Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: 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. I’ve address this in my earlier response. I agree that this was not what this study was designed to do...but it did do it none the less. Read the study. Had there been any pre Columbian middle eastern DNA this study would have unwittingly found it 9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: 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 it could originate from 'admixture events that occurred prior to colonial-era migrations'. The study won’t make this claim because by default no one but members of the LDS church believe that there was a old world migration to the new world pre Columbus
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 1 hour 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. There is a difference between being able to go back so many years following some ancestors. I am curious if one goes back 1000, 5000, 10,000 years if one could pick out any ancestor and be guaranteed find traces of their DNA or if at some point, DNA gets dumped. We know that this happens with some of the DNA and thus previous limitations where a specific ancestor’s DNA could get lost as early as five to seven generations. With more DNA testable, perhaps this isn’t as big of a problem, but has it been completely removed? That is what I am curious about because it has a lot of implications for how people think about ancestry. Some people think dna can be a shortcut to doing genealogy as in finding all the connections through a biological dna direct line from each descendant to any shred ancestor, but even siblings dna can be significantly different, so it seems to me unlikely that this is possible. Edited January 14, 2020 by Calm
webbles Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 5 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: The study won’t make this claim because by default no one but members of the LDS church believe that there was a old world migration to the new world pre Columbus Well, except for Viking interaction with America that was hundreds of years before Columbus. And of course all of the other non-LDS theories that you'll find online (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact_theories) 4
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Calm said: There is a difference between being able to go back so many years following some ancestors. I am curious if one goes back 1000, 5000, 10,000 years if one could pick out any ancestor and be guaranteed find traces of their DNA or if at some point, DNA gets dumped. We know that this happens with some of the DNA and thus previous limitations where DNA could get lost as early as five to seven generations. With more DNA testable, perhaps this isn’t as big of a problem, but has it been completely removed? That is what I am curious about because it has a lot of implications for how people think about ancestry. Theoretically yes if you had an ancient ancestors DNA their marker would be present. But it would be undistinguishable from the DNA of closely related family members. Anciently it was not uncommon to procreate within closely related familiar relationships. However if your ancient relation came from another contenannt, then it would much more likely to be successful in locating those markers. That we can see the DNA of our Neanderthal forefathers or mother’s is proof of this.
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 6 minutes ago, webbles said: Well, except for Viking interaction with America that was hundreds of years before Columbus. And of course all of the other non-LDS theories that you'll find online (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact_theories) Yes except the Vikings 😜
webbles Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 A similar situation is Ghengis Khan. We know he existed and he is less than 1000 years old. We even know people who are direct descendants of him. But we don't know what his DNA is nor can we determine if you are descendant of him just by using DNA. We don't even know what his Y haplogroup is (direct patrilineal line). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan. 2
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Theoretically yes if you had an ancient ancestors DNA their marker would be present. But it would be undistinguishable from the DNA of closely related family members. Anciently it was not uncommon to procreate within closely related familiar relationships. Of course, lots of overlap of ancestors due to intermarriage among locals. I have a couple of lines this happens to in the early American colonization. Do you have a reference to back up this claim? It is radically different from previous science, so I would like to see documentation. Added: given half of a person's DNA markers are lost every time they procreate...though different kids may get different set of markers, it just seems far fetched that somehow every ancestor's markers are somehow preserved enough that if we had their DNA, we could connected them with every person on earth currently who is their descendant if we also had access to that DNA and compared them. I would really like to see the science for that claim. Edited January 14, 2020 by Calm 3
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: I agree that this was not what this study was designed to do...but it did do it none the less. Read the study. Had there been any pre Columbian middle eastern DNA this study would have unwittingly found it I've read the study. It never makes this claim, anywhere, in any form. Quote The study won’t make this claim because by default no one but members of the LDS church believe that there was a old world migration to the new world pre Columbus To the contrary, the authors of the study clearly acknowledge the possibility of pre-Columbian migrations of some kind when they state that they intentionally excluded data potentially originating from 'admixture events that occurred prior to colonial-era migrations'. What exactly do you think this phrase refers to? I honestly don't know where you're getting your conclusions from. Edited January 14, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan 3
webbles Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Theoretically yes if you had an ancient ancestors DNA their marker would be present. But it would be undistinguishable from the DNA of closely related family members. Anciently it was not uncommon to procreate within closely related familiar relationships. However if your ancient relation came from another contenannt, then it would much more likely to be successful in locating those markers. That we can see the DNA of our Neanderthal forefathers or mother’s is proof of this. We probably don't have any Neanderthal forefathers. No Y line has been linked back to Neanderthals so it is speculated that relationships between male Neanderthals and female Humans were infertile.
