The DNA Issue again.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

Why would we want to look for ancient DNA? We aren't trying to disprove the Bering Strait crossing, although to me it is quite evident this was not the only means of immigration to the Americas. Looking for ancient DNA is missing the boat. The oldest we are looking for is Jaredite DNA which is historical rather than "ancient." Nevertheless, it could potentially be the source of some haplogroup X mtDNA. I believe there is evidence that man was in the Americas over 20,000 years ago. So we are essentially looking for a needle in a haystack. At the time of the Jaredites there were millions of people in the Americas. By the time of the Nephites there was probably close to 50 million people in the Americas. By the time of Columbus there was easily around 100 million people in the Americas - making the "pure" Nephites a 1% minority at their peak. I won't go more into this train of thought at this time. Suffice it to say I believe there are DNA haplogroups which have been overlooked. We are looking for fairly minor genetic mutations because only about 2000 years to 3000 years has passed. I have only scratched the surface here, as I don't have the resources to do my own studies. I am dependent upon what I can glean from published studies.

I am a simple guy and leave the details to you smart guys.

So I am right because Nephite DNA would be a "drop in the ocean" and not show up, right?

Edited June 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

He got the number 30 from me as a very rough estimate of the population on Nephi's ship.

How may do you think there were?

But of course the point is that there were others there and the DNA of those on the ship was a drop in the ocean.  Sorensen estimates 50 I think in that article I linked to above.

In the four years wandering around, living in cities, etc they may have picked up some converts who went with them.  In any case when they landed, they picked up some allies from the local villages.  Otherwise the wars between the Nephites and Lamanites just a few years after the arrival,  the "many" swords,  just does not make sense.

Edited June 12, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

I no longer have the link but around 400BCE there was a major change in the centuries old burial practices of the inhabitants of Costa Rica, from burying "anywhere" in and around the town to designated burial areas away from the town.  Possible Jewish cultural influence (my words).

The archaeologist who discovered it had no explanation for this ritualistic change.

Edited June 12, 2018 by cdowis

[Paiute]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"And so Trump sought to rule over America, both the Republicans and Democrats".

I guess that means there is no one else on earth or even just in America?  You want maybe a list of every possible ethnic group and make this a racial thing instead of a religious difference?

There were no "Nephites" who were not descended from Nephi after all the mixing of Lamanites and Nephites?   And Jacob saying from now on he was speaking only about religious issues and not racial ones?

Come on!

That is really reaching for it.  I don't know what you are defending in arguing against science and logic when the gospel embraces all truth.  It is a very odd position

And as I have told you before we have nothing to talk about - because we cannot communicate well regarding these areas.  I regard you as my brother in the gospel but this is just not a good area for us to discuss.  I can bear my testimony all day to you about the gospel and the miracles I have seen, but the historicity and your conservative ways just don't jell with mine.  It's like politics- there are good Mormons on both sides of nearly every political question except maybe abortion directly, but that does not mean we can convince the others of our views

So my brother, this is just the kind of topics we should not bother discussing because we will inevitably disagree and the discussion will go nowhere but downhill. 

That's the way it is with brothers sometimes!

Politics? Why are you deflecting?  

You asked the question: "Show me the quote that there were no others.  From the text of the BOM, not comments."

So, I provided Alma 48:2. Where in Alma 48:2 is it mentioned there any others besides Lamanites and Nephites?

The verse refers to a Nephite dissenter who after being made King or the ruler over the Lamanites desired to rule over all the land and "yea" - added as emphasis by the Prophet Mormon - then Mormon clarified: "and all the people who were in the land, the Nephites as well as the Lamanites."

Seriously, since you got personal, I'll return the favor; you may have a testimony of the contents of the Book of Mormon, but it seems to me it's based on the writings of Dr. Sorenson, who you referred to, not from the text itself.

Dr. Sorenson clearly stated in his "Open Letter to Dr. Michael Coe" - 

"The text’s “Nephites” were not Maya in all probability; the “Lamanites” may have been in part."

Which is incorrect for the Maya had a written language, the Lamanites did not. The Lamanites hundreds of years later learned the language of the Nephites from the wicked priests of King Noah, who dissented to the Lamanites.

Mosiah 24

And he appointed teachers of the brethren of Amulon in every land which was possessed by his people; and thus the language of Nephi began to be taught among all the people of the Lamanites.

But they taught them that they should keep their record, and that they might write one to another.

There are no Maya referred to here which Maya had their own written language. Or any others.

So I challenge you! Where in the Book of Mormon does it refer to "Others" besides Nephites (which includes Mulekites) and Lamanites?

