New DNA Study Actually Supports Church Essay Claim of Founder Effect

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

MA-1 is the name given to the sample taken from the remains of the boy in Mal'ta. It is not itself a haplogroup or a mutation but belongs to haplogroup U (maternal) and haplogroup R (paternal). Haplogroup U has its origins in the Middle East long before Mal'ta Boy. I don't think much is known about the origins of haplogroup R because it hasn't turned up in anything older than MA-1. It is believed that R* has its origins in South/Southeast Asia around Bhutan/Burma. So it is possible that the maternal line of MA-1 came from the Middle East and the paternal line came up from SE Asia.

But your question seems to be, where did maternal U and paternal R go after Mal'ta. I think the consensus is that there is no real direct lineage from Mal'ta Boy. At least nothing has turned up. But we can look at distribution of haplogroup U and haplogroup R to get an idea of where MA-1's close relatives went. Of course, some (represented in haplogroup Q) went east and admixed with the groups that were living in China at that time and they continued on to the Americas. It looks like others went southwest to Iran/Iraq (Zagros Mountains) and likely became the Indo-Europeans.

"R1a could have migrated directly to eastern Europe (European Russia, Ukraine, Belarus), or first southward through Central Asia and Iran. In that latter scenario, R1a would have crossed the Caucasus during the Neolithic, alongside R1b, to colonise the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. In the absence of ancient Y-DNA from those regions the best evidence supporting a Late Paleolithic migration to Iran is the presence of very old subclades of R1a (like M420) in the region, notably in the Zagros mountains." (source)

Since we're discussing how this relates to the Book of Mormon narrative, we need to determine if there are any Indo-European-like groups in the Zagros Mountains around the time of the Jaredites. Turns out there are. The Gutians were a proto-Indo-European group that conquered Sumeria (Babylon) around 2200 BC. Afterwards they migrated northeast and across the Tarim Basin where they were called the Yuezhi by the Chinese they encountered. They may have crossed all the way to the Pacific Ocean bringing their horses, chariots and bronze technologies with them. It was around this time that the Austronesian expansion was setting off from East Asia and across the Pacific Ocean eventually reaching as far as Easter Island and possibly South America.

So it seems like there is a very strong case to be made that the Jaredite narrative in the BoM is not so crazy. 

Clearly you have a greater depth of experience with DNA than my rudimentary understanding...thanks for being patient with me.

[Johnnie Cake]

23 hours ago, cdowis said:

Are you familiar with the term "tautology" :

!. I can disprove the BOM from the DNA evidence

2. What was Lehi's DNA that you are basing your conclusion?

3. I am basing my conclusion that Lehi was a fictional character.  His imaginary DNA does not match AmerIndian DNA.  QED

A brilliant analysis from a confirmed antiMormon ==>> Johnnie  "Don't confuse me with questions, please" Cake

Mr Cake ===>>>>  Pahoran, Paanchi, sheum, Valley of Lamoni, Land Bountiful, written records (codex) 
You now officially have "something" that supports the BOM narrative, so we expect your formal admission forthwith.

I'll just leave this here...

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'll just leave this here...

Good grief, didn't we just spend a day talking about how it is not accurate to label all Native American ancestry as Asian? And then you post that? 

That chart is so ridiculous, it must be made by Simon Southerton. Can you not see the serious flaws in it?
X2A is Asian? Where does that idea come from?
There are equal amounts of African and European in Mesoamericans?
There is more African in the Maya than Middle Eastern? Seriously?

OK, patience. Let me link to the paper again:
Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans
You can read it or not, but please stop calling everything Asian just because the Book of Mormon must be wrong about everything.

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Good grief, didn't we just spend a day talking about how it is not accurate to label all Native American ancestry as Asian? And then you post that? 

That chart is so ridiculous, it must be made by Simon Southerton. Can you not see the serious flaws in it?
X2A is Asian? Where does that idea come from?
There are equal amounts of African and European in Mesoamericans?
There is more African in the Maya than Middle Eastern? Seriously?

OK, patience. Let me link to the paper again:
Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans
You can read it or not, but please stop calling everything Asian just because the Book of Mormon must be wrong about everything.

lol...it wasn't directed at you Rajah...I believe that your position is thoughtful...I merely wanted share it with dcowis

[Rajah Manchou]

54 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

lol...it wasn't directed at you Rajah...I believe that your position is thoughtful...I merely wanted share it with dcowis

What are your thoughts on studies like this one published just last week on haplogroup Q? While reading the paper and looking at the maps recall that haplogroup Q is by far the most common haplogroup in Native Americans, at rates around 90%.

