Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) "Mitochondrial DNA analyses were the first to document that the ancestry of most Native Americans derives from a population that experienced a profound founder event [10], with a relatively small number of individuals giving rise to a large number of descendants today" http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/SkoglundReich2016_Americas.pdf Unfortunatly...that mitrochondrial DNA came from a relatively small North Eastern Asia migration in 12,000 BCE showing that a small founding population is detectable in today's modern native population As for any Book of Mormon founding populations( non east-Asian)? Still nothing Edit: the original link is alive again... Edited February 14, 2017 by Johnnie Cake 2
Benjamin Seeker Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: "Mitochondrial DNA analyses were the first to document that the ancestry of most Native Americans derives from a population that experienced a profound founder event [10], with a relatively small number of individuals giving rise to a large number of descendants today" http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/SkoglundReich2016_Americas.pdf. Unfortunatly...that mitrochondrial DNA came from a relatively small North Eastern Asia migration in 12,000 BCE showing that a small founding population is detectable in today's modern native population As for any Book of Mormon founding populations( non east-Asian)? Still nothing That's a pretty mean click tactic there...
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 Another interesting find in this study: Quote Under the hypothesis that Native American ancestry stems from a single founder population that separated earlier from Eurasian populations, differences in allele frequencies between Native American groups should have developed independently from Eurasian allele fre- quencies. This simple null hypothesis makes it possible to explicitly test hypotheses about the number of Ameri- can founder populations. Reich et al. [23 ] applied this idea to the first comprehensive genome-wide data from Native American populations (52 populations, but none from the continental United States), and concluded that at least three ancestral populations were required to ex- plain the similarities between Native Americans and East Asians. According to the initial study [23 ], all Native American groups from Central and South America fit a model of a single founder population. An additional source of ancestry was necessary to account for genetic variation in Eskimo-Aleut speakers. In addition, analysis of the Athabaskan-speaking Chipewyan revealed that they could not solely have their ancestry from the same founding population as other Northern-, Meso- and South American populations. 1
Calm Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 Possible survival does not equate to guaranteed survival.
cdowis Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: As for any Book of Mormon founding populations( non east-Asian)? Still nothing Let me quote from the study Quote Whole genome studies enhanced by technological breakthroughs in ancient DNA now provide evidence..... The scientific principle (founder effect) has been demonstrated among the AmerIndians, and there are continued technical advances to find out new discoveries. I would not call that "nothing". Edited February 13, 2017 by cdowis
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 Another interesting discovery: Quote One of the most important pieces of genetic evidence relevant to the peopling of the Americas was the se- quencing of a genome from the remains of a child (‘Anzick-1’) buried with Clovis artifacts in western Mon- tana and directly dated to 12,600 before present (BP) [25 ]. This child was consistent with deriving all of his ancestry from the same founding population as Central and South Americans (Figure 1), contradicting the ‘Solutrean hypothesis’ of transatlantic migration from Upper Paleolithic Europe giving rise to the Clovis industry [26] which thus posits genetic discontinuity between the makers of the Clovis industry and present- day Native Americans [27]. The most surprising finding was that the Anzick individual is from a population more closely related to Central Americans and South Amer- icans than to some northern North Americans (including all speakers of Algonquian languages studied to date), despite the apparent common ancestral origin of Native Americans across the continents. This suggests that the present-day structuring of the main ancestry in Native Americans into northern and southern lineages [23 ] dates back to more than 12,600 years ago 2
cdowis Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: One of the most important pieces of genetic evidence relevant to the peopling of the Americas was the se- quencing of a genome from the remains of a child (‘Anzick-1’) buried with Clovis artifacts in western Mon- tana and directly dated to 12,600 before present (BP) [25 ]. I find a sample size of ONE individual in Montana from 12.KYA interesting but not related to our discussion on the BOM. Most of us already agree that there were inhabitants in America prior to Lehi and his family. This is "still nothing". Edited February 13, 2017 by cdowis
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, cdowis said: I find a sample size of ONE individual in Montana from 12.KYA interesting but not related to our discussion on the BOM. Most of us already agree that there were inhabitants in America prior to Lehi and his family. This is "still nothing". Read the study... it's just one more nail...the case just got a little tighter, the window shut more...obviously anyone can believe anything they want on faith but for those who want a little modicum of evidence to accompany their faith...that possibility just became a little more difficult Edited February 13, 2017 by Johnnie Cake 3
cdowis Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Read the study... it's just one more nail... Don't waste our time with your sophistry. If you got something, spit it out. I have no interest in going down a rabbit hole trying to discover the nail is simply a product of your fevered imagination. Edited February 13, 2017 by cdowis 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) Quote The evidence for this is that all Native American mitochondrial DNA lineages today descend from just five founding maternal lines [11–13] that each had a common ancestor around 18,000 to 15,000 years ago, implying a population size bottleneck around this time [14–18]. The evidence for a profound population bottleneck has since been confirmed and its intensity measured more accu- rately with genome scale data [19–22,23 ], but it is important to note that there are still challenges with disentangling the number of founder individuals from the duration of the population size reduction using all the reported methods. Doesn't leave much room for 2 more founding maternal lines in 2,200 BCE or 600 BCE Edited February 13, 2017 by Johnnie Cake 1
Calm Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 Wouldn't this be more likely two (or more) surviving founding lines?
