Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: This test will tie in with every known male ancestor. Can you quote where it claims this please.
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: Can I just say that I sincerely appreciate your approach. While I appreciate that you probably come to this discussion with a particular point of view. You at least appear to approach this subject with an open mind and a sincere desire to find actual answers to this subjects questions. I appreciate your comment as my approach could come across as annoying to some since it is me thinking aloud without really resolving anything yet.
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Thinking said: We are not talking about a single ancestor when talking about the possibility of finding Lamanite DNA. We are talking about possibly 30 ancestors, are we not? Assuming all members of the Lehite party had kids who had kids, etc. There is of course debate on how many other ancestors there would be from that generation, how much likely overlap due to marriage locally (ancestors that show up more than once in the pedigree), etc. And at what point intermarriage with others would have started the dilution process. Probably other concerns I have forgotten. I am primarily wondering about the limits of the tech. After that is established, one can then say it works in these conditions, but not in others and see which match up best with the text or whatever sources one wants to use. Edited January 14, 2020 by Calm
Metis_LDS Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 I don't know but am I the only openly First Nations on the board? Anyway it is the DNA from my Mother that is Native North America my Dad was French with roots nack to France. What I find interesting is that at Church I tell people about my half blood Native link. NO one ever says a word about Lamanites to me. My own thought is that my Native ancestors at one point where by themselves. There may have been some inter marriage with the Book of Mormon people. My own feelings are Laman and Lemuel are hard to love. I need more information about the good side of the Lamanites. Please do not quote me anything from the BOM about them I already know what is there. 3
InCognitus Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 5 hours ago, rockpond said: I agree... the actual text of the Book of Mormon (excluding introductory materials) makes no claim about a connection to today's Native American people but as a church we certainly did. It strikes me as revisionist history to pretend that both church leaders and members through official teachings, programs (Lamanite Placement Program, Lamanite Generation), and culture weren't making the claim that Native American populations are direct descendants of the Book of Mormon people. Maybe I missed it, but has anyone in this thread defined what it means to be a "Lamanite" based on the Book of Mormon text? I think we need to do that before we pass judgement on some of the prior statements.
why me Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 22 hours ago, stemelbow said: I mean to suggest there is no evidence, in a scientific sense, to say modern Native Americans have Lamanite ancestors, genetically in this case. If you are want to say it's possible the modern Native Americans could have had ancestors either genetically or not, be my guest. But such a conclusion carries no scientific weight. I mean anyone can also think there is a Bigfoot roaming the country-side--and some of them might think he's Cain. It was always my understanding that Lamanites were a generic term to describe the people who were not Nephites. That would mean most of the people in North America, South America and Central America. But I could be wrong. 2
Metis_LDS Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, InCognitus said: Maybe I missed it, but has anyone in this thread defined what it means to be a "Lamanite" based on the Book of Mormon text? I think we need to do that before we pass judgement on some of the prior statements. In the D&C section 28 and 54 speaks about the borders of the Lamanites.
rockpond Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 13 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said: I don't know but am I the only openly First Nations on the board? Anyway it is the DNA from my Mother that is Native North America my Dad was French with roots nack to France. What I find interesting is that at Church I tell people about my half blood Native link. NO one ever says a word about Lamanites to me. My own thought is that my Native ancestors at one point where by themselves. There may have been some inter marriage with the Book of Mormon people. My own feelings are Laman and Lemuel are hard to love. I need more information about the good side of the Lamanites. Please do not quote me anything from the BOM about them I already know what is there. All we've got is what was written/edited by the "opposing side": Nephites. I'm confident that Laman and Lemuel had more to their stories but what we've received is just Nephi's account written AFTER the brothers had parted ways. 1
rockpond Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 10 minutes ago, InCognitus said: Maybe I missed it, but has anyone in this thread defined what it means to be a "Lamanite" based on the Book of Mormon text? I think we need to do that before we pass judgement on some of the prior statements. Based on the Book of Mormon text, Lamanites are descendants of Laman and Lemuel and all those who joined with them.
Metis_LDS Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: All we've got is what was written/edited by the "opposing side": Nephites. I'm confident that Laman and Lemuel had more to their stories but what we've received is just Nephi's account written AFTER the brothers had parted ways. Yes the humanity is messy as always. You have a good point. 1
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 36 minutes ago, Calm said: Can you quote where it claims this please. https://www.familytreedna.com/products/y-dna This test won't identify the names of these mystery ancestors (without additional genealogical work on the male searchers part) but if male, it will follow the family male line back and assist when confronting a difficult genealogical impasse.