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 10 minutes ago, Calm said: Of course, lots of overlap of ancestors due to intermarriage among locals. I have a couple of lines this happens to in the early American colonization. Do you have a reference to back up this claim? It is radically different from previous science, so I would like to see documentation. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4513
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4513 Thank you. Taking forever to load, so will get back to you on if I understand it or not.
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) FD....From a quick skim, this article talks about finding geographical origin, not specific ancestors. Am .I missing the connection? And is it claiming to be able to find the geopgraphical origin of every ancestor an individual has or something else? Added: As I said before, I am curious from a genealogical POV. Imagine instead of pouring through records, we ran someone's DNA, made a list of the DNA markers each specific ancestor had, and then linked people through shared markers....however, not sure how Global that would be given a parent can give a different set of markers to each kid. What if it is the nonoverlapping DNA markers that survives 30 generations? How would we connect past the siblings? Edited January 14, 2020 by Calm 2
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I've read the study. It never makes this claim, anywhere, in any form. Asked and answered twice. 26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: To the contrary, the authors of the study clearly acknowledge the possibility of pre-Columbian migrations of some kind when they state that they intentionally excluded data potentially originating from 'admixture events that occurred prior to colonial-era migrations'. What exactly do you think this phrase refers to? I’ve been scouring the “methods” and can find nothing that infers what you’re suggesting. While I’m not doubting you I would like to read this for myself in context if you could be so kind as to provide some bread crumbs to the paragraph 26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I honestly don't know where you're getting your conclusions from. We both carry our biases. To me the implications of the study are quite obvious whereas you can’t see or choose not to follow the dots. And that’s fair. I understand.
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 So I looked up GenoChip to see if therefore was something more basic and found this: Quote Both of these advanced technologies enable us to determine new components of ancestry, with thousands of newly-identified markers on the Y chromosome, and provides the highest mitochondrial DNA resolution. It allows us to decipher the regional affiliations of mixed populations, enabling you to learn what percentage of your genome is affiliated with specific geographic regions around the world. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/science-behind/ But this does not state what percentage of your genealogy (.all your ancestors), but just your genome (DNA that got passed on).