Map A reveals that Q3-L275 Is confined to West Asia and its neighboring regions in Central and South Asia, mainly in Pakistan. Map B also reveals its presence in Europe, especially among the Ashkenazi Jews. 

"Few genetic studies have been devoted to the haplogroup of the Y chromosome: Q. This haplogroup is well known because it makes up 90% of the haplogroups of the Y chromosome of the Amerindians, but it is also present in northern Eurasia. A rare subclade: Q3-L275 has been detected and is found in low frequency in Iraq, Iran, Israel and India."

Edited February 16, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Johnnie Cake]

25 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

What are your thoughts on studies like this one published just last week on haplogroup Q? While reading the paper and looking at the maps recall that haplogroup Q is by far the most common haplogroup in Native Americans, at rates around 90%.

Map A reveals that Q3-L275 Is confined to West Asia and its neighboring regions in Central and South Asia, mainly in Pakistan. Map B also reveals its presence in Europe, especially among the Ashkenazi Jews. 

"Few genetic studies have been devoted to the haplogroup of the Y chromosome: Q. This haplogroup is well known because it makes up 90% of the haplogroups of the Y chromosome of the Amerindians, but it is also present in northern Eurasia. A rare subclade: Q3-L275 has been detected and is found in low frequency in Iraq, Iran, Israel and India."

I'll read it...but then maybe not...is there an English version available?  I don't read French 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Rajah Manchou]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'll read it...but then maybe not...is there an English version available?  I don't read French 

Haha, whoops. I didn't realize it was in French. I guess my browser Google Translated it automatically. Did such a good job I didn't catch that. Here's the original:

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-016-0870-2

[Johnnie Cake]

15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Haha, whoops. I didn't realize it was in French. I guess my browser Google Translated it automatically. Did such a good job I didn't catch that. Here's the original:

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-016-0870-2

Interesting...clearly some Ashkenazi Jews and Native Americans had a common ancestor.  But I fail to see how this supports the BoM narrative.  Their branches are on opposite sides of the tree and their only commonality is that they both came from the same tree truck

Edited February 16, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Rajah Manchou]

25 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Interesting...clearly some Ashkenazi Jews and Native Americans had a common ancestor.  But I fail to see how this supports the BoM narrative.  There branches are on opposite sides of the tree and their only commonality is that they both came from the same tree truck

Not just Ashkenzi Jews, but Marsh Arabs, Iranians and very very possibly the Gutians, a historical group that migrated from Iraq and across to Longshan China around 2200 BC. 

According to Hugh Nibley, the Jaredites also migrated from Iraq to Longshan China around 2200 BC. Let's say those Jaredite males were predominately haplogroup Q1b1a or some other bronze age variation of Q and they intermarried with maternal A,B,C and D as they settled in East Asia. If a group like that made it to America would we be able to distinguish them from the Q1a and Q1b in Amerindians? I don't know the answer to that.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Not just Ashkenzi Jews, but Marsh Arabs, Iranians and very very possibly the Gutians, a historical group that migrated from Iraq and across to Longshan China around 2200 BC. 

According to Hugh Nibley, the Jaredites also migrated from Iraq to Longshan China around 2200 BC. Let's say those Jaredite males were predominately haplogroup Q1b1a or some other bronze age variation of Q and they intermarried with maternal A,B,C and D as they settled in East Asia. If a group like that made it to America would we be able to distinguish them from the Q1a and Q1b in Amerindians? I don't know the answer to that.

Thanks...certainly something to consider...although to be honest I do feel the BoM is fiction

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thanks...certainly something to consider...although to be honest I do feel the BoM is fiction

I believe JS could have written about facts. 

[Rajah Manchou]

On 2/14/2017 at 10:24 PM, Gray said:

22,000 BCE is 18,000 years before written history. If the Jaredites existed, it wasn't in 22,000 BCE. Here in 2017, we're much closer in time to the Jaredites (if they existed) than people living in 22,000 BCE. 