Just from the text itself, no comments from any LDS scholars.

 

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Paiute said:

Politics? Why are you deflecting?  

You asked the question: "Show me the quote that there were no others.  From the text of the BOM, not comments."

So, I provided Alma 48:2. Where in Alma 48:2 is it mentioned there any others besides Lamanites and Nephites?

The verse refers to a Nephite dissenter who after being made King or the ruler over the Lamanites desired to rule over all the land and "yea" - added as emphasis by the Prophet Mormon - then Mormon clarified: "and all the people who were in the land, the Nephites as well as the Lamanites."

Seriously, since you got personal, I'll return the favor; you may have a testimony of the contents of the Book of Mormon, but it seems to me it's based on the writings of Dr. Sorenson, who you referred to, not from the text itself.

Dr. Sorenson clearly stated in his "Open Letter to Dr. Michael Coe" - 

"The text’s “Nephites” were not Maya in all probability; the “Lamanites” may have been in part."

Which is incorrect for the Maya had a written language, the Lamanites did not. The Lamanites hundreds of years later learned the language of the Nephites from the wicked priests of King Noah, who dissented to the Lamanites.

Mosiah 24

And he appointed teachers of the brethren of Amulon in every land which was possessed by his people; and thus the language of Nephi began to be taught among all the people of the Lamanites.

But they taught them that they should keep their record, and that they might write one to another.

There are no Maya referred to here which Maya had their own written language. Or any others.

So I challenge you! Where in the Book of Mormon does it refer to "Others" besides Nephites (which includes Mulekites) and Lamanites?

Just from the text itself, no comments from any LDS scholars.

 

I have told you now several times, I don't care what you think about this  

Do you think I am bluffing?    I am not.

You have no idea whatsoever about what my testimony is based on, and that kind of comment could get you banned from the board.

I could not care less about the Maya and I never heard of Sorrensen until probably 35 years after I joined the church after a series of miraculous events, so bug off bozo.  

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Geneticist Dr. Ugo A. Perego, made a number of points in reply to this claim on Jan 22, 2016, 

1. Lineage (haplogroup) X in the America is an unusual marker, but there is absolutely no evidence to link it to Book of Mormon people.

***

This is  backed up by Martin Jones, “Ancient DNA in pre-Columbian archaeology: a review,” Journal of Archaeological Science, 30/5 (May 2003):629–635.  Haplotype X markers found in several thousand year old specimens from South America.  Although 'for a brief time, the identification of mtDNA haplotype X fueled European origin theorists', the European haplotype X is unrelated phylogenetically to the Amerindian haplotype X. 

Yes, Robert. I know. I said so here:

On 6/11/2018 at 8:13 PM, RevTestament said:

I pose such evidence has already been found. Haplogroup X mtDNA is just such an "ancient" prehistoric population group which has every indication of being a Middle Eastern genome. It's closest matches are from Iran. However, it appears to be too ancient to fit the BoM well. One problem with these types of genetic studies is that unless a sample meets one of the A, B, C, D, or more recently X haplogroups it gets routinely dismissed as non-native DNA. Just how ancient do you want becomes the question. And for the BoM we don't really want ancient at all. I mean we are talking historic times. So they are looking for the wrong thing - other ancient DNA genomes. Look in the right place and they just might find something different like I believe I have. I will not discuss it further. 

There is an 8000-9000 year old man, the Kennewick Man from Kennewick, WA., who tested to be haplogroup X mtDNA. Obviously, too old to be BoM. I was just responding to their(the paper cited in the OP) claim that there is no ancient DNA tying American Natives to the Middle East. I think there obviously is.

Edited June 13, 2018 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am a simple guy and leave the details to you smart guys.

So I am right because Nephite DNA would be a "drop in the ocean" and not show up, right?

If ancient samples are taken, it definitely could show up. However, in all likelihood in modern samples, it would have been drowned out by the DNA of the majority population, and would probably not show up. Correct. However, if a population keeps itself isolated, obviously, you might find small samples of it  If it is not one of the 5 major Native mtDNA haplotypes, however, the sample will typically get rejected as results of modern admixture. Using autosomal DNA testing will alleviate the issue a tad, but markers can still get drowned out.

The problem is in the U.S., you now have to get permission to take ancient samples for testing.  Natives often don't wish to give permission. So, the testing of ancient samples in the area I believe to be relevant has become difficult.

Edited June 13, 2018 by RevTestament

[Paiute]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have told you now several times, I don't care what you think about this  

Do you think I am bluffing?    I am not.