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 11 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Asked and answered twice. Sorry, mate. You've provided no answer so far. Please quote from the actual study. Quote While I’m not doubting you I would like to read this for myself in context if you could be so kind as to provide some bread crumbs to the paragraph The PDF has no page numbers. Have you tried searching for the text I quoted? Quote We both carry our biases. To me the implications of the study are quite obvious whereas you can’t see or choose not to follow the dots. I have no need for this study to validate my faith in the Book of Mormon. But I can read at a level sufficient to obtain a PhD, and the 'implications' simply aren't there. Sorry. 4
'aussieguy55 Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 39 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4513 Hello are you from Australia? That is an aussie expression
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted January 14, 2020 Popular Post Posted January 14, 2020 14 hours ago, smac97 said: ................................................................................ I think the critique of his position, which largely ignores the text itself, in favor of traditions and vague "narratives" which arose well before the advent of population genetics, is legitimate. We need to give primacy to the text itself. Southerton seems to mostly ignore that, in preference of mostly 19th-century inferences and conjecture about the text. That just won't do. Also, gotta love the loaded terminology of "vanishing DNA." I guess that excuses him from addressing founder effect, genetic drift, genetic bottleneck, or any of the other totally legitimate elements of genetic science and analysis that impact on this topic. Again, Southerton seems to be talking about generalized teachings about the text of the Book of Mormon, rather than the text itself. Quote .........................reinterpreted the Book of Mormon narrative in an attempt to accommodate vanishing DNA. What is so odd about this false statement is that he has had plenty of time to be informed that the DNA double-helix had not yet been discovered by Rosalind Franklin in England when LDS anthropologists at BYU had already determined that the small, specific distances inside the BofM narrative forced them to adopt a small-scale geography. No scholar has a choice, once a close-reading of the text is done. Only many decades later did DNA research come into vogue, and Southerton, Murphy, and others studiously ignored BofM scholarship in favor of a silly continental view -- which many Mormons (including me) used to hold. I'd be willing to allow that ridiculous assumption first time around, but Southerton and the other anti-Mormons have had plenty of time to absorb real scholarship on such issues. Yet here we are decades later, with Southerton and others still holding to the shallow view that a scholarly reading of the BofM text is not only unnecessary, but merely plays into the hands of "an attempt to accommodate vanishing DNA." If that is not disingenuous, I don't know what is. 14 hours ago, smac97 said: ................................... What does Southerton have to say that is responsive to the Church's essay on this topic? Anything? That essay concludes: "DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon." Is this factually, scientifically correct, or not?................................... The so-called "Church essay" is an essay written by scholars at Church leaders' request. The Brethren did not write it. It is no better than the scholars who wrote it. Indeed, DNA research is a very fast developing field, with many new discoveries being made all the time. The only truly legitimate way in which DNA studies might be readily applied to the BofM is through excavation and testing of skeletal remains. Meantime, we already know that Southerton is wrong to assume that all Amerind DNA comes from only one Asian source. For example, haplotype C3* Y chromosomes were present in the “First American” ancestral population, and have been lost by genetic drift from most modern populations except the Ecuadorians. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312352/ . Indeed, Australo-Melanesian skeletal remains from Sumidouro Cave, Lagoa Santa, central Brazil, have no morphological affinities with present-day Native Americans or East Asians. These results agree with other studies and suggest that the skeletons may derive from a wave of migrants that entered the New World before the characteristic 'Mongoloid' morphology spread throughout East Asia. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.666.5232&rep=rep1&type=pdf , and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242242229_Early_Holocene_human_skeletal_remains_from_Cerca_Grande_Lagoa_Santa_Central_Brazil_and_the_origins_of_the_first_Americans . Dr. Reich (Harvard) and his colleagues found that some living people in the Amazon carry some DNA that is most similar to that of people who live today in Australia and New Guinea. If everything is as tight and tidy as Southerton claims, how can this be? 5