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: https://www.familytreedna.com/products/y-dna This test won't identify the names of these mystery ancestors (without additional genealogical work on the male searchers part) but if male, it will follow the family male line back and assist when confronting a difficult genealogical impasse. So a line can be followed this way as long as each in the line is male, but not every male ancestor whose line is at least once through a female, correct? (I have got a nasty bug and need to doublecheck stuff in case I am comprehending poorly due to phasing in and out). Iow, this test’s purpose is to trace the line your surname comes through (assuming males are not adopting wives’s family name as might happen in some cases of higher status). Edited January 14, 2020 by Calm
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 5 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: https://www.familytreedna.com/products/y-dna This test won't identify the names of these mystery ancestors (without additional genealogical work on the male searchers part) but if male, it will follow the family male line back and assist when confronting a difficult genealogical impasse. I see others can edit their posts...but I can't...Oh well had another link to share with the poster named Calm https://isogg.org/wiki/Y_chromosome_DNA_tests
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Calm said: So a line can be followed this way as long as each in the line is male, but not every male ancestor whose line is at least once through a female, correct? (I have got a nasty bug and need to doublecheck stuff in case I am comprehending poorly due to phasing in and out). All males come through a male line no exceptions...all the way back to Africa. So for example "son to father to father to father to father to father to father to father to father to father to father to father to father etc.
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: I see others can edit their posts...but I can't...Oh well had another link to share with the poster named Calm https://isogg.org/wiki/Y_chromosome_DNA_tests 25 posts gets you editing privileges and starting threads.
InCognitus Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 Just now, rockpond said: Based on the Book of Mormon text, Lamanites are descendants of Laman and Lemuel and all those who joined with them. Depends on which part of the Book of Mormon we are talking about, right? As time goes on, basically anyone not a Nephite was called a Lamanite, regardless of their genetics. And if that's the right definition in the end, then the people that remained in the land after the destruction of the Nephites might well be called "Lamanites". From Book of Mormon Central: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/who-are-the-lamanites Quote This fluidity in the terms “Lamanites” and “Nephites” persisted throughout the history of Book of Mormon peoples. “Like the term Nephite,” researcher Matthew Roper explained, “the term Lamanite has a number of different meanings in scripture.”3 This includes: “Actual descendants of Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael who followed Laman’s leadership after the death of Lehi (2 Nephi 5:1–6). Modern revelation indicates that among Lamanites today are some, yet to be revealed, who are descendants of Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael and that they will one day receive a knowledge of the gospel (D&C 3:18).” “Those who did not believe in the warnings and revelations of God through Nephi (2 Nephi 5:6).” “Those not friendly to Nephi or the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:14; Jacob 1:13–14).” “Those who rejected and did not believe in the records and traditions of the Nephites (Alma 3:11).” “Those who intermarried with the Lamanites (Alma 3:9, 15).” “Those who fought against the Nephites (Alma 3:16).” “Any who dissented from the Nephites (Alma 3:17).” “Any led away by the Lamanites (Alma 3:10).” “Those who rejected the teachings of Christ, together with their children and ideological sympathizers (4 Nephi 1:38).” “After the destruction of the Nephites as a cohesive group, the seed of anyone who at any time had once been numbered with the ‘people of Nephi’ (Alma 45:13; cf. 45:14).”4 1
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 Just now, Calm said: 25 posts gets you editing privileges and starting threads. And Boom just like that "Edit" now appear on my posts. Thanks Calm. I couldn't help but notice that you use a platypus icon. Another Aussie by change?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: I fail to recognize your point? Are you trying to apply the founders effect to the conclusion of this study? You falsely stated that "Had there been any pre Columbian middle eastern DNA this study would have unwittingly found it." This assumes that such DNA would exist among modern Amerinds, and that all tribes in the Americas have been adequately sampled (scientific sampling applied). i countered that we have plenty of cases of DNA disappearing through time, and that it is much more effective to sample actual skeletal remains (ancientDNA). Are you in denial of these simple forensic DNA observations? Are you defending Southerton's mistaken assumptions? 2
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said: All males come through a male line no exceptions...all the way back to Africa. So for example "son to father to father to father to father to father to father to father to father to father to father to father to father etc. Brain is a bit slow today in creating the visual images I usually do my thinking with, probably clogged with more than mucus. Since my brain is too lazy, I need to look at a pedigree chart and see how It works out. Right now I am remembering the identifying of the ydna as a blue line on one side, the mt dna as a red line on the opposite side and the autosomal parts in the middle from one of the websites I wandered into last night. So only one line per individual like that, but also one for each father in the lines, so if one could isolate what dna came from which great grandpa, I am assuming that could be useful. I probably should stop posting as probably making a massive silly error somewhere that will finally get processed after I get some decent sleep and I will feel like an idiot. So going to take a break now as I have got to get some antibiotics from the doctor anyway. May come back to it later today or wait a day or two.
