Who Are Indians Really?

[_charity]

I'd suggest, at a minimum, you seek out the Sunstone presentation entitled "DNA and Lamanite Identity." It's a free download at the Sunstone website.

CKS

I tried to find it by subject search, by topic, couldn't find it. A link would have been nice.

[_The Dude]

I predict this thread will get no traffic. Why? Because it establishes in scientific tersm why the non-presence of "Hebrew" DNA does not prove that Lehi is a myth.

Who first made the bad argument that "non-presence of 'Hebrew' DNA" is trouble for the Book of Mormon? Was it Tom Murphy? It's a very bad argument for two reasons:

1) There's no such "Hebrew" signature that hypothetical descendants of Hebrew colonists (~2600 years ago) ought to have. There are markers they could have but even these would not be definitive. So the argument has a flawed premise.

2) The vast majority of Native Americans have mtDNA and Y chromosomes that mark them as descendants of much earlier colonists (~10,000 years ago), probably from Asia. So the "Hebrew" argument is totally unnecessary -- except to greedy anti-mormons who want to go after minimalist Book of Mormon models.

[_Mercury]

You know what we need right now? Someone in the field. Oh Look!

This article is describing the pitfalls of using a DNA marker to define your individual ancestry. Obviously, there's more than one way to use DNA markers. Another way to use a DNA test is when you already have a population which you define as Native American and you create a profile of this population for comparison with other populations around the world. The scientists in this article are not disputing the second methodology, which happens to be the methodology giving rise to the Book of Mormon controversy.

No doubt there are critics/apologists who do not understand how DNA tests are used and what they mean, and these people will likely be confused by this article, but really it's talking about a different use of DNA tests than the one that's relevant to the Lamanite question.

I included this so you would have another chance to read it instead of reading half the first sentence followed by your eyes glazing over in angered disbelief. Now go back and read it. After that I want you to call up these scientists and apologize for misrepresenting their research in order to support a racist, sexist exclusionary system of power and fleecing the bleating sheep.

I would be very sad if I were you and retired, knowing I'd wasted my life with something you thought you had proven true many a time when in actuality you just were throwing up pathetic attempts at justifying a fraud.

I pity you.

[_charity]

This article is describing the pitfalls of using a DNA marker to define your individual ancestry. Obviously, there's more than one way to use DNA markers. Another way to use a DNA test is when you already have a population which you define as Native American and you create a profile of this population for comparison with other populations around the world.

No, we understand this, but you have not recognized, evidently, that while we can create a profile of Native Americans, (even though random sampling is a crock and we all know it), but there is no Lehite profile to match it with. We know that Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh. But we don't know if it was through a patriarchal line, or through his mother. We have not a clue about Ishmael, except if he was a kinsman, we might assume Manasseh somewhere. But what kind of DNA is that? And for Sariah and Mrs. Ishmael? And Zoram?

So, the dude, tell us what the profile is that we are comparing to the modern American Indian profile?

No doubt there are critics/apologists who do not understand how DNA tests are used and what they mean, and these people will likely be confused by this article, but really it's talking about a different use of DNA tests than the one that's relevant to the Lamanite question.

Let me explain what I see as the "Lamanite question" and then you tell me what DNA can or can't do. The claim has been made by the Church that Native American's are descended from Lamanites, . And the intro statement "all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. " And the change has been made to "among" the ancestors of. . .

Can DNA demosntrate conclusively that there are or are not individuals with the unknown genetic profile of the described group in the ancestral tree of modern American Indians?

[_evolving]

Charity -- here is a link to SL01333, DNA and Lamanite Identity: 'A Galileo Event'? -http://www.sunstonelive.com/download/mp3s/SL01333.mp3



If you are interested in other Sunstone productions - all events prior to 2004 are now available free of charge..
http://sunstoneonline.com/symposium/symp-mp3s.asp

[_charity]

I predict this thread will get no traffic. Why? Because it establishes in scientific tersm why the non-presence of "Hebrew" DNA does not prove that Lehi is a myth.

Who first made the bad argument that "non-presence of 'Hebrew' DNA" is trouble for the Book of Mormon? Was it Tom Murphy? It's a very bad argument for two reasons:

1) There's no such "Hebrew" signature that hypothetical descendants of Hebrew colonists (~2600 years ago) ought to have. There are markers they could have but even these would not be definitive. So the argument has a flawed premise.

