A Very Limited Geography

[_Morley]

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][/b]

I welcome your thoughts on it.

The original study says, in part:

Based on this present-day reference network, we constructed a network of the mtDNA sequences of the two ancient populations and the present-day people of Linzi (fig. 1 ). Ten individuals of the 2,500-year-old Linzi population had mtDNA type with 16274A; this mtDNA type was not found in either the 2,000-year-old or the present-day Linzi populations. Sixty-five percent (22 of 34) of the individuals of the 2,500-year-old Linzi population belong to group IV, whereas none of the 2,000-year-old population and only 8% of the present-day Linzi population belong to that group. In contrast, 38% (5 of 13) of the 2,000-year-old Linzi population belong to group VI, compared with only 9% and 10% of the 2,500-year-old and the present-day Linzi populations, respectively. The 2,000-year-old and present-day Linzi populations showed high frequencies for group I (23% and 30%, respectively) and for group II (31% and 36%, respectively). Other present-day east Asian populations, including Mongols, Koreans, and mainland Japanese, also have high frequencies for groups I and II (fig. 2 ).


(http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/9/1396.full Tenth paragraph down.)

As you can see, the Linzi DNA is present in modern Chinese populations. There is no Mideast or European DNA present (nor found in 2500 year-old fossils, such as in this study) in pre-Columbian Americans.

[_Runtu]

I wouldn't expect it. I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Essentially the relevance is this:

The presence of the CMH among diaspora Jewish groups with Cohens including the Lemba and Bnei Menashe, and its absence among Native Americans, is an expected finding fully consistent with the Book of Mormon story.

So, again, why is the mtDNA evidence at all relevant to the Lemba? For that matter, why would you expect CMH among diaspora groups except for Nephites and Lamanites?

And

Yet it is only through the priestly "Cohen Modal Haplotype" that the Lemba have been identified as having a possible Jewish genetic origin at all.

And this is relevant in what way? I'm genuinely trying to understand your point here. Here's what I get so far:

1. Lehi and Ishmael were from the Middle East and presumably had some DNA markers consistent with other Semitic and Middle Eastern peoples.
2. mtDNA through the mother is consistent and easy to trace, so presuming that Ishmael's daughters were not from Mongolia, it would be reasonable to expect some Middle Eastern markers in Native American mtDNA.
3. All diaspora Jewish groups share the CMH marker, which is passed through males. This is how the Lemba were determined to be of Hebrew descent.
3. We haven't found any Middle Eastern DNA evidence among Native Americans, mtDNA or CMH.
4. The lack of Hebrew mtDNA among the Lemba, who are known to have descended from male Jews, is not surprising.
5. The Lemba's mtDNA is indistinguishable from other Bantu tribes, which again is to be expected because the Jewish ancestors were male.
6. (This is admittedly where you've lost me.) According to you, the Nephites and Lamanites, who had both male and female Jewish ancestors, should not show mtDNA from Middle Eastern sources or the CMH marker.

In this I don't see how the Lemba add to this discussion. This was all meant to be in reply to Themis who saw the Lemba example as quite fitting here. I don't see how.

To my mind, there should be more evidence for Hebrew descent among Native Americans than for the Lemba, given that DNA sources come from progenitors of both sexes. At the very least, we should see mtDNA that can be traced back to Middle Eastern sources.

Please explain to me why we shouldn't expect that.

[Guest]

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.

But it was reported:

[/b]"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.[/b]

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Thanks, stem. I am fairly convinced that absent a spiritual testimony, there is no good reason to believe the Book of Mormon is ancient. As an ancient historian, I would feel irresponsible arguing otherwise. Likewise, I do not go in for arguments against the historicity of the Book of Mormon because, in my mind, it gives far too much credit to an argument that lacks the very fundamentals to begin to be made in any substantive or persuasive sense.

[_Buffalo]

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][/b]

I welcome your thoughts on it.

The original study says, in part:

Based on this present-day reference network, we constructed a network of the mtDNA sequences of the two ancient populations and the present-day people of Linzi (fig. 1 ). Ten individuals of the 2,500-year-old Linzi population had mtDNA type with 16274A; this mtDNA type was not found in either the 2,000-year-old or the present-day Linzi populations. Sixty-five percent (22 of 34) of the individuals of the 2,500-year-old Linzi population belong to group IV, whereas none of the 2,000-year-old population and only 8% of the present-day Linzi population belong to that group. In contrast, 38% (5 of 13) of the 2,000-year-old Linzi population belong to group VI, compared with only 9% and 10% of the 2,500-year-old and the present-day Linzi populations, respectively. The 2,000-year-old and present-day Linzi populations showed high frequencies for group I (23% and 30%, respectively) and for group II (31% and 36%, respectively). Other present-day east Asian populations, including Mongols, Koreans, and mainland Japanese, also have high frequencies for groups I and II (fig. 2 ).


