Book Of Mormon D. N. A.: Genetic Admixture

[BCSpace]

A very interesting paper...
 

Garrett Hellenthal, George B.J. Busby, Gavin Band, James F. Wilson, Cristian Capelli, Daniel Falush, Simon Myers
A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History
Science, 14 February 2014

 

...was published and is now being bandied about as 'devastating' DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon.

A short a description of the work and link to the atlas:
 

"When individuals from different groups interbreed, their offspring's DNA becomes a mixture of the DNA from each admixing group. Pieces of this DNA are then passed along through subsequent generations, carrying on all the way to the present day. Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, Oxford University and University College London (UCL) have now produced a global map detailing the genetic histories of 95 different populations across the world, spanning the last four millennia."

Accompanying the paper is a brilliant interactive world map that shows the likely genetic impacts of historical events on existing populations.

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/
 

Each population has a particular genetic ‘palette’”, said Daniel Falush of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, co-senior author of the study. “If you were to paint the genomes of people in modern-day Maya, for example, you would use a mixed palette with colours from Spanish-like, West African and Native American DNA. This mix dates back to around 1670AD, consistent with historical accounts describing Spanish and West African people entering the Americas around that time. Though we can’t directly sample DNA from the groups that mixed in the past, we can capture much of the DNA of these original groups as persisting, within a mixed palette of modern-day groups.

 

An infamous detractor of the Church, ostensibly well-versed on the subject of genetics and after using the interactive atlas to show Mayan admixture, concludes thusly:

 

This demonstrates that we cannot even detect Hebrew DNA in the small admixed portion of Native American DNA.

I have a post on my blog that mentions admixture mapping. This is the technology I predicted some time ago would leave nowhere to hide.

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com.au/ ... ppear.html

 

However, after perusing the Atlas and the FAQ provided, we find this:

 

How is history, as historians tell it, related to genetic admixture?

Good question! Our approach aims to identify the movements of peoples that resulted in interbreeding or DNA exchange at different periods in human history, and quantify the proportion of DNA transmitted to the present day. Because it does not use other forms of information in doing so, the results can be compared and combined with historical information. Although we have tried to interpret our findings in the light of well known historical events where appropriate, our work concentrates on the genetic analysis and we are not historians! We note that it is extremely difficult to predict the genetic legacy of even well known events–and whether we descend from the architects of these events–without examining DNA directly. This is because the extent to which different events–e.g. empires, or the transmission of materials and cultures–result in genetic mixture occurring is unknown, and deserves further systematic study. The idea of combining history and genetic–to provide exciting insights into both–is one motivation of our work.

In our study, many of the admixture signals we observe do appear to match well, in terms of both times and groups involved, with historical events such as the Arab Slave Trade, Mongol Era expansion and Slavic/Turkic expansions and help determine the extent and proportion of DNA contributed by each.

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

Problems become trickier if (1) more than one admixture event took place in the ancestry of a sample, (2) the contribution of a source population was very small (below 5%), (3) if the admixture was old and (4) if the admixing sources were very similar. More details are presented in the supplement of our paper.

 

And so basically we find that the very paper being used to bash the Church and models of BoM geography actually supports the issues raised in the recent topical addiction the Church provided on the subject. 

 

I think argument is now down to how many distinctive families/people from so long ago would it take to show up as a 1% admixture in a population.  As far as I can tell, it would take quite a lot.

 

As for the Atlas itself, I find it to be fascinating.

[Robert F. Smith]

One can also find the study summarized as “Mixed genes: Interactive world map of human genetic history reveals likely genetic impacts of historical events,” ScienceDaily.com, February 13, 2014, online at  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140213142305.htm .

 

This is merely the beginning of such research, and the sample is actually quite limited.  I hope to see the techniques used by the Max Planck Institute used more widely.

[ALarson]

Hey BCSpace, thanks for posting this as it led me to the original discussion on this and it's been interesting to read through.  This whole issue of the DNA as it pertains to the Book of Mormon people is something I've been trying to study right now.

 

What do you think of this quote from the same discussion? ( I couldn't post the graph here that is referenced in the post, but I imagine you've seen it.)  Here's the quote:

 

Imagine all of the "cross fertilization", over many thousands of years, that would have been required to collect all of the genetic markers represented in this graphic into the Mayan gene pool. Yet, there they are. And not a single one is from anywhere near the Middle East.

Between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago, a small band of Jews (fewer than 50 males) migrated from the Middle East to Africa. They interbred with the locals and began to expand southward. Today, several different Semitic markers can still be readily identified in their gene pool, after more than 3,000 years of cross-fertilization, including

".... a particular Y-chromosome type termed the "Cohen modal haplotype," which is known to be characteristic of the paternally inherited Jewish priesthood and is thought, more generally, to be a potential signature haplotype of Judaic origin." Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Feb;66(2):674-86

Think about the amount of cross fertilization that has occurred in the tens of thousands of years since a few Neanderthals got it on with modern non-Africans. Some of Neanderthal genetic markers we picked up are still detectable. You may well be carrying around some 40,000 year old Neanderthal DNA yourself.

So, if it is possible to detect specific Neanderthal DNA markers after 30,000 - 40,000 years of cross fertilization and, more to the point, possible to detect several Semitic markers after 3,000 to 5,000 years of cross fertilization with local populations in Africa, why would it not be possible to detect Semite DNA after less than 3,000 years of cross fertilization of the founding Lamanite population with populations already in the New World.

