Simon Southerton's New Book

[Fair Dinkum]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Every ancestor or only those ancestors' whose DNA wasn't dumped?

I am not a geneticist, but I am familiar with the science. My understanding is that the entire genome of all 1,024 ancestors in a 10 generation family tree can now be accessed.  It really pushes Book of Mormon truth claims into a corner and demands an explanation.  I hope the church will address this, but I fear they will not.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said:

My understanding is that the entire genome of all 1,024 ancestors in a 10 generation family tree can now be accessed.

What about a 20 generation tree?  Can the entire genome of all those ancestors also be accessed?

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

10 generations takes us back 300 years to a period before Columbus and a time prior to the introduction of European DNA.

2020 - 300 = 1720.

Columbus arrived in the New World in 1492.

There's a 228-year gap in the middle of your reckoning.

[Fair Dinkum]

47 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Hi @Fair Dinkum, could you address my flip-yet-relevant quoting of BoM scriptures regarding how someone becomes a Lamanite?  When we look at the BoM truth claims, by actually reading the BoM, we see it's blindingly obvious that the folks in the book didn't have to be related to be a Lamanite to become one.

Sorry didn’t read your post but I am familiar with the apologetic argument regarding non-bloodline lamanites becoming lamanites. Seems like an explanation out of necessity.  One that wouldn’t be necessary had dna been more supportive of Book of Mormon truth claims. 

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

He's not addressing the text, but rather broad, rooted-in-limited-information-available-to-19th-century extrapolations and conjecture about the text.  

After removing all "limited-information-available-to-extrapolations and conjecture about the text", where does the text say the Lehites were?

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 If it helps @stemelbow, I inherited this cool big honkin' copper coin from my grandfather, who lived back in the day before the name "Native American" made it into common use, when all the Mormons just called 'em Lamanites...

Awesome! Hang onto that baby

[LoudmouthMormon]

16 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Sorry didn’t read your post but I am familiar with the apologetic argument regarding non-bloodline lamanites becoming lamanites. Seems like an explanation out of necessity.  One that wouldn’t be necessary had dna been more supportive of Book of Mormon truth claims. 

"Explanation out of necessity" - what an interesting phrase.  

1. BoM appears.
2. Adherents, to the extent they think about it, just assume an empty continent peopled by 30 Lehites that become all the American Indians.   Some think and talk about it a lot.  
3. ~150 years go by, with advances in anthropology and DNA science, it looks like everyone's gut reaction might not be correct.
4. Critics won't shut up about DNA, forcing folks to re-evaluate what they just always assumed was a reasonable (or the only reasonable) argument.
5. A closer reading of the book itself makes it blindingly, obviously, overwhelmingly clear that nobody HAD to assume a literal genetic tie between BoM peoples and Native Americans in the first place.  Like we all spent ~150 years assuming.

Is that series of events what you mean by an "explanation out of necessity"?  The phrase seems to fit.  But are you somehow calling foul on it?  Does it violate some rule of logic or something?  I mean, scientific method involves making theories and trying to break them, and in this case, we tried to defend a theory that got less and less defendable, and we were forced to examine our assumptions and admit and learn and grow and whatnot.  Is that bad?

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

 

Fair enough.  Well, since the BoM is pretty crystal clear that people in the time didn't need to have any actual blood relationship with anyone to be a Lamanite, I'm not sure what your issue actually is.  It sounds like you're taking issue with a bunch of pre-internet, non-geneticist laymormons assuming that all the Native Americans were a direct blood descendant of the BoM peoples.  But such an issue carries no weight that I can see, scientific or theological.  

You do know that people get to be wrong about things, don't you?  I mean, your great-great-great-grandparents probably believed all sorts of crap that has been overcome by human discovery.  They might have been real loud about it, even made life-changing decisions about it.  If they lived in frontier America, they might have thought watermelons were of the devil, or that mercury suppositories are a good thing for dropsy, not to mention the things they might have believed about race, not to mention the equality of men and women.

"Yeah, but my ancestors didn't claim to be speaking for God"

Ok, but neither did the pre-internet, non-geneticist laymormons as they were off opining about where the Indians came from.  

 

I mean honestly, this battle was won, what, back in the mid-90's?  

