dougtheavenger Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) Y-chromosome haplogroup Q and Native Americans PLoS ONE 8( : e71390. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071390 The First Peopling of South America: New Evidence from Y-Chromosome Haplogroup Q Vincenza Battaglia et al. The strain of Q Y-Chromosome lineage defined by the M378 mutation has been found in a sample of 436 American Indians. This strain of Q is found in 5% of Ashkenazi Jews. Edited June 23, 2015 by dougtheavenger
Rivers Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 And?The Book of Mormon has been proven true of course!
ed2276 Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 And? It's obvious. 436 American Indians are Ashkenazi Jews.
Alan Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 The problem as I see it is that Ashkenazi Jews are not descendants of Abraham, but are Jewish converts.Why would we expect to find their DNA in Book of Mormon peoples?
Storm Rider Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 The problem as I see it is that Ashkenazi Jews are not descendants of Abraham, but are Jewish converts.Why would we expect to find their DNA in Book of Mormon peoples? CFR, I am not aware of any genetic research that has concluded that the Ashkenazim are not really Jews or are not the descendants of Abraham. To the contrary, genetics has determined they are Jews from the Middle East and broke off migrating to Europe after the destruction of the 1st temple. The Wikipedia article does a good job of discussing current scholarship on the Ashkenazim.
Alan Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Just depends on what you read/believe.In articles I have read they are described as proselytes from the Caspian Sea area during the Middle Ages, who migrated west and north into Europe.Nothing to do with Abraham or Judah/Benjamin.
Avatar4321 Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 It means the Book of Mormon becomes more supportable since there is Jewish DNA among native Americans.It takes away one of the arguments against it.
CA Steve Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 It means the Book of Mormon becomes more supportable since there is Jewish DNA among native Americans.It takes away one of the arguments against it.What does it do to the argument that says we don't know what the DNA of Lehi actually looked like?
Avatar4321 Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 It means the Book of Mormon becomes more supportable since there is Jewish DNA among native Americans.It takes away one of the arguments against it.
CA Steve Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 It means the Book of Mormon becomes more supportable since there is Jewish DNA among native Americans.It takes away one of the arguments against it.But it also takes away the argument that defends it against the lack of identifiable Jewish DNA in the Americas at the time of the Lehi migration which says we have no idea what Lehi DNA looks like. So if your going to argue that Jewish DNA in native Americans is evidence of the Book of Mormon you then have to also argue that Jewish DNA type is identifiable with Lehi. So unless this recent find corresponds with the time frames in the Book of Mormon, accepting it as evidence of the Book of Mormon actually is detrimental to the defense of the Book of Mormon which says we have no idea what Lehi's DNA looked like. I don't think you can have it both ways.
mfbukowski Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) What does it do to the argument that says we don't know what the DNA of Lehi actually looked like?I am sure it had a big nose. Gotta bump these threads to get rid of the zombie attack! Edited June 23, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
Hillel2 Posted June 23, 2015 Posted June 23, 2015 Interesting. Is there additional information on this find, e.g. Are the sources for the dna contemporary? It would not surprise me to discover connections between native populations and different jewish ethnic groups. I believe i saw on wikipedia that somewhere between 30-60 million latin americans carry dna markers traceable to the sephardic jews of spain... No doubt these markers could have been passed into largely isolated native groups?I'm perplexed as to the presence of "ashkenazi" markers. As to the origin of the ashkenazim, this is a very contentious issue often influnced by poltics. No expert in the science of dna, my understanding is that different studies emphasize different origins. Ashkenazim do seem to share lots of dna with palestinians but also quite a bit with europeans. Another study shows links to the kurds. This is as it should be since we are a people and not a single genetic group. All this of course makes me think showing connections between n. Americans and the jewish people a daunting task.
Rivers Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 This evidence mainly demonstrates to me the continuous developing nature of ancient American studies. We're constantly learning new things so discounting the BOM for not having enough evidence is a bit premature.
Calm Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) But it also takes away the argument that defends it against the lack of identifiable Jewish DNA in the Americas at the time of the Lehi migration which says we have no idea what Lehi DNA looks like. So if your going to argue that Jewish DNA in native Americans is evidence of the Book of Mormon you then have to also argue that Jewish DNA type is identifiable with Lehi. So unless this recent find corresponds with the time frames in the Book of Mormon, accepting it as evidence of the Book of Mormon actually is detrimental to the defense of the Book of Mormon which says we have no idea what Lehi's DNA looked like.I am not an expert or even a dabbler so I may be totally off base, but being able to compare to a known group is a different argument than comparing to an unknown group. Just because Lehi and family lived in Jerusalem at the time, would they have had to have had the same DNA as the majority around them? Plus just because some small groups' (I am assuming this is what you are suggesting the Jewish DNA would come from if the same time period) DNA came through, that wouldn't mean all small groups' DNA would come through if I understand the problem (there is a limited number of spaces for ancestors' DNA...somewhere in the 200s iirc, eventually you begin to lose individuals off the strand). I do think anyone who uses DNA needs to be very, very careful about making claims that align with the science. The first thing I want to know about this particular DNA is the time period which it entered into the NA population as well as the AJ group. I didn't see that in the thumbnail. add-on: if I am reading the tables correctly, time frame for NA seems to be around 20,000 years ago, AJs are not mentioned in the paper. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071390 (I see that the emoticon formatting killed this link in the first post) Edited June 24, 2015 by calmoriah
Calm Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) This is one of Ugo Perego's studies...I might ask him if he sees any significance in it for the BoM if anyone is curious. Edited June 24, 2015 by calmoriah
Calm Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 This strain of Q is found in 5% of Ashkenazi Jews.CFR please on this...
