Simon Southerton Latest

[Helen47]

 http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/keith-crandalls-careless-claims.html

 

Will this ever be settled? It seems SNPs show evidence after the Spanish arrived not before. Am I reading that right?

 

Would be good to have a discussion about this issue without all the nasty comments on some other boards.

 

TBMs on this board please state your best argument that the lamanite dna was disolved into the larger population.

[Duncan]

I am no geneticist but I would love to know how geneticists who study human genes differentiate between one gene to the next in the context of what would Lamanite DNA look like as opposed to Nephite DNA, considering they came from the same family. Is my DNA different from my brother's? Can geneticists tell the difference between American DNA as opposed to Libyan DNA or Irish DNA? how can we parse out who's DNA belongs to what nationality? besides of which wasn't 90-95% of the Americas decimated due to disease when the Spanish and Europeans came over, I am wondering if that skews things a touch

[williamsmith]

First of all, "Lamanite" isn't a genetic group.  They were primarily everyone non-Nephite.  They are the Book of Mormon's version of the Bibles "Gentile".

Yes, it also referred to those who were of Laman & Lemuals group, but this wasn't the primary usage.

 

As to argument, no argument needed.  If many groups of people inhabited the entire American continent, which they did, then clearly Lehi's DNA whatever it was (we don't even know that, which is another flaw in anti-mormon arguments) being a small group of people that DNA would be diffused into the native peoples and thus almost non-detectable.  Further, because of Genetic Drift & Migration, Lehi's DNA would in fact be in nearly every single native of the America's given the time that has past now, but it not be detectable because it's not the dominant DNA.

 

So, either way you cut it, the Words of the Prophets, Spiritual/Literal, etc. Lehi is the Spiritual and literal Father, and Lamanites are principle ancestors of the Natives of the America's and the Islands.

Further remember how LDS interpret their Patriarcal Blessings.  They are interpreted both literal and/or spiritually.  Thus, trying to confine LDS spiritual thinking in relation to decendecy into ONLY literal DNA is absurd.

 

The Book of Mormon nor LDS Leaders words have never been in danger.  Anti's simply create straw-men as usual.

Edited June 10, 2014 by williamsmith

[Alan]

 http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/keith-crandalls-careless-claims.html

 

Will this ever be settled? It seems SNPs show evidence after the Spanish arrived not before. Am I reading that right?

 

Would be good to have a discussion about this issue without all the nasty comments on some other boards.

 

TBMs on this board please state your best argument that the lamanite dna was disolved into the larger population.

 

Two things.

1. We do not know what Lamanite DNA looked like.

2. Of course DNA can dissolve into a much larger population. It is known as an historical fact, for example, that 500 years ago up to an estimated 20% of the population of Lisbon, Portugal was African negro. No trace of their DNA can be found.

[Storm Rider]

I am not too fond of whizzing matches between supposed experts.  I am not qualified to judge between those who claim to be the end all of genetic science and knowledge.  

 

I appreciate the fact that we as a people and as scholars are still learning, still expanding our knowledge.  To often the scientist that claims to know has be proven wrong during the history of humanity. Those who choose to bully their way into gaining advocates for their cause seem to miss the beauty of allowing science to speak for itself.  

 

One of my undergraduate degrees is in chemistry. Science has always been a friend at my table of faith.  I tend to know draw definite lines about what is and is not known at my age; I have grown tired of erasing the line.  Simon seems to have missed the value of this position in exchange for strident declarations. 

Edited June 10, 2014 by Storm Rider

[SeekingUnderstanding]

As to argument, no argument needed.  If many groups of people inhabited the entire American continent, which they did, then clearly Lehi's DNA whatever it was (we don't even know that, which is another flaw in anti-mormon arguments) being a small group of people that DNA would be diffused into the native peoples and thus almost non-detectable.  Further, because of Genetic Drift & Migration, Lehi's DNA would in fact be in nearly every single native of the America's given the time that has past now, but it not be detectable because it's not the dominant DNA.