Of course.  To err is human and all that.  

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

A closer reading of the book itself makes it blindingly, obviously, overwhelmingly clear that nobody HAD to assume a literal genetic tie between BoM peoples and Native Americans in the first place.  Like we all spent ~150 years assuming.

This should probably be 4 rather than 5 if going chronologically, iirc.  The first nonhemispheric theories came out prior to DNA arguments.

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Alluded," not quoted.

Which is still quite possibly accurate.  

The evidence is inconclusive.  The evidence doesn't preclude such ancestry, either.

Gotta love the shifting of goal posts.

You said: "Of course no scholarship supports the notion that Native American ancestors were Lamanites."

I responded to that.  You respond with substantially modifying your prior statement.

"The bill" was your claim that "no scholarship supports the notion that Native American ancestors were Lamanites."

I dispute that.  

Well, I'm willing to listen.  What is your point, then?

Because the Church has long qualified the ancestry issue.  And in 2013, the Church qualified it even more.

But here you are, in 2020, stating that the "Church thinks that Native Americans came from Lamanites."  That is not an accurate characterization of the Church's past, or present, position.

Says the guy who said "Well nothing proves the BoM so I suppose that might mean there is some hope that nothing disproves it."

It does address Southerton, though.

No.

No.

No.

You keep repeating Southerton's error.

I reject Southerton's arguments as not being competent, probative, or relevant to the issue at hand.

Using population genetics is not a particularly relevant or helpful exercise in evaluating provenance of The Book of Mormon.

"{S}ecular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon."

You seem to be siding with Southerton.  I think Southerton is wrong in that he is deriving significance from applying an irrelevant (or at least practically inapplicable) field of inquiry - population genetics - to questions about the origins of The Book of Mormon.

To reduce that to "There is no DNA evidence to think Native Americans are Lamanites" is to perpetuate a mischaracterization.  It is to distort and misrepresent.  Please don't do that.

It's neither problematic nor surprising.  But Southerton thinks it's both.  And you are aligning yourself with Southerton.

Are you really not catching my point?  Or are you just playing games?

I'm starting to suspect the latter.

Yet again: "DNA studies" have no meaningful utility in examining whether Lehi and his family arrived in the Americas.  

Again: "DNA studies" have no meaningful utility in examining whether Lehi and his family arrived in the Americas.  

BOMC made no concession about Lamanite ancestry being "exceedingly unlikely."  That is a patent fabrication which you foisted onto BOMC.

No.  Even if your conclusion is that the BoM is a 19th-century fabrication, population genetics still doesn't get you anywhere.  

Sigh.  You haven't read the BOMC references, clearly.

Or if you have, you are ignoring them.

No, population genetics has no meaningful utility in examining whether Lehi and his family arrived in the Americas.  If you feel otherwise, then please lay out your argument.  Engage the substantive scholarship referenced in the BOMC article.

Again, I won't hold my breath, though.  Much easer to just say "It's quite helpful," without actually having to explain how.

I think i tis.

Okay.  I'll leave you to it, then.

You are not offering anything substantive.  Just cheap shots and, now, reductio ad absurdum stuff.

No thanks.

Referencing Bigfoot is classic reductio ad absurdum.  

You persist in pointing to information that is not competent, probative, or relevant to the issue at hand.  You keep acting as if this incompetent, non-probative, irrelevant information is, nevertheless, meaningful.

I'm close to giving up

Thanks, I will believe that Lamanites were some of the ancestors of some Native Americans (and that there is some pretty good evidence that Lehi and his family migrated to the Americas).

There isn't DNA evidence, no.  That does not preclude the existence of other types of evidence.

Isn't that pretty much the position taken by the Church (as the essay put it, "secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon")?

The article is about DNA evidence.  DNA evidence.

Oi.

I'm considering it.  Meanwhile, I started a thread to get some discussion about it going.

And you seem to find that objectionable.

I don't understand what you find problematic.

The irrelevance of "DNA evidence" to the issue does not negate the existence of other forms of evidence.

Again with the reductio ad absurdum.

I'm taking you less seriously now.  

I've tried to lay out my thinking.  My evaluation of the arguments.  My assessment of Southerton's basic premise and BOMC's response to it.

And all you have is snark about Bigfoot.