Robert F. Smith Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: I’ve address this in my earlier response. I agree that this was not what this study was designed to do...but it did do it none the less. Read the study. Had there been any pre Columbian middle eastern DNA this study would have unwittingly found it............................ False. We have plenty of evidence of disappearance of DNA from populations, which is why we need actual skeletal remains to test. 3
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: Theoretically yes if you had an ancient ancestors DNA their marker would be present. The more I think I think about this claim, the less it makes sense to me. This would mean that DNA was cumulative at least to a certain extent in order to accommodate growing number of ancestors contributing. But each person gets the same amount of DNA as their parents by getting half from each (simplifying to see if math can be used to estimate probabilities). There may be a lot of overlap or there may be little. One might randomly happen upon someone with no overlap between ancestors, but the likelihood would be close to impossible surely? Sounds like a math problem with variables based on the structure of DNA (how many potential markers*** to work with) as well as how the markers work (do markers travel alone or in packs as in certain mutations tend to occur with other certain markers ***** because they are more successful for surviving or whatever caused one mutation often causes another at the same time so more than one marker can be used to track that ancestry line all the way back). How small can a DNA sequence be and still be considered enough to be identified as a marker? I am sure there are a ton of other questions on this. What percentage of DNA is useful for marker tracking? All, very small, somewhere in between?)**** Can single nucleotides be part of more than one marker or once a marker, it is no longer available for use in another marker? *** Quote A genetic marker is a gene or DNA sequence with a known location on a chromosome that can be used to identify individuals or species. It can be described as a variation (which may arise due to mutation or alteration in the genomic loci) that can be observed. Quote A gene is the basic physical and functional unit of heredity. Genes are made up of DNA. Some genes act as instructions to make molecules called proteins. However, many genes do not code for proteins. In humans, genes vary in size from a few hundred DNA bases to more than 2 million bases. The Human Genome Projectestimated that humans have between 20,000 and 25,000 genes. Every person has two copies of each gene, one inherited from each parent. Most genes are the same in all people, but a small number of genes (less than 1 percent of the total) are slightly different between people. Alleles are forms of the same gene with small differences in their sequence of DNA bases. These small differences contribute to each person’s unique physical features. Does this mean only 250 genes are useful for tracking markers? https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/gene ****wiki Quote A genetic marker may be a short DNA sequence, such as a sequence surrounding a single base-pair change (single nucleotide polymorphism, SNP), or a long one, like minisatellites. *****wiki Quote It is known that pieces of DNA that lie near each other on a chromosome tend to be inherited together. This property enables the use of a marker, which can then be used to determine the precise inheritance pattern of the gene that has not yet been exactly localized. Looks to be way too complicated for simple ballpark permutation, etc. Just what I expected. I may try and find how the experts measure possibilities. Edited January 14, 2020 by Calm
smac97 Posted January 14, 2020 Author Posted January 14, 2020 11 hours ago, stemelbow said: Well I'm happy others who have read the book in question have chimed in. So am I. I was hoping to get a conversation going. 11 hours ago, stemelbow said: It seemed to me you were overstating things. Well we'll see. I am certainly no expert on population genetics. 11 hours ago, stemelbow said: At this point I'm still comfortable with the conclusion I settled on. There is no scientific evidence for lamanite existence. I'm not yet persuaded that population genetics can materially inform a discussion about the provenance of The Book of Mormon (specifically, the migration of Lehi's family to the New World). 11 hours ago, stemelbow said: To say its inconclusive in hopes that there were lamanites is understandable for those who hold out hope for BoM support. "To say it's inconclusive" may also be the most accurate assessment of the probative value and relevance of the evidence. It may also be that your mantra ("There is no scientific evidence for Lamanite existence") is based on a faulty premise. 11 hours ago, stemelbow said: I suppose there is hope for bigfoot supporters as well on a similar precedent (whether DNA ifactors into their hope would be irrelevant). Yawn. -Smac
