A Very Limited Geography

[_Roger]

Simon S:

I think there is a genuine chance of success with the Mammoth. As I understand it they are searching the Mammoth genome now to find what they think are the critical mutations responsible for Mammothness. They then plan to modify an existing elephant embryo 's DNA so that it contains these mammoth mutations. Its not a small job but with the rate of advances in the technology, it is hard to rule it out.

That would be pretty amazing. I suppose if they are successful they will just keep moving the boundaries to see how far they can go.

I think attempts to generate Cureloms are almost certain to succeed. I mean it would be impossible to prove that you haven't generated a Curelom so it therefore must be a true Curelom.

See?! Your years as an LDS defender were not in vain.

[_Themis]

The "NHM discovery" is perhaps the biggest piece of so what evidence for the Book of Mormon out there. Statistically speaking, there are enough names in the Book of Mormon and places in Arabia that Joseph Smith was bound to get one right (and possibly more) just by sheer luck.

Actually the Book of Mormon list very few names from Lehi's journey through Arabia. You are also incorrect to say Joseph or the Book of Mormon got one right. The Book of Mormon says Nahom and we only have NHM since my understanding is that Semitic languages do not use vowels. The other problem is they have more then one site they like that has NHM written somewhere. The fact that vowels are not used means that potential hits will go way up, but be less likely to mean anything.

[_Buffalo]

Here's a little something to chew on Sock Puppet and Kishkumen,

The reason we can’t “identify” Nephite sites is because we lack sufficient texts giving the ancient pronunciation of proper names to allow us to do so. How can we possibly be expected to determine if a particular site is or is not Zarahemla if we do not know the ancient name of that site? It boggles the mind that Anti-Mormons are so thick-headed that they can’t seen this patently obvious fact

Indeed, each one of these sentences is spot on. Your sarcastic analogy Kishkumen, and don't think I expected more from you, was flawed. In your analogy, you neglected to posit volumes upon volumes of empirical research published by those with a vested interest in uncovering the existence of your "galaxy travelers" and failing. Absent this, you would not have proof positive that the travelers "really did" abandon their "sophisticated technology". For instance, suppose a researcher uncovered a piece of technology left behind by the "galaxy travelers"? This would imply that they did not give up the technology as you said and thus falsifying the hypothesis. Likewise, if we were to discover a "NHM" inscribed on a city wall, and this indeed identified "Nahom" as a city, then the Book of Mormon would be falsified at once, given what the Book of Mormon claims for itself regarding its limited scope and the destruction of its civilization and culture as predicted.

Getting that uncomfortable feeling yet?

If this is supposed to be a parody, spot on!

[_stemelbow]

Hi Stem,

Hi. thanks for the reply. Didn't know if it was coming or not.

We know what the DNA lineages of current Middle Eastern populations (Israelites, Arabs etc) look like. This tells us that their ancestors had these lineages.

That's the point I've decided to take issue with.

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.
From here

Check out the references if you’re one of those guys who will close your eyes and stop your ears when it comes to FAIR stuff. The references and quotes are worth it. No need to pay attention to the end of the piece in which he went off, unnecessarily, about critics.

They are similar to the lineages of Europeans. That's why I focused on the 5 European lineages in Mesoamericans. The problem for the LGT crowd is not the difficulty of detecting Israelite DNA. It is the overwhelming presence of Asian DNA.

I think you’ve misunderstood the issue from the LDS side. The issue to us is not as you define it—the problem of an “overwhelming presence of Asian DNA”. That’s not the issue. The issue, at least in my eyes, is the assumption that modern DNA found among Jews and middle easterners should be somehow related to Lehi and co’s DNA. Why assume as much? I see no reason whatever to assume that. From the previously quoted material:

The Book of Mormon account does not support Mr. Murphy's assertion that the CMH should have been present among the Lehites. We would not expect that small groups that left Israel without Cohens would carry the "Cohen modal haplotype." Lehi was a descendant of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:14). Mulek, son of Zedekiah, was a descendant of Judah. While the lineages of the Ishmael, Zoram, and the servants of Mulek are unknown, there is no textual evidence that Cohen priests were present among these groups. Had Cohens been present, it seems unlikely that Lehi and other non-Cohens could have officiated in ordinances like sacrifice that were confined to Levite Priests by the Mosaic Law. Cohens were specifically forbidden to intermarry with other Israelites, accounting for the high prevalence of the CMH in today's Jewish Cohens and its presence in only 2-3% of non-Cohen Jews even after an additional twenty-six centuries of intermixing. 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.

