New DNA research on Native American mummies

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This is probably the best path forward for the church with respect to DNA...j

It would certainly solve the problem for the antiMormons trying to use DNA against the Book of Mormon == it has been utterly destroyed by scientific research and logical flaws.

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

It would certainly solve the problem for the antiMormons trying to use DNA against the Book of Mormon == it has been utterly destroyed by scientific research and logical flaws.

I mean this sincerely...if you have DNA research that supports the claim that Book of Mormon civilizations actually existed...I for one would love to see it.  But I'm guessing that the mere fact that such DNA does not exist is why those doing these genetic research studies are not flooding to join the church.  If it was really was as compelling as your post suggests wouldn't the scientists be stepping over each other to be baptized?

[cdowis]

30 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I mean this sincerely...if you have DNA research that supports the claim that Book of Mormon civilizations actually existed...I for one would love to see it.  But I'm guessing that the mere fact that such DNA does not exist is why those doing these genetic research studies are not flooding to join the church.  If it was really was as compelling as your post suggests wouldn't the scientists be stepping over each other to be baptized?

As I tell my children and grandchildren, please do your homework so that you do not sound ignorant.

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng
Pay attention especially on the Founder Effect.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

As I tell my children and grandchildren, please do your homework so that you do not sound ignorant.

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng
Pay attention especially on the Founder Effect.

You're kidding right?  Oh My Gosh...your serious...so your evidence of Lehite DNA is the fact that there isn't any?  And the LDS DNA essay is why the worlds Geneticists are flocking to the church right?  I'm not interested in a *** for tat discussion....but if you seriously have DNA evidence that confirms Book of Mormon civilizations existence please share it...instead of providing links to LDS apologetics that everyone out side of the Mormon faithful have dismissed as Mormon pablum. 

Edited October 10, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

if you seriously have DNA evidence that confirms Book of Mormon civilizations existence please share it...instead of providing links to LDS apologetics that everyone out side of the Mormon faithful have dismissed as Mormon pablum. 

These discussions are doomed to loop indefinitely. Here's how I see it:

• Joseph Smith translates/dictates/copies/writes a manuscript that gets published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon. 
• Nobody knows where the events in the book took place
• In 1838 Joseph dictated to James Mulholland the account of Moroni (Nephi in the original manuscript) telling him the book was an account of the "former inhabitants of this continent and the source from whence they sprang."
• Most apologists speculate that this means the book can only have taken place in the Americas, Mesoamerica in particular
• The evidence is not convincing that the Book of Mormon took place anywhere in America so most critics argue it is 19th century fiction

Let me just say straight up, I do not put much weight behind the 1838 account dictated to James Mulholland. The obvious error in the name of the Angel Nephi..er, Moroni...8 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon raises serious questions for me. I don't put weight in anything external to the Book of Mormon text.



In my view, even Joseph Smith didn't know the origins of the book or where the events in the book took place. I think this is why Joseph always had so much confidence in the work. He didn't write it, he "found" it. It was a mystery to him, as it is to us.

That said, there is plenty of evidence that the Book of Mormon is an accurate account of a civilization that could have existed between 600 BC and 420 AD. Even the studies linked to above show an unknown group with Egyptian-like qualities mixing with an unknown group with Islander-like qualities. All this dating within the last 4000 years at a great distance east of Jerusalem. 

There's a lot of interesting genetic research coming out that can be discussed, but we first need to get out of the "but there's no evidence in Mexico" rut.

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I mean this sincerely...if you have DNA research that supports the claim that Book of Mormon civilizations actually existed...I for one would love to see it.

I'll take a stab at this, but with the disclaimer that it requires some flexing of the brain beyond the parameters of what we assume to know about the Book of Mormon.



DNA samples of three individuals in Myanmar show there was an admixture event around 1306 CE between a group that was "South American-like" and a group that was "Cambodian-like". The levels of South American type DNA in the Myanmar sample are surprising:

Colombian: 7.6%
Surui: 5.3%
Maya: 3.8%

This seems to show that there was pre-Columbian contact between a group in Southeast Asia that had traces of origins in the Middle East (source) and a group that most closely resembles modern Colombians, the Surui of Brazil and also the Maya. Thoughts?

(the testing is from this study, and the plotting was done on this website)

Edited October 11, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You're kidding right?  Oh My Gosh...your serious...so your evidence of Lehite DNA is the fact that there isn't any?  

I have absolutely no interest in proving ANYTHING to you.  I am merely demonstrating that the antiMormon DNA argument is based on flawed assumptions and incomplete data (sampling errors, Founder Effect, etc)). 

You will be dumbfounded, your head will explode, to learn that the proof of the Book of Mormon is found in Moroni 10:4-5 and in Alma chapter 32.  

As Christ said to Peter

Matt 16 [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

D&C 6: 23 What greater witness can you have than from God?

So, I enjoy refuting the BOM critics, but no interest in getting between you and your Creator to determine whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God.  That is between you and Him.

