Page 1 of 9

Who Are Indians Really?

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:06 am
by _charity
Argue with me all you want. But do you want to take on Jonathan Marks, ph. d., Department of Anthropology
UNC-Charlotte and Brett Lee Shelton, J.D., Director of Policy and Research for Indigenous People’ Council on Biocolonialism
(The following are listed as Dr. Marks areas of research: Primate / Human evolution, race, molecular genetics and evolution, general physical anthropology, history of studies of human evolution and variation, anthropology of science, critical studies in human genetics, general anthropology. He is not LDS.)

A link is given at the end of the article.

I will except portions of it for your edification.

[quote] Genetic "Markers"- Not a Valid Test of Native Identity

Across the country, there is currently a lot of interest in the prospects of using genetics to determine whether somebody is really Native American. This interest has arisen in many contexts‚from determining whether ancient remains are Native American for purposes of repatriation to groups of people who are seeking recognition as an Indian tribe by the United States government, to individuals who think they might have American Indian ancestry and would like to find a way to “prove” it.

But there are problems with using genetics to determine whether or not one has Native American ancestry,
But the point that is frequently lost in the debate about using genetic analysis to determine whether one is Native American is that the genetic analysis itself is not conclusive, even on strictly scientific terms. This article will explain the scientific shortcomings of trying to use genetic analysis to prove native identity. It is limited to the scientific shortcomings.

The Theory: Native American Genetic Markers

First, an explanation of the theory behind using genetics to determine Native American identity is in order. Scientists have found certain variations, or “markers” in human genes that they call Native American markers because they believe all “original” Native Americans had these genetic traits. The theory is that, if a person has one of these markers, certain ancestors of the person must have been Native American.

The markers are principally analyzed in two locations in people's genes‚ in their mitochondrial DNA and on the Y-chromosome. On the mitochondrial DNA, there are a total of five different haplotypes, called A, B, C, D, and X, which are increasingly called “Native American markers,” and are believed to be a genetic signature of the founding ancestors. 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). It must be pointed out that none of these markers is exclusive to Native American populations‚all can be found in other populations around the world. They simply occur with more frequency in Native American populations.

Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers are the most commonly used genetic markers used for analysis of Native American ancestry. But how does testing for these genes work?

Mitochondrial Analysis for Native American Marker Genes

Both females and males inherit their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) only from their mother. This line of biological inheritance, therefore, stops with each male. That means that, if you think of your 4 great-grandmothers, you and all your brothers and sisters have inherited your mtDNA only from your maternal grandmother's mother. Your other 3 great-grandmothers and your 4 great-grandfathers have contributed none of your mtDNA. If you are female, you and your sisters will, in turn, transmit that great-grandmother's mtDNA to all your children, but your brothers won't transmit it to their children. In other words, your mtDNA isidenticalto that of your mother's mother's mother, but does not constitute a biological line of descent from your other 7 great-grandparents. If that great-grandmother happened to have the genetic variations that have been labeled as either A, B, C, D, or X, then by having the same mtDNA yourself, you will have inherited a Native AmericanÓ mtDNA marker.

[Please take particular note of this paragraph. I have said exactly the same thing about Lehite DNA and been laughed out of the box. Talk about having the last laugh!]

Of course, if all your other great grandparents were Native American, and your mother's mother's mother was non-Indian, then you will not likely have one of the “Native American” mtDNA haplotypes. So, 7 of your 8 great-grandparents may be Indian, and yet you would not be identified as Indian from this test. Moreover, it really goes farther than that, since the mtDNA only comes from the purely maternal line. If you go back two more generations, 31 of your 32 great-great-great grandparents could be Indian. Yet you could not be identified as Native American using this test if that one of your 16 (great-great-great) grandmothers who is part of your female lineage was not Native American (or more specifically if her mother did not have one of the five haplotypes called “Native American.”) Keep going back further, and still only a single one of your female ancestors is detectable, while the number of ancestors invisible to this test increases enormously.Y-Chromosome Analysis for Native American Markers

Males inherit a close copy of their Y-chromosome from their fathers. Females do not have a Y-chromosome. So males could also be tested for Native American markersÓ on their Y-chromosome, but the analysis has similar limitations as testing mtDNA. Here again, the test only traces one line of ancestry, and misses most of the subjects' ancestry because the vast majority of the ancestors are invisible to the test. If a man has 15 Native American great-great-grandparents, but his father's father's father's father was non-Indian, that person will not appear to be Native American under this test. So, almost 94% of that person's genetic inheritance may be from Native Americans, but under this test he may be identified as “non-Indian”. And, like mtDNA analysis using the purely maternal line, using Y-chromosome analysis to determine Native American ancestry ignores a greatly increasing percentage of a person's ancestry as you go more generations into the past with the analysis.