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, cdowis said: Don't waste our time with your sophistry. If you got something, spit it out. I have no interest in going down a rabbit hole trying to discover the nail is simply a product of your fevered imagination. Move along...you certainly don't need to read the study or this thread, it won't dissuade you, you've already formed your conclusions and I'm guessing nothing could change your mind. Fair enough...have a nice evening
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Wouldn't this be more likely two (or more) surviving founding lines? The study has identified 5. Each predate the BoM timeline 2
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 59 minutes ago, cdowis said: I find a sample size of ONE individual in Montana from 12.KYA interesting but not related to our discussion on the BOM. Most of us already agree that there were inhabitants in America prior to Lehi and his family. This is "still nothing". The study was not a sample size of one...it involved over 15,000...and 52 unique native populations but don't read the study Edited February 13, 2017 by Johnnie Cake 2
Ouagadougou Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: As for any Book of Mormon founding populations( non east-Asian)? Still nothing Yep. Still nothing. Battles with millions and hundreds of thousands killed and still...nothing. Not to mention that the church believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old, right? So..these migrations occurred 11,400 years before Lehi? It's not that I think the DNA for these groups of people in the Book of Mormon disappeared; rather, IMO, they never existed in the first place. I think the church will eventually have to reevaluate its truth claims that the Book of Mormon actually occurred as it moves into the future, especially with more technological advancements and development. 1
cdowis Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Doesn't leave much room for 2 more founding maternal lines in 2,200 BCE or 600 BCE What were the DNA characteristics of Lehi, et al? Conclusions on research are dependent on several factors, including sampling (small size, and biased or not fully representative samples) and assumptions about the nature of the data. But we can agree that thee is no point in our discussion. Best of luck to you. Edited February 13, 2017 by cdowis
Tacenda Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) My husband just asked about the plates and if they were physically handled by the witnesses and not under a blanket. I thought they were not seen, but lifted in a covering so I decided to read an article on FairMormon to refresh my memory. They have a quote from a witness that the witnesses did handle them and turn the pages. I can see how this would be some good evidence that the church is true, as long as the witnesses or the person in the quote isn't lying about it. I know that "Why Me" on this board, always brings the 8 witnesses up, for proof that Mormonism is true. Edited February 13, 2017 by Tacenda
cdowis Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Tacenda said: My husband just asked about the plates and if they were physically handled by the witnesses and not under a blanket. I thought they were not seen, but lifted in a covering This is Dan Vogel's narrative, accepted by the antiMormon community. Do't bother with FAIR, just read the eight witness testimony statement, which Dan admits he ignores in his narrative. They give a physial description of the plates and viewed the engravings. Edited February 13, 2017 by cdowis
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, cdowis said: What were the DNA characteristics of Lehi, et al? Conclusions on research are dependent on several factors, including sampling (small size, and biased or not fully representative samples) and assumptions about the nature of the data. But we can agree that thee is no point in our discussion. Best of luck to you. I'm not looking to rehash old apologetic arguments...just thought the information contained in the study might be of interest to some members of the board. Not you, but others Edited February 13, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: "Mitochondrial DNA analyses were the first to document that the ancestry of most Native Americans derives from a population that experienced a profound founder event [10], with a relatively small number of individuals giving rise to a large number of descendants today" http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/SkoglundReich2016_Americas.pdf. Unfortunatly...that mitrochondrial DNA came from a relatively small North Eastern Asia migration in 12,000 BCE showing that a small founding population is detectable in today's modern native population As for any Book of Mormon founding populations( non east-Asian)? Still nothing The church now acknowledges that there were others here when Lehi arrived. This is not a problem any longer. Quote The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms that the Book of Mormon is a volume of sacred scripture comparable to the Bible. It contains a record of God’s dealings with three groups of people who migrated from the Near East or West Asia to the Americas hundreds of years before the arrival of Europeans.1 Although the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is more spiritual than historical, some people have wondered whether the migrations it describes are compatible with scientific studies of ancient America. The discussion has centered on the field of population genetics and developments in DNA science. Some have contended that the migrations mentioned in the Book of Mormon did not occur because the majority of DNA identified to date in modern native peoples most closely resembles that of eastern Asian populations.2 Basic principles of population genetics suggest the need for a more careful approach to the data. The conclusions of genetics, like those of any science, are tentative, and much work remains to be done to fully understand the origins of the native populations of the Americas. