New DNA Study Actually Supports Church Essay Claim of Founder Effect

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Founding populations" meaning what?  Surely you don't believe there have only been 5 groups of people who ever immigrated to the Americas?

In the 4.2 billion year existsnce of earth? Of course not

[cdowis]

23 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

How much evidence alone should there be for hundreds or thousands of people killed in battle with the sword?  

What were the swords made of?  It has been shown from the BOM text  that it was not steel.  In any case what remains would you expect to find afte 1700 years  in a tropical rain forest, and how deep would you have to dig to find them.  And where exactly would you be digging.

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...

What were the DNA characteristics af Lehi and his family?  What exactly are you looking for?  PS The mother of Joseph was an Egyptian princess.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by cdowis

[Ouagadougou]

10 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

The BoM mentions steel five times:

"Steel is mentioned only five times in the Book of Mormon, once in the Book of Ether (7.9), and four times in the Nephite records (1 Ne 4.9, 1 Ne 16.18, 2 Ne 5.15 and Jar 1.8). Of these, two refer to Near Eastern weapons of the early sixth century B.C. 1 Ne 4.9 states that the blade of Laban’s sword was “of most precious steel.” Nephi’s Near Eastern bow was “made of fine steel” (1 Ne 16.18). The next two references are to steel among generic metal lists. The first is to the time of Nephi, around 580 B.C."

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/steel-in-the-book-of-mormon

But I guess steel doesn't mean steel, which would be Joseph Smith's translation mistake, since words appeared on the sear stone, so it's God's fault? Steel actually means something else I guess...but this is the "most correct book on Earth" we are talking about; keep moving the goal post -- they said for a hundred years that the Hill Cumorah was the location of these huge battles (MILLIONS) but now there are two hills...and the one with all of the evidence is in some lost jungle or under the ocean.  I guess a million doesn't mean a million...or one hundred thousand doesn't actually mean one hundred thousand?  At this rate, any word could technically mean anything in the BoM--just keep moving the target wherever the arrow has landed.  

In terms of DNA evidence, there still isn't anything to suggest a migration from the Middle East.  The compilation of no DNA, archeological and linguistics evidence to support the BoM is staggering, IMO.  

If people want to believe that all the evidence to support the BoM is deep in some remote rain forest, then that is their choice.  However, based on the lack of evidence (nothing at this point IMO), it's reasonable to believe the BoM did not happen.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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.

Been answered

Exaggeration.

Look it up or ask Bob Smith. .

Very common in ancient writings.

This board would be interesting if you guys ever came up with some original material. Booorrrriiinnggg

[RevTestament]

7 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

 

A couple of things wrong with this usual explanation. 

1. Archeology has already shown man in the Americas even before 18,000 BC and up to 30,000 years ago. 

2. This type of genetic analysis typically excludes dna "believed" to be European or African admixture - but not all such DNA has been shown to have an appropriate connection to support such conclusions. 

3. We know some genetic lines no longer exist in the modern native population, but went extinct - probably due to the loss of up to 90% of the Native population. The only way to know all the DNA lines once here is to do DNA studies on ancient Natives. In the United States, that is a rather difficult, or currently impossible task due to the Native Repatriation Act.

4, Not all DNA currently accepted as "Native American" can be shown to come from NE Asia. For example there is no haplogroup X mtDNA there - the closest is an extremely small patch in the Altai mountains, which is most probably from Mongolians bringing back Middle Eastern women from their Roman raids.  The closest Old World lines are from Iran - where Abraham came from. 

[Rajah Manchou]

8 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. 

Unfortunately...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

You missed the reason this paper was so widely discussed after it was published. Its not a nail in the coffin at all, its a reminder that we don't yet understand everything about the founding populations of the Americas.

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In the 4.2 billion year existsnce of earth? Of course not

So what are founding populations?  And why would you see the Lehites as such as opposed to a simple group of immigrants/refugees?

[cdowis]

 

Quote

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/steel-in-the-book-of-mormon

But I guess steel doesn't mean steel, which would be Joseph Smith's translation mistake, since words appeared on the sear stone, so it's God's fault? Steel actually means something else I guess...but this is the "most correct book on Earth" we are talking about; keep moving the goal post -- they said for a hundred years that the Hill Cumorah was the location of these huge battles (MILLIONS) but now there are two hills...and the one with all of the evidence is in some lost jungle or under the ocean.  I guess a million doesn't mean a million...or one hundred thousand doesn't actually mean one hundred thousand?  At this rate, any word could technically mean anything in the BoM--just keep moving the target wherever the arrow has landed.  