Edited October 11, 2016 by cdowis

[Johnnie Cake]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'll take a stab at this, but with the disclaimer that it requires some flexing of the brain beyond the parameters of what we assume to know about the Book of Mormon.



DNA samples of three individuals in Myanmar show there was an admixture event around 1306 CE between a group that was "South American-like" and a group that was "Cambodian-like". The levels of South American type DNA in the Myanmar sample are surprising:

Colombian: 7.6%
Surui: 5.3%
Maya: 3.8%

This seems to show that there was pre-Columbian contact between a group in Southeast Asia that had traces of origins in the Middle East (source) and a group that most closely resembles modern Colombians, the Surui of Brazil and also the Maya. Thoughts?

(the testing is from this study, and the plotting was done on this website)

Thank you for providing this study and the link.  I read the entire study and have viewed the website and I have to admit that I do find it interesting.  I am well aware of admixture events and their implications on the human migrations  This study seems to confirm what geneticists have long believed...that human's migrated out of Africa and spread throughout the world.  Please forgive me but I'm at a loss to understand your point however with respect to the presence of an Mayan admixture event in Myanmar DNA samples dating to 1306 CE and how this supports Book of Mormon claims in any way? Its an interesting discovery but doesn't it just show that Mayan ancestry traveled through the same region on its way to the Bering Strait?  Also when I tried to duplicate your results I was unable to...but that could be due to my just not spending as much time on this site as you have.  Could you elaborate please and show this supports BoM claims? Thanks

Edited October 11, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

11 hours ago, cdowis said:

I have absolutely no interest in proving ANYTHING to you.  I am merely demonstrating that the antiMormon DNA argument is based on flawed assumptions and incomplete data (sampling errors, Founder Effect, etc)). 

You will be dumbfounded, your head will explode, to learn that the proof of the Book of Mormon is found in Moroni 10:4-5 and in Alma chapter 32.  

As Christ said to Peter

Matt 16 [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

D&C 6: 23 What greater witness can you have than from God?

So, I enjoy refuting the BOM critics, but no interest in getting between you and your Creator to determine whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God.  That is between you and Him.

So you're openly admitting that you have no supporting DNA study to support for your claims...ok I'll accept that

 

Oh and please drop your use of  pejoratives...they do nothing to add to the conversation other than to expose your trite efforts to marginalizes those you disagree with and build you up in the eyes of those who agree with you but does nothing but reveal the weakness of your arguments...which seem to be non-existent. In other words put up or shut up

Edited October 11, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

the This quote from the study seems to confirm what I stated earlier:

Quote

A different method, which aims to detect but not date admixture, concluded that Cambodians trace ~16% of their DNA to a group equally related to modern-day Europeans and East Asians (29). GLOBETROTTER infers a ~19% contribution from a similar source related to modern-day Central, South, and East Asians and an ~81% contribution from a source related specifically to modern-day Han and Dai, the latter a branch of the Tai people who entered the region in historical times (30) (Fig. 2D, orange box 5). Further, this event dates to 1362 CE (1194 to 1502 CE), a period spanning the end of the Indianized Khmer empire (802 to 1431 CE) (30), one of the most powerful empires in Southeast Asia, whose fall was hypothesized to relate to a Tai influx (30).

That Cambodians trace 16% of their DNA to a group EQUALLY related to Modern Europeans....doesn't this demonstrate that Mayan's connection with the Myanmar ancestry could  merely be a shared DNA to a group EQUALLY related to Modern Mayan's suggesting that part of Mayan ancestry probably came through Myanmar?

Edited October 11, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Rajah Manchou]

27 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thank you for providing this study and the link.  I read the entire study and have viewed the website and I have to admit that I do find it interesting.  I am well aware of admixture events and their implications on the human migrations  This study seems to confirm what geneticists have long believed...that human's migrated out of Africa and spread throughout the world.  Please forgive me but I'm at a loss to understand your point however with respect to the presence of an Mayan admixture event in Myanmar DNA samples dating to 1306 CE and how this supports Book of Mormon claims in any way? Its an interesting discovery but doesn't it just show that Mayan ancestry traveled through the same region on its way to the Bering Strait?  Also when I tried to duplicate your results I was unable to...but that could be due to my just not spending as much time on this site as you have.  Could you elaborate please and show this supports BoM claims? Thanks

No worries, thanks for taking the time to read through the links.

First, you might have had trouble duplicating the results because the study proposes two different admixture events for Myanmar. You can toggle the results for the first and second events in the dropdown menu that pops up in the white box when you click on the dot for Myanmar. The explanation for the two events is buried in the supplementary material for the paper. You can find it on page 84 here. But here's the relevant paragraph:

Quote

The results from our small sample of three Burmese individuals from Myanmar indicate a complex event occurring in 1306CE (1026-1726CE) between a Southeast Asian source with DNA similar to present-day Han, Cambodians and Dai, and a second source fit as a mixture of very widely dispersed present-day groups – the Han from China, Pathan from Pakistan, and Papuan from Papua New Guinea – suggesting this second source is not highly similar to any of the sampled populations. The Southeast Asian group may represent the Shans, a Tai people (closely related to the Dai) that migrated into present-day Burma as part of a larger Tai migration around the 11th or 12th century, and rapidly accelerated their migration during the Mongol invasions that overran the Pagan Empire in the late 13th century, potentially explaining our date estimate. The second possible event is more difficult to understand, involving a similar Melanesian-like group and another most closely related to the Colombians.

