Buffalo wrote:Stem, even if ancient Semitic DNA is a giant question mark (and I don't think that's the case) would you expect it to look identical to the Siberian/Asian DNA found in Native Americans?
Its an interesting question. The article I've relied on thus far has this on this matter:
The only compelling genetic validation that the ancient inhabitants of an area are the ancestors or close relatives of modern peoples can come from comparisons of ancient and modern DNA. DNA studies have demonstrated that the early inhabitants of the New World appear to have had all of the main mtDNA haplogroups (A, B, C, and D) found in modern Native Americans, supporting the belief that ancient Native Americans are in fact the ancestors of the present ones.34
Issues on the Asian side are more problematic. Very little is known of the peoples inhabiting Mongolia before 200 BC--over five centuries after the dispersion of the "lost tribes." Ethnohistory provides abundant evidence of large people-groups of almost entirely unknown origins who settled in Mongolia and south Siberia, which were active areas for mass migration from across central Asia. As a nomadic people traveling over vast areas but leaving few permanent settlements, the ancient ancestors of the Mongolians are particularly difficult to trace. The nomadic character of the equestrian Mongols, whose predecessors ruled an empire from Eastern Europe to the Pacific, the absence of any real natural barriers across thousands of miles of territory that comprise the largest plain in the world, and the history of hundreds of migrations of people-groups, would lead the objective scholar to question the genetic basis for Murphy's assumption that those living in Mongolia and southern Siberia today harbor essentially the same gene pool as that present thousands or even tens of thousands of years ago.
DNA studies of ancient human remains from Siberia and Mongolia predating the dispersion of Israel are conspicuously absent. To my knowledge, the only ancient mummies that have been found adjacent to Mongolia are the Tocharians--an ancient and mysterious civilization of blond and red-headed, Caucasian-appearing people who inhabited the Tarim basin approximately 3000 years ago.35 The Chinese government to date has not permitted DNA testing on these mummies, but mainstream geneticists and anthropologists do not believe the Tocharians to be the principal ancestors or even significant genetic contributors to modern Mongolian, Siberian, or Uighur populations. Our awareness of the ethnogenetic distinctiveness of the Tocharian people and even their very existence comes exclusively from their custom of mummification and from their fortuitous discovery in the desert sands in 1987.
The ancient East Asian populations from which we do have some mtDNA data--the Chinese and Japanese--demonstrate strikingly different genetic patterns from those found in modern populations. The ancient remains tested from Japan contain none of the four main mtDNA haplogroups present in 98% of modern Native Americans and 52% of modern Mongolians.36 Among ancient Chinese studied, only 13% shared a mtDNA haplogroup with Native Americans, and only two of the haplogroups (B and C) were present at all. Even these ancient Chinese remains are only 2000 years old, over seven centuries after the dispersion of the northern kingdom of Israel. In contrast, a modern study of "central Chinese" with a similar sample size demonstrated the presence of all four mtDNA haplogroups, and the prevalence of the shared haplogroups has increased to 45%.37
The further back we go, the greater genetic distinctiveness we find between ancient and modern Asian populations. One of the most ancient Asian studies of human remains was conducted in the Linzi area of central China. The authors studied human remains from three different time periods and reported:
"The results indicate that the genetic backgrounds of the three populations are distinct from each other. Inconsistent with the geographical distribution, the 2,500-year-old Linzi population showed greater genetic similarity to present-day European populations than to present-day East Asian populations. The 2,000-year-old Linzi population had features that were intermediate between the present-day European/2,500-year-old Linzi populations and the present-day East Asian populations. These relationships suggest the occurrence of drastic spatiotemporal changes in the genetic structure of Chinese people during the past 2,500 years."38
The authors further noted: "the three smallest genetic distances for the 2,500 year-old Linzi population were from the Turkish, Icelander, and Finnish, rather than from the east Asian populations."39 Not only did a 2,500 year-old population with strong European genetic features live in central China, but these people appears to be the oldest inhabitants of China yet identified. Geneticists are aware of this group, whose genetic features seem to be almost entirely absent from modern Chinese populations, only because of recent research. If we were to imagine a hypothetical Linzi group that might have emigrated to an isolated island in 500 BC, the DNA of their descendants would be completely unrelated to that of modern Chinese and would be classified by proponents of "regional affiliation" genetics as belonging to a European culture group. Self-proclaimed experts would undoubtedly claim that this group had been "proven" not to have originated in China at all. The Linzi data wreak havoc upon the theories of critics who indiscriminately extrapolate the genetics of the modern inhabitants onto ancient peoples without supporting DNA evidence.
I welcome your thoughts on it.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:Stem, even if ancient Semitic DNA is a giant question mark (and I don't think that's the case) would you expect it to look identical to the Siberian/Asian DNA found in Native Americans?