Kaleb Webb Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) dougtheavenger, on 22 Jun 2015 - 7:57 PM, said: This strain of Q is found in 5% of Ashkenazi Jews.CFR please on this...http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071390 Edited June 24, 2015 by Kaleb Webb
Avatar4321 Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 But it also takes away the argument that defends it against the lack of identifiable Jewish DNA in the Americas at the time of the Lehi migration which says we have no idea what Lehi DNA looks like. So if your going to argue that Jewish DNA in native Americans is evidence of the Book of Mormon you then have to also argue that Jewish DNA type is identifiable with Lehi. So unless this recent find corresponds with the time frames in the Book of Mormon, accepting it as evidence of the Book of Mormon actually is detrimental to the defense of the Book of Mormon which says we have no idea what Lehi's DNA looked like. I don't think you can have it both ways.It does nothing to affect that argument. We don't know what lehi is DNA looks like.You do realize there were multiple migrations right?
Alan Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Lehi and Co were not Jews. Zoram, the servant of Laban might have been but that is debatable; Laban wasn't Jewish either. The only possible source of Jewish DNA could have come from the Mulekites, but even that isn't clear. Therefore in my view, looking for Jewish DNA in the Americas is futile.
ksfisher Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Lehi and Co were not Jews. Zoram, the servant of Laban might have been but that is debatable; Laban wasn't Jewish either. The only possible source of Jewish DNA could have come from the Mulekites, but even that isn't clear. Therefore in my view, looking for Jewish DNA in the Americas is futile. What you're saying here is that Lehi's tribe, Manasseh, only married members of their own tribe. No cross tribe marriages at all any time in the history of that family. Frankly, that's hard to imagine. Human history has shown that when it comes to procreation race/tribe/national/clan boundaries are made to be broken. And if you believe the recent studies that show Neanderthal DNA in modern Europeans, species boundaries don't seem to matter much either. The tribes that the males belonged to were named in the record. Were their wives tribes ever named? Is there any reason to suppose that they couldn't have belonged to another tribe? I would imagine that Lehi's DNA was a mix of all the different types found in the Middle East at the time.
CA Steve Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) It does nothing to affect that argument. We don't know what lehi is DNA looks like.You do realize there were multiple migrations right?So which one of the migrations are you willing to claim were of possible Jewish descent and does this latest DNA evidence line up with that (or those) migration's time line? So on one hand we want to claim that Jewish DNA is evidence of a possible Book of Mormon migration and on the other hand we want to argue we do not know for sure what DNA any of the migrations had. Additionally , according to the church essay "nothing is know about the extent of intermarriage and genetic mixing between the Book of Mormon people or their descendants and the other inhabitants of the Americas" so how would we know that the Jewish DNA found even came from the Book of Mormon people? More from the essay. "One reason it is difficult to use DNA evidence to draw definite conclusions about Book of Mormon peoples is that nothingis known about the DNA that Lehi, Sariah, Ishmael, and others brought to the Americas. Even if geneticists had a databaseof the DNA that now exists among all modern American Indian groups, it would be impossible to know exactly what tosearch for. It is possible that each member of the emigrating parties described in the Book of Mormon had DNA typical ofthe Near East, but it is likewise possible that some of them carried DNA more typical of other regions. In this case, theirdescendants might inherit a genetic profile that would be unexpected given their family’s place of origin. This phenomenonis called the founder effect" Either we are going to accept DNA evidence as proof or we are going to reject it because we do not know what DNA the migrations had for sure. Edited June 24, 2015 by CA Steve
Calm Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071390Where is the mention of AJ DNA in the article?
mapman Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 Isn't it possible that the DNA comes from someone with Jewish DNA having a child with a Native American after Columbus arrived?
mikegriffith1 Posted June 24, 2015 Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) This evidence mainly demonstrates to me the continuous developing nature of ancient American studies. We're constantly learning new things so discounting the BOM for not having enough evidence is a bit premature. Let's put it this way, this is the kind of evidence that critics would have said--and have said--you would not expect to find. At the very least, it lends credibility to the Book of Mormon claim of transoceanic crossings. Edited June 24, 2015 by mikegriffith1
Recommended Posts