Sorry Gray, I somehow missed this comment before. I agree there's too much distance between MA1 and the Jaredites. But its his descendants that are interesting, the closest relatives of MA1 seem to be be found in the Middle East and in Brazil. Haplogroup Q is closely related to MA-1 and became the dominant paternal line in the New World. 90% of Native Americans are haplogroup Q. Take a look at the tree below for Q. See QM346? It branches into QM3 (native american) and Q-M323 which has been found only in Yemenite Jews and nowhere else (source). It could be argued that the Lehites/Ishmaelites were genetically similar to the Yemenite Jews and that their paternal line is Q-M346 found in both Yemen and South America. There are also tribes around Paraguay, Chile, Argentina and Bolivia with high levels of Q-M346 but do not belong to M-3. (source)

Quote

Q (M242)

• Q* — Found with low frequency in India and Pakistan. Important in Afghanistan, paragroup Q-M242 was found at 16.3% in Pashtuns.
• Q-P36.2 Found with low frequency in Iran.
  • Q-MEH2 Was found in Koryaks (at 10.3%), this lineage appears to be closest to the extinct Paleo-Eskimo individuals belonging to the Saqqaq culture arisen in the New World Arctic about 5.5 Ka.
    • Q-M120 — It is so far restricted to East Asia. It has been found at low frequency among Han Chinese, Dungans, Japanese, Koreans, Mongols in Mongolia, Tibetans, and Hmong Daw in Laos. It was reported in the Hazaras,
    • Q-M25 — Found with high frequency of 30-45% in Turkmens and Turkmenistan Confused with R1b1 because of P25. Found with high frequency in Turkmens of Golestan Province (Iran), Jawzjan ( Afghanistan), and with low to moderate frequency in Lebanon, Mongolia, and Turkey
    • Q-M346 — Found at low frequency in Europe, South Asia and West Asia. It has been found in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, India, Mongolia, Tibet, and Bali.
      • Q-L53
        • Q-M3 (M3) — Common in indigenous peoples of the Americas
          • Q-M19 — Found among some indigenous peoples of South America, such as the Ticuna and the Wayuu
          • Q-M194 — In South America
          • Q-M199 — In South America
      • Q-M323 — It has been detected in Yemenite Jews.
  • Q-L275 
    • Q-M378 — It is widely distributed in Europe, South Asia, West and East Asia. It is found among samples of Hazaras and Sindhis. It is also found in the Mongols, the Japanese people and the Uyghurs of North-Western China in two separate groups. The Q-M378 subclade and specifically its Q-L245 subbranch is speculated to be the branch to which Q-M242 men in European Jewish Diaspora populations belong. Although published articles have not tested for M378 in Jewish populations, genetic genealogists from the Ashkenazi, Mizrachi, and Sephardi Jewish populations have tested positive for both M378 and L245. Q-M378 samples also has been located in Central America (Panama) and South America (Andean Region)
       

As for timing notice Q-MEH2 came over about 5500 years ago. So there were more recent Asian variations of Q coming in around Jaredite time.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Thinking]

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Calm said:

Possible survival does not equate to guaranteed survival.

Principal . . . Among . . . Possibly None

[Calm]

Just now, Thinking said:

Principal . . . Among . . . Possibly None

Only if you think genetics is the most important connection we have to our ancestors.

[Rajah Manchou]

New study out, providing another nail in the coffin that the founding populations of America came from "a relatively small North Eastern Asia migration in 12,000 BCE". Paleoamerican skulls don't look like other Native American skulls they are closer to Australasians and Andaman Islanders.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1602289.full 

"The results show that Paleoamericans share a last common ancestor with contemporary Native American groups outside, rather than inside, the Americas. Therefore, and in accordance with some recent genomic studies, craniometric data suggest that the New World was populated by multiple waves of dispersion from northeast Asia throughout the late Pleistocene and early Holocene."

"This suggests that at least some Native American lineages diverged from ancestral Siberians and entered the Americas before the diversification of East Asian populations. Our results are also in accordance with the recent genomic link found between Amazonian populations and Australasians. Skoglund et al. suggest than an ancient Native American lineage, named “Population Y,” could have resulted from a highly substructured ancestral northeast Asian population that shared strong genetic affinities with the ancestors of modern Australasians. There is mounting genetic and morphological evidence for at least two major waves of dispersal into Asia from Africa, with Australomelanesians representing modern descendants of the earlier migration."

