth and not so easily satisfy yourselves with poor science and poor assumptions.

[Robert F. Smith]

The apologetic that the Lehi and Mulekite colonies shared the promised land with Asiatic populations is wishful thinking and seriously flawed. Apologists like Nibley once denied the Asiatic origin of Native Americans. Now that DNA has nailed it down apologists want to contort the Book of Mormon to make it fit. It all adds up to another excuse for not coming up with the evidence.

Your loose polemic here is false, Dan, and evidences a good deal of frustration. You should try being more genial and intellectual. You sound very angry that you cannot already put your boot on the carcase of the LDS Church and declare victory, and you freely contort the facts to obtain the desired end. The facts, however, are these, as you well know:

1. DNA examination is a very recent tool, now even including the entire genome.

2. Long before DNA studies of any kind, scholars like John L. Sorenson realized two things about the Book of Mormon:

(a) distances in the BofM text required a very small territory

(b) only one culture area in the Americas was inhabited by large, literate civilizations -- Mesoamerica

3. Anthropological reality is not "wishful thinking" (would a history graduate say that historical reality is wishful thinking?)

(a) anthropologists agree that migrations brought a variety of peoples to the New World beginning ca. 21,000 BP

(b) anthropologists at the Smithsonian have found sound reasons to argue that such migrations included Japanese Jomon culture coming to South America by boat (Betty Meggars), and Europeans coming by boat (Dennis Stanford) at a very early horizon.

[Robert F. Smith]

http://simonsouthert...-disappear.html

The view of LDS members has been that the lamanites were absorbed in the local population. What science do LDS scholars bring to the table to support this.

Thanks for the article, Helen. Good to see that Southerton has finally realized that his 2005 claim that Lehite DNA might well have disappeared is wrong, although he hasn't given due regard to things he previously discussed, such as the bottleneck effect. It was odd to find him terming Dan Peterson a "Mesoamerican apologist," whatever that means. He also seems to think that Jews are Europeans.

I would recommend reading the following:

Parr, Ryan, “Missing the Boat to Ancient America . . . Just Plain Missing the Boat,” review of Simon G. Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (SLC: Signature Books, 2004), in FARMS Review, 17/1 (2005), 83-106. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=1&id=568 . See Southerton’s response on the Signature Books website at http://signaturebooks.com/2010/06/a-mormon-apologetics-shipwreck/ , and on his blog at http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2012/05/apologetic-response-to-losing-lost.html .

Butler, John M., “Addressing Questions Surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research,” FARMS Review, 18/1 (2006), 101-108. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=601 .

Perego, Ugo A., “The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint,” FARMS Review, 22/1 (2010), 191-227, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=1&id=796 .

Peterson, Daniel C., ed., The Book of Mormon and DNA Research (Provo: Maxwell Institute, 2008).

[Bernard Gui]

Apologists like Nibley once denied the Asiatic origin of Native Americans.

So do the Native Americans.

[helix]

Huh,

Things have changed since I last checked. A kind poster over at some other board related to Mormon discussions cross posted what I said, and Simon Southerton responded my post there. To get a better idea what Simon Southerton's argument was, I went back to his blog and noticed Simon edited his post. (Just included a quote I gave and slightly changed the wording of his conclusion. I actually think the change is better worded to explain what he's trying to say.)

I don't know if I'm violating any board rules by cross posting somewhat. I'm just following what others have learned, that there's a reason why believers post here an non-believers post there. If this is not allowed by board rules, feel free to delete this.

On his updated reply, I see that Simon Southerton is still trodding his old canard that the Book of Mormon *insists* that the Book of Mormon precludes significant intermixing with locals. "But the Nephites had large armies under their banner, therefore, the Book of Mormon insists that all these folks must have DNA that is largely Jewish!" And "The descendents of Lehi multiplied rapidly. See! This therefore obviously precludes significant intermingling, and all or most of them are largely Jewish in nature!" He needs to stop making such foolish assertions.

That is, and always has been, the biggest flaw of his argument. We're saying that a small group, say, perhaps 30 landed and quickly intermingled with an existing population. He's saying that Book of Mormon insists the group largely or wholly stuck together and formed a large community of Jewish Amerindians. From *that assertion* he makes so many of his claims. "But some prophets believed this too, so you have to also." Hogwash.

What I didn't see answered were core questions. I freely admit I'm not a geneticist. I'm not out to try and give a knee-jerk reaction to combat someone with more scientific experience in this field. I'm just saying his latest argument seems like a bad argument, in many ways.

I'll try to lay it out this way:

* Simon Southerton stated regarding the 2007 paper "If any of these individuals had pre-Columbian Lamanite DNA from Israel it would be virtually impossible to miss.". It sounds as if he believes this paper disproves every apologetic claim of intermixing. They would have found it. His conclusion says we can find it Lamanite DNA, and he implies earlier this admixture study is the way to go. Am I restating this correctly?

* What's the resolution limit of admixture? Could admixture be reasonably used to find if a population of 30 entered into an existing population of hundreds of thousands or millions 2600 years ago? He cites admixture cases of populations of thousands or tens of thousands mixing in with other populations when we know distinct DNA samples from both. Everything I find online regarding this method deals with similarly large sets merging with other large sets, and warning against using admixture with low resolution. It would seem to me that 30 people into a much larger population 2600 years ago fits that low resolution probem. Especially when we know less of the DNA of these groups from that time period.

* Suppose a very small mixture of 30 occurred 2600 years ago, and then a large mixture of thousands occurred 500 years ago. How well would admixture detect that? Wouldn't the much larger, much later mixing results drown out the finer data from long prior?

* Is the ADMIXMAP algorithm even designed to spot two population merging events?

Edited May 26, 2013 by helix