2) The vast majority of Native Americans have mtDNA and Y chromosomes that mark them as descendants of much earlier colonists (~10,000 years ago), probably from Asia. So the "Hebrew" argument is totally unnecessary -- except to greedy anti-mormons who want to go after minimalist Book of Mormon models.

You posted this while I was replying to you. We do not disagree at all on point 1.

On #2, when you correctly talk about mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA that "mark them as descendants" of colonists from Asia, you are using exaclty the argument used in the article I posted. The article makes the point that these two types of DNA testing are not reliable in identifiying specific possible ancestors.

[_charity]

Charity -- here is a link to SL01333, DNA and Lamanite Identity: 'A Galileo Event'? -http://www.sunstonelive.com/download/mp3s/SL01333.mp3

Thanks, evolving, but I don't do mp3's. I just would like a link to the article on the website. Or a better way to reach it through the search fundtion. But I appreciate the effort.

[_The Dude]

(even though random sampling is a crock and we all know it)

Maybe your notion of random sampling is a crock. Maybe this is the flaw in your understanding of how the relevant DNA studies are done. There's actually a great deal of selection (see below).

So, the dude, tell us what the profile is that we are comparing to the modern American Indian profile?

Please read my second post in this thread and you will see my answer. (Ah, you did. Good.)

Let me explain what I see as the "Lamanite question" and then you tell me what DNA can or can't do. The claim has been made by the Church that Native American's are descended from Lamanites.

Is that all "the Church" has ever claimed? Talk about a crock!

Whatever, it's 2008 and there's no point arguing about what "the church" claims now. <wink>

Can DNA demosntrate conclusively that there are or are not individuals with the unknown genetic profile of the described group in the ancestral tree of modern American Indians?

I think we all know that DNA studies are limited to addressing the big picture of Native American origins. The article you cited in your OP is talking about a very little picture: questions of individual relatedness. Do you acknowledge the difference? Okay, maybe it still isn't clear.

On #2, when you correctly talk about mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA that "mark them as descendants" of colonists from Asia, you are using exaclty the argument used in the article I posted. The article makes the point that these two types of DNA testing are not reliable in identifiying specific possible ancestors.

Okay, in your article they are dealing with an individual, probably a white guy, who wants to say he has some indian ancestry in order to access legal benefits. The white guy's identity is in question, and he wants to establish it with DNA links between himself and groups of modern indians. But there are pitfalls. There are other ways for the white guy to have gotten that DNA besides having a long lost comanche grandmother.

In point #2 the scientists are studying groups of indians whose recent pedigree is known. They may be comanche who have lived among the tribe for as long as anyone remembers. Important: these people are selected for the study because they are unlikely to have european contamination. That is a critical difference versus the white guy mentioned above. Now, at the outset you could worry that contamination would still be found in these natives, but as a matter of fact these people nearly always fall into the few haplogroups mentioned in your article, and from this we get the big picture of native american origins. It certainly doesn't define every person that ever came to this hemisphere (Vikings, Romans, Hebrews, etc), but it does tell us who their main ancestors were: Asians ~10,000 years ago, not "others" ~2,600 years ago. Hopefully we agree on that last part.

So again, the difference is the source of uncertainty. When you are talking about one individual with questionable history, false positives and false negatives are so likely that the tests are meaningless for him. When you are talking about whole populations, selected for a relatively "known" history, those variables smooth out. They do smooth out, and a remarkably homogenous picture has emerged for those indians who are selected based on their likelyhood of being pureblooded. So stop complaining about random sampling. Randomness is not part of the study design.

[_charity]

Maybe your notion of random sampling is a crock. Maybe this is the flaw in your understanding of how the relevant DNA studies are done. There's actually a great deal of selection (see below).

The random sampling I am used to is the "every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample." So, every Native American has a chance to have his/her DNA tested? What about those who refuse? What about those who are in remote locations?

Is that all "the Church" has ever claimed? Talk about a crock! Whatever, it's 2008 and there's no point arguing about what "the church" claims now. <wink>

The "Church" never taught that all Indians were 100% Lamanite. And in fact, the "Church" taught that Lamanite and Nephites were not totally blood lines. If you read the Book of Mormon you see that there was quite some fluidity in the groups, since the guiding principle was belief in the religion.