smac97 Posted January 14, 2020 Author Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: The study won’t make this claim because by default no one but members of the LDS church believe that there was a old world migration to the new world pre Columbus That is simply not true. Wikipedia has a rather substantial entry on various "pre-columbian contact" theories. See here: Quote Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories speculate about possible visits to or interactions with the Americas, the indigenous peoples of the Americas, or both, by people from Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania at a time prior to Christopher Columbus' first voyage to the Caribbean in 1492 (i.e. during any part of the so-called pre-Columbian era). Such contact is accepted as having occurred in prehistory during the human migrations that led to the original settlement of the Americas, but has been hotly debated in the historic period. Only one historical case of pre-Columbian contact is widely accepted among the scientific and scholarly mainstream. Maritime explorations by Norse peoples from Scandinavia during the late 10th century led to the Norse colonization of Greenland and of L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, which preceded Columbus' arrival in the Americas by some 500 years. There is also significant evidence of material exchange between the peoples of Siberia and Alaska dating at least five centuries before Columbus' travels to the New World. Scientific and scholarly responses to other claims of post-prehistory, pre-Columbian contact have varied. Some of these claims are examined in reputable peer-reviewed sources. Many others—especially those based on circumstantial or ambiguous interpretations of archaeological evidence, alleged out-of-place artifacts, superficial cultural comparisons, comments in historical documents, or narrative accounts—have been dismissed as fringe science, pseudoarchaeology, or pseudohistory. Here's the outline: Quote Contents 1 Norse trans-oceanic contact 2 Siberia-Alaska contact 3 Claims of Polynesian contact 3.1 Sweet potato 3.2 Peruvian mummies 3.3 California canoes 3.4 Chickens 3.5 Ageratum conyzoides 3.6 Turmeric 3.7 Linguistics of Stone Axe 3.8 Similarity of features and genetics 4 Claims of East Asian contact 4.1 Claims of contact with Ecuador 4.2 Claims of Chinese contact 4.3 Claims of Japanese contact 5 Claims of Indian contact 6 Claims of African and Middle Eastern contact 6.1 Claims involving African contact 6.2 Claims involving Arab contact 6.3 Claims involving ancient Phoenician contact 6.4 Claims involving ancient Judaic contact 7 Claims of European contact 7.1 Solutrean hypothesis 7.2 Claims involving ancient Roman contact 7.2.1 Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head 7.3 Claims involving Greek contact in 4th century BCE 7.4 14th- and 15th-century European contact 7.5 Irish and Welsh legends 8 Claims of trans-oceanic travel originating from the New World 8.1 Claims of Egyptian coca and tobacco 8.2 Icelander DNA finding 8.3 Norse legends and sagas 8.4 Inuit 9 Religious claims 9.1 Claims of Pre-Columbian contact with Christian missionaries 9.2 Claims of ancient Jewish migration to the Americas 9.3 Mormon teachings We are far from alone in positing pre-columbian trans-oceanic contact with the Americas. Now, are all of these theories correct? Likely not. Are all of them necessarily false? Well, the book is still open. I'm surprised at how closed-minded some folks are, even to the mere possibility of such contact. I think it is rather startling that anyone can presume to definitively declare that the migration of Lehi and his family, totaling perhaps 30 or so people, 2,600 years ago has been falsified by population genetics. That seems to border on the dogmatic. (Cue the obligatory reductio ad absurdum potshot from Stemelbow in 3...2...) Thanks, -Smac Edited January 14, 2020 by smac97 2
stemelbow Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: So am I. I was hoping to get a conversation going. Well we'll see. I am certainly no expert on population genetics. I'm not yet persuaded that population genetics can materially inform a discussion about the provenance of The Book of Mormon (specifically, the migration of Lehi's family to the New World). "To say it's inconclusive" may also be the most accurate assessment of the probative value and relevance of the evidence. It may also be that your mantra ("There is no scientific evidence for Lamanite existence") is based on a faulty premise. Yawn. -Smac I went ahead and purchased the book last night to get informed. It's got a couple of books in front of it. Not sure when I'll get into it. I'll look forward to any responses BOMC or Interpreter might have. Have fun.