Its an interesting question. The article I've relied on thus far has this on this matter:
The only compelling genetic validation that the ancient inhabitants of an area are the ancestors or close relatives of modern peoples can come from comparisons of ancient and modern DNA. DNA studies have demonstrated that the early inhabitants of the New World appear to have had all of the main mtDNA haplogroups (A, B, C, and D) found in modern Native Americans, supporting the belief that ancient Native Americans are in fact the ancestors of the present ones.34
Issues on the Asian side are more problematic. Very little is known of the peoples inhabiting Mongolia before 200 BC--over five centuries after the dispersion of the "lost tribes." Ethnohistory provides abundant evidence of large people-groups of almost entirely unknown origins who settled in Mongolia and south Siberia, which were active areas for mass migration from across central Asia. As a nomadic people traveling over vast areas but leaving few permanent settlements, the ancient ancestors of the Mongolians are particularly difficult to trace. The nomadic character of the equestrian Mongols, whose predecessors ruled an empire from Eastern Europe to the Pacific, the absence of any real natural barriers across thousands of miles of territory that comprise the largest plain in the world, and the history of hundreds of migrations of people-groups, would lead the objective scholar to question the genetic basis for Murphy's assumption that those living in Mongolia and southern Siberia today harbor essentially the same gene pool as that present thousands or even tens of thousands of years ago.
DNA studies of ancient human remains from Siberia and Mongolia predating the dispersion of Israel are conspicuously absent. To my knowledge, the only ancient mummies that have been found adjacent to Mongolia are the Tocharians--an ancient and mysterious civilization of blond and red-headed, Caucasian-appearing people who inhabited the Tarim basin approximately 3000 years ago.35 The Chinese government to date has not permitted DNA testing on these mummies, but mainstream geneticists and anthropologists do not believe the Tocharians to be the principal ancestors or even significant genetic contributors to modern Mongolian, Siberian, or Uighur populations. Our awareness of the ethnogenetic distinctiveness of the Tocharian people and even their very existence comes exclusively from their custom of mummification and from their fortuitous discovery in the desert sands in 1987.
The ancient East Asian populations from which we do have some mtDNA data--the Chinese and Japanese--demonstrate strikingly different genetic patterns from those found in modern populations. The ancient remains tested from Japan contain none of the four main mtDNA haplogroups present in 98% of modern Native Americans and 52% of modern Mongolians.36 Among ancient Chinese studied, only 13% shared a mtDNA haplogroup with Native Americans, and only two of the haplogroups (B and C) were present at all. Even these ancient Chinese remains are only 2000 years old, over seven centuries after the dispersion of the northern kingdom of Israel. In contrast, a modern study of "central Chinese" with a similar sample size demonstrated the presence of all four mtDNA haplogroups, and the prevalence of the shared haplogroups has increased to 45%.37
The further back we go, the greater genetic distinctiveness we find between ancient and modern Asian populations. One of the most ancient Asian studies of human remains was conducted in the Linzi area of central China. The authors studied human remains from three different time periods and reported:
"The results indicate that the genetic backgrounds of the three populations are distinct from each other. Inconsistent with the geographical distribution, the 2,500-year-old Linzi population showed greater genetic similarity to present-day European populations than to present-day East Asian populations. The 2,000-year-old Linzi population had features that were intermediate between the present-day European/2,500-year-old Linzi populations and the present-day East Asian populations. These relationships suggest the occurrence of drastic spatiotemporal changes in the genetic structure of Chinese people during the past 2,500 years."38
The authors further noted: "the three smallest genetic distances for the 2,500 year-old Linzi population were from the Turkish, Icelander, and Finnish, rather than from the east Asian populations."39 Not only did a 2,500 year-old population with strong European genetic features live in central China, but these people appears to be the oldest inhabitants of China yet identified. Geneticists are aware of this group, whose genetic features seem to be almost entirely absent from modern Chinese populations, only because of recent research. If we were to imagine a hypothetical Linzi group that might have emigrated to an isolated island in 500 BC, the DNA of their descendants would be completely unrelated to that of modern Chinese and would be classified by proponents of "regional affiliation" genetics as belonging to a European culture group. Self-proclaimed experts would undoubtedly claim that this group had been "proven" not to have originated in China at all. The Linzi data wreak havoc upon the theories of critics who indiscriminately extrapolate the genetics of the modern inhabitants onto ancient peoples without supporting DNA evidence.
I welcome your thoughts on it.
My thoughts are I need to see some facts to back up his claims. He's sourcing secular articles, but not to back up his defenses of the Book of Mormon (by means of trying to create plausible deniability).
In other words, he uses secular sources that don't back up his main argument about Native American genetics and the Book of Mormon. In fact, the Linzi data appears to actually be a good argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon, rather than a defense of it. But none of it is directly related.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
stemelbow wrote:We wouldn’t expect to see the same with the Native Americans as we would with the Lemba. So what DNA would we expect to see in Lehi and co?