The apologetic argument is actually that Lehi would be an ancestor to almost every single native American, while his DNA has disappeared. Each human has only 23 pairs of chromosomes, so we have DNA from at most 46 different ancestors which means that we have many non-DNA contributing ancestors (leaving of mitochondrial DNA which one inherits from their mother).

Edited June 10, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[jkwilliams]

2. Of course DNA can dissolve into a much larger population. It is known as an historical fact, for example, that 500 years ago up to an estimated 20% of the population of Lisbon, Portugal was African negro. No trace of their DNA can be found.

 

Do you have a source for this? If you look at the following graphic, concentrations of people of Macro-Haplogroup L are shown in red. Note that most concentrations are in sub-Saharan Africa. There's a nice roundish red bit that corresponds to Lisbon, Portugal. If what you say is true, we shouldn't see that at all.

 

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/22/5/821/F1.large.jpg

[CA Steve]

What was the skin color of the larger population that existed in the Americas before Lehi arrived?

[thesometimesaint]

What was the skin color of the larger population that existed in the Americas before Lehi arrived?

 

Irrelevant.

[Gray]

If historicity were what determined the difference between scripture and non-scripture, our standard works would be a pamphlet. 

 

Scripture goes far beyond dates and places. Scripture is a vehicle for moral teachings. The question of any scripture's historical basis is irrelevant, IMO.

 

Genetics is a fine field of inquiry, but it can't tell us anything about our spiritual journey

Edited June 10, 2014 by Gray

[juliann]

The apologetic argument is actually that Lehi would be an ancestor to almost every single native American, while his DNA has disappeared. Each human has only 23 pairs of chromosomes, so we have DNA from at most 46 different ancestors which means that we have many non-DNA contributing ancestors (leaving of mitochondrial DNA which one inherits from their mother).

CFR.  I know a lot of apologists and have never heard anything close to that.   Apologists don't have a hive mind.

 

There is no "apologetic argument" anymore than there is a "TBM argument."  Everyone has to use experts no matter what conclusion they arrive at. Use people's names instead of meaningless labels that can't be traced to anyone promoting a theory, please.

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR.  I know a lot of apologists and have never heard anything close to that.   Apologists don't have a hive mind.

 

It sounds reasonable, and consistent with what I've felt and even expressed in the past.

 

I don't claim expertise, but it is a mathematical probability, similar to the likelihood that everyone now living is descended from Charlamagne.

 

It's not the only defense, but, in my mind, a good one.

[USU78]

The apologetic argument is actually that Lehi would be an ancestor to almost every single native American, while his DNA has disappeared. Each human has only 23 pairs of chromosomes, so we have DNA from at most 46 different ancestors which means that we have many non-DNA contributing ancestors (leaving of mitochondrial DNA which one inherits from their mother).

 

I think it is better to say that the covenantal ancestry of Amerinds traces to Lehi, just as the covenantal ancestry of many disparate peoples traces to Abraham.  We cannot, with confidence, trace back to Lehi's dna any more than we can back to Abraham's.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I think it is better to say that the covenantal ancestry of Amerinds traces to Lehi, just as the covenantal ancestry of many disparate peoples traces to Abraham.  We cannot, with confidence, trace back to Lehi's dna any more than we can back to Abraham's.

But we can apply a mathematical likelihood to both.

 

I agree with you about covenantal descent being the important point. However extensively my lineal descent from Ephraim may have been diluted over the millennia, it is enough to make me an heir to the covenant, obligation and the promises of Israel.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

But we can apply a mathematical likelihood to both.

 

I agree with you about covenantal descent being the important point. However extensively my lineal descent from Ephraim may have been diluted over the millennia, it is enough to make me an heir to the covenant, obligation and the promises of Israel.

 

I find that a much more interesting conversation:  just what does it mean covenantally to be a descendant of Lehi?

[why me]

It would have been great if the DNA would have conclusively supported the book of mormon. If so, simon would still be a member and many other people too. In fact, the church would probably be at least 50 million in membership. But...alas, the DNA did not actually support the book of mormon and everything must still depend on faith.