No, thanks.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well I'm happy others who have read the book in question have chimed in.  It seemed to me you were overstating things.  At this point I'm still comfortable with the conclusion I settled on.  There is no scientific evidence for lamanite existence.  To say its inconclusive in hopes that there were lamanites is understandable for those who hold out hope for BoM support.   I suppose there is hope for bigfoot supporters as well on a similar precedent (whether DNA ifactors into their hope would be irrelevant).  

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

"Explanation out of necessity" - what an interesting phrase.  

1. BoM appears.
2. Adherents, to the extent they think about it, just assume an empty continent peopled by 30 Lehites that become all the American Indians.   Some think and talk about it a lot.  
3. ~150 years go by, with advances in anthropology and DNA science, it looks like everyone's gut reaction might not be correct.
4. Critics won't shut up about DNA, forcing folks to re-evaluate what they just always assumed was a reasonable (or the only reasonable) argument.
5. A closer reading of the book itself makes it blindingly, obviously, overwhelmingly clear that nobody HAD to assume a literal genetic tie between BoM peoples and Native Americans in the first place.  Like we all spent ~150 years assuming.

Is that series of events what you mean by an "explanation out of necessity"?  The phrase seems to fit.  But are you somehow calling foul on it?  Does it violate some rule of logic or something?  I mean, scientific method involves making theories and trying to break them, and in this case, we tried to defend a theory that got less and less defendable, and we were forced to examine our assumptions and admit and learn and grow and whatnot.  Is that bad?

So your position is that there never really were people who came from Israel to the new world?  We all just assumed the text said as much?  Or are you suggesting there is no reason to think the text says people genetically related to Lehi or Ishmael or mulek and co lived beyond 400AD?   

I think your position fits nicely in the it is exceedingly unlikely that happened category.    

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

2020 - 300 = 1720.

Columbus arrived in the New World in 1492.

There's a 228-year gap in the middle of your reckoning.

Sorry I’m doing a poor job of explaining the problem. Let me quote from the book and provide a link to the study.

Quote

The largest genomic study of Native Americans to date, published by Chacón-Duque and co-authors in 2018, was focussed on Latin Americans.159 In contrast to all of the mitochondrial studies discussed above, which were exploring the pre-Columbian ancestry of Native Americans, the Latin American study was specifically designed to explore admixture. The authors were particularly interested in where the European DNA detected in the mitochondrial research (Table 1 and 3) was derived from, and when it arrived in the New World. The astonishing power of whole genome research to answer these questions is revealed in this unique Latin American study.
All of the 6,589 Latin Americans included in the study were screened for over half a million genomic markers. The genomic DNA of each individual was then compared to the genomes of individuals in a reference group of 117 populations scattered across Europe, the Mediterranean, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and the Americas. These comparisons revealed high rates of admixture (30-83%), most of which was derived from Europe (Figure 15).160

Small amounts (about 1-8%) of Middle Eastern ancestry were detected in all Latin American populations tested.161 About half of the Middle Eastern admixture was derived from Sephardic populations, indicating Hebrew ancestry.162 The different proportions of Middle Eastern and Sephardic DNA are shown in Figure 16. Individuals with Sephardic ancestry were detected across all Latin American populations studied, however, many more were observed in regions with the highest rates of Spanish ancestry.

Using ancestry tract analysis (see Chapters 3B and 4C), Chacón-Duque et al. estimated when the different sources of admixture arrived in the Americas.163 The first wave of admixture arrived about 10 generations ago from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal). Non-Iberian European admixture, from Northern Europe and Italy, arrived 2-3 generations later, which is consistent with the more recent arrival of Germans and Italians. When the authors examined the Eastern Mediterranean/Sephardic admixture they found it had also reached the New World about 10 generations ago; the same time DNA from Portugal and Spain had arrived. This strongly suggests the Sephardic DNA, scattered across Mesoamerica and South America, had arrived after Columbus. The authors conclude the Sephardic DNA was carried by Iberian Conversos, immigrant Jews who had ‘converted' to Christianity in Spain and Portugal in the 14th and 15th century to avoid persecution (or execution). As with all other genomic studies, the authors failed to detect any evidence of pre-Columbian Middle Eastern or Hebrew DNA in Native Americans.164