(http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/9/1396.full Tenth paragraph down.)

As you can see, the Linzi DNA is present in modern Chinese populations. There is no Mideast or European DNA present (nor found in 2500 year-old fossils, such as in this study) in pre-Columbian Americans.

Thanks, you answered better than I did.

Do you see Stem, why FAIR can't be trusted to cite sources with the integrity or honesty? They are not professional, academic, reliable or fair. They're a partisan organization that will do anything to defend the church.

[_Kishkumen]

Bob believes in the existence of Atlantis. After all, Plato wrote about it, and he lived in the ancient world, so that is a pretty good authority on which to base one's belief in Atlantis, right? Those who do not believe in Atlantis can't prove it did not exist. Why, with the little bit of archaeology that has been done, who is to say that Atlantis has not been found yet? And, just what would we expect to find to show that certain remains are Atlantean? Would we expect to find a sign that says "Here is the city of Atlantis"? I don't think so! So Bob has started an Atlantis cult, and he believes that the people of Atlantis had the only true way of running a human society. You can't prove it isn't true, so it must be the case. Come, join with Bob and build the perfect human society, modeled on the only perfect city that every existed: Atlantis.

[_Themis]

Thanks, you answered better than I did.

Do you see Stem, why FAIR can't be trusted to cite sources with the integrity or honesty? They are not professional, academic, reliable or fair. They're a partisan organization that will do anything to defend the church.

That's a big problem with Farms is that they don't mind avoiding some of the important information that does not support there argument. As we can see even the Linzi DNA does show up which I think would be expected. Now Native Americans are related to populations that now reside in areas of Mongolia that separated around 16,000 years ago. Where their ancestors lived is not that relevant but most likely in areas close to the land bridge between Asia and NA. The real issue is that we do not see any DNA showing up in the Americas anciently that originates from Middle eastern areas about 2500 years ago.

[_Themis]

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.

Hopefully you are open minded enough and have studied a bit more to see that this is not what is being done. It's not our fault that scientists have been using good methodologies and not found any DNA from the middle eastern areas. I mean didn't Simon refer to an LDS expert who says the same thing. lol

[_Buffalo]

Thanks, you answered better than I did.

Do you see Stem, why FAIR can't be trusted to cite sources with the integrity or honesty? They are not professional, academic, reliable or fair. They're a partisan organization that will do anything to defend the church.

That's a big problem with Farms is that they don't mind avoiding some of the important information that does not support there argument. As we can see even the Linzi DNA does show up which I think would be expected. Now Native Americans are related to populations that now reside in areas of Mongolia that separated around 16,000 years ago. Where their ancestors lived is not that relevant but most likely in areas close to the land bridge between Asia and NA. The real issue is that we do not see any DNA showing up in the Americas anciently that originates from Middle eastern areas about 2500 years ago.

That's the real difference between a scholarly source and something like FAIR/FARMS. I'm reading The Early History of God right now, and Smith is very careful to always mention evidence and alternative explanations that do NOT advance his theories as well as those that do. That's what you expect from REAL scholars.

[_stemelbow]

As you can see, the Linzi DNA is present in modern Chinese populations. There is no Mideast or European DNA present (nor found in 2500 year-old fossils, such as in this study) in pre-Columbian Americans

The results indicate that the genetic backgrounds of the three populations in Linzi are distinct from each other. Figure 3 shows the phylogenetic tree based on those genetic distances; present-day populations from east Asia, including the present-day Linzi population, form a cluster, which is consistent with their geographical distribution. However, the 2,000-year-old Linzi population lies outside the present-day east Asian cluster, and the 2,500-year-old Linzi population clusters with the present-day European populations.
Indeed there may be very small amounts of similarity there, but by and large the three groups are distinct from each other. Interestingly enough the group separated by 500 years is even more distantly related than the groups that are further apart in time. Its an interesting case study. Surely it doesn’t say anything about the genetic make-up and possible origin of native Americans though.