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples, and even if their genetic profile were known, there are sound scientific reasons that it might remain undetected. For these same reasons, arguments that some defenders of the Book of Mormon make based on DNA studies are also speculative. In short, DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The Ancestors of the American Indians The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA.3 Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska.4 These people, scientists say, spread rapidly to fill North and South America and were likely the primary ancestors of modern American Indians.5 The Book of Mormon provides little direct information about cultural contact between the peoples it describes and others who may have lived nearby. Consequently, most early Latter-day Saints assumed that Near Easterners or West Asians like Jared, Lehi, Mulek, and their companions were the first or the largest or even the only groups to settle the Americas. Building upon this assumption, critics insist that the Book of Mormon does not allow for the presence of other large populations in the Americas and that, therefore, Near Eastern DNA should be easily identifiable among modern native groups. The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups.6 At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”7 Joseph Smith appears to have been open to the idea of migrations other than those described in the Book of Mormon,8 and many Latter-day Saint leaders and scholars over the past century have found the Book of Mormon account to be fully consistent with the presence of other established populations.9 The 2006 update to the introduction of the Book of Mormon reflects this understanding by stating that Book of Mormon peoples were “among the ancestors of the American Indians.”10 https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng&old=true I will probably have nothing more to say on this. It is no longer a problem- there is nothing to argue about. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The church now acknowledges that there were others here when Lehi arrived. This is not a problem any longer. https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng&old=true I will probably have nothing more to say on this. It is no longer a problem- there is nothing to argue about. No argument desired... but while the church now acknowledges that the americas were populated prior to the BoM timeline, what this study finds is that there is no evidence for any other founding populations beyond the 5 identified. It also discusses that Amazonians and Palio Australians had a common ancestor...just no middle eastern i appreciate that most if not all of the believing posters on this board have satisfactory resolved the none existance of supportive DNA problem. I don't expect any of you to be moved by this new study since non confirming information doesn't matter to you...but to those who are still wrestling with this question this study may move you an inch or to in helping you reach a conclusion Edited February 13, 2017 by Johnnie Cake 2
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said: No argument desired... but while the church now acknowledges that the americas were populated prior to the BoM timeline, what this study finds is that there is no evidence for any other founding populations beyond the 5 identified. It also discusses that Amazonians and Palio Australians had a common ancestor...just no middle eastern LOL no argument huh? Just interesting info having nothing to do with BOM authenticity right? Doesn't matter How much DNA evidence could there be from 30 people on one boat? Clearly they married into the population early. I think the book of Jacob has some evidence of that - that could be interpreted that way. If I get ambitious may look it up. There have been threads here on the "others" references (as interpreted) throughout the BOM
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2017 Author Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: LOL no argument huh? Just interesting info having nothing to do with BOM authenticity right? Doesn't matter How much DNA evidence could there be from 30 people on one boat? Clearly they married into the population early. I think the book of Jacob has some evidence of that - that could be interpreted that way. If I get ambitious may look it up. There have been threads here on the "others" references (as interpreted) throughout the BOM Here's one of them: http://mormon*****.***/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33242 Edited February 13, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
Ouagadougou Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: LOL no argument huh? Just interesting info having nothing to do with BOM authenticity right? Doesn't matter How much DNA evidence could there be from 30 people on one boat? Clearly they married into the population early. I think the book of Jacob has some evidence of that - that could be interpreted that way. If I get ambitious may look it up. There have been threads here on the "others" references (as interpreted) throughout the BOM It's much more than 30 people on one boat... How much evidence alone should there be for hundreds or thousands of people killed in battle with the sword? The fact that there is no DNA evidence to support the historicity of the BoM will only continue to remain the same, IMO. They find evidence of other migrations 12,000 years ago, but nothing to support the BoM... Mormon: 6 Chapter 6 The Nephites gather to the land of Cumorah for the final battles—Mormon hides the sacred records in the hill Cumorah—The Lamanites are victorious, and the Nephite nation is destroyed—Hundreds of thousands are slain with the sword. About A.D. 385.
Calm Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 40 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: No argument desired... but while the church now acknowledges that the americas were populated prior to the BoM timeline, what this study finds is that there is no evidence for any other founding populations beyond the 5 identified. It also discusses that Amazonians and Palio Australians had a common ancestor...just no middle eastern i appreciate that most if not all of the believing posters on this board have satisfactory resolved the none existance of supportive DNA problem. I don't expect any of you to be moved by this new study since non confirming information doesn't matter to you...but to those who are still wrestling with this question this study may move you an inch or to in helping you reach a conclusion "Founding populations" meaning what? Surely you don't believe there have only been 5 groups of people who ever immigrated to the Americas? 2
Recommended Posts