You "forgot" one reference whih is vey germane to this discussion:

Mosiah 11 [8] And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;

The steel (iron) that Nephi in 500BCE mentions as being plentiful for his small population of Nephites is almost exhausted by the time of King Noah, that it is "precious" as is gold and silver.  Most likely the source was meteoric iron.  Indeed, no mention is made of iron or steel is made after this time, as you well documented.The "swords" mentioned later in the Bom were using something else for the cutting edge.

Quote

A macuahuitl ([maːˈkʷawit͡ɬ] (singular)^[1]) is a wooden sword with obsidian blades.  ==  wiki

 

This has been posted by myself several times here on this forum, but now you no longer have an excuse for ignorance on this issue.  You have been told and informed so you will have to desperately look around for other aguments to trash the Book of Mormon.

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by cdowis

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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 

How does a study that found evidence of an unknown "Population Y" serve as one more nail in the case?

"The Population Y results suggest that a population that has not yet been sampled with ancient DNA data—one with more Australasian-related ancestry—may also have been present in the broad geographic area to contribute to the founders of Native American founders."

Look at the admixture studies that have come out recently. More and more evidence of unknown populations crossing the ocean and leaving a genetic trace. For example, a group that resembles Colombians and Afghan and Indian Jews admixing with a group resembling Australasians. What's your opinion on the Population Y mentioned in the study you linked to?

Edited February 13, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

10 hours 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 

The Karitiana Indians (Amazonians as you call them) of Brazil are presently the group that most closely matches ancient north Eurasian (ANE) DNA. This is significant because recent studies are showing that ANE has its origins more towards the west than it does towards East Asia. So essentially, that "Amazonian" tribe you mentioned is, more and more, starting to resemble ancient groups in the Pontic Steppe...you know, the place where the Jaredites and other Iranian-like groups hung out. One historical example is the Gutians, an Indo-European group that left Babylon around 2200 BC and migrated to what is now China.

There's also another study from David Reich (the same David Reich who published the paper in your OP) that reports ANE ancestry among the Pathans of Pakistan can be fit as a mixture of Samaritans and Karitiana Indians. So there it is, a group often associated with lost tribe lore (Pathans) fit as a mixture between Samaritans (from the Middle East) and Amazonians (from Brazil). And those Native American Indians, more than any other living group, most closely resemble the ancient "caucasian-like pastoralists" of West Asia....at rates of around 43%. 

Edited February 13, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Not all DNA currently accepted as "Native American" can be shown to come from NE Asia. For example there is no haplogroup X mtDNA there - the closest is an extremely small patch in the Altai mountains, which is most probably from Mongolians bringing back Middle Eastern women from their Roman raids.  The closest Old World lines are from Iran - where Abraham came from. 

I don't think Johnnie Cake read the fine print of the study he linked to, or the footnotes:

"The origins of the First Americans remain contentious. Although Native Americans seem to be genetically most closely related to east Asians, there is no consensus with regard to which specific Old World populations they are closest to. Here we sequence the draft genome of an approximately 24,000-year-old individual (MA-1), from Mal’ta in south-central Siberia, to an average depth of 1×. To our knowledge this is the oldest anatomically modern human genome reported to date. The MA-1 mitochondrial genome belongs to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequency among Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers, and the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages. Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians. This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought. Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population. This is likely to have occurred after the divergence of Native American ancestors from east Asian ancestors, but before the diversification of Native American populations in the New World. Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians. Sequencing of another south-central Siberian, Afontova Gora-2 dating to approximately 17,000 years ago, revealed similar autosomal genetic signatures as MA-1, suggesting that the region was continuously occupied by humans throughout the Last Glacial Maximum. Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

How does a study that found evidence of an unknown "Population Y" serve as one more nail in the case?

"The Population Y results suggest that a population that has not yet been sampled with ancient DNA data—one with more Australasian-related ancestry—may also have been present in the broad geographic area to contribute to the founders of Native American founders."

Look at the admixture studies that have come out recently. More and more evidence of unknown populations crossing the ocean and leaving a genetic trace. For example, a group that resembles Colombians and Afghan and Indian Jews admixing with a group resembling Australasians. What's your opinion on the Population Y mentioned in the study you linked to?

I did mention the admixture of Australasians in the thread...and yes it is a yet unsolved mystery,  but you're not suggesting that this supports a BoM narrative are you?