[Duncan]

It would have been great if the DNA would have conclusively supported the book of mormon. If so, simon would still be a member and many other people too. In fact, the church would probably be at least 50 million in membership. But...alas, the DNA did not actually support the book of mormon and everything must still depend on faith.

 

 

well...based on his church court proceedings he might not still be a member 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Southerton

[Scott Lloyd]

It would have been great if the DNA would have conclusively supported the book of mormon. If so, simon would still be a member and many other people too. In fact, the church would probably be at least 50 million in membership. But...alas, the DNA did not actually support the book of mormon and everything must still depend on faith.

And the acquisition of greater knowledge.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

CFR.  I know a lot of apologists and have never heard anything close to that.   Apologists don't have a hive mind.

 

There is no "apologetic argument" anymore than there is a "TBM argument."  Everyone has to use experts no matter what conclusion they arrive at. Use people's names instead of meaningless labels that can't be traced to anyone promoting a theory, please.

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear, or didn't explain myself clearly. The church's DNA / Book of Mormon essay (here) does a great job outlining the problems of using DNA to prove / disprove the Book of Mormon. In addition to the problem determining what Lehi companies DNA looked like, it includes a section titled Population Bottleneck and Genetic Drift. Both of these are well studied ideas in biology and they basically mean that much of our ancestor's DNA gets lost over time. So even if we assume Lehi had middle eastern DNA, we shouldn't necessarily expect to see that DNA in modern population because the alleles we use as markers might be driven to extinction by genetic drift or a population bottleneck. 

 

 

Genetic drift particularly affects mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA, but it also leads to the loss of variation in autosomal DNA. When a small population mixes with a large one, combinations of autosomal markers typical of the smaller group become rapidly overwhelmed or swamped by those of the larger. The smaller group’s markers soon become rare in the combined population and may go extinct due to the effects of genetic drift and bottlenecks as described above. 

 

 

Even if this is the case and all trace's of Lehi's DNA are lost, given that Lehi lived 2600 years ago, and assuming a small rate of population intermarriage, it would be reasonable to assume that Lehi would be on virtually every native American's family tree.

 

From FairMormon:

 

If Lehi had any descendants among Amerindians, then after 2600 years all Amerindians would share Lehi as an ancestor. Even if (as is probable) the Lehite group was a small drop in a larger population 'ocean' of pre-Columbian inhabitants, Lehi would have been an ancestor of virtually all the modern-day Amerindians if he has any ancestors at all.

 

 

I should have been more limiting in what I said (as in "the apologetic answer I am most familiar with"). I was merely responding to the way that williamsmith said that the "DNA would be defused."

 

Consider this a retraction regarding this being the standard apologetic answer.

Edited June 10, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[halconero]

Boom baby! Great explanation Seeking. I love seeing these concepts that I learn in my major being used in my religion.

[Duncan]

I am wondering why limit it to Lehi, why not go after the brother of Jared or Mulek or who knows how many other folks who came to the American Contient

[Robert F. Smith]

What was the skin color of the larger population that existed in the Americas before Lehi arrived?

 

Since DNA can tell us what color skin someone had, as well as eye color, we would need to do some DNA tests on the earliest skeletal remains of peoples in the Americas.  The ignorant NAGPRA law prevents us doing that in the USA, but some other countries permit it, so ancient American DNA must be examined (aDNA).  – Frank Jordans (AP), “DNA shows ancient hunter had blue eyes, dark skin,” NewsDaily.com, Jan 28, 2014, online at  http://www.newsdaily.com/article/ae8c4655080efad7c0238196d204567d/dna-shows-ancient-hunter-had-blue-eyes-dark-skin .

 

Since the skeletal remains of the earliest Americans differ markedly from modern Amerinds, and yet appear to have the same DNA, skin pigmentation may also have differed radically over ten thousand years ago. – Malcolm Ritter (AP), “Ancient skeleton sheds light on first Americans,” Gazettenet.com, May 15, 2014 (Published in print: Friday, May 16, 2014), online at  http://www.gazettenet.com/home/11989254-95/ancient-skeleton-sheds-light-on-first-americans ; Charles Q. Choi, “ Who Were the First Americans? 'Missing Link' Skeleton Offers Clues,” LiveScience.com, May 15, 2014, online at  https://news.yahoo.com/were-first-americans-missing-skeleton-offers-clues-181124782.html .  

