A Very Limited Geography

[_Simon Southerton]

Wow. So then the theory would (apparently) be that Neanderthals and humans split from a much earlier ancestor but then later met up again and reproduced?

Yes that's right. Humans and Neanderthals are believed to have split from each other roughly 400-600,000 years ago. This was most likely the result of physical separation (Neanderthals in Europe and us in Africa). The two groups had not evolved a reproductive barrier, so when they met up about 80,000 years ago there were some liaisons that went all the way.

If you don't mind my probing questions.... I'm curious how scientists can produce geographical interpretations from DNA analysis? Or am I totally misunderstanding/misrepresenting the assertion that all humans go back to a single female African ancestor? Can you put that in layman's terms?

DNA mutates at a fairly standard rate. By counting up the number of mutations in a population it is possible to estimate the time to a common ancestor. When scientists do this for American Indian mitochondrial DNA, each of the 5 lineages (A-D and X) descend to a single mtDNA lineage that existed roughly 16 to 20,000 years ago.

When the same analysis is done with all the mtDNA lineages found in humans, it strongly suggests that all human mtDNA lineages are descended from a mtDNA lineage that existed roughly 100,000 years ago. This means that of all the mtDNA lineages that existed in the human population 100,000 years ago, only a single one has survived. It doesn't mean that we all descend from a single woman. It suggests the human population went through a very narrow bottleneck and was reduced to a few thousand individuals who were probably fairly closely related.

mtDNA lineages with the earliest mutations (thus shared among many lineage groups) are found in Africa. This is quite compelling evidence that our ancestors originated in Africa, which is strongly supported by the archaeological evidence.

[_Simon Southerton]

Very Limited Geography? So how small are we talking here--smaller than a Planck length?

I think if you close your eyes very tightly you will be able to see most of the geography.

[_Themis]

Very Limited Geography? So how small are we talking here--smaller than a Planck length?

I think if you close your eyes very tightly you will be able to see most of the geography.

Actually no. It is so small you cannot see it, and only Horton can hear the Nephites.

[_Themis]

LGT seems to have come well before DNA came onto the scene.

So? I see you have again missed what he was talking about. I can certainly understand why you avoid bringing any substance to the discussion. :)

[_Simon Southerton]

LGT seems to have come well before DNA came onto the scene.

LGT was a response to earlier science showing a lack of archaeological evidence supporting Book of Mormon.

The DNA is showing the limits of the LGT.

[_Kishkumen]

I think it is telling that critics are unable to address my LST (Limited Stature Theory) of virtual Lamanite invisibility in the archaeological record.



Another criticism of Mormonism put to rest.

[_Will Schryver]

LGT was a response to earlier science showing a lack of archaeological evidence supporting Book of Mormon.

No, it wasn't. It was, quite demonstrably, an outgrowth of the concerted Book of Mormon study conducted by the first post-pioneering generation of Latter-day Saints.

The DNA is showing the limits of the LGT.

Of course, your assertions will play well in this venue. (It's not a very discriminating audience, by any means--much like the RfM crowd, but without as much froth dripping from their mouths.) But the "DNA disproves the Book of Mormon" artifice has long-since played itself out in terms of its capacity to persuade intelligent and discerning Latter-day Saints. It will, no doubt, still function adequately as a second or third-tier justification (as with most so-called "scientific" criticisms of Mormonism), but the now-well-established appreciation of its several false premises, coupled with the scientific clarity provided by those who really do understand population genetics, has rendered the Southerton/Murphy gambit effectively moot.

It does, however, make a nice bookend to the Spalding/Rigdon theories of Book of Mormon authorship on the shelf of failed anti-Mormon stratagems.

[Guest]

So, Simon, is it possible to determine if there is any Scandinavian and/or Irish DNA among the Natives of North America, dating between 600 AD and 1450 AD, based upon degree of fragmentation?

We know that the Norse took two native children, and that there is the DNA of at least one Native American on Iceland. You won't remember my tongue-in-cheek comment years ago, about Natives invading Europe.

Do those results also do serious damage to the theory that the Olmecs came from Africa?

[_Chap]

... the "DNA disproves the Book of Mormon" artifice has long-since played itself out in terms of its capacity to persuade intelligent and discerning Latter-day Saints. It will, no doubt, still function adequately as a second or third-tier justification (as with most so-called "scientific" criticisms of Mormonism), but the now-well-established appreciation of its several false premises, coupled with the scientific clarity provided by those who really do understand population genetics, has rendered the Southerton/Murphy gambit effectively moot.

What, I ask myself, is the point of Schryver's post, apart from the pleasure that writing overblown and Droopy-like prose may give to its author, which surely cannot outbalance the delights of the many other things he could be doing instead?

Who, for instance, is the post addressed to? If Schryver is targeting a scientifically literate reader coming at this issue from a perspective outside the tiny group of those who count themselves as LDS, he would presumably have given some references to impressive publications setting out the main criticisms of Southerton's position with 'the scientific clarity provided by those who really do understand population genetics'. But he doesn't.

Nor would he waste his orotund sentences on a bunch of inbred white trash of the kind he imagines to post on this board. So it can't be for them that he writes.

Got it: he is writing to reassure any worried LDS lurker who may read Southerton's posts and think that there is a real problem about the total lack of a genetic trace of Nephite DNA in the current indigenous population of the Americas. Many of those people will be perfectly satisfied (for the moment at least) by a bit of confident hand-waving by someone who can write grammatical English, without any need for substantive argument or evidence.

I wonder whether it would be possible for Schryver to use a different avatar when he puts up this kind of post, so the rest of us don't waste our time reading it in the vain hope of finding anything of substance?

[_Infymus]

I am glad, for Southerton's sake, that he has now staggered into The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©, where he's certain to find one of the last bastions of those willing to play sycophant to his long-since eviscerated DNA/Book of Mormon arguments.

It's always comforting to have someone to lean on when you're down to your last leg.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Craig Criddle?

lol!

Says the man who has had his theories here long-since eviscerated - and has to run to MAD to suckle on the teats of true believers.

Are you now going to get into a long debate with Simon concerning DNA? From what I've seen, you boys at FAIR and NWI who are not scientists in any field compared to Simon - seem to have all the answers to debunk Simon.

If you are going to start throwing salvos, then come up with something substantial. Stop parroting the MAD phrase "this has been debunked. thread closed."