Ancestry tract analysis revealed further compelling evidence that the Jewish DNA detected in Latin Americans arrived well after the close of the Book of Mormon period (421 AD). While both the Iberian and Sephardic admixture arrived 10 generations ago, this estimate is the middle value (or median) of admixture time estimates that were calculated for each individual. While the median admixture time was 10 generations ago, some individuals had earlier estimates and some had later estimates. The earliest admixture time estimates for both the Spanish and Sephardic DNA were about 28 generations ago (Figure 17). Since the average generation time for humans is about 25 years, the earliest possible admixture date estimate for any individual is 25 x 28, or approximately 700 years ago (1320 AD). In other words, the Jewish DNA arrived 900 years after the end of the Nephite record. The reason some of the earliest estimates are prior to Columbus (1492 AD) is that the rate of recombination is not fixed. Individuals with unusually higher rates of admixture in their family history will have much earlier estimates.
 

In other words, geneticists can estimate when middle eastern DNA was first introduced into the Native American population. It was first introduced after Columbus’s arrival.

Here’s a link to the entire study

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07748-z

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

[Calm]

Thank you for the quote.

[Fair Dinkum]

The good news: Geneticists have found middle eastern DNA in Native American populations.

The bad news: It arrived after Columbus and not within the Book of Mormon timeline. 

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

What about a 20 generation tree?  Can the entire genome of all those ancestors also be accessed?

Geneticists have been able to find both Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA, thus going back over 40,000 years. As to your specific question, with the discovery of admixture,  yes geneticists can determine the geographic origin of our ancestors going back 10, 20 and further all the way back to our ancestry out of Africa.  It’s a fascinating science.  It doesn’t really support LDS truth claims but it’s still fascinating.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Here’s a link to the entire study

Thank you. I just had a quick squizz, and I'm not sure this study is saying what you think it is. It looks exclusively at the period that began with European colonialism:

Quote

By leveraging information from shared haplotypes, here we infer the timings and proportions of ancestry contributions to Latin Americans since the colonial era.

And data supporting possible 'admixture events' preceding that period have been intentionally removed from consideration:

Quote

For the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, we further excluded individuals with ≤5% ancestry from X and individuals with date ≥ 30 generations to avoid admixture events that occurred prior to colonial-era migrations.

In other words, from what I can tell, this study makes no comment whatsoever regarding the presumed Book of Mormon time period or even the period between the postulated end of the Book of Mormon and the established arrival of Iberians in the New World. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm misreading something, but these parameters appear to be repeated a number of times.

ETA: It might help if you provide the content of Mr Southerton's footnote 164 (from what you quoted above)?

ETA: Its findings that European migration seems to have been more heavily 'Converso' than previously understood is very interesting. My PhD research involved 16th-century European contact, and many of my Jesuit informants were Christãos Novos (sons of converted Jews). It has been surmised that getting a son into the Society helped to establish a family's adopted Christian identity, which was often under a cloud of suspicion.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

There is no scientific evidence for lamanite existence.

Please provide your definition of "lamanite".  I'd like to know exactly what it is that you think doesn't exist.

[Kenngo1969]

30 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thank you. I just had a quick squizz ...

Not to worry.  God is merciful, and the Atonement covers even squizzers, squizzes, and squizzing.  See your Bishop, and I'm sure you'll be well on the road to repentance.    

What?  

Oh.  

Sorry.  

Couldn't resist!   

Carry on!  

[Fair Dinkum]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thank you. I just had a quick squizz, and I'm not sure this study is saying what you think it is. It looks exclusively at the period that began with European colonialism:

And data supporting possible 'admixture events' preceding that period have been intentionally removed from consideration:

In other words, from what I can tell, this study makes no comment whatsoever regarding the presumed Book of Mormon time period or even the period between the postulated end of the Book of Mormon and the established arrival of Iberians in the New World. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm misreading something, but these parameters appear to be repeated a number of times.

ETA: Its findings that European migration seems to have been more heavily 'Converso' than previously understood is very interesting. My PhD research involved 16th-century European contact, and many of my Jesuit informants were Christãos Novos (sons of converted Jews). It has been surmised that getting a son into the Society helped to establish a family's adopted Christian identity, which was often under a cloud of suspicion.