[Johnnie Cake]

I just want to add...that I'm not looking for yet another thread to rehash all of the old apologetic lack of any supportive DNA evidence augments again.  MD&D has plenty of those threads readily available for anyone interested in doing a simple search.  What I find interesting with this new study is that the researchers have been able to dismiss scientifically some of the old theories and narrow down the scope of the migration of man from Asia to the Americas.  None of this helps the cause of the BoM narrative.  Like it or not there STILL is not a single shred of supportive evidence from any genome study made to date for the BoM narritive.  Could some future study find something...of course...but that likelihood continues to shrink as more and more of these alternative theories become less tenable and in conflict with the evidentiary record.

Take the Clovis/European/ transatlantic voyage theory as an example...this study has been able to punch some pretty significant holes in it making the likelihood of it less likely. Also the fact that this study has definitively narrowed the founding fathers to 5 distinct migration groups, each being significantly impacted by founders effect and bottle necking and yet are still detectible in modern populations...this alone does not help the current apologetic DNA argument promoted by the church.  What this study shows is the even with the bottle necking and founder effect detection of these founding populations is detectable...this flies in the face of the LDS narrative.

The whole LDS argument rests on the idea that Lehi arrived...merged with an existing population, that this existing population abandoned their existing government and for some reason placed Nephi in charge as their ruler no less and that despite having the Lehite populations intermarrying with the native populations...the Lehite DNA evidence simply disappeared without a trace.  This study suggests that founding populations DNA remain intact despite bottle necking and founders effect.

Questions remain, the Australasian connection is a mystery at present...but I don't see how this could be twisted to support a BoM narrative.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

So what are founding populations?  And why would you see the Lehites as such as opposed to a simple group of immigrants/refugees?

Why? Because that is what the Book of Mormon claims it to be...not only A founding population but THE founding population.

[cdowis]

26 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I did mention the admixture of Australasians in the thread...and yes it is a yet unsolved mystery,  but you're not suggesting that this supports a BoM narrative are you?

You are not suggesting that this is the nail in the coffin for the BOM, are you?  We have yet detected that nail. so help us out.  Perhaps you are suggesting that we need a microscope at the sub-atomic level in order to detect it.

If you are suggesting that the chronology, 12KYa dating is the nail, that also nails the entire Judeo Christian religious tradition.

Edited February 13, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

On 2/13/2017 at 10:42 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

 What this study shows is the even with the bottle necking and founder effect detection of these founding populations is detectable...this flies in the face of the LDS narrative.

There is no "LDS narrative".  We have the text of the BOM as the narrative.  Let me give an example below.

The whole LDS argument rests on the idea that Lehi arrived...merged with an existing population, that this existing population abandoned their existing government and for some reason placed Nephi in charge as their ruler no less and that despite having the Lehite populations intermarrying with the native populations...

I think the evidence is that the Lamanites intermarried, but not the Nephites.  But no big deal.

the Lehite DNA evidence simply disappeared without a trace.

Are you going to answer my question?  Tell us EXACTLY how you identify the Lehi DNA.  I would suggest that this is detectable among the Amerindians.

  This study suggests that founding populations DNA remain intact despite bottle necking and founders effect.

We are "suggesting" that you don't know what you are talking about untill you answer certain fundamental questions.  I understand the difference between data/proof and opinion/speculation/suggestions/guessing.

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by cdowis

[Johnnie Cake]

33 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You are not suggesting that this is the nail in the coffin for the BOM, are you?  We have yet detected that nail. so help us out.  Perhaps you are suggesting that we need a microscope at the sub-atomic level in order to detect it.

If you are suggesting that the chronology, 12KYa dating is the nail, that also nails the entire Judeo Christian religious tradition.

I said "A Nail" not "The Nail"  Believers will continue to believe irrespective of conflicting evidence...but for those who require something real to build their faith upon, it is the accumulative effect of the evidentiary record that will eventually be "The Nail".  

Edited February 13, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

10 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Are you going to answer my question?  Tell us EXACTLY how you identify the Lehi DNA.  I would suggest that this is detectable among the Amerindians.

This is a tired and true LDS apologetic rabbit hole....but I'll answer your question.  Lehi was a fictional character, fictional characters don't produce DNA...so of course we would not expect to find fictional DNA from a fictional character in the evidentiary record and we don't.  However if something turns up that supports the BoM narrative, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.

