rockpond Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You're still missing the point. Or, more precisely, steadfastly ducking it through quibbling. I've addressed it quite precisely. While I agree that it is possible for a large population to have a common ancestor, the DNA evidence for Native Americans suggests that, if they have a common ancestor, it isn't Lehi.
Bernard Gui Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: To put it another way, those from Sweden, England, Wales and Scotland are all among my ancestors, but only those from Sweden are my principal ones. Well, that explains a lot!
Calm Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: I've addressed it quite precisely. While I agree that it is possible for a large population to have a common ancestor, the DNA evidence for Native Americans suggests that, if they have a common ancestor, it isn't Lehi. You are talking about the most recent common ancestor if you are suggesting we are talking about only one individual, not all the common ancestors. After you get back past so many generations, anyone who has descendants living is an ancestor of all those living (save for recent immigrants to the area where they have not mixed in with the native population). Lehi, being from 2600 years ago, qualifies in terms of time. If we assume he has any descendants in the Americas, than all native Americans (save for a few outliers due to isolations) are descended from him....even if they don't have his DNA. This is based on population genetics studies that, as referenced in an earlier post, are consistent for any ethnic group. Edited January 27, 2016 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I would agree with you Scott if we weren't talking about the JSB. But the mere fact that the building is owned and operated by the church gives tacit approval to the rubbish Meldrum spews forth to uninformed minds Then you fail to understand the nature of a commercial entity. Before the building was gutted and converted into the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, it was the Hotel Utah, the largest and swankiest hotel in the entire state. Hotel Utah was also owned by the Church. Many people stayed there, including celebrities, such as Ethel Barrymore, James Stewart, William Jennings Bryan, John F. Kennedy. Elvis stayed there. Are you arguing that because Elvis stayed in the Church-owned Hotel Utah that the Church endorsed Elvis? Your reasoning doesn't make sense, Johnnie Cake. Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Well, that explains a lot! You mean the fact that I'm so stubborn?
Bernard Gui Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: You mean the fact that I'm so stubborn? Well, if the shoe fits.......... 1
Popular Post Stormin' Mormon Posted January 27, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Let's do some mental math here: Suppose all of your ancestors birthed the next generation (from which you descend) at the age of 25. That would mean, 1000 years = 40 generations. Even if that age varies from generation to generation, this is pretty close approximation. Next, each generation you go back, the number of your ancestors doubles. So, after 40 generations (1000 years), you have 1.1 TRILLION slots to fill on your family tree. The world population in 1000 AD was about 300 MILLION. In other words, on average, each person alive in 1000 AD would appear 3,665 different times in your family tree 40 generations back. All else being equal, what are the chances that someone alive in 1000 AD does not appear even once in the 3,665 times that he or she should appear? And if we go back even further? By 600 BC (104 generations back), you have 20,282,409,603,651,700,000,000,000,000,000 slots on your family tree. The population at the time was around 150 million, so everyone alive would have to appear 135,216,064,024,344,000,000,000,000 times. If they have any descendants alive today, it is almost a certainty that they appear at least once in the 135,216,064,024,344,000,000,000,000 times they should appear on your family tree. Quite simply, if someone who was alive in 600 BC actually has ANY descendants alive today, he or she is quite likely to be the ancestor of EVERYONE. Simple math. Edited January 28, 2016 by Stormin' Mormon Including actual numbers 5
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Just now, Stormin' Mormon said: Let's do some mental math here: Suppose all of your ancestors birthed the next generation (from which you descend) at the age of 25. That would mean, 1000 years = 40 generations. Even if that age varies from generation to generation, this is pretty close approximation. Next, each generation you go back, the number of your ancestors doubles. So, after 40 generations (1000 years), you have 1.1 TRILLION ancestors in 1000 AD. The world population in 1000 AD was about 300 MILLION. In other words, on average, each person alive in 1000 AD would appear 3,665 different times in your family tree 40 generations back. All else being equal, what are the chances that someone alive in 1000 AD does not appear even once in the 3,665 times that he or she should appear? And if we go back even further? By 600 BC, I no longer have the vocabulary to describe the astronomical number of ancestors in your family tree, nor the number of time each living person at the time would have to appear on your family tree. Quite simply, if someone who was alive in 600 BC actually has ANY ancestors alive today, he or she is quite likely to be the ancestor of EVERYONE. Simple math. Well, math isn't simple for everyone. But you do make the point well.