You have no idea whatsoever about what my testimony is based on, and that kind of comment could get you banned from the board.

I could not care less about the Maya and I never heard of Sorrensen until probably 35 years after I joined the church after a series of miraculous events, so bug off bozo.  

 

Wow!

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/12/2018 at 1:50 PM, sunstoned said:

If we just stick with what the text of the BoM really says, and not what apologist wish it would say, these 30 semites came to an land empty of others and then over a thousand years grew into a population that could supposedly field million men armies.   This is from a plain reading of the text.  It takes all kinds of spin to claim otherwise.

First off, the text of the BofM should certainly not be privileged to be read differently than any other book. Any serious reading of it must be done according to standard rules of literature.  Perhaps we could agree on that.  Second, it is important therefore to gain the skills necessary to read any such texts without bias or prejudice. In other words, a by gosh and by golly approach is not likely to be productive, whether by those horrible apologists or by some deeply prejudiced anti-Mormons.  Allowing the text to speak for itself is good policy, regardless of which book is under scrutiny.  It would be nice if you could take that overall approach, sunstoned.  That's what professionals do.

Thus some helpful hints about the actual BofM text:

1)  The BofM text never claims that the New World was uninhabited upon arrival of Jaredites, Nephites, and Mulekites. Indeed, the Nephites were never even aware of the existence of Jaredites in the New World until they heard later stories from the Mulekites. Nor were the Mulekites aware of the Nephites until long after they had been living for quite some time in an isolated area.  Just on those bases alone your claim is completely false.

2)  The distances of travel by foot in the BofM accounts are very limited, allowing for only a few hundred square miles of territory at most for the entire BofM saga.  That is reminiscent of all the biblical stories taking place mostly within just such a very limited area.  Imagining that entire hemispheres were involved is absurd and bespeaks a non-professional reading of the text.

As with the Bible, we do have a choice of approach: We can read it in childish fashion, or we can be more mature and sophisticated in our appraisals.  There are books and college courses which help students examine such texts is a professional manner.  If you'd like, I can make some recommendations.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yes, Robert. I know. I said so here:

There is an 8000-9000 year old man, the Kennewick Man from Kennewick, WA., who tested to be haplogroup X mtDNA. Obviously, too old to be BoM. I was just responding to their(the paper cited in the OP) claim that there is no ancient DNA tying American Natives to the Middle East. I think there obviously is.

As Dr Perego and other geneticists point out, there is no basis for such a claim.

[Kevin Christensen]

20 hours ago, Paiute said:

Alma 48:2

2 And thus he did inspire their hearts against the Nephites, insomuch that in the latter end of the ^anineteenth year of the reign of the judges, he having accomplished his designs thus far, yea, having been made king over the Lamanites, he ^bsought also to ^creign over all the land, yea, and all the people who were in the land, the Nephites as well as the Lamanites.

Anyone else mentioned here besides Nephites and Lamanites? Nope. Try again using the Book of Mormon, instead of using Dr. Sorenson.

This is a good example of what happens when you combine presentist, context-free reading with narrow proof-texting. 

For a good example of what happens when you combine careful contextualization with comprehensive reading, see Matt Roper, "Nephi's Neighbors" here:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=10

"All the land" is not an absolute statement, but a relative one, based on the perspective of the narrator, relative to the local political situation.  Or, should the Icelanders, Greenlanders, Laplanders, Highlanders, and islands of the sea, worry, because, after all, does not "all the land" plainly mean all the land on not only the continent, but logically, the planet, everything that could possibly be construed as land?

Regarding our mental maps, we ought to always consider that "The map is not the territory" and be willing to adjust the maps in light of realities.  We're better off adjusting our maps continually, than we would be by insisting that if our mental maps were not absolute and perfect, beyond repentance, then we wouldn't have put them in our heads in the first place.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 13, 2018 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Oliblish]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I wasn't there couldn't tell you

But the land bridge is as scientific a hypothesis as we have so far.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1001&context=jbms

And of course there is more

The land bridge was swallowed by the sea about 11,000 years ago.  Not only would this have been before the flood, but before Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden as well.  

The timing just doesn't seem to work out.

 

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Paiute said:

Wow!

 

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

And as I have told you before we have nothing to talk about - because we cannot communicate well regarding these areas.  I regard you as my brother in the gospel but this is just not a good area for us to discuss.  I can bear my testimony all day to you about the gospel and the miracles I have seen, but the historicity and your conservative ways just don't jell with mine.  It's like politics- there are good Mormons on both sides of nearly every political question except maybe abortion directly, but that does not mean we can convince the others of our views

So my brother, this is just the kind of topics we should not bother discussing because we will inevitably disagree and the discussion will go nowhere but downhill. 