At first glance, this wouldn't seem to relate to the Book of Mormon. But I am proposing a rethink of the way we look at the data, and the geography. If we take the Indian Jewish diaspora as a proxy for a Lehite or Mulekite-like group, the illustrations make more sense. Have a look at this illustration of admixture events from another study found here:

From a Book of Mormon angle, there are three or four relevant clusters, (1) the light blue Egyptian Jew cluster with a line showing admixture with (2) the light purple Indian Jew cluster, and a line showing admixture with (3) the pink Cambodian cluster. You can also see that the Kalash and Pathan of Afghanistan admixed with the Cambodian group. As noted in the supplementary material above, the Cambodian/Myanmar samples show admixture with a group resembling Colombians, Surui and the Maya.

My hypothesis is that these admixture events can serve as a proxy for the events described in the Book of Mormon. But again, we must give priority to the data and ignore (for now) assumptions that the Book of Mormon is an account of the Americas.

[Johnnie Cake]

5 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

No worries, thanks for taking the time to read through the links.

First, you might have had trouble duplicating the results because the study proposes two different admixture events for Myanmar. You can toggle the results for the first and second events in the dropdown menu that pops up in the white box when you click on the dot for Myanmar. The explanation for the two events is buried in the supplementary material for the paper. You can find it on page 84 here. But here's the relevant paragraph:

At first glance, this wouldn't seem to relate to the Book of Mormon. But I am proposing a rethink of the way we look at the data, and the geography. If we take the Indian Jewish diaspora as a proxy for a Lehite or Mulekite-like group, the illustrations make more sense. Have a look at this illustration of admixture events from another study found here:

From a Book of Mormon angle, there are three or four relevant clusters, (1) the light blue Egyptian Jew cluster with a line showing admixture with (2) the light purple Indian Jew cluster, and a line showing admixture with (3) the pink Cambodian cluster. You can also see that the Kalash and Pathan of Afghanistan admixed with the Cambodian group. As noted in the supplementary material above, the Cambodian/Myanmar samples show admixture with a group resembling Colombians, Surui and the Maya.

My hypothesis is that these admixture events can serve as a proxy for the events described in the Book of Mormon. But again, we must give priority to the data and ignore (for now) assumptions that the Book of Mormon is an account of the Americas.

Interesting Hypothesis...but it does raise some concerns and questions.  First the data doesn't fit the Book of Mormon timeline...nor would this data fit the Book of Mormon American setting...but other than those 2 very high hurdles,  I would agree that there is more DNA evidence to support your hypothesis than there is for an American setting

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So you're openly admitting that you have no supporting DNA study to support for your claims...ok I'll accept that

I am admitting that I am not attempting  to prove the BOM.  So far, you are refusing to accept my indifference to your demand.

Oh and please drop your use of  pejoratives...

I was responding to your comment. 

You're kidding right?  Oh My Gosh...your serious 

I have learned from a master. 

 In other words put up or shut up

I will continue to speak my mind on your assertions and arguments.  If you it painful, just put me on ignore. 

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by cdowis

[Rajah Manchou]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This quote from the study seems to confirm what I stated earlier:

That Cambodians trace 16% of their DNA to a group EQUALLY related to Modern Europeans....doesn't this demonstrate that Mayan's connection with the ancestry with Myanmar merely share DNA to a group EQUALLY related to Modern Mayan's?

I'm also trying to work out the meaning between the three or four different studies that appear to be using the same samples. But the supplementary material in the study seems to describe a historical event where a Colombian-like group and a Melanesian-like group mixed. 

It seems unlikely that there would be any group in Asia around 1306 CE that would resemble modern-day Colombians, Surui and Maya if they had been separated for 14,000+ years. 

But I don't know. Hoping some experts could weigh in on this.

[Rajah Manchou]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Interesting Hypothesis...but it does raise some concerns and questions.  First the data doesn't fit the Book of Mormon timeline...nor would this data fit the Book of Mormon American setting...but other than those 2 very high hurdles,  I would agree that there is more DNA evidence to support your hypothesis than there is for an American setting

Book of Mormon events and founding events in Southeast Asia line up well. The main events in both timelines fall in the same range.

• First civilization in SE Asia appears in the south of the peninsula in the 6th century BC. Founding myth tells of a man who was told in a dream he should board a boat and rule over a new land. Upon waking he found a divine bow and was led to Cambodia.
• Second civilization in SE Asia appears in the north of the peninsula around the 6th century BC. Founding myth tells of an exiled prince from the west wandering through a wilderness before sailing to Cambodia with his crew.
• Between 357 and 420 AD there was a complete revolution on the peninsula. The Book of Mormon closes in 421 AD.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Rajah Manchou