"A genetic distinction between western and eastern South American populations has been noted, particularly with respect to a signal of Australomelanesian ancestry in eastern (Amazonian) populations. This is consistent with our cranial findings, which suggest a layered population history for South America, with at least two major sources of biological variation from Asia. The earliest (Paleoamerican) migrants were morphologically distinct from later groups, although structured gene flow among the descendants of Paleoamericans and later populations may have contributed to their assimilation in the late Holocene."

 

[Rajah Manchou]

This article sums up the paper nicely, with more discussion on the findings in Mexico:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4254410/Study-reveals-man-multiple-migrations-Americas.html

• "While skulls from two of the regions, Sonora and Tlanepantla, could be grouped together in the analysis, the skulls from Michoacán were different. The researchers say this variation is typically seen between populations that have been separated for thousands of years – but, Michoacán and Tlanepantla are just roughly 300 kilometers (186 miles) apart. The discovery suggests those populations did not mix, for reasons that remain unknown. Geographical features likely were not to blame, as Mexico lacks those imposing enough to cause such a divide, but cultural and language barriers may have played a role, New Scientist reports. The findings shed new light on the origins of early Americans."
   
• "Analysis of skulls found in Lagoa Santa, Brazil revealed the skulls of the Paleoamericans – the ancient peoples – have distinct shapes that set them apart from modern indigenous South Americans. This, the researchers say, suggests they came from somewhere else. A separate study, including researchers from the same team, recently conducted a similar imaging analysis on skulls found in Mexico. While skulls from two of the regions, Sonora and Tlanepantla, could be grouped together in the analysis, the skulls from Michoacán were different. The discovery suggests those populations did not mix, for reasons that remain unknown."
   
• "It’s an astonishing discovery, says Hubbe. Mexico was first inhabited at least 10,000 years ago, and the founding populations may well have had different genetic histories before they settled in the area. Crucially, the populations seem to have been so reluctant to interbreed that those genetic differences were still apparent just 500 years ago. “For whatever reason, these differences have been maintained for thousands of years,” says Hubbe. (source)

So not much different than what BOM apologists are saying: it is possible that there were very different and unique (and previously unknown) ethnic groups living next to each other in Mexico and Brazil, but not necessarily mixing. Their DNA may not have survived but their craniums did.

• "It’s largely thought that at least one wave of immigrants from Asia crossed into the Americas through the Bering Strait. But, the new findings suggest there were other waves as well. While it’s not yet clear where the other immigrants may have come from, researchers say Australia could be a possibility."
   
• “It is great to see this new analysis of morphological data, It reiterates that there is something interesting about the peopling of the Americas that we don’t quite understand yet.” (source)

Edited February 24, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[clarkgoble]

On 2/12/2017 at 8:07 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

Doesn't leave much room for 2 more founding maternal lines in 2,200 BCE or 600 BCE

Taken the way you are taking it, it also doesn't leave room for waves of immigration across the bering strait. Yet that still remains the default scientific view.

As I understand it (and I can't really say I have a grasp on all the issues so reader beware) what this is more falsifying is the older view that Asians colonized most of the Americas around 15,000 years ago. That's falsified because they don't have the proper genetics from asia. Then it also falsifies the earlier Clovis view by putting immigration thousands of years earlier. This new DNA changes the view to a slightly later arrival and a much smaller subgroup out of asia that didn't have all the asian characteristics. So the theory is that this subgroup was isolated for a fair time in north easter asia and far north america, thereby diverging due to mutations, before colonizing most of the Americas.

The main problem with the theory is the total lack of archaeological evidence for it which is why it was always controversial. (Although there are expectations that most sites would now be under water) Newer genetic arguments gives it more weight and thus more adherents. But some scientists still say that having an isolated community living in north eastern Asia for 15,000 years with absolutely no archaeological evidence is pretty problematic.

The theory this data supports has been around quite some time. But other than falsifying the "whole continent" model of the Book of Mormon (that doesn't line up with what the text itself says) I'm not sure how this has bearing on the Book of Mormon. (Pun intended because it's Friday) Beyond of course the interesting bit about a widely believed in community having no archaeological evidence. It seems at best dealing with nuance of what Asiatic group was the main immigration and when this took place.

While I'm not up on all the evidence I think there's also a problem of archaeological evidence in Chile from about 15k years and this view that I think dates the immigration to 12K years. I'm not quite up on how that divergence of dates is being argued in the DNA based ancient anthropology community. 