That's the way it is with brothers sometimes!

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Thinking]

18 hours ago, cdowis said:

I no longer have the link but around 400BCE there was a major change in the centuries old burial practices of the inhabitants of Costa Rica, from burying "anywhere" in and around the town to designated burial areas away from the town.

Perhaps they ran out of space.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding our mental maps, we ought to always consider that "The map is not the territory" and be willing to adjust the maps in light of realities.  We're better off adjusting our maps continually, than we would be by insisting that if our mental maps were not absolute and perfect, beyond repentance, then we wouldn't have put them in our heads in the first place.

Is your territory broad enough that you could adjust your map to believing that the Book of Mormon isn't describing actual events and people, but is a 19th century creation?  Assuming that was where the "realities" took you?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Oliblish said:

The land bridge was swallowed by the sea about 11,000 years ago.  Not only would this have been before the flood, but before Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden as well.  

The timing just doesn't seem to work out.

 

It's not my problem that it doesn't work out for you.

Not on your paradigm as a literalist maybe, that's not my view.

I don't care if all of it is literal or none of it is literal. I take it on its spiritual value as a series of stories or paradigms to help me live my life.

I don't recall that question about the land bridge on the temple recommend interview.

Perhaps a good course in philosophy would help you.

Colossians 2:8

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Literalism is a false philosophy of men. It is not of Christ who taught in parables.

Never mingle philosophies with scripture. They have nothing to do with each other. Wittgtenstein could teach you that very easily. All language is metaphor.

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As Dr Perego and other geneticists point out, there is no basis for such a claim.

You are misinterpreting what they are saying. They are saying the haplogroup X mtDNA of Native Americans is not directly related to European X mtDNA. However, in fact it is most related to Middle East haplogroup X. It didn't just poof into existence. It branched off haplogroup X mtDNA, and the most closely related is from the present day Middle East. There is no ancient relation to Asia that is provable, and the claim of this paper is thus wrong. There is no evidence that haplogroup X mtDNA came across the Beringia land bridge. Nor does its distribution in the Americas support the idea very well. 

[Oliblish]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It's not my problem that it doesn't work out for you.

Not on your paradigm as a literalist maybe, that's not my view.

I don't care if all of it is literal or none of it is literal. I take it on its spiritual value as a series of stories or paradigms to help me live my life.

I don't recall that question about the land bridge on the temple recommend interview.

Perhaps a good course in philosophy would help you.

Colossians 2:8

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Literalism is a false philosophy of men. It is not of Christ who taught in parables.

Never mingle philosophies with scripture. They have nothing to do with each other. Wittgtenstein could teach you that very easily. All language is metaphor.

 

If you want to argue that these things are not literal, that is fine.  But I don't know that it fits very well in a thread about DNA which is inherently about science and reality.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Oliblish

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

You are misinterpreting what they are saying. They are saying the haplogroup X mtDNA of Native Americans is not directly related to European X mtDNA. However, in fact it is most related to Middle East haplogroup X. It didn't just poof into existence. It branched off haplogroup X mtDNA, and the most closely related is from the present day Middle East. There is no ancient relation to Asia that is provable, and the claim of this paper is thus wrong. There is no evidence that haplogroup X mtDNA came across the Beringia land bridge. Nor does its distribution in the Americas support the idea very well. 

I quoted my sources, and they simply do not agree with you.  I also spoke to the issue of what an actual DNA match to Nephites would look like, which you have ignored.  We need to adopt real world views on these matters, rather than conjuring up non-parallels.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I quoted my sources, and they simply do not agree with you.  I also spoke to the issue of what an actual DNA match to Nephites would look like, which you have ignored.  We need to adopt real world views on these matters, rather than conjuring up non-parallels.

Again Robert, I have not claimed this haplogroup X mtDNA has really anything to do with the BoM, but plainly said it is too early if you had read my post to the OP, AussieGuy before you entered the thread. I will leave that impossible task to Rod Meldrum. I am only claiming that the paper the OP cited is wrong. There IS DNA evidence for a Middle East connection thus disproving the paper the OP cited. I haven't read the papers you cited, but the points you cited do not disagree with me, because I am not claiming any BoM connection. I said it appears the haplogroup X DNA is too ancient. That is the point I got from your quotes as well, so we agree.