Clearly the author is not weighing into Book of Mormon apologetics.  But by doing a population study which is specifically designed to determine when non-Native DNA aka European, African and yes middle eastern DNA was first introduced into the native population and then dating that introduction,  the author has, unwittingly perhaps, weighed in.  

Its also important to note that had pre Colombian middle eastern DNA been present in the native population this study would have found it present and dated its introduction.

The implications are not good for Book of Mormon truth claims.  But I seriously doubt it is the death knell either.

[Rajah Manchou]

41 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Geneticists have been able to find both Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA, thus going back over 40,000 years. As to your specific question, with the discovery of admixture,  yes geneticists can determine the geographic origin of our ancestors going back 10, 20 and further all the way back to our ancestry out of Africa.  It’s a fascinating science.  It doesn’t really support LDS truth claims but it’s still fascinating.

The science is fascinating, but also very young. 

Only within the past year have geneticists discovered that the earliest inhabitants (dating to the Book of Mormon time period) of what is now Thailand and Cambodia have West and South Asian haplogroups like R1a, J2 and G1B, not unlike what a Lehite population might carry. This admixture wasn't identified until just a year ago (source) and it is still unclear what it means. Its also been only 3-4 years since Riech and other teams discovered an Australasian-melanesian signal in South Americans. Completely unexpectedly.

I'm completely unconvinced that Lehites sailed all the way to America in 600 BC, but when it comes to population genetics, its best to wait for more ancient DNA to be found before drawing final conclusions from the limited data that we have.

[Fair Dinkum]

 

 

Quote

East/South Mediterranean ancestry in the CANDELA dataset

SOURCEFIND finds that Sephardic/East/South Mediterranean ancestry is detectable in each country’s samples: Brazil (1%), Chile (4%), Colombia (3%), Mexico (3%) and Peru (2%). Altogether, ~23% of the CANDELA individuals show >5% of such ancestry (an average of 12.2%) (Fig. 1d) and in these individuals SOURCEFIND infers this ancestry to be mostly Sephardic (7.3%), with smaller non-Sephardic East Mediterranean (3.9%) and non-Sephardic South Mediterranean (1%) contributions. Individuals with Sephardic/East/South Mediterranean ancestry were detected across Latin America (Fig. 2c). It is possible that outliers with particularly high values of Sephardic/East/South Mediterranean ancestry are descendants from recent non-European immigrants. For 19 of 42 individuals with >25% Sephardic/East/South Mediterranean ancestry, genealogical information (up to grandparents) identified ancestors born in the Eastern Mediterranean (thus validating the SOURCEFIND inference). However, no recent immigration was documented for other individuals, including all Colombians with >5% Sephardic ancestry (despite these Colombians showing the highest estimated Sephardic ancestry across countries; ~10% on average, Fig. 1d). Furthermore, GLOBETROTTER estimates for the time since East/South Mediterranean admixture were not significantly different from those involving Iberian sources (Fig. 3c; Wilcoxon rank-sum test one-sided p-value > 0.1), consistent with most of this ancestry component being contributed simultaneously with the initial colonial immigrants. Jewish communities existed in Iberia (Sepharad) since roman times and much of the peninsula was ruled by Arabs and Berbers for most of the Middle Ages, by the end of which large Sephardic communities had developed³³. Genetic studies have detected South and East Mediterranean ancestry in the current Spanish population, as well European admixture in the Sephardim^34,35,36. The estimates of South/East Mediterranean ancestry in Latin Americans obtained here represent values over and above those present in the Iberian individuals we examined, suggesting colonial migration to Latin America involved people with relatively higher levels of South/East Mediterranean ancestry. Columbus’ arrival to the New World in the late 15th century coincided with the expulsion and forced conversion of Spanish Jews, with similar measures subsequently affecting Spanish Muslims. Although Christian converts were legally forbidden from migrating to the colonies, historical records (often from the Inquisition) document that some individuals made the journey³³. Since this migration was mostly a clandestine process, its magnitude has been difficult to assess. Genetic studies have occasionally provided evidence that certain Latin American populations could have some Converso ancestry and this is at times supported by some historical evidence^3,37,38. Our findings indicate that the signature of a colonial migration to Latin America of people with relatively high South/East Mediterranean ancestry is much more prevalent than suggested by these special cases, or by historical records.