smac97 Posted January 14, 2020 Author Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I went ahead and purchased the book last night to get informed. It's got a couple of books in front of it. Not sure when I'll get into it. I'll look forward to any responses BOMC or Interpreter might have. Have fun. Dr. Southerton is discussing his book on Reddit. This exchange caught my attention: Quote Dr. Southerton, thank you so much for your scholarship. I admire your work and your courage to speak out. I love the cover of your new book and think your daughter did an excellent job creating it. I am looking forward to reading The Sacred Curse. Does your book discuss Ugo Perego’s apologetic arguments in this article? https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/is-decrypting-the-genetic-legacy-of-americas-indigenous-populations-key-to-the-historicity-of-the-book-of-mormon/ I’m specifically interested to know if your book addresses the following claims from Dr. Perego. Dr. Perego claims that when researchers find anomalous DNA among Native American population samples, they are immediately considered to be from post-Columbian mixing and are thrown out. Dr. Perego claims Middle Eastern DNA could have disappeared through a genetic bottleneck. Dr. Perego postulates that genetic drift may account for the missing Middle Eastern DNA. The lack of Middle Eastern DNA might be due to the founder effect, according to Dr. Perego. Since these arguments are also mentioned in the Gospel Topics DNA essay, it’s obvious that Dr. Perego was a major contributor. Southerton's response: Quote I address Perego's claims and comment on the essay. But I don't go into an extensive rebuttal of the essay and apologetic spin for several reasons. For a start I didn't want a book that was 400 pages in length and as boring as LDS apologetics. Hmm. Engaging substantive and directly-on-point scholarship is "boring," and hence not worthwhile. Sounds like a cop-out. Quote Founder effect, genetic drift and bottleneck effect are all different excuses for the one problem - Lamanite DNA has disappeared, specifically mitochondrial DNA. Another cop-out. Quote Genomic DNA studies get around these three issues because it is so amazingly sensitive. If an Israelite population migrated to the Americas it would be virtually impossible to escape detection. Well, my curiosity is officiall piqued. A group of 30 or so people (the "Israelite population") migrating across the oceans to the Americas 2,600 years ago was an event that population genetics is now "virtually" guaranteed to detect? Quote As I said above the genome is like a computer's hard drive and it contains vast swathes of ancestry information. Ancestry.dna currently tests over 500,000 markers. And this information is sufficient to "virtually" rule out the migration of 30 or so Israelites to the Americas 2,600 years ago? Quote Using genomic markers (say 500,000) you can detect down to between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 100,000 parts foreign DNA in a Native American's genome. This exact test has been done on over 6,000 Native Americans from Mesoamerica and other parts of the Americas. Not one of those individuals had pre-Columbian Middle Eastern DNA. We know what Lehi's "Middle Eastern DNA" looks like? Quote In case you hear the same old lie that Southerton doesn't understand population genetics; Dr Perego is an expert on mitochondrial DNA, not genomic DNA. I led a research team for almost 10 years that carried out population genetics research on forest trees by studying their genomic DNA. Ah. A battle of the experts. This happens in court all the time. Elsewhere, Southerton says this: Quote All Book of Mormon models REQUIRE the Lehite people to have led civilisations for 1000 years. It is utterly ridiculous to believe they made such a tiny genetic impact that its now invisible. So the "Lehites" only married other Lehites? Like some incestuous dynasty in Egypt? "It is utterly ridiculous to believe they made such a tiny genetic impact." This is a "scientific" argument? So a group of thirty or so intermingling into and with a pre-existing population of millions would have made a huge "genetic impact"? Or perhas he's just saying they would have made a nearly-certain-to-be-detectable-by-modern-genetic-studies impact. And here: Quote We can know for sure what Jewish DNA or Middle Eastern DNA looks like. And here: Quote Genomic DNA tells us Lamanites, or Israelites, are not even AMONG the ancestors of the American Indians. There is zero Lamanite DNA. We know what "Lamanite DNA" looks like? This is a "scientific" conclusion? Well, I'll buy the book. I dislike reading .pdf books, but I'll bite the bullet. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 14, 2020 by smac97 3
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, smac97 said: Quoted by Smac: All Book of Mormon models REQUIRE the Lehite people to have led civilisations for 1000 years. It is utterly ridiculous to believe they made such a tiny genetic impact that its now invisible. This would seem to imply that a comparable size group without the political influence assumed here could make a tiny genetic impact that it's now invisible. Edited January 14, 2020 by Calm
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 14 hours ago, Calm said: That takes us back 250 to 300 years. After that are there ancestors whose DNA is not present? Older science suggests ancestors may start dropping out of one's DNA as early as 5-7 generations. What makes the difference now? Please explain. https://gcbias.org/2013/11/04/how-much-of-your-genome-do-you-inherit-from-a-particular-ancestor/ I really enjoyed the math here and the perspective. It seems this is entirely done backwards though for the question at hand (I'm not saying the results would be different). The question should be what is the chance that any of my descendants will have a detectable portion of my dna in x generations. And further, what percentage of my descendants will have that portion. Not sure if Southerton addresses this or not. 1
Recommended Posts