It seems obvious that Dr. Stewart is taking issue with your assumptions. Why ignore that? It seems obvious there have been solid arguments contesting the dogmatic statements you’ve relied on.

I apologize if I come across as dogmatic. Molecular biologists are accused of this quite often, but the evidence they are dealing with is extremely compelling and far less ambiguous that the evidence archaeologists have to deal with. One of the most exciting fields that is emerging now is molecular archaeology. Detailed analysis of many ancient DNA samples. This is where the next big breakthroughs are going to come if the two camps can get along with each other.

It is your assumptions regarding the data that I have taken issue with and have labeled as dogmatic. I was trying to be clear about that. Anyway, I realize its an exciting field of study and that there has been great in-roads made regarding it. I simply context your assumptions.

[_stemelbow]

The Lemba example is a great example. How did they know what to compare their DNA to? Also we know what the Book of Mormon tells us of Lehi heritage and what part of the world he is supposed to be coming from. What we have is a lot of DNA samples taken from Native American populations. They have figured out where it originates and about when. They would need to know something about the DNA of east Asia to figure this out. Scientists have been doing this all over the world to get an idea of our DNA, where we come from, and when. Heck they even can tell us that Eurasians have Neanderthal DNA. We know the origins of where the Book of Mormon Lehites say they came from, so we should see DNA that comes from that region. We do not. With the Lemba we do. It's not dogmatic, it's just the current facts which are pretty good.

I think you've missed the link I provided and its various sources to disspell the myths you've been propounding. Please read it, look it over and we can discuss.

The Book of Mormon states Jerusalem, so yes it states where, regardless of your dogmatic assertions. We know from history and science that the ancient Jews are of semantic origin. There DNA would be primary from the Middle east region. We do not see any DNA showing up from there. This is a problem for the Book of Mormon.

Your assumption is greatly contested. I wish you would consider.

[_Buffalo]

"FARMS researchers prepare to search for the Lamanite hunting grounds"

[_stemelbow]

"FARMS researchers prepare to search for the Lamanite hunting grounds"

lol.

[_Simon Southerton]

stemelbow said

That's the point I've decided to take issue with.

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.
From here

Check out the references if you’re one of those guys who will close your eyes and stop your ears when it comes to FAIR stuff. The references and quotes are worth it. No need to pay attention to the end of the piece in which he went off, unnecessarily, about critics.

I am aware of these papers and I cite some of them in my book. Yes, the different Jewish populations have markedly different genetic histories when one examines their mitochondrial DNA. But in all of the populations they had DNA lineages that are common in European and Middle Eastern populations.

I think you’ve misunderstood the issue from the LDS side. The issue to us is not as you define it—the problem of an “overwhelming presence of Asian DNA”. That’s not the issue. The issue, at least in my eyes, is the assumption that modern DNA found among Jews and middle easterners should be somehow related to Lehi and co’s DNA. Why assume as much? I see no reason whatever to assume that.

I assume that since Lehi's family were Jewish (Lehi from tribe of Mannasseh) that they should have DNA lineages found among Middle Eastern populations. Living in Jerusalem they would have been surrounded on all sides for hundreds of miles by Semitic people. The DNA of Semitic people is well characterized. Yes Semitic populations have distinct histories but their DNA isn't suddenly non-Middle Eastern in appearance.

I cannot understand why you think it is so hard to connect current Middle Eastern DNA with DNA that was there just 2000 years ago. We can confidently link American Indian DNA to Siberians and that is over a 16,000 year period. We can be certain Israelite DNA does not belong to the the A, B, C, D or X lineages we see in American Indians. These lineages have been in the Americas for 13,000 years before Israel existed.