[Robert F. Smith]

I am wondering why limit it to Lehi, why not go after the brother of Jared or Mulek or who knows how many other folks who came to the American Contient

Yes, and since the Jaredites appear to have come from northern Mesopotamia, we have some interesting candidates with which to compare ancient Olmec DNA (or whatever candidate people one would like to test).

 

Since Clan Lehi consisted of Israelites, we need to search for something resembling ancient Israelite DNA.  We don't know the genetic composition of the original Mulekites, making such a search problematic.  However, since Canaanite, Phoenician, and Israelite DNA may have been closely related anciently, we might want to explore general ancient Levantine DNA.  See, for example, the National Geographic “Quest for the Phoenicians” (National Geographic, 2004), broadcast in May 2005, on Public Television.  Via genetic testing of ancient skeletal remains at excavations from Spain to Lebanon, geneticist Spencer Wells found that nearly all modern Lebanese are descended from Phoenicians – who are in turn genetically indistinguishable from Canaanites.  Other genetic research verifies this general picture:

Almut Nebel, et al., “The Y-Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 69/5 (Nov 2001), 1095-1112.

“Population genetics reveals shared ancestries: DNA links modern Europeans, Middle Easterners to Sub-Saharan Africans,” ScienceDaily, May 24, 2011 (David Reich, Harvard Medical School). Retrieved June 4, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com- /releases/2011/05/110524153536.htm  .

Priya Moorjani, Nick Patterson, Joel N. Hirschhorn, Alon Keinan, Li Hao, Gil Atzmon, Edward Burns, Harry Ostrer, Alkes L. Price, and David Reich, “The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews.” PLoS Genetics, 7/4 (21 Apr 2011), 1371-1373, online at http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2011Moorjani_PLOS.pdf .

Gil Atzmon, Li Hao, Itsik Pe'er, Christopher Velez, Alexander Pearlman, Pier Francesco Palamara, Bernice Morrow, Eitan Friedman, Carole Oddoux, Edward Burns, and Harry Ostrer, “Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 10 (June 2010), 1016;

“Common genetic threads link thousands of years of Jewish ancestry,” ScienceDaily, June 4, 2011.  Retrieved June 4, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100603123707.htm .

Edited June 11, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[readstoomuch]

Just a few points.  I don`t really feel like talking about it too much.  I read his rejoinder about Robert Crandall.  Simon is a plant biologist, probably a good one, but not people scientist.  The DNA is different humans compared to plants.  

 

Yes, yes, yes- to all of those who say, what does Lehi`s DNA look like.  Lehi was a descendant of Joseph, not Judah.  Modern Jewish DNA data may not look like a descendant from a different tribe.  Heck, modern science would say that there is no proof for Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.  No real proof that they existed outside of the bible.  I believe they existed, but just try proving it.  So where can we get a sample to say what the DNA that Lehi and his family had?  What about Jaredites and Mulekites?    

 

I don`t think Simon believes in God.  I think his eye of skepticism would take on any religious dogma.  All religions have things that science tries to pick holes in.  As LDS, we do as well or better than most religions.  

 

I like the idea of Lehi being the Covenant father/symbolic father of the  people in the Americas.  It speaks to me.  

 

I will go a step farther.  If you believe in the BOM as a modern expansion of an ancient document, how literal can any DNA evidence be taken.  I like the modern expansion model.  I know others don`t, but it does bring up further issues.  

[Helen47]

If the Tower of Babel is a myth what then about Jared. If Solomon's Temple was nothing like described in the Bible (Finkelstein) what then of the temple Nephi and his family built (along with others?)

 

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/seely_babel_wtj.pdf

Edited June 11, 2014 by Helen47