[Johnnie Cake]

19 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

I want to get along.  It is not my intent to offend anyone's beliefs.  You've pushed me into a corner and I've pushed back.  I'm more than willing to discuss the topic of this thread and the impact this study has on Book of Mormon claims.  I respect that you believe...fair enough.  What I'm interested in understanding is how this study moves belief in the Book of Mormon forward?  From my perceptive it doesn't.  From what I'm gathering from your perspective it has no impact...so help me understand how exactly it has no impact from a belief stand point.  Thanks

[Ouagadougou]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Been answered

Exaggeration.

Look it up or ask Bob Smith. .

Very common in ancient writings.

This board would be interesting if you guys ever came up with some original material. Booorrrriiinnggg

I guess it does get boring for some when they can't find any DNA, archeological and linguistic evidence to support the BoM.  Keep moving the target where the arrow lands I guess.  Twenty years from now, there still won't be anything...

 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

What I'm interested in understanding is how this study moves belief in the Book of Mormon forward?  From my perceptive it doesn't.  From what I'm gathering from your perspective it has no impact...so help me understand how exactly it has no impact from a belief stand point.  Thanks

Where would this fit in? 

"Moreover, we identified a cluster of Native American founding lineages of Y chromosomes, called C-M217 (C3*), within a restricted area of Ecuador in North-Western South America. The same haplogroup occurs at high frequency in Central, East, and North East Asia, but is virtually absent from North (except Alaska) and Central America. Possible scenarios for the introduction of C-M217 (C3*) into Ecuador may thus include a coastal or trans-Pacific route, an idea also supported by occasional archeological evidence and the recent coalescence of the C3* haplotypes, estimated from our data to have occurred some 6,000 years ago." (source)

Edited February 13, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Questions remain, the Australasian connection is a mystery at present...but I don't see how this could be twisted to support a BoM narrative.

Never underestimate the ability of humans to twist evidence to support their beliefs.  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Why? Because that is what the Book of Mormon claims it to be...not only A founding population but THE founding population.

No it doesn't - that is an assumption of many in the early church, which I believe is completely unfounded. If one closely studies the book one will realize that the area discussed in the Book of Mormon is not very big. Travel from the area of first inheritance to Zarahemla was not more than 21 days. At the usual rate of travel for pastoralists of about 18 mi per day that puts a distance of about 400 miles between the two major lands of the Book of Mormon - the second also being in the vicinity of Jaredite lands. That is an area no bigger than ancient Israel. There are many things which mitigate against a continent-wide interpretation for the Book of Mormon. The Americas are up to 5000 miles wide and over 12000 miles long. That is vastly more large than a 500 sq mi area, which is the probable early area of the Book of Mormon. Although I am willing to concede that the Lamanites of the Book of Mormon probably spread out after 400 AD, and I believe there is evidence they did, that only served to dilute their genetic markers in a much larger genetic pool already in the Americas. Nowhere does the scriptural pages of the Book of Mormon itself even suggest that the founders therein were the only peoples in all the Americas, and respectfully, I don't believe any scriptures in the Church suggest that either.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Where would this fit in? 

"Moreover, we identified a cluster of Native American founding lineages of Y chromosomes, called C-M217 (C3*), within a restricted area of Ecuador in North-Western South America. The same haplogroup occurs at high frequency in Central, East, and North East Asia, but is virtually absent from North (except Alaska) and Central America. Possible scenarios for the introduction of C-M217 (C3*) into Ecuador may thus include a coastal or trans-Pacific route, an idea also supported by occasional archeological evidence and the recent coalescence of the C3* haplotypes, estimated from our data to have occurred some 6,000 years ago." (source)

Haplogroup C-M217 is believed to have originated approximately 7,100 to 16,700 years ago in Asia...or well before the BoM timeline.  Perhaps you can help me understand how exactly this is supportive evidence for the BoM narrative.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

I guess it does get boring for some when they can't find any DNA, archeological and linguistic evidence to support the BoM.  Keep moving the target where the arrow lands I guess.  Twenty years from now, there still won't be anything...

 

Good argument if you were right, but you are not. For example Dr. Brian Stubbs has published a book which shows hundreds of cognates in Semitic languages and Egyptian in common with the  Uto-Aztecan native American language family. Here is a link: https://www.scribd.com/doc/254510927/Egyptian-Semitic-in-Uto-Aztecan-by-Brian-Stubbs-for-purchase-of-the-complete-book-go-to-www-bookofmormoncaractorstranslation-com