How is the fact that essentially 100% of American Indian DNA is of Asian origin not an issue? This is DNA that cannot have come from Israel. If you are retreating to the position that even the undetectable wiff of Semitic DNA is enough to salvage the wreck then this discussion is pointless. I think the argument that Lehi's DNA was diluted away to nothingness is utterly hollow.

The Book of Mormon account does not support Mr. Murphy's assertion that the CMH should have been present among the Lehites. We would not expect that small groups that left Israel without Cohens would carry the "Cohen modal haplotype." Lehi was a descendant of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:14). Mulek, son of Zedekiah, was a descendant of Judah. While the lineages of the Ishmael, Zoram, and the servants of Mulek are unknown, there is no textual evidence that Cohen priests were present among these groups. Had Cohens been present, it seems unlikely that Lehi and other non-Cohens could have officiated in ordinances like sacrifice that were confined to Levite Priests by the Mosaic Law. Cohens were specifically forbidden to intermarry with other Israelites, accounting for the high prevalence of the CMH in today's Jewish Cohens and its presence in only 2-3% of non-Cohen Jews even after an additional twenty-six centuries of intermixing. 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.
It seems obvious that Dr. Stewart is taking issue with your assumptions. Why ignore that? It seems obvious there have been solid arguments contesting the dogmatic statements you’ve relied on.

The assumptions you describe above are not mine. They may be the assumptions of Thomas Murphy but why pin them on me? I have never demanded that we must find the CMH in the Americas. Any Semitic DNA would do.

[_stemelbow]

I am aware of these papers and I cite some of them in my book. Yes, the different Jewish populations have markedly different genetic histories when one examines their mitochondrial DNA. But in all of the populations they had DNA lineages that are common in European and Middle Eastern populations.

Shoot, we’re going to be going back and forth about stuff like this forever if you don’t wish to read my link I provided. I realize, also, that the particular link I provided was in response to many of Murphy’s conclusions and arguments, but there is some cross-over. Read here:
Although critics have claimed that Native Americans and modern Jews share no relevant Y-chromosome affinities, recent data have proven such statements resoundingly false. Douglas Forbes14 points out that Y-chromosome SNP biallelic marker Q-P36 (also known by the mutation marker M-242), postulated by Behar and colleagues to be a founding lineage among Ashkenazi Jewish populations,15 is also found in Iranian and Iraqi Jews,16,17 and is a founding lineage group18 present in 31% of self-identified Native Americans in the U.S.19 A branch of the Q-P36 lineage (M-323) is also found in Yemenite Jews. The Q-P36 lineage is ancestral to the Q-M3 mutation group. The Q-P36 and Q-M3 lineages together (haplogroup Q) are found in over 76% of Native Americans.20 Douglas Forbes writes, "We find M242 scattered all over central Eurasia and concentrated in Turkistan just north of Iran.21 The ten tribes including Manasseh were taken captive to Media (northwest Iran). So M242 is found scattered just where you would expect it would be if legends of the 10 tribes escaping captivity by going north are true."22 While the ethnohistory behind these variations remains to be elucidated, these intriguing findings produce considerable difficulty for critics' arguments. The finding of two dominant Y-chromosome lineages in Amerindian populations is harmonious with traditional LDS view of Lehi and Ishmael representing the principal male ancestors of Native Americans, with Zoram and the Mulekites contributing minor lineages. The discovery of a founding Y chromosome lineage prevalent at a very high frequency among Native Americans corresponding to a founding lineage present in world Jewish populations demonstrates remarkable consistency with the Book of Mormon account. Douglas Forbes further notes: "Other west Eurasian lineages found in Native American test subjects include R, E3b, J, F, G, and I.23 All of these are also found in modern Jews."24 The question of which of these latter lineages are pre-Columbian and which may represent post-Columbian admixture has not been definitively resolved and will require further research.
And
He further writes: "Asian origin is clearly indicated..." Yet mitochondrial DNA researcher Dr. D. Andrew Merriwether wrote: "We conclude that Mongolia or a geographic location common to both contemporary Mongolians and American aboriginals is the more likely origin of the founders of the New World."33 While ignored by Mr. Murphy and other critics, the possibility of an outside "geographic location common to both contemporary Mongolians and American aboriginals" is allowed by the original researchers.