Calm Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Let's do some mental math here: Suppose all of your ancestors birthed the next generation (from which you descend) at the age of 25. That would mean, 1000 years = 40 generations. Even if that age varies from generation to generation, this is pretty close approximation. Next, each generation you go back, the number of your ancestors doubles. So, after 40 generations (1000 years), you have 1.1 TRILLION ancestors in 1000 AD. The world population in 1000 AD was about 300 MILLION. In other words, on average, each person alive in 1000 AD would appear 3,665 different times in your family tree 40 generations back. All else being equal, what are the chances that someone alive in 1000 AD does not appear even once in the 3,665 times that he or she should appear? And if we go back even further? By 600 BC, I no longer have the vocabulary to describe the astronomical number of ancestors in your family tree, nor the number of time each living person at the time would have to appear on your family tree. Quite simply, if someone who was alive in 600 BC actually has ANY ancestors alive today, he or she is quite likely to be the ancestor of EVERYONE. Simple math. Potential (because there is overlapping as your numbers demonstrate) genealogical ancestors increase exponentially each generation (by doubling), genetic ancestors (those you share even just 1 block of DNA with) increase only linearly after about the 12th generation up to a certain point. See table about midpage here for easy comprehension of difference: http://gcbias.org/2013/11/11/how-does-your-number-of-genetic-ancestors-grow-back-over-time/ Quote Your number of genealogical ancestors, in generation k, is growing exponentially (I cropped the figure as otherwise it looks silly). Your number of genetic ancestors at first grows as quickly as your number of genealogical ancestors, as it is very likely that an ancestor a few generations back is also a genetic ancestor. After a few more generations your genetic number of genetic ancestors begins to slow down its rate of growth, as while the number of genealogical ancestors is growing rapidly fewer and fewer of them are genetic ancestors. Your number of genetic ancestors eventually settles down to growing linearly back over the generations, at least over the time-scale here, with your number of ancestors in generation k being roughly 2*(22+33*(k-1)).... Your number of genetic ancestors will not grow linearly forever. If we go far enough back your number of genetic ancestors will get large enough, on order of the size of the population you are descended from, that it will stop growing as you will be inheriting different chunks of genetic material from the same set of individuals multiple times over. At this point your number of ancestors will begin to plateau. Indeed, once we go back far enough actually your number of genetic ancestors will begin to contract as human populations have grown rapidly over time. I’ll return to this in another post. Edited January 28, 2016 by Calm 1
rockpond Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 33 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Rockpond and Stemelbow you guys are fighting mathematics, you can never win this one, unless Lehi never existed. I have a degree in Statistics. Math is not at issue here.
Stormin' Mormon Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Calm said: Potential (because there is overlapping as your numbers demonstrate) genealogical ancestors increase exponentially each generation (by doubling), genetic ancestors (those you share even just 1 block of DNA with) increase only linearly after about the 12th generation up to a certain point. See table about midpage here for easy comprehension of difference: http://gcbias.org/2013/11/11/how-does-your-number-of-genetic-ancestors-grow-back-over-time/ Thanks for the clarification. I edited my post to indicate that, at 40 generations back, you have 1.1 trillion slots to fill on the family tree, rather than having 1.1 trillion ancestors. Edited January 28, 2016 by Stormin' Mormon 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Thanks for the clarification. I edited my post to indicate that, at 40 generations back, you have 1.1 trillion slots to fill on the family tree, rather than having 1.1 trillion ancestors. I don't think my ancestry.com family tree maker has enough memory to handle that. Being principally of Polish ancestry (no comments Scott, thank you), I am certainly a descendant of Piast the Wheelwright, which means I am a Prince of Poland. What does Lehi's DNA look like? Edited January 28, 2016 by Bernard Gui
rockpond Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 47 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Quite simply, if someone who was alive in 600 BC actually has ANY descendants alive today, he or she is quite likely to be the ancestor of EVERYONE. Simple math. Now there's a strong position: Either Lehi has no descendants here today or all of them are descendants. The latter, of course, has been shown to most likely be false based on the best DNA evidence we've got.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, rockpond said: Now there's a strong position: Either Lehi has no descendants here today or all of them are descendants. The latter, of course, has been shown to most likely be false based on the best DNA evidence we've got. No it hasn't. Lack of DNA does not mean the ancestral lineage has ceased to exist. From the "Gospel Topics" essay you claim Elder Andersen contradicts: Quote Even if it were known with a high degree of certainty that the emigrants described in the Book of Mormon had what might be considered typically Near Eastern DNA, it is quite possible that their DNA markers did not survive the intervening centuries. Principles well known to scientists, including population bottleneck and genetic drift, often lead to the loss of genetic markers or make those markers nearly impossible to detect. Edited January 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Stormin' Mormon Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: Now there's a strong position: Either Lehi has no descendants here today or all of them are descendants. The latter, of course, has been shown to most likely be false based on the best DNA evidence we've got. There are three possibilities: Lehi was not an actual historical person (a possibility rejected by most LDS) Lehi has no living descendants (a proposition that seems to be precluded by scriptural promises made concerning Lehi's latter-day descendants). Or that the Children of Lehi are everywhere, and there is no point in quibbling over Elder Anderson's words. 3
Calm Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, rockpond said: Now there's a strong position: Either Lehi has no descendants here today or all of them are descendants. The latter, of course, has been shown to most likely be false based on the best DNA evidence we've got. Except that DNA can disappear. There was an Icelandic study that showed the majority of known ancestors (they kept excellent records there) had no mtdna connection with their posterity. They had disappeared from that aspect of genetic heritage even though it was certain they were genealogical ancestors. That was only 300 years. More time would likely have the same effect on other forms of DNA. add-on: study is referenced in the Gospel Topic essay, also footnote 24 Edited January 28, 2016 by Calm 1
ksfisher Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: Now there's a strong position: Either Lehi has no descendants here today or all of them are descendants. The latter, of course, has been shown to most likely be false based on the best DNA evidence we've got. DNA evidence does not provide evidence for every single ancestor. http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/dna_tests_2.htm My fathers mothers fathers mother is not detectable through my DNA. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said: There are three possibilities: Lehi was not an actual historical person (a possibility rejected by most LDS) Lehi has no living descendants (a proposition that seems to be precluded by scriptural promises made concerning Lehi's latter-day descendants). Or that the Children of Lehi are everywhere, and there is no point in quibbling over Elder Anderson's words. Prediction: rockpond will argue that the Book of Mormon promises concerning Lehi's descendants don't mean what they say they do. Expect the argument to come sooner rather than later.