Like I said above good news/ bad news. Middle eastern DNA discovered just not our Middle eastern DNA 

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

But by doing a population study which is specifically designed to determine when non-Native DNA aka European, African and yes middle eastern DNA was first introduced into the native population and then dating that introduction ...  

But this isn't what the study was designed to do at all. Instead, it was specifically designed to 'infer the timings and proportions of ancestry contributions to Latin Americans since the colonial era' (emphasis added). These are two very different enquiries.

Quote

Its also important to note that had pre Colombian middle eastern DNA been present in the native population this study would have found it present and dated its introduction.

Can you please quote anywhere from the study itself that makes this claim? Because the authors actually state that they intentionally excluded data old enough that they could originate from 'admixture events that occurred prior to colonial-era migrations'.

Quote

But I seriously doubt it is the death knell either.

Yeah, a 'death knell' is going to take more than concluding that the South/East Mediterranean ancestry that is found across current Latin American populations 'probably [stemmed] mostly from the clandestine [i.e. secret, hidden, unknown] colonial migration of Christian converts of non-European origin (Conversos)' (emphasis added), whilst acknowledging that the population 'showing the highest estimated Sephardic ancestry across countries; ~10% on average' (Colombia) cannot be explained through documented recent immigration even though it is much higher than one would expect from colonial admixture alone.

It will also probably take more than pointing out that there is genetic evidence of more South/East Mediterranean ancestry in current Latin American populations than in the European populations whose ancestors were presumably responsible for introducing it.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[webbles]

56 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Geneticists have been able to find both Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA, thus going back over 40,000 years. As to your specific question, with the discovery of admixture,  yes geneticists can determine the geographic origin of our ancestors going back 10, 20 and further all the way back to our ancestry out of Africa.  It’s a fascinating science.  It doesn’t really support LDS truth claims but it’s still fascinating.

Just to point out, but the reason why Geneticists were able to find Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA is because they have original Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA to work with.  If they didn't have the original DNA, they wouldn't have been able to tell if any part of the DNA that is in modern humans come from Denisovans or Neanderthals.

It's kind of the same problem with the Book of Mormon.  If we had the actual DNA of Lehi, then we could tell if he was actually in the Americas.  But we don't have the actual DNA.  So we are just guessing that his DNA is going to look like other Middle Eastern DNA.  But what version of Middle Eastern DNA should we use?  To me, that is the real problem to using DNA to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon.  Honestly, I think a better way to use DNA for proof or disproof is to find more ancient American DNA and do comparisons of admixtures between the ancient DNA and pre-columbian DNA.  Where there new mixtures of DNA in between the ancient and the pre-columbian DNA?

[Fair Dinkum]

4 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The science is fascinating, but also very young. 

Only within the past year have geneticists discovered that the earliest inhabitants (dating to the Book of Mormon time period) of what is now Thailand and Cambodia have West and South Asian haplogroups like R1a, J2 and G1B, not unlike what a Lehite population might carry. This admixture wasn't identified until just a year ago (source) and it is still unclear what it means. Its also been only 3-4 years since Riech and other teams discovered an Australasian-melanesian signal in South Americans. Completely unexpectedly.

I'm completely unconvinced that Lehites sailed all the way to America in 600 BC, but when it comes to population genetics, its best to wait for more ancient DNA to be found before drawing final conclusions from the limited data that we have.

Yes I’m aware of these studies.  The Australasian DNA is very interesting. It is very ancient, 60’000 years or more. obviously acquired through a common paleoAustralian Asian ancestor prior to the American migration. 

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

So based on what you are saying, Southerton needs to change his argument.  He's not really proving that the claims of the Book of Mormon are false, but only that some traditional ideas about the Book of Mormon are false.  But if he actually did that then he'd be agreeing with the apologists.  Somehow I don't think that would ever happen.   

I haven't read his latest book, so I cannot  comment.  However, if it anything like his first book, then he will be referencing scientific data on DNA and language roots. So no, I really doubt his findings would agree with apologists.  We have discussed these topics, along with the current state of new world archaeology, and it clear to many people that science is not a friend of BoM historical claims.