I assume that since Lehi's family were Jewish (Lehi from tribe of Mannasseh) that they should have DNA lineages found among Middle Eastern populations. Living in Jerusalem they would have been surrounded on all sides for hundreds of miles by Semitic people. The DNA of Semitic people is well characterized. Yes Semitic populations have distinct histories but their DNA isn't suddenly non-Middle Eastern in appearance.

I cannot understand why you think it is so hard to connect current Middle Eastern DNA with DNA that was there just 2000 years ago. We can confidently link American Indian DNA to Siberians and that is over a 16,000 year period. We can be certain Israelite DNA does not belong to the the A, B, C, D or X lineages we see in American Indians. These lineages have been in the Americas for 13,000 years before Israel existed.

Because:
[b][i] Yet mitochondrial DNA researcher Dr. D. Andrew Merriwether wrote: "We conclude that Mongolia or a geographic location common to both contemporary Mongolians and American aboriginals is the more likely origin of the founders of the New World."33 While ignored by Mr. Murphy and other critics, the possibility of an outside "geographic location common to both contemporary Mongolians and American aboriginals" is allowed by the original researchers.
And
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
And
The Assyrian captivity of the northern Ten Tribes and the Babylonian captivity of the Kingdom of Judah marked turning points of genetic divergence between the Jews who returned to Jerusalem and other Israelite groups. The Jews who returned from the Babylonian captivity found a land with a markedly different ethnic makeup from the predominately Canaanite Palestine of early Israel. Many of the Canaanite tribes had been completely destroyed, while the Assyrians had resettled "men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim" and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof" (2 Kings 17:24). Other groups migrated into Palestine during and after the Babylonian captivity. The returned Jews mixed among a population of Assyrians, Babylonians, Edomites, Moabites, and others, and others, until after the time of the Savior. These intervening centuries provided abundant opportunities for the introduction of numerous regional haplotypes that were not necessarily present in ancient Israel. The Jews who lived in the Near East until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and then gradually made their way into the diaspora should be expected to share vastly greater genetic commonalities with modern Arabs, Palestinians, Kurds, and Iraqis than the Lehites, who left Jerusalem approx. 600 BC, or the "ten tribes" of the Northern Kingdom who were carried away by the Assyrians between 744 and 721 BC and then lost to history.
In other words, its not so simply put as you wish it to be. We don’t know the DNA makeup, nor do we have a very good idea, of Lehi and company.

How is the fact that essentially 100% of American Indian DNA is of Asian origin not an issue? This is DNA that cannot have come from Israel. If you are retreating to the position that even the undetectable wiff of Semitic DNA is enough to salvage the wreck then this discussion is pointless. I think the argument that Lehi's DNA was diluted away to nothingness is utterly hollow.

I don’t know how that would be. But neither do you. That’s the whole point. You seem to assume that if Asian similarities then Asian origin. That’s not clear cut at all for starters. And you seem to assume that if asian majority, then somehow that means a Lehite DNA would have to remain existing somewhere. I don’t buy either assumption and I think many experts would agree. You aren’t necessarily correct in your assumptions.

The assumptions you describe above are not mine. They may be the assumptions of Thomas Murphy but why pin them on me? I have never demanded that we must find the CMH in the Americas. Any Semitic DNA would do.

But it was a good example of making an assumption about what we should expect to see among modern Native Americans if the Book of Mormon story is true. Either way, you simply can’t assume you would know what to expect, just like Murphy.

[_Themis]

I think you've missed the link I provided and its various sources to disspell the myths you've been propounding. Please read it, look it over and we can discuss.

What myths would those be. You will have to be more specific. So far you are not demonstrating a good understanding of the topic here.

Your assumption is greatly contested. I wish you would consider.

Again be specific.