Calm Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 The Gospel Topic essay has a good discussion on what factors can influence disappearance of DNA over time: https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng I found the figures used on this academic site to be extremely helpful when it came to genetic drift: http://gcbias.org/2015/02/11/figures-of-genetic-drift/ 1
Ahab Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 12 minutes ago, ksfisher said: DNA evidence does not provide evidence for every single ancestor. http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/dna_tests_2.htm My fathers mothers fathers mother is not detectable through my DNA. That settles it then. We should come up with some better way to figure out who descended from who with no limit to the number of generations. DNA just isn't good enough. For now let's just keep written records.
rockpond Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 To many responses for me to reply to all without wasting my entire evening. So I'll just say this: I guess based on the sound logic being espoused by so many on this thread... We all must be Children of Lehi. Good to know.
mapman Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 If there were any people that came from the Americas to the Old World before 1492 then it seems highly likely that everyone alive today in the whole world is a descendant of Lehi. Since there has been sustained contact since 1492 between the hemispheres it is likely that the majority of people of Old World descent are descended from Lehi as well. In any case, I think that the point the Book of Mormon is trying to get across is that God has certain promises in store for certain groups of people. It talks about Jews (the people who wrote the Bible), Gentiles (everyone else from primarily Old World descent), Nephites (the people who wrote the Book of Mormon), and the Lamanites (everyone else from primarily New World descent). I don't think that the Book of Mormon ever refers to "children of Lehi," but rather refers to them as "Lamanites" or the "remnant" of the house of Israel. To be a "child of Lehi" means that prophecies like this apply to you: "And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people—Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver. Thy hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off. And I will gather my people together as a man gathereth his sheaves into the floor." (3 Nephi 20:16) The Book of Mormon contains prophecies for the other groups as well, but I won't quote them here, since they aren't difficult to find. I have Native American and Jewish ancestry, but I would still consider myself a "Gentile" by descent since most of my ancestors came from northern Europe.
Calm Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) We likely will be in few more generations in the Americas, in some American countries they probably are save for recent immigrants (two or three generations if they are still marrying into their own ethnic group, one generation if not). Isolation of Native Americans in the US and Canada from the immigrant population due to prejudice has probably slowed genetic spread down. Will take longer to spread worldwide though. Edited January 28, 2016 by Calm 1
mapman Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Yes, it's hard to say how much intermarriage there has been. If there were Indians brought back to Europe in the 1500s that had descendants there, then a significant portion of people of Old World descent would have Indian ancestors I think (I'm no mathematician). I'm interested to know if that was something that occurred or not. I'm interested if anyone knows whether that ever occurred. I've been reading through those articles and blog posts you linked to, Calm, and I have to say that this topic is pretty fascinating to me!
Scott Lloyd Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 21 minutes ago, mapman said: If there were any people that came from the Americas to the Old World before 1492 then it seems highly likely that everyone alive today in the whole world is a descendant of Lehi. Since there has been sustained contact since 1492 between the hemispheres it is likely that the majority of people of Old World descent are descended from Lehi as well. In any case, I think that the point the Book of Mormon is trying to get across is that God has certain promises in store for certain groups of people. It talks about Jews (the people who wrote the Bible), Gentiles (everyone else from primarily Old World descent), Nephites (the people who wrote the Book of Mormon), and the Lamanites (everyone else from primarily New World descent). I don't think that the Book of Mormon ever refers to "children of Lehi," but rather refers to them as "Lamanites" or the "remnant" of the house of Israel. To be a "child of Lehi" means that prophecies like this apply to you: "And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people—Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver. Thy hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off. And I will gather my people together as a man gathereth his sheaves into the floor." (3 Nephi 20:16) The Book of Mormon contains prophecies for the other groups as well, but I won't quote them here, since they aren't difficult to find. I have Native American and Jewish ancestry, but I would still consider myself a "Gentile" by descent since most of my ancestors came from northern Europe. On one occasion, President James E. Faust gave a talk about patriarchal blessings. He responded to a question some might have as to why people in the same family group on occasion are declared in patriarchal blessings to come from different Israelite lineages. He responded that, just like inherited traits, the promises and blessings in a particular lineage might be more dominant in one family member than in another. I imagine it's the same with the groups of people you identify above. One person may come from two or more lineages, but the promises and responsibilities in one of those lineages might be dominant for that person.
Recommended Posts