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 14 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: And Boom just like that "Edit" now appear on my posts. Thanks Calm. I couldn't help but notice that you use a platypus icon. Another Aussie by change? Not a platypus, but a mole. Very old joke, but I keep it for cuteness. Husband is half Aussie, but my mother in law has been gone long enough it has been awhile since family dinners were peppered by her accent (still there even after 40 years after immigrating). I miss it. My husband does a pretty good effort when he thinks about it. If I ever manage to travel again, that is at the top of our list.
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You falsely stated that "Had there been any pre Columbian middle eastern DNA this study would have unwittingly found it." This assumes that such DNA would exist among modern Amerinds, and that all tribes in the Americas have been adequately sampled (scientific sampling applied). i countered that we have plenty of cases of DNA disappearing through time, and that it is much more effective to sample actual skeletal remains (ancientDNA). Are you in denial of these simple forensic DNA observations? Are you defending Southerton's mistaken assumptions? For clarification, Are you contending that "IF" ancient middle eastern DNA, consistent with a Book of Mormon timeline, existed that it would be undetectable in the many Genomic Studies that have either been published are are currently underway and in the process of being evaluated? You do realize that modern day genecists can and do analysis ancient DNA admixture in modern human DNA to determine ancestry origins, right? This is why we know that Amerindians migrated from Asia and not the middle east. Sorry I'm not trying to be flippant but your assertion, as I understand it, projects some foundation of knowledge in this area and yet runs contrary to my own. Edited January 14, 2020 by Fair Dinkum
rockpond Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 23 minutes ago, InCognitus said: Depends on which part of the Book of Mormon we are talking about, right? As time goes on, basically anyone not a Nephite was called a Lamanite, regardless of their genetics. And if that's the right definition in the end, then the people that remained in the land after the destruction of the Nephites might well be called "Lamanites". From Book of Mormon Central: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/who-are-the-lamanites In the Book of Mormon context, everyone eventually unites with either the Nephites or the Lamanites. But, everyone is either a Lehite or a Jaredite (after Coriantumr dies and there are no more Mulekites). Lehites and Jaredites all become Nephites and Lamanites (by name). But genetically still all from the middle East, per the text. If one wants to make the argument that the Lamanites could have intermarried with other indigenous people, that's fine, but it is going outside of the text (which seems to make a big deal of encountering other peoples). The Book of Mormon record ends circa 400 AD but revelation referring to Lamanites picks up again some 1,400 years later in the D&C. Since the D&C doesn't re-define the term Lamanite we meed tp assume that it is continuing to use it the way it was used in the Book of Mormon, where the word originated. So, if one wants to claim that latter day references to Lamanites are identifying Native American populations into which a relatively small proportion of Lamanites have integrated then, once again, that is going outside of the texts that we have.
Fair Dinkum Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 19 minutes ago, Calm said: Not a platypus, but a mole. Very old joke, but I keep it for cuteness. Yes I can see my error. No webbing in front feet and it's beak is too thin. My mistake.
Thinking Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Calm said: We are talking about possibly 30 ancestors, are we not? Assuming all members of the Lehite party had kids who had kids, etc. There is of course debate on how many other ancestors there would be from that generation, how much likely overlap due to marriage locally (ancestors that show up more than once in the pedigree), etc. And at what point intermarriage with others would have started the dilution process. Probably other concerns I have forgotten. I am primarily wondering about the limits of the tech. After that is established, one can then say it works in these conditions, but not in others and see which match up best with the text or whatever sources one wants to use. Who knows? The following verse suggests that Lehi's party was alone. Quote And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. (2 Nephi 1:8)
Robert F. Smith Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said: For clarification, Are you contending that "IF" ancient middle eastern DNA, consistent with a Book of Mormon timeline, existed that it would be undetectable in the many Genomic Studies that have either been published are are currently underway and in the process of being evaluated? You do realize that modern day genecists can and do analysis ancient DNA admixture in modern human DNA to determine ancestry origins, right? This is why we know that Amerindians migrated from Asia and not the middle east. Sorry I'm not trying to be flippant but your assertion, as I understand it, projects some foundation of knowledge in this area and yet runs contrary to my own. Well, if you don't know the difference between modern DNA and aDNA, I can't help you. I had wrongly assumed that you knew the difference between testing modern people, on the one hand, and testing skeletal remains from thousands of years ago, on the other. If that seems odd, perhaps you might want to take an anthropology class which deals with DNA there at a university in Australia (when the bushfires are out), as I did at UCLA. As for the remainder of my comments, I thought I was pretty clear. Obviously not.
Recommended Posts