Edited February 24, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Johnnie Cake]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Taken the way you are taking it, it also doesn't leave room for waves of immigration across the bering strait. Yet that still remains the default scientific view.

As I understand it (and I can't really say I have a grasp on all the issues so reader beware) what this is more falsifying is the older view that Asians colonized most of the Americas around 15,000 years ago. That's falsified because they don't have the proper genetics from asia. This changes the view to a slightly later arrival and a much smaller subgroup out of asia that didn't have all the asian characteristics. So the theory is that this subgroup was isolated for a fair time in north easter asia and far north america, thereby diverging due to mutations, before colonizing most of the Americas.

The main problem with the theory is the total lack of archaeological evidence for it which is why it was always controversial. (Although there are expectations that most sites would now be under water) Newer genetic arguments gives it more weight and thus more adherents. But some scientists still say that having an isolated community living in north eastern Asia for 15,000 years with absolutely no archaeological evidence is pretty problematic.

The theory this data supports has been around quite some time. But other than falsifying the "whole continent" model of the Book of Mormon (that doesn't line up with what the text itself says) I'm not sure how this has bearing on the Book of Mormon. (Pun intended because it's Friday) Beyond of course the interesting bit about a widely believed in community having no archaeological evidence.

While I'm not up on all the evidence I think there's also a problem of archaeological evidence in Chile from about 15k years and this view that I think dates the immigration to 12K years. I'm not quite up on how that divergence of dates is being argued in the DNA based ancient anthropology community. 

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.   It is a widely accepted fact that human's first incursion into the America's occurred, give or take a few millennium, around 24,000 BCE.  The study listed in the OP is suggesting that the various migrations into the Americas can now be limited to 5 based on the available DNA record.  The study in the OP is very informative...I suggest reading it.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.   It is a widely accepted fact that human's first incursion into the America's occurred, give or take a few millennium, around 24,000 BCE.  The study listed in the OP is suggesting that the various migrations into the Americas can now be limited to 5 based on the available DNA record.  The study in the OP is very informative...I suggest reading it.

Yeah, I was familiar with that as well. Nature had covered it. But again that's not new - the arguments for it even with DNA evidence go back about 5 years. This is just more evidence confirming what most already thought. I'll go back and read the OP though. Again I'm not sure what this has to do with the BoM though.

 

Edit: after a quick skim the article seems like an article review. Looking at the footnotes many of the points are things that have been around for a long time.

Edited February 24, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Rajah Manchou]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The main problem with the theory is the total lack of archaeological evidence for it which is why it was always controversial. (Although there are expectations that most sites would now be under water) Newer genetic arguments gives it more weight and thus more adherents. But some scientists still say that having an isolated community living in north eastern Asia for 15,000 years with absolutely no archaeological evidence is pretty problematic.

The two papers out this week make a pretty strong case that some Paleoamericans were not Siberians or northeast Asians. Their skulls are shaped more like Australasians. It is starting to seem likely that at least some early migrations to the New World completely bypassed northeast Asia.

The DNA of the Botocudo of Brazil are shown to be nearly 100% Polynesian with no detectable Native American DNA. (source) Their craniums are shaped more like those found on the west coast of Mexico. (source) This is relevant to the Book of Mormon because it seems to show that previously unidentified groups with unique genetics, languages and cultures, somehow made their way to Mexico without leaving an archeological or genetic trace. They lived among the indigenous populations but did not mix with them (source), and then possibly went extinct. We didn't know about them until last week. The new studies above confirm the findings linked to in the OP by Skoglund and Reich, that there was a Population Y of unknown origins.

"Our results are also in accordance with the recent genomic link found between Amazonian populations and Australasians. Skoglund et al. suggest than an ancient Native American lineage, named “Population Y,” could have resulted from a highly substructured ancestral northeast Asian population that shared strong genetic affinities with the ancestors of modern Australasians."

That seems to wreck the arguments of BoM critics that claim such ghost populations could not exist without leaving traces in the gene pool and archeological record.

From the author of the 2015 study linked to in the OP: “It is great to see this new analysis of morphological data,” says Pontus Skoglund at Harvard Medical School, an author on the 2015 study. “It reiterates that there is something interesting about the peopling of the Americas that we don’t quite understand yet.”

Edited February 25, 2017 by Rajah Manchou