CONCLUSION

Even taken on their own scientific terms, the tests cannot do much to identify who is and who is not Native American. This is because they yield many false negatives and false positives (they readily misidentify non-Native people as Native, and misidentify Native people as non-Native), and the positive results they do yield at best are only probabilities, not certainties. If these were medical diagnostic tests, they would never be approved or adopted.But the most important argument against this type of testing to establish tribal affiliations is that biology (and genetics) track just part of our tribal inheritance. These DNA tests treat Native American biology as though all Indians were essentially the same. But in reality, our traditions make us who we are, not just our biology.

Credits: http://www.ipcb.org/publications/briefi ... ntity.html

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.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:16 am
by _the road to hana
I'm not sure the DNA argument is really relevant in the final analysis in Mormonism, anyway, because the argument can really be distilled and diluted down to one of descendency by adoption.

Along the same lines, it would be hypothetically interesting if one could actually scientifically determine whether human beings are linked by DNA to deity, but even if such a study could be accomplished, and for argument's sake the entity regarded as "God" could be scientifically determined to have a physical body, and DNA harvested--still, if after all that, the DNA did not match up, Mormons like Charity would be saying that the LDS Church claimed all along that we are the offspring of deity, and that didn't necessarily mean biological or literal.

So really, all this DNA business does is emphasize the fact that one can teach, or appear to teach, literal or primary descendency, and can adjust that position to one of figurative descendency, or adoption. If that can be so for Lamanite descendency, it can certainly also be a potential possibility for the LDS concept of being literal biological offspring of deity.

With that, I predict within two decades the official position of the LDS Church will be that human beings are sons and daughters of God in a sense more as creator-creature than physical offspring.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:31 am
by _charity
Thanks, road to hana. You did not disappoint me. Now that the scientific DNA argument against the Book of Mormon is shot down by non-LDS scholars with impressive credentials, it didn't matter after all?

And then to try to shift the topic to a "I predict in so many years, the Church will. . . ." Desperation onlyl. And obviously so.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:36 am
by _The Dude
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.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:39 am
by _dartagnan
I see Mrs. Straw man is at it again.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:40 am
by _truth dancer
Thanks, road to hana. You did not disappoint me. Now that the scientific DNA argument against the Book of Mormon is shot down by non-LDS scholars with impressive credentials, it didn't matter after all?


Charity...

Before we get into this could you please, as clear as possible explain to us, what YOU think the "DNA argument against the Book of Mormon is?

In other words, what do YOU THINK non-believers assert regarding DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon claims.


Thanks,

~dancer~

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:41 am
by _the road to hana
charity wrote:Thanks, road to hana. You did not disappoint me. Now that the scientific DNA argument against the Book of Mormon is shot down by non-LDS scholars with impressive credentials, it didn't matter after all?

And then to try to shift the topic to a "I predict in so many years, the Church will. . . ." Desperation onlyl. And obviously so.


Actually, I'm picking up on your final statement in the opening post of this thread:

". . .it establishes in scientific tersm (sic) why the non-presence of "Hebrew" DNA does not prove that Lehi is a myth.


You yourself set the parameters of the DNA findings being ultimately irrelevant.

In philosophical terms, I should think you'd be happy to advance the discussion to include a discussion of whether human DNA would match that of deity, and if it didn't, whether or not that would have doctrinal consequences for faithful Latter-day Saints.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:45 am
by _Bond...James Bond
dartagnan wrote:I see Mrs. Straw man is at it again.


That's Madame Strawman to you Buster.

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:47 am
by _dartagnan
Before we get into this could you please, as clear as possible explain to us, what YOU think the "DNA argument against the Book of Mormon is?


ROFL...

Like anyone here really doubts the fact that charity has absolutely no clue what the critical argument is. She proved ignorant on the critical argument regarding the Book of Abraham, so she immediately fled the scene to tackle another straw man on DNA. This is a neverending circle with her where she starts something she can't finish while wandering over into more topics she knows nothing about. Of course, offering the arrogant "deal with that!" taunt as she leaves the scene.

Here is a pointer for you.

The proper way to outline a refutation, charity, is to provide at least an example of the argument you're pretending to refute, with references. You never do this because your familiarity with the critical argument is limited to whatever version of it you read from the apologists at MAD or FARMS.

You're the quintessential MAD apologist. Ignorant to the bone and damn proud of it.

Re: Who Are Indians Really?

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:32 am
by _cksalmon
charity wrote: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.


Your case rests on the fact that your position has not been disproved in absolute terms? Really?

Heh. You win. And I win, too. And so does anyone else who ventures forth any opinion whatsoever. The only reason that this thread might not get much traffic is because your position is essentially irrefutable, and thus essentially silly in terms of "evidence" for your position. It's a variant of "You can't prove that X isn't the case."

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