I think we all know that DNA studies are limited to addressing the big picture of Native American origins. The article you cited in your OP is talking about a very little picture: questions of individual relatedness. Do you acknowledge the difference? Okay, maybe it still isn't clear.

I see the difference. But what we are talking is the importance to individuals. Not the big picture. That is where promises of blessing go. To indviduals.

Okay, in your article they are dealing with an individual, probably a white guy, who wants to say he has some indian ancestry in order to access legal benefits. The white guy's identity is in question, and he wants to establish it with DNA links between himself and groups of modern indians. But there are pitfalls. There are other ways for the white guy to have gotten that DNA besides having a long lost comanche grandmother.

And yet in one of their examples they correctly speak of a person who has 31 comanche ancestors, and yet the mtDNA line will not show it (or the Y chromosome) and the person will be identified as not having any comanche at all. For our purposes, the example is the good one. A person could have tons of Lehite DNA and yet not show any.

So again, the difference is the source of uncertainty. When you are talking about one individual with questionable history, false positives and false negatives are so likely that the tests are meaningless for him. When you are talking about whole populations, selected for a relatively "known" history, those variables smooth out. They do smooth out, and a remarkably homogenous picture has emerged for those indians who are selected based on their likelyhood of being pureblooded. So stop complaining about random sampling. Randomness is not part of the study design.

How can you have a "homogenous picture" when you have to admit that only a tny fraction of any individual's ancestry can be tested for?

[_The Dude]

The random sampling I am used to is the "every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample." So, every Native American has a chance to have his/her DNA tested? What about those who refuse? What about those who are in remote locations?

Actually they would seem to prefer people who live in remote locations, as this would help ensure their "pureblood". The ones who refuse don't get counted, and they shouldn't matter unless they are long lost Viking Nephites who wish to hide their Book of Mormon lineage. If you sample thousands of people from dozens of regions, and they keep coming up as one of the main Asian markers, that must mean something about who the principal (*most numerous*) ancestors were.

You correctly cite that long lost Viking Nephites could be mixed in there somewhere, without ever contributing a surviving mtDNA or Y chromosome that gets sampled above a frequency that the researchers consider significant. You could, in a sense, make the same argument as John Clark does with Olmec and Mayan pottery: we already have the Viking Nephite DNA and we just don't know it (because it's in the rare fraction).


So Charity, what do you make of the part in the article that you highlighted:

As for the Y-chromosome, there are two primary lineages or “haplogroups” that are seen in modern Native American groups, called M3 and M45. As for the Y-chromosome, there are two primary lineages or “haplogroups” that are seen in modern Native American groups, called M3 and M45. Some scientists maintain that up to 95% of all Native American Y-chromosomes are from these two groups (with the rest being from either Asian lineages or non-native haplo-groups).

Why are such a high percentage of Y-chromosomes from these two related groups? This says something about the principal (*most numerous*) genetic ancestors. Not only that, but they show physical and blood type features that link them back to the Asians. (Maybe there are some Viking Nephite-looking tribes, or so I once heard on a Boy Scout camping trip.)

I see the difference. But what we are talking is the importance to individuals. Not the big picture. That is where promises of blessing go. To indviduals.

Whatever.

And yet in one of their examples they correctly speak of a person who has 31 comanche ancestors, and yet the mtDNA line will not show it (or the Y chromosome) and the person will be identified as not having any comanche at all. For our purposes, the example is the good one. A person could have tons of Lehite DNA and yet not show any.

Again, I heard about these people on a Boy Scout camping trip, but I didn't know we were talking about LGT. The idea seemed to be that some Nephites survived the Lamanite purge, and so they remained white skinned by living in an isolated Peruvian rainforest.

How can you have a "homogenous picture" when you have to admit that only a tny fraction of any individual's ancestry can be tested for?

Homogenous in terms of what can be tested. Look, if you go to a part of Asia, Europe, or Africa and do some testing, you will find "tons" of different markers at the Y and mtDNA sites. That is normal. Compared to that you have just two or three Y-markers and five mtDNA markers making up 95-100% of the thousands of diverse Native Americans who have been tested. That is homogenous.

You think I'm saying their ancestry is homogenous and we don't know that. They sure could have a Viking Nephite in their history, if you want to believe that. I'm not arguing about minimalist theories that don't actually have evidence to support them. Hypotheticals.



Who is arguing with Charity about the feasability of a minimal Book of Mormon scenario? Anybody?