By the way, the modern prophet Apostle Jeffrey Holland has assured us, in our day, and according to scripture, that there were no other humans in the New World before the Book of Mormon populations arrived.

This is an issue on which Mormonism having it both ways doesn't really matter, because neither one of them works.

 

[helix]

The question I've never heard proponents who insist admixture proves the Book of Mormon false is how easily it could it separate, say, European DNA from when the Spaniards arrived to when a small group of people arrived thousands of years ago. 

 

BC's quote at the end seems to cover that:

 

Problems become trickier if (1) more than one admixture event took place in the ancestry of a sample, (2) the contribution of a source population was very small (below 5%), (3) if the admixture was old and (4) if the admixing sources were very similar. More details are presented in the supplement of our paper.

 

Seems that could be the case for #1, #2, #3, and #4. 

Edited February 16, 2014 by helix

[BCSpace]

What do you think of this quote from the same discussion?

 

Not much.  The reference given doesn't support the various contextual claims in the post.  The poster is part of that group, including Southerton, who have been caught previously cherry-picking, fudging, or ignoring data or other plausible conclusions. That has been demonstrated again in the OP here.

 

There are too many variables to come to a BoM conclusion based on the Lemba (which btw required a large sampling to find just 1 in 10) or the Bantu (which where zero'ed in on because of recognizable traditions).  In addition, in that same thread, I gave an example of african dna found in the white population of the USA which shows the implausibility of being able to find Semitic DNA from so long ago in a current population even if the accuracy can find admixtures down to 1%.

 

Etc. etc.

Edited February 17, 2014 by BCSpace

[ALarson]

Not much.  The reference given doesn't support the various contextual claims in the post.  The poster is part of that group, including Southerton, who have been caught previously cherry-picking, fudging, or ignoring data or other plausible conclusions. That has been demonstrated again in the OP here.

 

There are too many variables to come to a BoM conclusion based on the Lemba (which btw required a large sampling to find just 1 in 10) or the Bantu (which where zero'ed in on because of recognizable traditions).  In addition, in that same thread, I gave an example of african dna found in the white population of the USA which shows the implausibility of being able to find Semitic DNA from so long ago in a current population even if the accuracy can find admixtures down to 1%.

 

Etc. etc.

 

BCSpace, I'm going to post a response that was posted by the person I quoted above.  I hope that's ok to do over here.  

 

Here it is:

 

This post is specifically for ALarson, who contributes over on MDDB, and who posed a question to BCSpace on that board regarding this thread. The question had specifically to do with an earlier post I made referring to the graphic Dr. Simon Southerton included in the OP. 

My comments to Bro. Larson, and anyone else over on MDDB who might be reading this, and are interested in the subject of Book of Mormon DNA, would be as follows:

First: Recognize the LDS apologists have no affirmative data upon which to stand in proclaiming the historicity of the Book of Mormon with regard to the origin of pre-Columbian Native Americans. Despite great effort and expense, much of which was provided by the LDS Church, not even the Mormon geneticist Ugo Perigo has been able to provide affirmative data to support the LDS apologists position that the Book of Mormon provides a historical account of origin of the Native Americans. 

Second: There are dozens, if not hundreds, of papers in the mainstream scientific literature supporting the scientific consensus that the pre-Columbian New World Amerinds were descended, exclusively, from small founding populations that migrated to the New World from Siberia via Beringia more than 13,000 years ago (thousands of years before the first Book of Mormon peoples are said to have arrived). 

The variety, sensitivity, selectivity and precision of the analytical methods now available allow conclusions to be reached about genetic background and ancestry with an exceedingly high degree of confidence. And I know of no paper, not one, that shows credible data which directly refutes the scientific consensus on this issue.

Third: Unless LDS apologists can cite affirmative data that directly refutes the mainstream scientific consensus, or more specifically, a credible peer reviewed paper from a mainstream scientific journal to refute anything that Dr. Simon Southerton has written on the subject, then I think the apologists would be better off to just be silent on the issue. As it is, with every new paper on the subject that appears in the literature, the Book of Mormon apologists who claim historicity just look more foolish. The term "science deniers" would be appropriate here.

 

[cognitiveharmony]

BC, I don't think you read the study. These items that you are cherry picking as problematic are only problematic when combined. This very situation of which you have a very small admixture of very DISSIMILAR DNA separated by 10's of thousands of year is a PRIME candidate for admixture mapping. Because even though the admixture population is small, the DNA markers are so different that they would spread rapidly and leave a very distinct mark on the population. Not to mention the fact that this type of claim has various sociological arguments attached to it that are almost insurmountable. You have a well established culture such as the Mayans with all of it's intricasies that allows an extremely small group to enter it's large population and instantly take over it's government and religion. Highly unlikely if not impossible. 

[readstoomuch]

I don`t want to go into details about myself, but I know about science and genetics. I try to follow what is a rapidly changing field. In fact I thought a few weeks ago some populations scientists found Western Asian and European DNA within New World populations DNA. I thought that lent evidence to the Book of Mormon.

Now a story. I was on a cruise with an MD PhD sort of guy. He did genetic research about diseases in certain populations. I ran the Book of Mormon scenario past him. He really didn`t feel comfortable giving much of an answer other than genetic information is pretty good about showing where a particular person`s DNA indicates where they are from.

I actually have traded a few lines of conversation with Simon Southerton. He does seem to be of the black and white school of thinking. If the Church, BoM, etc. isn`t exactly the way the Church says it was, then it is wrong. I am a middle ground sort of person, so I don`t like the all or nothing type of statements-whoever they come from.