Haplogroup X mt DNA doesn't come from East Asia or anywhere near Beringia. If you want I will dig up the paper for my assertion that out of all the haplogroup X mtDNA in the world today that of Native Americans is closest to that found in Iran. There is none in Asia. Thus, the paper the OP cited is WRONG. You took it upon yourself to intervene with an unrelated assertion that this DNA does not represent a founding population in BoM days. I agree, and never said otherwise, so don't charge me with conjuring up anything my friend.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Oliblish said:

If you want to argue that these things are not literal, that is fine.  But I don't know that it fits very well in a thread about DNA which is inherently about science and reality.

Learn some philosophy of science before you talk about "reality" which is undefinable.

And my point is that science is irrelevant to scripture, so DNA tells us nothing about God, or what he wants for his children. (JOY)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

Edited June 14, 2018 by mfbukowski

[sunstoned]

On 6/12/2018 at 2:36 PM, mfbukowski said:

Show me the quote that there were no others.  From the text of the BOM, not comments.

Show me the quote where they talk of others.  Over a 1000 year history and not one reference to all anyone else except the other phantom groups of the Jaredites and mulekites. Not one reference to the vast number of native people who really populated this hemisphere.  Not one direct reference.  I have read the apologetic spin on this and it is weak sauce.   

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Show me the quote where they talk of others.  Over a 1000 year history and not one reference to all anyone else except the other phantom groups of the Jaredites and mulekites. Not one reference to the vast number of native people who really populated this hemisphere.  Not one direct reference.  I have read the apologetic spin on this and it is weak sauce.   

"Weak sauce" ?

Brilliant analysis, incisive and quite convincing. I am converted.

The whole notion that DNA could possibly have  any relevance to explaining how spiritual paradigms function in our lives is absurd.

How can DNA studies prove you your sins are or are not forgiven through belief in Jesus Christ?

How do DNA studies give you meaning in your life or make you a better human being and create joy in your life?

How do they encourage a sense of peace in your soul?

That's what the Book of Mormon does. What does that have to do with DNA studies?

The whole thing is a confusion about what science does and what religion does.

What does science tell you about  a purpose for your life?

For that matter what does historicity have to do with any of these issues?

Nothing. 

Religion is about giving your life meaning, not facts.

 

 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Haplogroup X mt DNA doesn't come from East Asia or anywhere near Beringia. If you want I will dig up the paper for my assertion that out of all the haplogroup X mtDNA in the world today that of Native Americans is closest to that found in Iran. 

source

[Kevin Christensen]

20 hours ago, cinepro said:

Is your territory broad enough that you could adjust your map to believing that the Book of Mormon isn't describing actual events and people, but is a 19th century creation?  Assuming that was where the "realities" took you?

If it happened that I decided such a map was more testable, accurate in key predictions, comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, promising, and had  aesthetically appealing form, and held out an appealing future promise.  Sure. 

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

But that means that any such map would have to provide a better accounting for all sorts of things that I know, and have better promise for the future than the one I have now.  I'm not drifting around on an insubstantial soap bubble, waiting for someone to disperse it with a pin prick.  I've read a lot from defenders and given personal and careful attention to the most notable critics.  And I have seen that during my lifetime, the defense has gotten far better than it was, and many of what had seemed intimidatingly formidable attacks have become obsolete. 

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/authors/

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/authors/

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Main_Page

I have to consider that if I had folded when I read Brodie or the Roberts Study or the Tanners or Coe over thirty years ago, just how much I would have missed without ever knowing. 

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/139-66-70.pdf

I have to consider that a wide range of LDS scholars have come up with ideas and evidence that I'd have never thought of on my own, and that I have made original contributions myself that have never been refuted by the skeptics, and for that matter, rarely even acknowledged.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/author/kevinc/

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/people/kevin-christensen/

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

And it also happens that the Book of Mormon itself is only one small part of my personal "cause to believe."

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/model_of_experience.pdf

I've got a broad, deep, and solid foundation.  Seed, soil, nurture, and time, all contribute to a bountiful harvest thus far, and I have every reason to believe that the best is yet to come.  And it happens that I have carefully considered other offers, and found them lacking.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleChristensenRashomon.html

Really, it all comes down to a choice between what I think, what I desire, and beyond them, what is ultimately real.  To get to what is real, I have to be willing to offer up what I think (that is, offer a contrite spirit) and what I desire (offer a broken heart) to enter the real, rather than huddle down behind what I think now and what I desire now as though they ought to be inviolate, as though I have nothing important to learn, as if my map is perfect now, and as though my personal desires should determine the cartography used in creating my map, as though no sacrifice of desire in the now could ever lead to anything better tomorrow and in eternity.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 14, 2018 by Kevin Christensen
typo