The Lemba example was never used to suggest Lehi's group should have the exact same CMH. Only that they would be related. I don't see how you can keep arguing that we do not know what DNA from these areas looks like when they have been doing just that for a while now. How again do they figure out Modern Jewish populations and how they are related to the ones in the past and what areas they may come from. Try addressing this. The real problem had always been that the DNA of American Indians is not related to those of the Middle eastern ares where the two Book of Mormon groups were to have originated.
In fact, the Linzi data appears to actually be a good argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon, rather than a defense of it. But none of it is directly related.
How so? as in how would the Linzi data be a good argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Themis wrote:The Lemba example was never used to suggest Lehi's group should have the exact same CMH. Only that they would be related. I don't see how you can keep arguing that we do not know what DNA from these areas looks like when they have been doing just that for a while now. How again do they figure out Modern Jewish populations and how they are related to the ones in the past and what areas they may come from. Try addressing this. The real problem had always been that the DNA of American Indians is not related to those of the Middle eastern ares where the two Book of Mormon groups were to have originated.
I have tried to address that.
Here are so relevant quotes:
The University College London study found that that while separate Jewish communities were founded by relatively few female ancestors, this "process was independent in different geographic areas" and that the female ancestors of different communities were largely unrelated.5 Nicholas Wade wrote: "A new study now shows that the women in nine Jewish communities from Georgia... to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories from the men.... The women's identities, however, are a mystery, because...their genetic signatures are not related to one another or to those of present-day Middle Eastern populations." 6 Dr. Mark Thomas and colleagues reported: "In no case is there clear evidence of unbroken genetic continuity from early dispersal events to the present....Unfortunately, in many cases, it is not possible to infer the geographic origin of the founding mtDNAs within the different Jewish groups with any confidence."7 Dr. Shaye Cohen of Harvard University observed, "The authors are correct in saying the historical origins of most Jewish communities are unknown."8 Even close mtDNA homologies would not necessarily prove an Israelite origin, but the conspicuous absence of such homologies provides strong circumstantial evidence of non-Israelite origins for the mtDNA and much of the other genetic makeup of most modern Jews. With no evidence that modern Jewish mtDNA constitutes a valid control of the genetics of ancient Israel--and considerable evidence to the contrary--claims of Israelite lineage cannot be either confirmed or denied based on mtDNA data
Therefore, because of genetic drift, population bottlenecks, or natural selection, the mtDNA lineages observed in today's population do not reflect the full range of mtDNA variation that occurred throughout human history. A recent example from a study in Iceland based on genetic and genealogical data clearly demonstrated how the majority of people living in that country today are just a small representation of people that lived just 300 years ago.23 This work is a powerful illustration and a rare example of a controlled study where genealogical, historical, and genetic data are available to unequivocally demonstrate the effect of genetic drift and natural selection in a fairly isolated population. The effect of these population genetics processes occur globally (including organisms other than humans) and are not exclusive to the Icelandic population; most relevant to our current discussion, these principles have also affected populations in the Western Hemisphere. Although some would like to dismiss the Icelandic model and suggest that it is more of an exception than the rule,24 these population genetics laws cannot be ignored: they are the fundamental force that shaped the modern genetic landscape worldwide. It is a well known fact that mtDNA lineages have disappeared in the past and that they will continue to disappear in modern times. This process has occurred everywhere in the world and the Americas are no exception.25
Kishkumen wrote:There is no good argument for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, a good argument against it is not required.
I agree. Why are people like Dr. Southerton, Dr. Murphy, Metcalfe, and generations of anti-Mormons trying to mount an argument against the Book of Mormon if it is not needed?
In fact, the Linzi data appears to actually be a good argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon, rather than a defense of it. But none of it is directly related.
How so? as in how would the Linzi data be a good argument against the historicity of the Book of Mormon?
If I understand correctly (and Fair only cites a small portion of the study), geneticists were able to identify that the Linzi group is genetically different from other Asians. Similarly, surviving Lamanites should be genetically different from people who came over on the land bridge.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Kishkumen wrote:There is no good argument for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, a good argument against it is not required.
I actually find this to be a much better approach then attempting to falsify something using questionable methodologies and indeterminite data.
On this, i give you kudos. This attempt to force the data into saying something it doesn't, like with DNA and genetics, is just not flying. I don't think anyway.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Kishkumen wrote:There is no good argument for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, a good argument against it is not required.
I agree. Why are people like Dr. Southerton, Dr. Murphy, Metcalfe, and generations of anti-Mormons trying to mount an argument against the Book of Mormon if it is not needed?
For the convincing of the gentle Mormons that Joseph isn't the Christ.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.